[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4491-S4515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 600. A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue 
regulations concerning use of the term ``fresh'' in the 
[[Page S4492]] labeling of poultry, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                   the truth in poultry labeling act

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Truth in 
Poultry Labeling Act of 1995. This legislation directs the Secretary of 
Agriculture to restrict the use of the term ``fresh'' to poultry that 
has never been kept frozen.
  The bill closes a loophole in Federal law that allows frozen chickens 
and turkeys to be labeled and sold as fresh.
  I am frankly disappointed that I have to introduce this legislation. 
I have been repeatedly assured that the Agriculture Department was 
prepared to act to end the fraud allowed by current law. In January, a 
draft rule to restrict the use of the term ``fresh'' to poultry that 
has never been kept frozen was actually issued, but there are no 
assurances that the rule will be finalized any time soon.
  In fact, evidence suggests that we are likely to see more delay than 
action on this issue. Two weeks ago, the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service decided that it will grant an extension of the comment period 
on its proposed rule. The extension had been sought by the very 
industry groups which have dedicated themselves to protecting the 
status quo. The new rule was proposed in January, and the original 60-
day comment period was set to expire last week.
  I strongly object to the decision to delay--once again--the rule 
protecting consumers against mislabeled poultry.
  The Agriculture Department did the right thing in January when it 
proposed the new rule.
  Unfortunately, the announced delay is just another in a series of 
delays stretching back to 1988, when this same rule was first proposed: 
7 years is far too long for consumers to wait for basic truth in 
labeling.
  USDA has had a chance to act responsibly on behalf of consumers and 
has failed. I am therefore introducing this bill to require USDA to 
issue the new rule within 30 days of enactment, and will seek early 
consideration of the bill.
  This legislation is supported by Consumers Union, the National 
Consumers League, Public Voice, the California Poultry Industry 
Federation, the Consumer Federation of America, and the United Food and 
Commercial Workers International Union.
  Current law promotes consumer fraud, allowing chickens and turkeys 
that have been frozen hard as bowling balls to be thawed out and 
labeled fresh. Consumers are paying a substantial premium for fresh 
poultry that has no right to the label. It is time to end the delays 
and end the fraud, and I ask my colleagues to support this important 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 600

       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 ``Truth in Poultry Labeling 
     Act of 1995.''

     SEC. 2. REGULATIONS ON LABELING OF POULTRY.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue final 
     regulations under the Poultry Product Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 451 et seq.) that prohibit the use of the term 
     ``fresh'' on labeling of any poultry or poultry part, or of 
     any edible portion of the poultry or part, that has been 
     frozen or previously frozen to below 26 degrees 
     Fahrenheit.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. Simon, Mr. Dole, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Roth, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. McCain):
  S. 602. A bill to amend the NATO Participation Act of 1994 to 
expedite the transition to full membership in the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization of European countries emerging from Communist domination; 
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


              the nato participation act amendment of 1995
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I sent to the desk just a few minutes ago 
the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995. Included as sponsors, 
along with myself, are Senator Simon, Senator Dole, Senator Mikulski, 
Senator Roth, and Senator McConnell. And I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator McCain be added as a cosponsor of this measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this NATO Participation Act deals with the 
hopes and fears and the concerns, I believe, of every American, because 
it deals with our very freedom.
  Every American has a special place in their heart for the people of 
Central Europe and perhaps even a special place in their conscience. It 
was in Central Europe where we saw the treachery of Hitler plunge the 
world into the Second World War. No one can forget that his treachery 
saw the demise of what was then Czechoslovakia. Few Americans will ever 
forget the treachery of both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in 
carving up Poland. And I cannot think of a more apt description than 
the quote of Edmund Burke, when he said:

       The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil in this 
     world is for good men to do nothing.

  Mr. President, that is what happened in Central Europe. Good men and 
women concerned about democracy and freedom stood by and did nothing 
while Fascist and Communist forces carved up Central Europe. We paid 
for it in a cold war that lasted more than half a century.
  Mr. President, we must never allow that tragedy to happen again. We 
must be very clear that the men and women of Central Europe are 
entitled to freedom. That is what the NATO Participation Act Amendments 
are all about--clarity, making it clear that we believe the Czech 
Republic, Poland, Hungary, and the Republic of Slovakia should be free 
and should be masters of their own destiny.
  The NATO Participation Act of 1994 was a step forward because it 
authorized the establishment of a program within this Government to 
transition those eligible countries to NATO membership, and this 
follow-on act does four basic things to improve on that situation.
  First of all, it helps to set aside the uncertainty of powers in this 
world about the countries' future by making it clear our policy is to 
move them into NATO. It develops a program and a focus for this 
Nation's foreign policy to proceed on a regularized path to include 
them in NATO, to move them toward full membership. But let me emphasize 
their membership is not free. It will involve major new 
responsibilities as well as cost for them.
  Second, Mr. President, this act moves to reallocate funds for 
military training that will include those four countries. By training 
together and by working together, we will lay the groundwork for a 
partnership in NATO in the years ahead.
  And third, it sets forth a clear policy of encouraging United States 
support for observer status in NATO for these four countries, a 
prerequisite and an important part of their training for full 
participation.
  Last, in the event these four countries are not fully members of NATO 
by the end of this decade, it calls on the President in January 1999 to 
report fully to Congress on the progress of these countries in entering 
NATO. It will give us the tools and the ability to evaluate the 
progress, evaluate the program, and take the additional steps that may 
be necessary to accomplish our goal.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is this: Those countries in Central 
Europe lost their freedom and lost their right to independence when the 
dark cloud of Nazism spread across Europe. It could have been prevented 
if good men and women had not stood aside.
  They, again, saw their hoped-for independence snuffed out when the 
Iron Curtain fell across Europe and Soviet domination extinguished 
their freedom.
  More than anything, this act says to the world that Americans will 
not stand idly by, unconcerned about Central Europe's security. The 
loss of the freedom of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Slovak 
Republic, and other eligible countries may ultimately mean the loss of 
our freedom.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor. Let me 
address one concern that people have, 
[[Page S4493]] that this will be viewed as somehow anti-Russian. There 
is no question the Russians do not like this move toward expanding 
NATO, and there is no question that there are genuine fears, whether 
justified or not, on the part of some of the countries of Central 
Europe with Russia. There is no reason, at some point in the future 
when democracy is insolubly established in Russia--and it is moving in 
the right direction--that Russia cannot become a part of NATO. As a 
matter of fact, if I were a Russian leader looking at a potential foe, 
I would not be looking to the West, I would be looking to the East--
China, with all the population and potential there. I think this is not 
only in the best interest of the countries of Central Europe. I think 
this is in the best interest of Russia, and I am pleased to be a 
cosponsor.
 Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to rise as a cosponsor 
of the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995. This bipartisan 
legislation will increase security and stability in eastern Europe, and 
will contribute to the security of the United States.
  This year we are marking the 50th anniversary of our victory in World 
War II. But the end of the World War was also the start of the cold 
war. Soviet expansionism forced us to prepare to defend western Europe. 
And the captive nations of eastern Europe were forced behind the Iron 
Curtain.
  After more than 40 years of living under Soviet tyranny, Poland, 
Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are free and independent. 
They are not asking for protection. They are merely asking to be full 
partners in the new Europe. By transforming their countries into free-
market democracies, they have earned this right.
  If our international organizations are to survive--as I believe they 
must--they must adapt to the post-cold-war world. This sounds so 
obvious. Yet NATO is still mired in its cold war structure. We still 
have not established the criteria for NATO membership--let alone a 
timetable for admitting new states.
  In recent months the United States has more explicitly stated that 
NATO will be expanded. I applaud this. But our NATO partners have been 
dragging their feet. This legislation will help to clarify the United 
States position on NATO expansion--and will enable us to lead the 
alliance to meet the challenges of the post-Soviet world.
  We have all heard the arguments against expanding NATO. Some believe 
that we will offend Russia by expanding NATO membership. I disagree. 
NATO is a defensive organization. A country that doesn't have 
expansionist aims has nothing to fear from an expanded NATO.
  Mr. President, for many years I have worked with Senator Brown and 
Senator Simon to make the United States a more effective advocate for 
democracy and economic development in eastern Europe. I commend them 
for their leadership and look forward to working with them to enact the 
NATO Participation Act Amendments into law.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Pell, and Mr. 
        Kerry):
  S. 601. A bill to revise the boundaries of the Blackstone River 
Valley National Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


the blackstone river valley national heritage corridor reauthorization 
                              act of 1995

 Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to 
introduce legislation to reauthorize and expand the boundaries of the 
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage corridor. I am delighted to 
be joined in this effort by my colleagues from Rhode Island and 
Massachusetts, Senators Pell, Kennedy, and Kerry, all of whom have 
worked hard on this issue through the years.
  Before I describe our legislation in detail, allow me to provide a 
little historical background for the benefit of my colleagues.
  Known as the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, the Blackstone 
Valley is the place where modern America begins--200 years ago on the 
banks of the Blackstone River, in Pawtucket, RI, Samuel Slater built 
our Nation's first water-powered textile mill, an event which changed 
this country forever. Backed by capital from Providence, other 
entrepreneurs followed Slater's lead. Factories and villages sprang up 
along the river's banks. Families migrated from farms into the towns. 
Canals--and later railroads--were built to improve the transportation 
of goods. Immigrants from all over Europe came to the region in search 
of work and opportunity.
  In the 1920's, the region's prosperity began to fade. Mills closed 
and moved south. The Great Depression made matters worse. In subsequent 
years, the Blackstone, which had been renowned as ``the hardest working 
river in America'' became just another neglected, polluted body of 
water.
  But people in the valley recognized that the river still had a story 
to tell. Evidence of the region's glorious past remained in abundance. 
Beautiful dams, bridges, mills, villages, farms, and pastures--all 
these things contribute to a special sense of place, identity, and 
history. Many began to realize that preserving and celebrating the 
area's past was the key to a brighter future.
  In the early 1980's, we prevailed upon the National Park Service to 
conduct a study of the Blackstone Valley. They too concluded that its 
resources were of national significance and were well worth preserving. 
The question was: How? With half a million people living there, the 
valley does not lend itself to the traditional national park strategy 
where the Federal Government owns and manages the land.
  What was needed was an approach that would encourage cooperation 
among communities, across State lines, and between the private and 
public sectors. And so, in 1986, through legislation which Senators 
Pell, Kennedy, Kerry, and I advanced together, the Blackstone River 
Valley National Heritage corridor was born.
  Stretching 46 miles along the Blackstone River, from Worcester, MA to 
Providence, RI, the corridor encompasses 20 cities and towns over a 
250,000-acre area. Efforts to interpret and preserve the valley's 
historical and scenic resources are coordinated by the Blackstone 
Corridor Commission, which receives modest Federal funding to support 
its operations. The National Park Service works closely with the 
Commission, providing invaluable technical assistance and guidance.
  Not surprisingly, there were some who doubted that the corridor 
concept could work. It was, of course, unlike anything that had been 
tried before. But I can say with great confidence that the Blackstone 
corridor is working. And it is working precisely because it is not 
managed like the traditional national park. Under the umbrella of the 
Corridor Commission, individuals from different communities, 
businesses, levels of government, and walks of life are working 
together toward a common vision, and with impressive results.
  Historic treasures are being uncovered, interpreted, and restored. 
Old mills are being converted for modern use. Visitors now can enjoy 
the Blackstone by riverboat or canoe. Parks are being established along 
its banks. A greenway, for bicyclists and hikers is well underway. A 
Friends of the Blackstone group is cleaning up the river. National Park 
Service rangers and volunteers are educating visitors about the 
valley's rich history. A strategy for reintroducing salmon to the 
Blackstone river is being developed. Imagine that, salmon coming back 
to a river that was once an environmental disgrace.
  And all this is being done with relatively little money from the 
Federal Government, because every Federal dollar that goes into the 
corridor is leveraged many times over by the Commission, sometimes by 
as much as twenty to one. In fact, often the Commission provides no 
money at all, just the expertise and cando attitude needed to shepherd 
a project from concept to reality.
  This bill, which is identical to legislation introduced in the last 
Congress by Senator Kennedy and approved by the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee last year, builds upon that success. It 
extends the life of the Blackstone Corridor Commission--which, under 
current law, will expire in November 1996--for another 10 years, and 
gives the Secretary of Interior the authority to extend the Commission 
[[Page S4494]] for an additional 10 years thereafter, providing the 
Commission meets certain criteria.
  In addition, the bill will add to the corridor five new communities--
three in Rhode Island and two in Massachusetts--which are culturally 
and historically tied to the existing corridor and contain the 
headwaters of the Blackstone River. This logical expansion will allow 
the Commission to interpret and protect the region's resources in a 
comprehensive and unified fashion. Finally, our legislation increases 
the Commission's annual authorization from $350,000 to $650,000, in 
recognition of its tremendous success and new responsibilities, and 
authorizes up to $5 million over 3 years in matching funds for 
development projects within the corridor.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that protecting and preserving our 
Nation's special places, like the Blackstone Valley, is one of the 
Federal Government's most important functions. But as we all know, 
preservation does take money, and money is tight. I would submit that 
in these tough budgetary times, the Blackstone Corridor, which has 
accomplished so much with so little, offers us a model that should be 
encouraged and expanded upon. I thank my colleagues from Rhode Island 
and Massachusetts for their hard work and support, and urge the Senate 
to give this measure its swift approval.
  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. 601

       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 ``Blackstone River Valley 
     National Heritage Corridor Amendments Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. BOUNDARY CHANGES.

        Section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island'', approved November 10, 1986 
     (Public Law 99-647; 16 U.S.C. 461 note), is amended by 
     striking the first sentence and inserting the following new 
     sentence: ``The boundaries shall include the lands and water 
     generally depicted on the map entitled Blackstone River 
     Valley National Heritage Corridor Boundary Map, numbered BRV-
     80-80,011, and dated May 2, 1993.''.

     SEC. 3. TERMS.

        Section 3(c) of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island'', approved November 10, 1986 
     (Public Law 99-647; 16 U.S.C. 461 note), is amended by 
     inserting immediately before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, but may continue to serve after the expiration 
     of this term until a successor has been appointed.''.

     SEC. 4. REVISION OF PLAN.

        Section 6 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island'', approved November 10, 1986 
     (Public Law 99-647; 16 U.S.C. 461 note), is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Revision of Plan.--(1) Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission, 
     with the approval of the Secretary, shall revise the Cultural 
     Heritage and Land Management Plan. The revision shall address 
     the boundary change and shall include a natural resource 
     inventory of areas or features that should be protected, 
     restored, managed, or acquired because of their contribution 
     to the understanding of national cultural landscape values.
       ``(2) No changes other than minor revisions may be made in 
     the approved plan as amended without the approval of the 
     Secretary. The Secretary shall approve or disapprove any 
     proposed change in the plan, except minor revisions, in 
     accordance with subsection (b).''.

     SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF COMMISSION.

        Section 7 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island'', approved November 10, 1986 
     (Public Law 99-647; 16 U.S.C. 461 note), is amended to read 
     as follows:


                      ``termination of commission

       ``Sec. 7. (a) Termination.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), the Commission shall terminate on the date 
     that is 10 years after the date of enactment of the 
     Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Amendments 
     Act of 1995.
       ``(b) Extension.--The Commission may be extended for an 
     additional term of 10 years if--
       ``(1) not later than 180 days before the termination of the 
     Commission, the Commission determines that an extension is 
     necessary to carry out this Act;
       ``(2) the Commission submits a proposed extension to the 
     appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives; and
       ``(3) the Secretary, the Governor of Massachusetts, and the 
     Governor of Rhode Island each approve the extension.
       ``(c) Determination of Approval.--The Secretary shall 
     approve the extension if the Secretary finds that--
       ``(1) the Governor of Massachusetts and the Governor of 
     Rhode Island provide adequate assurances of continued 
     tangible contribution and effective policy support toward 
     achieving the purposes of this Act; and
       ``(2) the Commission is effectively assisting Federal, 
     State, and local authorities to retain, enhance, and 
     interpret the distinctive character and nationally 
     significant resources of the Corridor.''.
     SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN.

       Subsection (c) of section 8 of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     establish the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage 
     Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode Island'', approved 
     November 10, 1986 (Public Law 99-647; 16 U.S.C. 461 note), is 
     amended to read as follows: U.S.C. 461 note), as amended, is 
     amended by inserting the following:
       ``(c) Implementation.--(1) To assist in the implementation 
     of the Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan in a manner 
     consistent with purposes of this Act, the Secretary is 
     authorized to undertake a limited program of financial 
     assistance for the purpose of providing funds for the 
     preservation and restoration of structures on or eligible for 
     inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places within 
     the Corridor which exhibit national significance or provide a 
     wide spectrum of historic, recreational, or environmental 
     education opportunities to the general public.
       ``(2) To be eligible for funds under this section, the 
     Commission shall submit an application to the Secretary that 
     includes--
       ``(A) a 10-year development plan including those resource 
     protection needs and projects critical to maintaining or 
     interpreting the distinctive character of the Corridor; and
       ``(B) specific descriptions of annual work programs that 
     have been assembled, the participating parties, roles, cost 
     estimates, cost-sharing, or cooperative agreements necessary 
     to carry out the development plan.
       ``(3) Funds made available pursuant to this subsection 
     shall not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the work 
     programs.
       ``(4) In making the funds available, the Secretary shall 
     give priority to projects that attract greater non-Federal 
     funding sources.
       ``(5) Any payment made for the purposes of conservation or 
     restoration of real property or structures shall be subject 
     to an agreement either--
       ``(A) to convey a conservation or preservation easement to 
     the Department of Environmental Management or to the Historic 
     Preservation Commission, as appropriate, of the State in 
     which the real property or structure is located; or
       ``(B) that conversion, use, or disposal of the resources so 
     assisted for purposes contrary to the purposes of this Act, 
     as determined by the Secretary, shall result in a right of 
     the United States for reimbursement of all funds expended 
     upon such resources or the proportion of the increased value 
     of the resources attributable to such funds as determined at 
     the time of such conversion, use, or disposal, whichever is 
     greater.
       ``(6) The authority to determine that a conversion, use, or 
     disposal of resources has been carried out contrary to the 
     purposes of this Act in violation of an agreement entered 
     into under paragraph (5)(A) shall be solely at the discretion 
     of the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 7. LOCAL AUTHORITY.

       Section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island'', approved November 10, 1986 
     (Public Law 99-647; 16 U.S.C. 461 note), is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Local Authority and Private Property Not Affected.--
     Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect or to 
     authorize the Commission to interfere with--
       ``(1) the rights of any person with respect to private 
     property; or
       ``(2) any local zoning ordinance or land use plan of the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts or a political subdivision of 
     such Commonwealth.''.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 10 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island'', approved November 10, 1986 
     (Public Law 99-647; 16 U.S.C. 461 note), as amended, is 
     further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``$350,000'' and 
     inserting ``$650,000''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Development Funds.--For fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 
     1998, there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     section 8(c), $5,000,000 in the aggregate.''.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, it is with great pride in the Blackstone 
River Valley National Heritage Corridor and great hope for its 
continued success that I join Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, Senator 
Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts in 
introducing legislation to reauthorize the corridor.
  [[Page S4495]] As I have said before about this exceptional 
partnership project, nothing succeeds like success. The Blackstone NHC 
is a wonderful example of success. Our bill both reauthorizes and 
expands the Blackstone NHC--the largest national park or affiliated 
area in New York or New England: 250,000 acres, including 20 towns or 
cities in 2 states.
  The expansion is a logical one. We should increase the boundaries to 
include the communities of Burrillville, Glocester, and Smithfield in 
Rhode Island, and Worcester and Leceister in Massachusetts. All are 
within the watershed of the 46-mile long Blackstone River.
  More than a decade ago, I convened the first planning meeting for the 
corridor involving Federal, State and local officials. Ever since then, 
the corridor has been a bipartisan project enthusiastically supported 
by both the Rhode Isand and Massachusetts congressional delegations.
  Senator Chafee introduced the initial authorization. I introduced the 
existing authorization, and I am delighted that Senator Chafee is 
working hard to continue our bipartisan, bistate effort. All of us want 
the corridor to showcase the cradle of the American Industrial 
Revolution.
  I would like to underscore what I consider a very important point. 
The Heritage Corridor Commission has used its relatively meager Federal 
resources to leverage dramatic expenditures and results.
  The Blackstone NHC is an extraordinary bargain for the taxpayers. 
With only a modest Federal contribution, the corridor has leveraged 
funds by sometimes as much as a 20 to 1 match.
  My own State of Rhode Island has invested more than $7.7 million and 
has acquired more than 250 acres of land in the Blackstone River 
Valley. A linear park and bikeway are in the planning stage, as is 
completion of an Anadramous fisheries restoration program that has met 
with initial success.
  We continue to look for examples of imaginative, efficient, and cost-
effective concepts. We need to look no further than the Blackstone 
Valley--not only for where those concepts were born but where they 
continue to be practiced and developed to this day.
  The legislation that we are submitting today is intended to safeguard 
the integrity and coherence of the Corridor Commission by including 
areas that are functionally, ecologically, and historically integral 
components of the Blackstone Region.
  In Rhode Island, the three communities that would be added are highly 
motivated to join in the success of corridor and worked hard to develop 
comprehensive town plans. Glocester also developed strategies, 
including local historic district zoning, to turn the village of 
Chepachet into a visitor destination.
  Calling the area a corridor is somewhat of a misnomer, since it must 
be understood that we are not talking about some narrow strip of land 
and water. Its boundaries comprise an area more than 25 miles wide and 
46 miles long; a management unit that now would include an entire 
watershed.
  When future generations of Americans want to understand how 
communities and industries are made and grow, if we do our job right, 
they will understand the entire system by a visit to the Blackstone 
Valley.
  We already have noticed a real transformation in confidence that is 
occurring in the Blackstone Valley. It is a transformation that is 
coming about because our citizens are realizing the value of our 
heritage. The lessons of history are increasingly part of the fabric of 
the valley.
  I want to add the National Park Service has played a strong role and 
completely positive role in the corridor. These are people we trust, 
who understand the meaning of the words ``public service.'' There have 
been no complaints about Federal intrusion, only praise for Federal 
creativity and skill.
  I am pleased to note that this new authorization by Senator Chafee 
builds on the foundation that we established--with Senators Kennedy and 
Kerry--and improves the final product. It is worth noting that our own 
bipartisan commitment and collaboration mirrors the spirit of the 
corridor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to be a sponsor of this 
legislation introduced by Senator Chafee to improve the Blackstone 
River Valley National Heritage Corridor, and I commend Senator Chafee 
for his leadership on this important matter. This legislation is 
designed to build upon the successful historic preservation effort 
already underway in the Blackstone Valley in Massachusetts and Rhode 
Island. It was approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee last year, and I hope it will receive the committee's support 
again, so that it can be enacted by the 104th Congress.
  This legislation is the result of bipartisan and bistate cooperation 
among several Senators and Representatives. Senator Chafee and I and 
Senators John Kerry and Claiborne Pell, and Congressmen Peter Blute, 
Richard Neal, Jack Reed, and Patrick Kennedy all have a strong 
commitment to this historic preservation effort.
  This bill will extend the current boundaries of the Blackstone 
Corridor to include neighboring communities that are essential parts of 
the region's history, as recommended by a comprehensive National Park 
Service study. It will also continue the Corridor Commission, which has 
been very effective in leveraging private support and bringing local 
groups together to preserve these important historical, cultural, and 
natural resources. The bill will modestly increase the Commission's 
funding, in order to strengthen current preservation efforts and 
address the broader responsibilities that will result from the larger 
boundaries of the corridor.
  The Blackstone Corridor is unique in many respects, and it meets 
stringent criteria of national significance. Historically, it is 
distinctive as the site of the birth of the Industrial Revolution in 
America. It was here that the widespread use of water power for 
industry was first developed in the United States.
  Much of this early development is still intact, with approximately 
10,000 historic structures, including a canal system and dams that 
harness the force of the river, which drops dramatically at many points 
along its 46-mile course. Dozens of 19th century mill villages and 
communities spring up along the river to take advantage of its power. 
Many other aspects of the area--the farms and pastures that provide 
food for the mill workers, and the beautiful woods and scenic areas 
along the river--remain intact for the enjoyment of visitors.
  The Blackstone Corridor is also distinctive because it represents an 
innovative and highly cost-effective way for the Federal Government to 
assist in preserving historic and natural resources. Rather than 
acquiring and managing vast acres of land and historic structures, the 
National Park Service and the Blackstone Commission serve as guiding 
hands to foster restoration projects that are predominantly funded with 
local resources. The Federal role is to provide technical expertise, 
set high standards, and provide national recognition. These efforts 
encourage local citizens, businesses, nonprofit historic and 
environmental organizations, schools and universities, 20 local 
Governments and two State Governments to work together to protect the 
valley's heritage, and to do so in a way that is consistent with 
National Park Service standards.
  When the corridor was first established by Congress in 1986, this 
type of public-private partnership was an experimental concept. Neither 
Congress nor the Park Service was certain that the concept--very 
different from traditional
 Federal ownership and control--would work. Now it is clear that the 
corridor is a success, and it serves as a model for similar efforts 
across the country. A 1992 report by the Advisory Board of the 
Secretary of the Interior on National Parks gave Blackstone a glowing 
endorsement, calling it an outstanding initiative and partnership 
model. At a conference on heritage areas hosted by the National Trust 
for Historic Preservation, the Blackstone project was featured as the 
prime example of the effective use of Federal seed money to encourage 
local preservation.

  Because the corridor has been such an unqualified success, other 
communities in the valley want to participate, and they have petitioned 
for official inclusion in the corridor boundaries. The Blackstone 
Commission has conducted a comprehensive evaluation of these 
[[Page S4496]] communities--Worcester and Leicester in Massachusetts 
and Burrillville, Glocester, and Smithfield in Rhode Island. The 
Commission found that each of these communities has significant 
historic and natural resources that merit inclusion in the project.
  One of the most valuable features of the corridor, as described in 
its cultural heritage and land management plan approved by the 
Secretary of the Interior in 1990, is its wholeness--the survival of 
representative elements of entire 18th and 19th century production 
systems, power and transportation methods, communities, workplaces, and 
machinery. The expansion will help ensure the protection of the entire 
corridor, including the headwaters of the Blackstone River, to tell a 
fuller story of America's industrial revolution.
  Continuation of the Blackstone Corridor Commission is also essential. 
Existing law terminates the Commission's authority in 1996, undermining 
opportunities for the new areas to participate in the corridor and 
undercutting the Commission's effective ongoing efforts within the 
existing boundaries. The Commission has provided a vital framework for 
encouraging the local involvement and private sector financial 
participation that are the hallmark of the Blackstone project.
  This legislation will extend the Commission for 10 years, and permit 
an additional 10-year extension if the Commission can satisfy criteria 
showing it continues to be effective in protecting and interpreting the 
corridor through the partnership approach. The Secretary's Advisory 
Board recommended reconsideration of the 1996 sunset clause in its 
report on Blackstone, stating that after the planning stage, there 
should be ``a program into which the corridor can feed, one with 
parameters as carefully drawn as those governing traditional park 
units.''
  Our legislation also makes clear that the Commission will not 
interfere with private property rights. In fact, one of the priorities 
of the Commission is to work cooperatively with all interested parties 
and, in many cases, to enhance the value of private property in the 
region, by providing technical assistance to local communities. The 
Commission has no authority to issue regulations or impose its own 
restrictions on land or property.
  The legislation proposes a modest increase in the Commission's 
operating budget to $650,000 a year. It authorizes up to $5 million 
over the next 3 years in matching funds for development projects that 
will be largely financed through local contributions. These funds will 
enable the Commission to continue its excellent work in the 20 towns 
now comprising the corridor and to expand its outreach efforts to the 
additional communities.
  These investments are highly cost-effective. The corridor is the 
largest National Park Service-affiliated area in New England. The 
Commission deserves this vote of confidence by Congress for the 
impressive groundwork it has laid and for the important tasks it has 
set for itself in the years ahead.
  Again, I commend Senator Chafee for leading the way on this 
legislation. I believe it offers an excellent opportunity to build on 
the success of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, 
and to keep an important part of our American heritage alive and 
accessible for future generations. I urge the Senate to move 
expeditiously to approve this bill.
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased once again to join my 
colleagues, the distinguished Senators from Rhode Island, Senator 
Chafee and Senator Pell, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kennedy, in sponsoring legislation to revise the boundaries of 
the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. The bill we are 
introducing today is identical to legislation that was passed 
overwhelmingly out of the Senate Energy Committee during the last 
Congress. I am hopeful that the committee will expeditiously act to 
support this important component of the National Park System.
  When the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor was 
established in 1986, it represented a unique experiment which sought to 
reconcile resource preservation with economic growth through the 
cooperation of the community, its businesses, the State government, and 
the National Park Service. Now, 8 years later, the success of this 
partnership can be seen in all of the 20 townships and 5 cities that 
comprise the corridor. From the historic preservation of buildings to 
the construction of parks, bikeways, and river access, the corridor has 
effectively blended the beauty of a New England landscape with the 
preservation of the region's history shaped so indelibly by the 
Industrial Revolution. This project has been so successful for all 
involved that five additional cities and towns--two in Massachusetts 
and three in Rhode Island--have petitioned to be included in the 
Commission.
  For those of us who represent States east of the Mississippi and who 
are concerned with the aesthetic value of the landscapes of our States, 
this project is particularly exciting. Unlike Western States where 
large tracts of land are protected by the National Park Service, most 
Eastern States simply do not have open expanses of land available to 
develop as national parks in the traditional sense. The Blackstone 
River Valley National Heritage Corridor is a model for other regions 
interested in preserving their unique characteristics and their 
historic resources without disturbing their economic base. Just as the 
great national parks of the West symbolize the expansiveness and 
independence that are part of our history, the Blackstone Corridor 
captures another aspect of our collective heritage--a heritage that is 
rooted in the communities and industries of the east coast and which 
helped define the 19th century American experience. This architectural 
and industrial landscape stands today as a reminder of our past and its 
contributions to both our spiritual identity and our industrial 
development.
  The Blackstone Valley Corridor should serve as a model for the 
preservation of our unique heritage and for the process by which it has 
been developed and promoted. This project exemplifies a solid 
partnership of Federal, State, and local resources working in unison 
leveraged to produce the highest level of results. it also exemplifies 
an extraordinary effort in pulling together committed private local 
volunteers and financial support to enhance the public investment. This 
is a prototype which could be duplicated in other National Park Service 
projects throughout the country.
  While the success of this project is attested to by all involved, we 
must ensure that the hard work and resources that have contributed to 
that success are not compromised. By extending the Corridor Commission 
another 10 years and increasing the operating budget, this bill would 
allow the Commission the leeway it needs to continue in its unique 
mission. In addition, the boundaries would be expanded so that the five 
communities of Massachusetts and Rhode Island which have requested 
inclusion would be able to participate in the Commission-sponsored 
activities.
  I sincerely hope that the corridor's success as both a national park 
and as an example of a positive public-private partnership in pursuit 
of conservation objectives will be replicated in other areas of the 
country. If we are to hold Blackstone Valley up as such a model, 
however, we first must ensure that it is provided with the resources it 
needs. Mr. President, for these reasons I look forward to continued 
positive action on this legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRESSLER:
  S. 604. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to relieve 
farmers and retail farm suppliers from limitations on maximum driving 
and on-duty time in the transportation of agricultural commodities or 
farm supplies if such transportation occurs within 100-air mile radius 
of the source of the commodities or the distribution point for the farm 
supplies; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


             THE REGULATORY RELIEF FOR FARMERS ACT OF 1995

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, now is the time of the year American's 
are preparing their fields for planting of this year's crops. Planting 
season can be unpredictable for farmers. Once the season begins there 
is the inevitable uncooperative weather conditions of rain, snow, hail 
or early spring frosts. Farmers must move quickly and put in long 
hours.
  The demand for farm supplies escalates during planting season. The 
last 
[[Page S4497]] thing farmers need are burdensome and unnecessary 
regulations that interfere with planting operations.
  The Department of Transportation has issued hours-of-service 
regulations that could interrupt or stop planting. These regulations 
are highly impractical, burdensome and costly for farmers and farm 
suppliers. Simply put, the regulations would require farmers to take 
three days off--at the peak work time of the year--after working up to 
15 hours a day for 4 days straight. I might add these regulations would 
cause severe problems for farmers at harvest time, as well.
  The solution to this dilemma is simple. The Department of 
Transportation should waive the hours of service requirements for 
agricultural purposes during harvest and planting seasons.
  This issue is not new. Last year, 34 Senators, including myself, 
wrote to Transportation Secretary Pena urging a waiver from hours-of-
service requirements for agricultural purposes during planting and 
harvest seasons.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter 
appear in the Record.
  Mr. President, I want to extend my deepest appreciation to the 
efforts of our colleague, Senator Exon, on this effort. He has been a 
leader in the effort to waive agriculture from the hours-of-service 
regulations. Senator Exon led Senate efforts last year to pass 
legislation to provide this agricultural exemption. However, an 
agricultural exemption has never cleared the Congress.
  I have worked with Senator Exon closely on this matter. I have let 
him know that I would introduce this bill today.
  I have worked with my House and Senate farm State colleagues for 
regulatory relief for farmers and farm suppliers. Department of 
Transportation regulations are unfair to farmers and farm suppliers. An 
agricultural exemption did not clear Congress last year. What did clear 
the House last year was watered down and reduced to yet another 
mandated regulatory hurdle for farmers. That is the situation facing 
farmers today.
  Farmers and farm suppliers want to obey the law and rules on hours-
of-service. However, the rules do not make sense. Because of what I 
view as a bureaucratic entanglement brought about the Department of 
Transportation, I am introducing this bill today. Legislative action is 
needed so that American agriculture can have a sensible rule in place 
for the 1995 planting and harvest seasons.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 1994.
     Hon. Federico Pena,
     Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Pena: We support the provision in the 
     Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (Public Law 103-311) 
     which requires you to initiate a rulemaking proceeding 
     relating to hours of service rules as they apply to retail 
     farm suppliers.
       As you know, current section 395.3 hours of service 
     regulations require an on-duty worker to take three days off 
     and wait in order to accumulate enough off-duty time to 
     resume driving. Application of hours of service requirements 
     upon farmers and their farm suppliers is burdensome, imposes 
     costs and encourages violating the hours of service rules. 
     Therefore, we strongly support a waiver from the hours of 
     service requirements for agricultural purposes during the 
     harvest and planting season.
       DOT has recognized that the on-duty time of certain 
     occupations are subject to special demands and has granted 
     seasonal exemptions from section 395.3 hours of service 
     requirements. We request your support for agriculture 
     regulatory relief at least as accommodating as that granted 
     under section 395.3(c) for small package delivery drivers 
     meeting holiday seasonal demands. Farmers and farm suppliers 
     engaged in the transport of fertilizer and fertilizer 
     materials, agricultural chemicals, pesticides, seed, animal 
     feeds, crops, and other essential farm supplies want to obey 
     the law and should be subject to an hours of service rule 
     which makes sense.
       During certain weeks of each year in our agricultural 
     states, there is a small window of opportunity in the crop-
     planting season when the demand for farm supplies escalates. 
     The same is true for amount of rainfall or freezing 
     temperatures. Because of farmer procedures and driver safety, 
     it is impractical and costly for these workers to take three 
     days off at the peak of agricultural production. Driving is 
     incidental to their principal work function of servicing 
     farmers' fields.
       Increasingly, farmers utilize farm suppliers who are 
     agronomic experts to help them cope with environmental 
     regulations, develop, implement, and manage precision 
     agriculture, and harvest profitable crops that produce safe, 
     abundant and affordable food for Americans and the world. 
     Over 80 percent of our nation's farmers utilize farm 
     suppliers who are trained agronomic experts who service 
     farmers' fields, which is their principal job function and 
     driving is incidental to this principal job function.
       As you draft this important regulatory relief proposed 
     rule, we respectfully request that you take our comments and 
     concerns into consideration. We look forward to working 
     closely with you on this important rulemaking for American 
     agriculture and having it finalized before the 1995 spring 
     planting season.
           Sincerely,
         Jim Exon, Wendell H. Ford, Paul Simon, Arlen Specter, 
           Carol Moseley-Braun, Richard C. Shelby, Byron L. 
           Dorgan, Thomas A. Daschle, David H. Pryor, Tom Harkin, 
           Chuck Grassley, Robert Kerrey, Kent Conrad, Trent Lott, 
           Chuck Robb, John Breaux, Bob Graham, John Warner.
         Larry Pressler, Howell Heflin, Max Baucus, Conrad Burns, 
           Larry E. Craig, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Thad Cochran, Dan 
           Coats, Don Nickles, Connie Mack, Malcolm Wallop, Hank 
           Brown, Robert Dole, Mitch McConnell, Richard G. Lugar, 
           Herb Kohl.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Gramm, Mr. Brown, Mr. Craig, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Kyl, 
        Mr. Abraham, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Packwood, Mr. 
        Warner, Mr. Coats, Mr. Burns, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Pressler, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Grams, Mr. Frist, Mr. McConnell, 
        Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Mack, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Bennett, Mr. 
        Kempthorne, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 605. A bill to establish a uniform and more efficient Federal 
process for protecting property owners' rights guaranteed by the fifth 
amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                the omnibus property rights act of 1995

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, since last November's elections we have 
pursued an ambitious program of reform to fundamentally change and 
improve the relationship between the Government and its citizens. No 
doubt about it, to the defenders of business as usual these are 
wrenching changes we propose: A balanced budget amendment; the line 
item veto; regulatory reform; and even the elimination of cabinet level 
departments. Each of these reforms has been opposed by those who do not 
understand that the American people have instructed us to rein in the 
Federal Government. But we will continue to fight for these reforms, 
and for the American people.
  Today, we add to these reforms, by confronting one of the most basic 
clashes between Government and individual liberty: The taking of 
private property for public uses. There is perhaps no greater 
foundation for a successful free society than private property. The 
American Revolution was fought in part because of the threat that 
tyranny posed to private property, whether it was taxation without 
representation, restraints on trade, or violation of home and hearth by 
British soldiers. Private property rights are the rights to enjoy the 
fruits of our labor and our ideas and thus enjoy a special place in the 
U.S. Constitution.
  Mr. President, one of the most basic of these protections is found in 
the fifth amendment to the Constitution; ``nor shall private property 
be taken for public use, with just compensation.'' As the Supreme Court 
has stated, this protection is about basic fairness: Preventing the 
Government ``from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens, 
which in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a 
whole.'' The fifth amendment thus provides a balance between public 
need and individual liberty.
  Today, however, this balance is missing. A regulatory state that 
seems only to grow and grow--that is increasingly intrusive--has 
provided the means for a sustained assault on private property rights 
in America. It is our duty to ensure that we limit the arbitrary 
exercise of Government power and pursue worthwhile goals in ways that 
protect the rights of our citizens.
  Mr. President, I and my colleagues today are proud to introduce the 
Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1995. I want to especially commend my 
colleagues who worked hard to bring a lot of good 
[[Page S4498]] ideas together in one comprehensive package. Senator 
Hatch 
 should be particularly commended for his leadership of the working 
group that consisted of Senators Shelby, Nickles, Heflin, Craig, Gramm, 
Lott, Thomas, Brown, Kyl, and Abraham.

  Mr. President, the Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1995 would 
accomplish four major objectives:
  First, it would require the Federal Government to compensate property 
owners if Government action reduces the value of property by one-third;
  Second, it would provide for alternative dispute resolution 
procedures and clarify court jurisdiction for takings claims;
  Third, it would require Federal agencies responsible for Endangered 
Species Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act to provide for 
administrative procedures to address takings claims; and
  Fourth, it would require agencies to perform a takings impact 
analysis of regulations, and ensure that agencies select the regulatory 
alternative that minimizes the taking of private property.
  Mr. President, these are sweeping reforms. But it is important to 
point out that our reforms do more than provide that just compensation 
is paid in proper circumstances. The real test is to minimize the 
number of takings that occur in the first instance. We need to ensure 
that when we pursue otherwise laudable goals, that we do so in ways 
that allow the Government to take private property only as a last 
resort, and when it is necessary to do so, to insist that just 
compensation is paid to the property owner. The Omnibus Property Rights 
Act of 1995 accomplishes these goals, and I intend to bring this bill 
to the floor as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this 
much-needed legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 605

       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 ``Omnibus Property Rights Act 
     of 1995''.
                     TITLE I--FINDINGS AND PURPOSES

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the private ownership of property is essential to a 
     free society and is an integral part of the American 
     tradition of liberty and limited government;
       (2) the framers of the United States Constitution, in order 
     to protect private property and liberty, devised a framework 
     of Government designed to diffuse power and limit Government;
       (3) to further ensure the protection of private property, 
     the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution was 
     ratified to prevent the taking of private property by the 
     Federal Government, except for public use and with just 
     compensation;
       (4) the purpose of the takings clause of the fifth 
     amendment of the United States Constitution, as the Supreme 
     Court stated in Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 
     (1960), is ``to bar Government from forcing some people alone 
     to bear public burdens, which in all fairness and justice, 
     should be borne by the public as a whole'';
       (5) the Federal Government has singled out property holders 
     to shoulder the cost that should be borne by the public, in 
     violation of the just compensation requirement of the takings 
     clause of the fifth amendment of the United States 
     Constitution;
       (6) there is a need both to restrain the Federal Government 
     in its overzealous regulation of the private sector and to 
     protect private property, which is a fundamental right of the 
     American people; and
       (7) the incremental, fact-specific approach that courts now 
     are required to employ in the absence of adequate statutory 
     language to vindicate property rights under the fifth 
     amendment of the United States Constitution has been 
     ineffective and costly and there is a need for Congress to 
     clarify the law and provide an effective remedy.

     SEC. 102. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to encourage, support, and 
     promote the private ownership of property by ensuring the 
     constitutional and legal protection of private property by 
     the United States Government by--
       (1) the establishment of a new Federal judicial claim in 
     which to vindicate and protect property rights;
       (2) the simplification and clarification of court 
     jurisdiction over property right claims;
       (3) the establishment of an administrative procedure that 
     requires the Federal Government to assess the impact of 
     government action on holders of private property;
       (4) the minimization, to the greatest extent possible, of 
     the taking of private property by the Federal Government and 
     to ensure that just compensation is paid by the Government 
     for any taking; and
       (5) the establishment of administrative compensation 
     procedures involving the enforcement of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 and section 404 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act.
              TITLE II--PROPERTY RIGHTS LITIGATION RELIEF

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) property rights have been abrogated by the application 
     of laws, regulations, and other actions by the Federal 
     Government that adversely affect the value of private 
     property;
       (2) certain provisions of sections 1346 and 1402 and 
     chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as 
     the Tucker Act), that delineate the jurisdiction of courts 
     hearing property rights claims, complicates the ability of a 
     property owner to vindicate a property owner's right to just 
     compensation for a governmental action that has caused a 
     physical or regulatory taking;
       (3) current law--
       (A) forces a property owner to elect between equitable 
     relief in the district court and monetary relief (the value 
     of the property taken) in the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims;
       (B) is used to urge dismissal in the district court on the 
     ground that the plaintiff should seek just compensation in 
     the Court of Federal Claims; and
       (C) is used to urge dismissal in the Court of Federal 
     Claims on the ground that plaintiff should seek equitable 
     relief in district court;
       (4) property owners cannot fully vindicate property rights 
     in one court;
       (5) property owners should be able to fully recover for a 
     taking of their private property in one court;
       (6) certain provisions of section 1346 and 1402 and chapter 
     91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     Tucker Act) should be amended, giving both the district 
     courts of the United States and the Court of Federal Claims 
     jurisdiction to hear all claims relating to property rights; 
     and
       (7) section 1500 of title 28, United States Code, which 
     denies the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain 
     a suit which is pending in another court and made by the same 
     plaintiff, should be repealed.

     SEC. 202. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are to--
       (1) establish a clear, uniform, and efficient judicial 
     process whereby aggrieved property owners can obtain 
     vindication of property rights guaranteed by the fifth 
     amendment to the United States Constitution and this Act;
       (2) amend the Tucker Act, including the repeal of section 
     1500 of title 28, United States Code;
       (3) rectify the constitutional imbalance between the 
     Federal Government and the States; and
       (4) require the Federal Government to compensate property 
     owners for the deprivation of property rights that result 
     from State agencies' enforcement of federally mandated 
     programs.

     SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title the term--
       (1) ``agency'' means a department, agency, independent 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States, including 
     any military department, Government corporation, Government-
     controlled corporation, or other establishment in the 
     executive branch of the United States Government;
       (2) ``agency action'' means any action or decision taken by 
     an agency that--
       (A) takes a property right; or
       (B) unreasonably impedes the use of property or the 
     exercise of property interests;
       (3) ``just compensation''--
       (A) means compensation equal to the full extent of a 
     property owner's loss, including the fair market value of the 
     private property taken and business losses arising from a 
     taking, whether the taking is by physical occupation or 
     through regulation, exaction, or other means; and
       (B) shall include compounded interest calculated from the 
     date of the taking until the date the United States tenders 
     payment;
       (4) ``owner'' means the owner or possessor of property or 
     rights in property at the time the taking occurs, including 
     when--
       (A) the statute, regulation, rule, order, guideline, 
     policy, or action is passed or promulgated; or
       (B) the permit, license, authorization, or governmental 
     permission is denied or suspended;
       (5) ``private property'' or ``property'' means all property 
     protected under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States, any applicable Federal or State law, or 
     this Act, and includes--
       (A) real property, whether vested or unvested, including--
       (i) estates in fee, life estates, estates for years, or 
     otherwise;
       (ii) inchoate interests in real property such as remainders 
     and future interests;
       (iii) personalty that is affixed to or appurtenant to real 
     property;
       (iv) easements;
       (v) leaseholds;
       (vi) recorded liens; and
       (vii) contracts or other security interests in, or related 
     to, real property;
       (B) the right to use water or the right to receive water, 
     including any recorded lines on such water right;
     [[Page S4499]]   (C) rents, issues, and profits of land, 
     including minerals, timber, fodder, crops, oil and gas, coal, 
     or geothermal energy;
       (D) property rights provided by, or memorialized in, a 
     contract, except that such rights shall not be construed 
     under this title to prevent the United States from 
     prohibiting the formation of contracts deemed to harm the 
     public welfare or to prevent the execution of contracts for--
       (i) national security reasons; or
       (ii) exigencies that present immediate or reasonably 
     foreseeable threats or injuries to life or property;
       (E) any interest defined as property under State law; or
       (F) any interest understood to be property based on custom, 
     usage, common law, or mutually reinforcing understandings 
     sufficiently well-grounded in law to back a claim of 
     interest;
       (6) ``State agency'' means any State department, agency, 
     political subdivision, or instrumentality that--
       (A) carries out or enforces a regulatory program required 
     under Federal law;
       (B) is delegated administrative or substantive 
     responsibility under a Federal regulatory program; or
       (C) receives Federal funds in connection with a regulatory 
     program established by a State,

     if the State enforcement of the regulatory program, or the 
     receipt of Federal funds in connection with a regulatory 
     program established by a State, is directly related to the 
     taking of private property seeking to be vindicated under 
     this Act; and
       (7) ``taking of private property'', ``taking'', or 
     ``take''--
       (A) means any action whereby private property is directly 
     taken as to require compensation under the fifth amendment to 
     the United States Constitution or under this Act, including 
     by physical invasion, regulation, exaction, condition, or 
     other means; and
       (B) shall not include--
       (i) a condemnation action filed by the United States in an 
     applicable court; or
       (ii) an action filed by the United States relating to 
     criminal forfeiture.

     SEC. 204. COMPENSATION FOR TAKEN PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--No agency or State agency, shall take 
     private property except for public use and with just 
     compensation to the property owner. A property owner shall 
     receive just compensation if--
       (1) as a consequence of an action of any agency, or State 
     agency, private property (whether all or in part) has been 
     physically invaded or taken for public use without the 
     consent of the owner; and
       (2)(A) such action does not substantially advance the 
     stated governmental interest to be achieved by the 
     legislation or regulation on which the action is based;
       (B) such action exacts the owner's constitutional or 
     otherwise lawful right to use the property or a portion of 
     such property as a condition for the granting of a permit, 
     license, variance, or any other agency action without a rough 
     proportionality between the stated need for the required 
     dedication and the impact of the proposed use of the 
     property;
       (C) such action results in the property owner being 
     deprived, either temporarily or permanently, of all or 
     substantially all economically beneficial or productive use 
     of the property or that part of the property affected by the 
     action without a showing that such deprivation inheres in the 
     title itself;
       (D) such action diminishes the fair market value of the 
     affected portion of the property which is the subject of the 
     action by 33 percent or more with respect to the value 
     immediately prior to the governmental action; or
       (E) under any other circumstance where a taking has 
     occurred within the meaning of the fifth amendment of the 
     United States Constitution.
       (b) No Claim Against State or State Instrumentality.--No 
     action may be filed under this section against a State agency 
     for carrying out the functions described under section 
     203(6).
       (c) Burden of Proof.--(1) The Government shall bear the 
     burden of proof in any action described under--
       (A) subsection (a)(2)(A), with regard to showing the nexus 
     between the stated governmental purpose of the governmental 
     interest and the impact on the proposed use of private 
     property;
       (B) subsection (a)(2)(B), with regard to showing the 
     proportionality between the exaction and the impact of the 
     proposed use of the property; and
       (C) subsection (a)(2)(C), with regard to showing that such 
     deprivation of value inheres in the title to the property.
       (2) The property owner shall have the burden of proof in 
     any action described under subsection (a)(2)(D), with regard 
     to establishing the diminution of value of property.
       (d) Compensation and Nuisance Exception to Payment of Just 
     Compensation.--(1) No compensation shall be required by this 
     Act if the owner's use or proposed use of the property is a 
     nuisance as commonly understood and defined by background 
     principles of nuisance and property law, as understood within 
     the State in which the property is situated, and to bar an 
     award of damages under this Act, the United States shall have 
     the burden of proof to establish that the use or proposed use 
     of the property is a nuisance.
       (2) Subject to paragraph (1), if an agency action directly 
     takes property or a portion of property under subsection (a), 
     compensation to the owner of the property that is affected by 
     the action shall be either the greater of an amount equal 
     to--
       (A) the difference between--
       (i) the fair market value of the property or portion of the 
     property affected by agency action before such property 
     became the subject of the specific government regulation; and
       (ii) the fair market value of the property or portion of 
     the property when such property becomes subject to the agency 
     action; or
       (B) business losses.
       (e) Transfer of Property Interest.--The United States shall 
     take title to the property interest for which the United 
     States pays a claim under this Act.
       (f) Source of Compensation.--Awards of compensation 
     referred to in this section, whether by judgment, settlement, 
     or administrative action, shall be promptly paid by the 
     agency out of currently available appropriations supporting 
     the activities giving rise to the claims for compensation. If 
     insufficient funds are available to the agency in the fiscal 
     year in which the award becomes final, the agency shall 
     either pay the award from appropriations available in the 
     next fiscal year or promptly seek additional appropriations 
     for such purpose.

     SEC. 205. JURISDICTION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--A property owner may file a civil action 
     under this Act to challenge the validity of any agency action 
     that adversely affects the owner's interest in private 
     property in either the United States District Court or the 
     United States Court of Federal Claims. This section 
     constitutes express waiver of the sovereign immunity of the 
     United States. Notwithstanding any other provision of law and 
     notwithstanding the issues involved, the relief sought, or 
     the amount in controversy, each court shall have concurrent 
     jurisdiction over both claims for monetary relief and claims 
     seeking invalidation of any Act of Congress or any regulation 
     of an agency as defined under this Act affecting private 
     property rights. The plaintiff shall have the election of the 
     court in which to file a claim for relief.
       (b) Standing.--Persons adversely affected by an agency 
     action taken under this Act shall have standing to challenge 
     and seek judicial review of that action.
       (c) Amendments to Title 28, United States Code.--(1) 
     Section 1491(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by amending the first sentence to read 
     as follows: ``The United States Court of Federal Claims shall 
     have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against 
     the United States for monetary relief founded either upon the 
     Constitution or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an 
     executive department, or upon any express or implied contract 
     with the United States, in cases not sounding in tort, or for 
     invalidation of any Act of Congress or any regulation of an 
     executive department that adversely affects private property 
     rights in violation of the fifth amendment of the United 
     States Constitution'';
       (B) in paragraph (2) by inserting before the first sentence 
     the following: ``In any case within its jurisdiction, the 
     Court of Federal Claims shall have the power to grant 
     injunctive and declaratory relief when appropriate.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(4) In cases otherwise within its jurisdiction, the Court 
     of Federal Claims shall also have ancillary jurisdiction, 
     concurrent with the courts designated in section 1346(b) of 
     this title, to render judgment upon any related tort claim 
     authorized under section 2674 of this title.
       ``(5) In proceedings within the jurisdiction of the Court 
     of Federal Claims which constitute judicial review of agency 
     action (rather than de novo proceedings), the provisions of 
     section 706 of title 5 shall apply.''.
       (2)(A) Section 1500 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     repealed.
       (B) The table of sections for chapter 91 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking out the item 
     relating to section 1500.

     SEC. 206. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       The statute of limitations for actions brought under this 
     title shall be 6 years from the date of the taking of private 
     property.

     SEC. 207. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS.

       The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought 
     under this title, shall award costs of litigation (including 
     reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any 
     prevailing plaintiff.

     SEC. 208. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to interfere with 
     the authority of any State to create additional property 
     rights.

     SEC. 209. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of this title and amendments made by this 
     title shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and shall apply to any agency action that occurs after 
     such date.
               TITLE III--ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

     SEC. 301. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

       (a) In General.--Either party to a dispute over a taking of 
     private property as defined under this Act or litigation 
     commenced under title II of this Act may elect to resolve the 
     dispute through settlement or arbitration. In the 
     administration of this section--
     [[Page S4500]]   (1) such alternative dispute resolution may 
     only be effectuated by the consent of all parties;
       (2) arbitration procedures shall be in accordance with the 
     alternative dispute resolution procedures established by the 
     American Arbitration Association; and
       (3) in no event shall arbitration be a condition precedent 
     or an administrative procedure to be exhausted before the 
     filing of a civil action under this Act.
       (b) Compensation as a Result of Arbitration.--The amount of 
     arbitration awards shall be paid from the responsible 
     agency's currently available appropriations supporting the 
     agency's activities giving rise to the claim for 
     compensation. If insufficient funds are available to the 
     agency in the fiscal year in which the award becomes final, 
     the agency shall either pay the award from appropriations 
     available in the next fiscal year or promptly seek additional 
     appropriations for such purpose.
       (c) Review of Arbitration.--Appeal from arbitration 
     decisions shall be to the United States District Court or the 
     United States Court of Federal Claims in the manner 
     prescribed by law for the claim under this Act.
       (d) Payment of Certain Compensation.--In any appeal under 
     subsection (c), the amount of the award of compensation shall 
     be promptly paid by the agency from appropriations supporting 
     the activities giving rise to the claim for compensation 
     currently available at the time of final action on the 
     appeal. If insufficient funds are available to the agency in 
     the fiscal year in which the award becomes final, the agency 
     shall either pay the award from appropriations available in 
     the next fiscal year or promptly seek additional 
     appropriations for such purpose.
           TITLE IV--PRIVATE PROPERTY TAKING IMPACT ANALYSIS

     SEC. 401. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal Government should protect the health, 
     safety, welfare, and rights of the public; and
       (2) to the extent practicable, avoid takings of private 
     property by assessing the effect of government action on 
     private property rights.

     SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title the term--
       (1) ``agency'' means an agency as defined under section 203 
     of this Act, but shall not include the General Accounting 
     Office;
       (2) ``rule'' has the same meaning as such term is defined 
     under section 551(4) of title 5, United States Code; and
       (3) ``taking of private property'' has the same meaning as 
     such term is defined under section 203 of this Act.

     SEC. 403. PRIVATE PROPERTY TAKING IMPACT ANALYSIS.

       (a) In General.--(1) The Congress authorizes and directs 
     that, to the fullest extent possible--
       (A) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the 
     United States shall be interpreted and administered in 
     accordance with the policies under this title; and
       (B) subject to paragraph (2), all agencies of the Federal 
     Government shall complete a private property taking impact 
     analysis before issuing or promulgating any policy, 
     regulation, proposed legislation, or related agency action 
     which is likely to result in a taking of private property.
       (2) The provisions of paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply to--
       (A) an action in which the power of eminent domain is 
     formally exercised;
       (B) an action taken--
       (i) with respect to property held in trust by the United 
     States; or
       (ii) in preparation for, or in connection with, treaty 
     negotiations with foreign nations;
       (C) a law enforcement action, including seizure, for a 
     violation of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence 
     in a criminal proceeding;
       (D) a study or similar effort or planning activity;
       (E) a communication between an agency and a State or local 
     land-use planning agency concerning a planned or proposed 
     State or local activity that regulates private property, 
     regardless of whether the communication is initiated by an 
     agency or is undertaken in response to an invitation by the 
     State or local authority;
       (F) the placement of a military facility or a military 
     activity involving the use of solely Federal property;
       (G) any military or foreign affairs function (including a 
     procurement function under a military or foreign affairs 
     function), but not including the civil works program of the 
     Army Corps of Engineers; and
       (H) any case in which there is an immediate threat to 
     health or safety that constitutes an emergency requiring 
     immediate response or the issuance of a regulation under 
     section 553(b)(B) of title 5, United States Code, if the 
     taking impact analysis is completed after the emergency 
     action is carried out or the regulation is published.
       (3) A private property taking impact analysis shall be a 
     written statement that includes--
       (A) the specific purpose of the policy, regulation, 
     proposal, recommendation, or related agency action;
       (B) an assessment of the likelihood that a taking of 
     private property will occur under such policy, regulation, 
     proposal, recommendation, or related agency action;
       (C) an evaluation of whether such policy, regulation, 
     proposal, recommendation, or related agency action is likely 
     to require compensation to private property owners;
       (D) alternatives to the policy, regulation, proposal, 
     recommendation, or related agency action that would achieve 
     the intended purposes of the agency action and lessen the 
     likelihood that a taking of private property will occur; and
       (E) an estimate of the potential liability of the Federal 
     Government if the Government is required to compensate a 
     private property owner.
       (4) Each agency shall provide an analysis required under 
     this section as part of any submission otherwise required to 
     be made to the Office of Management and Budget in conjunction 
     with a proposed regulation.
       (b) Guidance and Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) The Attorney General of the United States shall provide 
     legal guidance in a timely manner, in response to a request 
     by an agency, to assist the agency in complying with this 
     section.
       (2) No later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act and at the end of each 1-year period thereafter, 
     each agency shall submit a report to the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget and the Attorney General of 
     the United States identifying each agency action that has 
     resulted in the preparation of a taking impact analysis, the 
     filing of a taking claim, or an award of compensation under 
     the just compensation clause of the fifth amendment of the 
     United States Constitution. The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the Attorney General of the United 
     States shall publish in the Federal Register, on an annual 
     basis, a compilation of the reports of all agencies submitted 
     under this paragraph.
       (c) Public Availability of Analysis.--An agency shall--
       (1) make each private property taking impact analysis 
     available to the public; and
       (2) to the greatest extent practicable, transmit a copy of 
     such analysis to the owner or any other person with a 
     property right or interest in the affected property.
       (d) Presumptions in Proceedings.--For the purpose of any 
     agency action or administrative or judicial proceeding, there 
     shall be a rebuttable presumption that the costs, values, and 
     estimates in any private property takings impact analysis 
     shall be outdated and inaccurate, if--
       (1) such analysis was completed 5 years or more before the 
     date of such action or proceeding; and
       (2) such costs, values, or estimates have not been modified 
     within the 5-year period preceding the date of such action or 
     proceeding.

     SEC. 404. DECISIONAL CRITERIA AND AGENCY COMPLIANCE.

       (a) In General.--No final rule shall be promulgated if 
     enforcement of the rule could reasonably be construed to 
     require an uncompensated taking of private property as 
     defined by this Act.
       (b) Compliance.--In order to meet the purposes of this Act 
     as expressed in section 401 of this title, all agencies 
     shall--
       (1) review, and where appropriate, re-promulgate all 
     regulations that result in takings of private property under 
     this Act, and reduce such takings of private property to the 
     maximum extent possible within existing statutory 
     requirements;
       (2) prepare and submit their budget requests consistent 
     with the purposes of this Act as expressed in section 401 of 
     this title for fiscal year 1997 and all fiscal years 
     thereafter; and
       (3) within 120 days of the effective date of this section, 
     submit to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating 
     committees of the Congress a detailed list of statutory 
     changes that are necessary to meet fully the purposes of 
     section 401 of this title, along with a statement 
     prioritizing such amendments and an explanation of the 
     agency's reasons for such prioritization.

     SEC. 405. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to--
       (1) limit any right or remedy, constitute a condition 
     precedent or a requirement to exhaust administrative 
     remedies, or bar any claim of any person relating to such 
     person's property under any other law, including claims made 
     under this Act, section 1346 or 1402 of title 28, United 
     States Code, or chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code; 
     or
       (2) constitute a conclusive determination of--
       (A) the value of any property for purposes of an appraisal 
     for the acquisition of property, or for the determination of 
     damages; or
       (B) any other material issue.

     SEC. 406. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       No action may be filed in a court of the United States to 
     enforce the provisions of this title on or after the date 
     occurring 6 years after the date of the submission of the 
     applicable private property taking impact analysis to the 
     Office of Management and Budget.
     TITLE V--PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS ADMINISTRATIVE BILL OF RIGHTS

     SEC. 501. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) a number of Federal environmental programs, 
     specifically programs administered under the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and section 404 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), 
     have been implemented by employees, agents, and 
     representatives of the 
     [[Page S4501]] Federal Government in a manner that deprives 
     private property owners of the use and control of property;
       (2) as Federal programs are proposed that would limit and 
     restrict the use of private property to provide habitat for 
     plant and animal species, the rights of private property 
     owners must be recognized and respected;
       (3) private property owners are being forced by Federal 
     policy to resort to extensive, lengthy, and expensive 
     litigation to protect certain basic civil rights guaranteed 
     by the United States Constitution;
       (4) many private property owners do not have the financial 
     resources or the extensive commitment of time to proceed in 
     litigation against the Federal Government;
       (5) a clear Federal policy is needed to guide and direct 
     Federal agencies with respect to the implementation of 
     environmental laws that directly impact private property;
       (6) all private property owners should and are required to 
     comply with current nuisance laws and should not use property 
     in a manner that harms their neighbors;
       (7) nuisance laws have traditionally been enacted, 
     implemented, and enforced at the State and local level where 
     such laws are best able to protect the rights of all private 
     property owners and local citizens; and
       (8) traditional pollution control laws are intended to 
     protect the general public's health and physical welfare, and 
     current habitat protection programs are intended to protect 
     the welfare of plant and animal species.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to--
       (1) provide a consistent Federal policy to encourage, 
     support, and promote the private ownership of property; and
       (2) to establish an administrative process and remedy to 
     ensure that the constitutional and legal rights of private 
     property owners are protected by the Federal Government and 
     Federal employees, agents, and representatives.

     SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title the term--
       (1) ``the Acts'' means the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and section 404 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344);
       (2) ``agency head'' means the Secretary or Administrator 
     with jurisdiction or authority to take a final agency action 
     under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.) or section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1344);
       (3) ``non-Federal person'' means a person other than an 
     officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of--
       (A) the Federal Government; or
       (B) a foreign government;
       (4) ``private property owner'' means a non-Federal person 
     (other than an officer, employee, agent, department, or 
     instrumentality of a State, municipality, or political 
     subdivision of a State, acting in an official capacity or a 
     State, municipality, or subdivision of a State) that--
       (A) owns property referred to under paragraph (5) (A) or 
     (B); or
       (B) holds property referred to under paragraph (5)(C);
       (5) ``property'' means--
       (A) land;
       (B) any interest in land; and
       (C) the right to use or the right to receive water; and
       (6) ``qualified agency action'' means an agency action (as 
     that term is defined in section 551(13) of title 5, United 
     States Code) that is taken--
       (A) under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344); or
       (B) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1531 et seq.).

     SEC. 503. PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--In implementing and enforcing the Acts, 
     each agency head shall--
       (1) comply with applicable State and tribal government 
     laws, including laws relating to private property rights and 
     privacy; and
       (2) administer and implement the Acts in a manner that has 
     the least impact on private property owners' constitutional 
     and other legal rights.
       (b) Final Decisions.--Each agency head shall develop and 
     implement rules and regulations for ensuring that the 
     constitutional and other legal rights of private property 
     owners are protected when the agency head makes, or 
     participates with other agencies in the making of, any final 
     decision that restricts the use of private property in 
     administering and implementing this Act.

     SEC. 504. PROPERTY OWNER CONSENT FOR ENTRY.

       (a) In General.--An agency head may not enter privately 
     owned property to collect information regarding the property, 
     unless the private property owner has--
       (1) consented in writing to that entry;
       (2) after providing that consent, been provided notice of 
     that entry; and
       (3) been notified that any raw data collected from the 
     property shall be made available at no cost, if requested by 
     the private property owner.
       (b) Nonapplication.--Subsection (a) does not prohibit entry 
     onto property for the purpose of obtaining consent or 
     providing notice required under subsection (a).

     SEC. 505. RIGHT TO REVIEW AND DISPUTE DATA COLLECTED FROM 
                   PRIVATE PROPERTY.

       An agency head may not use data that is collected on 
     privately owned property to implement or enforce the Acts, 
     unless--
       (1) the agency head has provided to the private property 
     owner--
       (A) access to the information;
       (B) a detailed description of the manner in which the 
     information was collected; and
       (C) an opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the 
     information; and
       (2) the agency head has determined that the information is 
     accurate, if the private property owner disputes the accuracy 
     of the information under paragraph (1)(C).

     SEC. 506. RIGHT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF WETLANDS 
                   DECISIONS.

       Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(u) Administrative Appeals.--
       ``(1) The Secretary or Administrator shall, after notice 
     and opportunity for public comment, issue rules to establish 
     procedures to allow private property owners or their 
     authorized representatives an opportunity for an 
     administrative appeal of the following actions under this 
     section:
       ``(A) A determination of regulatory jurisdiction over a 
     particular parcel of property.
       ``(B) The denial of a permit.
       ``(C) The terms and conditions of a permit.
       ``(D) The imposition of an administrative penalty.
       ``(E) The imposition of an order requiring the private 
     property owner to restore or otherwise alter the property.
       ``(2) Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall provide that 
     any administrative appeal of an action described in paragraph 
     (1) shall be heard and decided by an official other than the 
     official who took the action, and shall be conducted at a 
     location which is in the vicinity of the property involved in 
     the action.
       ``(3) An owner of private property may receive 
     compensation, if appropriate, subject to the provisions of 
     section 508 of the Emergency Property Owners Relief Act of 
     1995.''.

     SEC. 507. RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL UNDER THE ENDANGERED 
                   SPECIES ACT OF 1973.

       Section 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973(16 U.S.C. 
     1540) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Administrative Appeals.--
       ``(1) The Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity for 
     public comment, issue rules to establish procedures to allow 
     private property owners or their authorized representatives 
     an opportunity for an administrative appeal of the following 
     actions:
       ``(A) A determination that a particular parcel of property 
     is critical habitat of a listed species.
       ``(B) The denial of a permit for an incidental take.
       ``(C) The terms and conditions of an incidental take 
     permit.
       ``(D) The finding of jeopardy in any consultation on an 
     agency action affecting a particular parcel of property under 
     section 7(a)(2) or any reasonable and prudent alternative 
     resulting from such finding.
       ``(E) Any incidental `take' statement, and any reasonable 
     and prudent measures included therein, issued in any 
     consultation affecting a particular parcel of property under 
     section 7(a)(2).
       ``(F) The imposition of an administrative penalty.
       ``(G) The imposition of an order prohibiting or 
     substantially limiting the use of the property.
       ``(2) Rules issued under paragraph (1) shall provide that 
     any administrative appeal of an action described in paragraph 
     (1) shall be heard and decided by an official other than the 
     official who took the action, and shall be conducted at a 
     location which is in the vicinity of the parcel of property 
     involved in the action.
       ``(3) An owner of private property may receive 
     compensation, if appropriate, subject to the provisions of 
     section 508 of the Emergency Property Owners Relief Act of 
     1995.''.

     SEC. 508. COMPENSATION FOR TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

       (a) Eligibility.--A private property owner that, as a 
     consequence of a final qualified agency action of an agency 
     head, is deprived of 33 percent or more of the fair market 
     value, or the economically viable use, of the affected 
     portion of the property as determined by a qualified 
     appraisal expert, is entitled to receive compensation in 
     accordance with the standards set forth in section 204 of 
     this Act.
       (b) Time Limitation for Compensation Request.--No later 
     than 90 days after receipt of a final decision of an agency 
     head that deprives a private property owner of fair market 
     value or viable use of property for which compensation is 
     required under subsection (a), the private property owner may 
     submit in writing a request to the agency head for 
     compensation in accordance with subsection (c).
       (c) Offer of Agency Head.--No later than 180 days after the 
     receipt of a request for compensation, the agency head shall 
     stay the decision and shall provide to the private property 
     owner--
       (1) an offer to purchase the affected property of the 
     private property owner at a fair market value assuming no use 
     restrictions under the Acts; and
       (2) an offer to compensate the private property owner for 
     the difference between the fair market value of the property 
     without those restrictions and the fair market value of the 
     property with those restrictions.
       (d) Private Property Owner's Response.--(1) No later than 
     60 days after the date of receipt of the agency head's offers 
     under subsection (c) (1) and (2) the private 
     [[Page S4502]] property owner shall accept one of the offers 
     or reject both offers.
       (2) If the private property owner rejects both offers, the 
     private property owner may submit the matter for arbitration 
     to an arbitrator appointed by the agency head from a list of 
     arbitrators submitted to the agency head by the American 
     Arbitration Association. The arbitration shall be conducted 
     in accordance with the real estate valuation arbitration 
     rules of that association. For purposes of this section, an 
     arbitration is binding on--
       (A) the agency head and a private property owner as to the 
     amount, if any, of compensation owed to the private property 
     owner; and
       (B) whether the private property owner has been deprived of 
     fair market value or viable use of property for which 
     compensation is required under subsection (a).
       (e) Judgment.--A qualified agency action of an agency head 
     that deprives a private property owner of property as 
     described under subsection (a), is deemed, at the option of 
     the private property owner, to be a taking under the United 
     States Constitution and a judgment against the United States 
     if the private property owner--
       (1) accepts the agency head's offer under subsection (c); 
     or
       (2) submits to arbitration under subsection (d).
       (f) Payment.--An agency head shall pay a private property 
     owner any compensation required under the terms of an offer 
     of the agency head that is accepted by the private property 
     owner in accordance with subsection (d), or under a decision 
     of an arbitrator under that subsection, out of currently 
     available appropriations supporting the activities giving 
     rise to the claim for compensation. The agency head shall pay 
     to the extent of available funds any compensation under this 
     section not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     acceptance or the date of the issuance of the decision, 
     respectively. If insufficient funds are available to the 
     agency in the fiscal year in which the award becomes final, 
     the agency shall either pay the award from appropriations 
     available in the next fiscal year or promptly seek additional 
     appropriations for such purpose.
       (g) Form of Payment.--Payment under this section, as that 
     form is agreed to by the agency head and the private property 
     owner, may be in the form of--
       (1) payment of an amount equal to the fair market value of 
     the property on the day before the date of the final 
     qualified agency action with respect to which the property or 
     interest is acquired; or
       (2) a payment of an amount equal to the reduction in value.

     SEC. 509. PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVE 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
     1535) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     when the Secretary enters into a management agreement under 
     subsection (b) with any non-Federal person that establishes 
     restrictions on the use of property, the Secretary shall 
     notify all private property owners or lessees of the property 
     that is subject to the management agreement and shall provide 
     an opportunity for each private property owner or lessee to 
     participate in the management agreement.''.

     SEC. 510. ELECTION OF REMEDIES.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to--
       (1) deny any person the right, as a condition precedent or 
     as a requirement to exhaust administrative remedies, to 
     proceed under title II or III of this Act;
       (2) bar any claim of any person relating to such person's 
     property under any other law, including claims made under 
     section 1346 or 1402 of title 28, United States Code, or 
     chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code; or
       (3) constitute a conclusive determination of--
       (A) the value of property for purposes of an appraisal for 
     the acquisition of property, or for the determination of 
     damages; or
       (B) any other material issue.
                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 601. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions of such to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

     SEC. 602. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of 
     this Act shall take effect on the date of enactment and shall 
     apply to any agency action of the United States Government 
     after such date.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to support the 
introduction of the Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1995. This bill is 
an omnibus property rights measure that combines four different 
approaches, contained in separate titles in the act, designed to 
protect private property from Federal Government intrusion. The 
citizens of Utah understand that the right to own property is a 
precious fundamental right, one which is vulnerable to an overbearing 
Federal Government.
  At my urging, four different approaches contained in various bills, 
bills designed to protect private property from Federal Government 
intrusion and introduced by several Senators, were merged in a single 
bill. I believed that the combination of these approaches would be far 
more efficacious in protecting private property than in just relying on 
a single strategy. This omnibus bill is the product of almost a year of 
work and countless drafts and represents the most sophisticated 
legislative mechanism to foster and protect the private ownership of 
property. I want to commend Senators Dole, Gramm of Texas, Shelby, 
Nickles, Brown, Craig, Lott, Heflin, Kyl, Abraham, and Thomas, and 
their staffs, for participating in this project. I intend to hold 
formal hearings on this bill in the very near future.
  The first approach under the bill encompasses property rights 
litigation reform. This approach, advocated by myself and in part by 
Senator Gramm of Texas, establishes a distinct Federal fifth amendment 
takings claim against Federal agencies by aggrieved property owners, 
thus clarifying the sometimes incoherent and contradictory 
constitutional property rights case law. It also resolves the 
jurisdictional dispute between the Federal district courts and the 
Court of Federal Claims over fifth amendment takings cases. It is a 
refinement of a proposal I placed in the Congressional Record on 
October 7, 1994.
  The second approach, promoted by Senator Dole, in essence codifies 
President Reagan's Executive Order 12630. Under this approach, a 
Federal agency must conduct a private property taking impact analysis 
before issuing or promulgating any policy, regulation, or related 
agency action which is likely to result in a taking of private 
property. Significantly, we have added to this section a reg. reform 
provision that prohibits any rule from becoming final if the rule could 
reasonably be construed when enforced to result in an uncompensated 
taking of private property.
  The third approach, initiated by Senators Shelby and Nickles, 
establishes an agency administrative appellate and compensation 
procedure for takings of real property during enforcement and 
administration of both the Endangered Species Act and the Wetlands 
Preservation Program under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
  These acts present special enforcement problems and an agency 
appellate and compensation procedure allows the agency and the 
aggrieved party the option to avoid litigation. The fourth approach 
provides for alternative dispute resolution in arbitration proceedings. 
I must add that the bill provides for a complete election of remedies. 
If a decision of an agency appeal is unreasonably delayed, an aggrieved 
party may drop the appeal and litigate according to the terms of the 
act. These four approaches, established by the Omnibus Property Rights 
Act, together function to empower the property owner with mechanisms to 
vindicate the fundamental constitutional right of private ownership of 
property, while instituting powerful incentives for Federal agencies 
both to protect private property and include such protection in agency 
planning and regulating.


                     importance of private property

  The private ownership of property is essential to a free society and 
is an integral part of our Judeo-Christian culture and the Western 
tradition of liberty and limited government. Private ownership of 
property and the sanctity of property rights reflects the distinction 
in our culture between a preexisting civil society and the state that 
is consequently established to promote order. Private property creates 
the social and economic organizations that counterbalance the power of 
the state by providing an alternative source of power and prestige to 
the state itself. It is therefore a necessary condition of liberty and 
prosperity.
  While government is properly understood to be instituted to protect 
liberty within an orderly society and such liberty is commonly 
understood to include the right of free speech, assembly, religious 
exercise, and other rights such as those enumerated in the Bill of 
Rights, it is all too often forgotten that the right of private 
ownership of property is also a critical component of liberty. To the 
17th-century English political philosopher, John Locke, who 
[[Page S4503]] greatly influenced the Founders of our Republic, the 
very role of government is to protect property: ``The great and chief 
end therefore, on Men uniting into Commonwealths, and putting 
themselves under Government, is the preservation of their property.'' 
[J. Locke, Second Treatise ch. 9, Sec. 124, in J. Locke, ``Two 
Treatises of Government'' (1698)]. The Framers of our Constitution 
likewise viewed the function of government as one of fostering 
individual liberties through the protection of property interests. 
James Madison, termed the ``Father of the Constitution,'' unhesitantly 
endorsed this Lockean viewpoint when he wrote in the Federalist No. 54 
that ``[government] is instituted no less for the protection of 
property, than of the persons of individuals.'' Indeed, to Madison, the 
private possession of property was viewed as a natural and individual 
right both to be protected against government encroachment and to be 
protected by government against others.
  To be sure, the private ownership of property was not considered 
absolute. Property owners could not exercise their
 rights as a nuisance that harmed their neighbors, and Government could 
use, what was termed in the 18th century, its despotic power of eminent 
domain to seize property for public use. Justice, it became to be 
believed, required compensation for the property taken by Government. 
The earliest example of a compensation requirement is found in chapter 
28 of the Magna Carta of 1215, which reads:

       No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take corn or 
     other provisions from anyone without immediately tendering 
     money therefor, unless he can have postponement thereof by 
     permission of the seller.

  But the record of English and colonial compensation for taken 
property was spotty at best, although it has been argued by some 
historians and legal scholars that compensation for takings of property 
became recognized as customary practice during the American colonial 
period. [See W. Stoebuck, ``A General Theory of Eminent Domain,'' 47 
Wash. L. Rev. 53 (1972)].
  Nevertheless, by American independence the compensation requirement 
was considered a necessary restraint on arbitrary governmental seizures 
of property. The Vermont Constitution of 1777, the Massachusetts 
Constitution of 1780, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, recognized 
that compensation must be paid whenever property was taken for general 
public use or for public exigencies. And although accounts of the 1791 
congressional debate over the Bill of Rights provide no evidence of why 
a public use and just compensation requirement for takings of private 
property was eventually included in the fifth amendment, James Madison, 
the author of the fifth amendment, reflected the views of other 
supporters of the new Constitution who feared the example to the new 
Congress of uncompensated seizures of property for building of roads 
and forgiveness of debts by radical State legislatures. Consequently, 
the phrase ``[n]or shall private property be taken for public use, 
without just compensation'' was included within the fifth amendment to 
the Constitution.


                  the modern threat to property rights

  Despite this historical pedigree and the constitutional requirement 
for the protection of property rights, the America of the mid- and 
late-20th century has witnessed an explosion of Federal regulation of 
society that has jeopardized the private ownership of property with the 
consequent loss of individual liberty. Indeed, the most recent estimate 
of the direct--that is, not counting indirect costs such as higher 
consumer prices--cost of Federal regulation was $857 billion for 1992. 
Today, the cost to the society probably is approaching $1 trillion. 
According to economist Paul Craig Roberts, the number of laws Americans 
are forced to endure has risen a staggering 3,000 percent since the 
turn of the century. Every day the Federal Register grows by an 
incredible 200 pages, containing new rules and obligations imposed on 
the American people by supposedly their Government.
  Furthermore, even the very concept of private property is under 
attack. Indeed, certain environmental activists have termed private 
property an ``outmoded concept'' which presents an impediment to the 
Federal Government's resolution of society's problems. It is this type 
of thinking that has led regulators, in the rush of governmental social 
engineering, to ignore individual rights. Here are just a few of the 
hundreds--if not thousands--of examples that occur nationwide:
  Mrs. Nellie Edwards was the owner of 36 acres of prime land that was 
seized by the city of Provo, UT, last year for an airport expansion 
project. Mrs. Edwards received only $21,500 for her land, which was 
well below the expected market value of the land because, unbeknownst 
to her, the Army Corps of Engineers had arbitrarily classified part of 
her land as a wetland. Mrs. Edwards, in essence, was victimized by the 
low-land value attached to wetlands. But the infuriating part of this 
sad story is that an investigator examined her land and saw absolutely 
no water or wildlife present on the land.
  Ocie Mills, a Florida builder, and his son were sent to prison for 2 
years for violating the Clean Water Act for placing sand on a quarter-
acre lot he owned;
  Under this same act, a small Oregon school district faced a Federal 
lawsuit for dumping clean fill to build a baseball-soccer field for its 
students and had to spend thousands of dollars to remove the fill;
  Ronald Angelocci was jailed for violating the Clean Water Act for 
dumping several truckloads of dirt in the backyard of his Michigan home 
to help a family member who had acute asthma and allergies aggravated 
by plants in the backyard; and
  A retired couple in the Poconos, after obtaining the necessary 
permits to build their home, was informed by the Army Corps of 
Engineers--4 years later--that they built their home on wetlands and 
faced penalties of $50,000 a day if they did not restore most of the 
land to its natural state.
  See B. Bovard, ``Lost Rights,'' 35 (1944); N. Marzulla, ``The 
Government's War on Property Rights,'' Defenders of Property Rights 
(1994).


            current protection of property rights fall short

  Judicial protection of property rights against the regulatory state 
has been both inconsistent and ineffective. Physical
 invasions and Government seizures of property have been fairly easy 
for courts to analyze as a species of eminent domain, not so the effect 
of regulations which either diminish the value of the property or 
appropriate a property interest. This key problem to the regulatory 
takings dilemma was recognized by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922). Just how do courts 
determine when regulation amounts to a taking? Holmes' answer, ``if 
regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking,'' 260 U.S. 
at 415, is nothing more than an ipse dixit. In the 73 years since 
Mahon, the Court has eschewed any set formula for determining how far 
is too far, preferring to engage in ad hoc factual inquiries, such as 
the three-part test made famous by Penn Central Transportation Co. v. 
City of New York,  438 U.S. 104 (1978), which balances the economic 
impact of the regulation on property and the character of the 
regulation against specific restrictions on investment-backed 
expectations of the property owner.

  Despite the valiant attempt by the Rehnquist Court to clarify 
regulatory takings analysis in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 
U.S. 825 (1987), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S.Ct. 
2886 (1992), and in its recent decision of Dolan v. City of Tigard, No. 
93-518 (June 24, 1994), takings analysis is basically incoherent and 
confusing and applied by lower courts haphazardly. The incremental, 
fact-specific approach that courts now must employ in the absence of 
adequate statutory language to vindicate property rights under the 
fifth amendment thus has been ineffective and costly. There is, 
accordingly, a need for Congress to clarify the law by providing bright 
line standards and an effective remedy. As Chief Judge Loren A. Smith 
of the Court of Federal Claims, the court responsible for administering 
takings claims against the United States, opined in Bowles v. United 
States, 31 Fed. Cl. 37 (1994):

     [j]udicial decisions are far less sensitive to societal 
     problems than the law and policy made by the political 
     branches of our great constitutional system. At best courts 
     sketch the outlines of individual rights, they cannot 
     [[Page S4504]] hope to fill in the portrait of wise and just 
     social and economic policy.

  This incoherence and confusion over the substance of takings claims 
is matched by the muddle over jurisdiction of property rights claims. 
The Tucker Act, which waives the sovereign immunity of the United 
States by granting the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to 
entertain monetary claims against the United States, actually 
complicates the ability of a property owner to vindicate the right to 
just compensation for a Government action that has caused a taking. The 
law currently forces a property owner to elect between equitable relief 
in the Federal district court and monetary relief in the Court of 
Federal Claims. Further difficulty arises when the law is used by the 
Government to urge dismissal in the district court on the ground that 
the plaintiff should seek
 just compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, and is used to urge 
dismissal in the Court of Federal Claims on the ground that plaintiff 
should first seek equitable relief in the district court. This Tucker 
Act shuffle is aggravated by section 1500 of the Tucker Act, which 
denies the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain a suit 
which is pending in another court and brought by the same plaintiff. 
Section 1500 is so poorly drafted and has brought so many hardships, 
that Justice Stevens, in Keene Corporation v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 
2035, 2048 (1933), has called for its repeal or amendment.

  Title II of the Omnibus Property Rights Act, which I introduced as S. 
135 in January, addresses these problems. In terms of clarifying the 
substance of takings claims, it first clearly defines property 
interests that are subject to the act's takings analysis. In this way a 
floor definition of property is established by which the Federal 
Government may not eviscerate. This title also establishes the elements 
of a takings claim by codifying and clarifying the holdings of the 
Nollan, Lucas, and Dolan cases. For instance, Dolan's rough 
proportionality test is interpreted to apply to all exaction situations 
whereby an owner's otherwise lawful right to use property is exacted as 
a condition for granting a Federal permit. And a distinction is drawn 
between a noncompensable mere diminution of value of property as a 
result of Federal regulation and a compensable partial taking, which is 
defined as any agency action that diminishes the fair market value of 
the affected property by 33 percent or more. The result of drawing 
these bright lines will not end fact-specific litigation, which is 
endemic to all law suits, but it will ameliorate the ever-increasing ad 
hoc and arbitrary nature of takings claims.
  This title also resolves the jurisdictional confusion over takings 
claims. Because property owners should be able fully to recover for a 
taking in one court, the Tucker Act is amended giving both the district 
courts and the Court of Federal Claims concurrent jurisdiction to hear 
all claims relating to property rights. Furthermore, to resolve any 
further jurisdictional ambiguity, section 1500 of the Tucker Act is 
repealed.
  Finally, I want to respond to any suggestion that may arise that this 
act will impede Government's ability to protect the environment or 
promote health and safety through regulation. This legislation does not 
emasculate the Government's ability to prevent individuals or 
businesses from polluting. It is well established that the Constitution 
only protects a right to reasonable use of property. All property 
owners are subject to prior restraints on the use of their property, 
such as nuisance laws which prevents owners from using their property 
in a manner that interferes with others. The Government has always been 
able to prevent harmful or noxious uses of property without being 
obligated to compensate the property owner, as long as the limitations 
on the use of property ``inhere in the title itself.'' In other words, 
the restrictions must be based on ``background principles of State 
property and nuisance law'' already extant. The Omnibus Property Rights 
Act codifies this principle in a nuisance exception to the requirement 
of the Government to pay compensation.
  Nor does the Omnibus Property Rights Act hinder the Government's 
ability to protect public health and safety. The act simply does not 
obstruct the Government from acting to prevent imminent harm to the 
public safety or health or diminish what would be considered a public 
nuisance. Again, this is made clear in the provision of the act that 
exempts nuisance from compensation. What the act does is force the 
Federal Government to pay compensation to those who are singled out to 
pay for regulation that benefits the entire public. In other words, it 
does not prevent regulation, but fulfills the promise of the fifth 
amendment, which the Supreme Court in Armstrong v. United States, 364 
U.S. 40, 49 (1960), opined is:

     to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear 
     public burdens, which in all fairness and justice, should be 
     borne by the public as a whole.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor to 
the Omnibus Private Property Act. Since the beginning of this Congress, 
many bills to protect private property rights have been introduced. 
This bill encompasses those bills in a comprehensive proposal.
  For too long, Washington has disregarded the fifth amendment to our 
Constitution. Laws, regulations, and other actions have allowed the 
rights of private property owners to be abused. Now we have the 
opportunity to provide a consistent Federal policy to encourage, 
support, and promote the private ownership of property and to ensure 
the constitutional and legal rights of private property owners.
  The legislation we are introducing reaffirms our private property 
rights. It requires compensation for a loss of property value when the 
Federal Government takes certain actions. The bill also allows for 
taking disputes to be resolved through settlement or arbitration as an 
alternative to litigation. In addition, the Omnibus Private Property 
Rights Act requires that the Federal agencies responsible for enforcing 
the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act establish procedures 
so private property owners may appeal actions and seek compensation.
  Another important aspect of the bill deals with regulations. This 
bill requires that taking impact analysis be conducted prior to 
promulgating regulations. If these actions result in a loss of 33 
percent of value of the property, compensation is required.
  Montanans believe that protecting private property is of utmost 
importance. And Congress should pass the Omnibus Property Rights Act 
which reinforces the Government's responsibility to protect property 
rights and will help get the Federal Government off the backs of 
Montana's working men and women.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
the Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1995. I thank Senator Hatch and my 
other colleagues who drafted this bill which seeks to stop Government 
from infringing upon its citizens' private property rights.
  Private property rights are fundamental to a free and fair society. 
Last June, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote on behalf of the majority, 
``We see no reason why the takings clause of the fifth amendment, as 
much a part of the Bill of Rights as the first amendment or fourth 
amendment, should be relegated to the status of a poor relation.''
  Over the past several years, we have seen Federal bureaucrats trample 
our fifth amendment right that private property shall not, ``* * * be 
taken for public use without just compensation.'' There are countless 
examples of people forced to spend their time and money fighting their 
own Government for the simple right to use their land. Unfortunately, 
there are even more citizens who never make it to court because they 
cannot afford lawyers to help them fight for their rights. In these 
cases, Government has robbed its citizens of the use of their property, 
without even compensating them. It makes you wonder if the American 
people still control their Government or if our U.S. Government now 
controls us.
  The Omnibus Property Rights Act will restore the basic rights 
accorded to private property owners by our Founding Fathers in the Bill 
of Rights. It will slash through the bureaucracy that has rendered 
those rights meaningless, and it will preserve for future generations 
the essential freedoms and rights upon which America was founded.

[[Page S4505]]

      By Mr. BRADLEY (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 606. A bill to make improvements in pipeline safety, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


              THE PIPELINE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1995

 Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will 
save lives and property: the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act. I am very 
pleased to announce that my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, is joining 
we as a cosponsor of this bill.
  Exactly 1 year ago today, at 11:55 p.m., a fireball lit up the sky in 
Edison, NJ. This eery light was visible for miles around. At ground 
zero, a plume of fire and smoke rose hundreds of feet in the air. 
Within minutes, nearby apartment buildings caught fire. Within hours, 
these buildings were utterly gone. Hundreds of people were rendered 
homeless, their possessions completely destroyed.
  The physical casualties were miraculously low. Yet, damage was done. 
The nightmares persist. The memory and the fear remain.
  The community is rebuilding. The victims are healing and moving on. 
But, issues raised by the blast remain unresolved.
  Edison spurred a national debate on how we manage pipeline safety. My 
comprehensive one-call legislation--introduced in the House by 
Congressman Pallone--came within a hairsbreadth of becoming law last 
Congress. The signals are positive for this year: it's a truly 
bipartisan issue--Senators Specter and Lott have joined Senators 
Lautenberg and Exon and myself as cosponsors--pushed by a powerful 
private sector coalition.
  Since the Edison accident and the introduction of legislation, the 
value of these one-call notification programs have been recognized by 
the State of New Jersey, which now has a first-class program, the 
National Transportation Safety Board and the U.S. Department of 
Transportation. In fact, the need for a better program is a central 
feature of the pipeline safety reauthorization bill being proposed by 
the Secretary of Transportation and the Administration.
  There's more to the story, however. On February 7, 1995, the NTSB 
issued safety recommendations stemming from the Edison disaster. These 
recommendations should be taken very seriously. Edison was a wake-up 
call, where only by a miracle literally hundreds of people escaped 
serious injury. They certainly weren't saved by our public policies.
  My legislation will codify the NTSB recommendations into law. My bill 
will call for stronger materials in our pipelines, better pipeline 
identification procedures, improved leak detection, more effective 
safety inspection requirements and new analysis of siting risks. Every 
one of these is included specifically in the NTSB report.
  Mr. President, this is needed. This is also the least we can do. I 
urge my colleagues to consider this legislation carefully and pass it 
without delay.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a brief description of 
the bill and the bill text be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 606

       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 ``Pipeline Safety Enhancement 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS IN PIPELINE SAFETY.

       (a) Toughness Standards.--Section 60102 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsections:
       ``(l) Toughness Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act of 1995, 
     The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with 
     appropriate officials of the Research and Special Programs 
     Administration of the Department of Transportation (referred 
     to in this section as the `Research and Special Programs 
     Administration'), shall prescribe minimum standards for 
     toughness (as defined and determined by the Secretary of 
     Transportation, in consultation with the appropriate 
     officials of the Research and Special Programs 
     Administration) for new pipes installed in gas pipeline 
     facilities and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities.
       ``(2) High-density population areas.--In establishing the 
     minimum standards for toughness under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall give particular attention 
     to the installation of new pipes in high-density population 
     areas (as such term is used in section 60109).
       ``(3) Pipe defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `pipe' means any pipe or tubing used in the 
     transportation of gas, including pipe-type holders.
       ``(m) Markings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act of 1995, the 
     Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with appropriate 
     officials of the Research and Special Programs 
     Administration, shall prescribe minimum standards that 
     require for the marking of pipelines in class 3 and class 4 
     locations (as such terms are used in subpart L of part 192 of 
     title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the 
     day before the date of enactment of the Pipeline Safety 
     Enhancement Act of 1995) to identify hazardous liquid 
     pipeline facilities and high-pressure pipelines.
       ``(2) High-pressure pipeline defined.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `high-pressure pipeline' means any gas 
     pipeline in which the gas pressure is higher than that 
     provided to the customer.
       ``(n) Testing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of enactment of the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act of 1995, 
     the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with 
     appropriate officials of the Research and Special Programs 
     Administration, shall include in the minimum safety standards 
     prescribed under subsection (a) a requirement that each 
     operator of a gas pipeline facility or hazardous liquid 
     pipeline facilities conduct, on a periodic basis, inspections 
     or tests capable of identifying damage caused by corrosion 
     and other time-dependent damage that may be detrimental to 
     the continued safe operation of the pipeline and that may 
     necessitate remedial action, in order to determine the 
     adequacy of the pipeline facility to operate at established 
     maximum allowable operating pressure.
       ``(2) Maximum allowable operating pressure defined.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `maximum allowable 
     operating pressure' means the maximum pressure at which a 
     pipeline or a segment of a pipeline may be operated under 
     regulations issued under this chapter.''.
       (b) Assessment of Public Education Program Concerning Leak 
     Detection.--Section 60116 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Under 
     regulations''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Assessment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act of 1995, and 
     every two years thereafter, the Secretary of Transportation, 
     in consultation with appropriate officials of the Research 
     and Special Programs Administration of the Department of 
     Transportation, shall conduct an assessment of the programs 
     conducted under this section to determine--
       ``(A) with respect to the programs conducted under this 
     section--
       ``(i) the appropriateness of the information provided; and
       ``(ii) the effectiveness of the educational techniques 
     used; and
       ``(B) in comparison to other similar educational programs, 
     the relative effectiveness of educational techniques used in 
     the programs conducted under this section.
       ``(2) Regulations.--Upon completion of an assessment 
     conducted under paragraph (1), the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the appropriate officials of the Research and Special 
     Programs Administration, shall promulgate such regulations as 
     the Secretary determines to be appropriate to improve the 
     programs conducted under this section.''.
       (c) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall take such 
     action as may be necessary to expedite the completion of the 
     study conducted by the Research and Special Programs 
     Administration of the Department of Transportation relating 
     to methods to reduce public safety risks in the siting 
     pipeline facilities. In addition, the scope of the study 
     referred to in the previous sentence shall be modified to 
     include the consideration of building standards. The 
     Secretary of Transportation shall ensure that the results of 
     the study are widely available to the governments of States 
     and political subdivisions thereof.
                                                                    ____

                    Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act

       This legislation would codify recommendations made by the 
     National Transportation Safety Board. This independent safety 
     board made specific safety recommendations to the federal 
     government on February 7, 1995. At that time, the NTSB 
     released a report on the natural gas pipeline disaster that 
     occurred at Edison, NJ, on March 23, 1994.
       The Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act will include the 
     following five requirements which are identified specifically 
     in the Edison safety report:
       (1) that the Secretary of Transportation develop minimum 
     standards for the strength of new pipe installed for natural 
     gas and hazardous liquid pipelines; the Secretary is to give 
     special consideration to the use of pipe in high-density 
     population areas (such as Edison, NJ);
       [[Page S4506]] (2) that there be established minimum 
     standards for the permanent marking of pipelines in high-
     density areas;
       (3) that minimum safety standards for pipeline operators 
     include a protocol for periodic inspection and appropriate 
     tests for pipeline damage;
       (4) that there be an assessment and improvement of public 
     education programs concerning pipeline leak detection;
       (5) that ongoing studies on the safety risks associated 
     with pipeline siting be expedited and that the analysis also 
     include the effect of building standards on risk.
       This legislation would be complementary to legislation 
     already introduced by Senator Bradley on comprehensive ``one-
     call'' notification and other pipeline safety issues.

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I express my strong support for 
the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act of 1995. This legislation, which 
Senator Bradley and I are introducing today, is based upon 
recommendations made by the National Transportation Safety Board as a 
result of its investigation into the Edison pipeline exposition.
  It was 1 year ago today that residents of the Durham Woods Apartments 
in Edison, NJ, ran for their lives to escape a ball of fire that lit up 
the night sky. The heat of the fire was so intense that it burned the 
clothes off people's backs and singed their bare feet as they escaped 
over the hot pavement.
  On this painful anniversary, people in New Jersey are reflecting on 
the horror of a year ago. All too often, disasters get just 15 minutes 
in the news and are forgotten. But for New Jersey, the Edison explosion 
lives on. We are not prepared to rest until we can guarantee that this 
tragedy will not be repeated.
  Mr. President, today Senator Bradley and I are introducing 
legislation to significantly increase pipeline safety. This is the 
third bill that we have introduced in the last year to protect the 
thousands of Americans who live, work, or go to school in the vicinity 
of a pipeline.
  The Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act would:
  Direct the Department of Transportation to develop toughness 
standards for new pipes installed in gas and hazardous liquid 
pipelines, particularly in urban areas;
  Establish standards for permanent markings that identify the location 
of high-pressure natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines in urban, 
industrial and commercial areas;
  Establish minimum safety standards for pipeline operators, including 
a protocol for periodic inspection and appropriate tests for pipeline 
damage;
  Assess and improve public education programs concerning pipeline leak 
detection; and
  Require that ongoing studies on the safety risks associated with 
pipeline siting be expedited and that the analysis also include the 
effect of building standards on risk.
  Over the last year, we have taken positive steps to increase pipeline 
safety. However, I will not rest in my efforts to improve pipeline 
safety until I can personally vouch for the safety of every American 
who lives or works near a pipeline, and until we can promise the 
children of Edison that there will never again be an explosion like the 
one they endured at Durham Woods.
  Since last March, I have seen and heard the devastation that followed 
this explosion. I have met with families who lost everything but the 
clothes on their back. I have heard from children who continue to wake 
up sweating in the middle of the night--still on the run a year later 
from that fiery ball of smoke.
  I have learned about residents who lost their lives' work, like the 
scientist who was struggling to support his wife, his mother and two 
small children--and then saw his dissertation, his dream of a better 
life for his family, disappear in the tangled plastic of a melted 
computer.
  For New Jersey, the Edison pipeline explosion was an unparalleled 
tragedy. But the truth is that this was no isolated event. There were 
pipeline problems in other places before March 23. And there have been 
pipeline problems since. I want to put these events deep into the 
recesses of history.
  Senator Bradley and I believe that the Pipeline Safety Enhancement 
Act would do just that. If this bill and other bills Senator Bradley 
and I have introduced on this subject had been the law before March 23, 
1994, life at Durham Woods would not have taken such a tragic turn.
  Mr. President, today, we all should reflect on the 1-year anniversary 
of the Edison explosion. I pray for the victims who still suffer from 
the fallout of this disaster. I hope that Congress has learned an 
important lesson. And I pledge to continue to fight for improvements in 
pipeline safety so no other community will ever be doomed to undergo 
the trauma of a pipeline explosion.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Reid):
  S. 607. A bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to clarify the liability of 
certain recycling transactions, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


               the superfund recycling equity act of 1995

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am introducing today, along with my 
distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, the Superfund 
Recycling Equity Act of 1995.
  This bill will allow the private sector to respond more freely to 
increased demands for recycling by removing many of the unintended 
impediments that Superfund has placed on recycling activities.
  As a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have 
come to learn from the many expert witnesses who have testified before 
the committee that Superfund has the unintentional consequence of 
penalizing those who prepare materials for recycling. Federal courts 
have ruled that Superfund imposes ``generator'' liability on persons 
who sell secondary materials that are diverted from the waste stream 
for recycling. These rulings come from an overly broad interpretation 
of the law's provision which imposes liability on those who arrange for 
disposal of waste. Unfortunately, these courts have presumed that any 
transaction of material which is no longer useful in its current form 
is a waste treatment or disposal transaction. This legislation 
clarifies that legitimate recycling transactions are not, and were not 
intended to be, subject to Superfund's liability scheme.
  The legislation I am introducing today will place traditional 
recyclable, or secondary, materials which are used as feedstocks in the 
manufacturing process on closer to equal footing with virgin, or 
primary materials counterparts. Traditional recyclables are paper, 
glass, plastic, metals, textiles, and rubber.
  The sale of virgin material feedstocks--sold for the same or similar 
purpose as the recyclable feedstocks--is not considered to be an 
arrangement for treatment or disposal of hazardous substance. The sale 
of recyclables should be treated the same. If recyclables are not 
similarly treated, and those who prepare recyclables for the market 
face greater liability exposure than their competitors who sell virgin 
materials, a market disadvantage is created to recycling.
  The inequity in current law is impeding recyclers' ability to provide 
the kind of environmentally beneficial recycling activities our society 
demands. The existing liability scheme exposes recyclers to financial 
risks that their competitors, virgin material suppliers, do not face. 
This restricts financing for expansion and makes it more difficult to 
respond to changing market conditions. In addition, many materials 
which can be properly recycled are now not being captured for reuse 
because of Superfund liability exposure.
  Mr. President, I have been supportive of stimulating the
   private sector marketplace for recycled materials--and certainly 
believe that Federal legislation should not stall recycling efforts. 
Americans recognize that increased recycling means more efficient use 
of natural resources, which extends the life of those resources. 
Because recycling utilizes significantly less energy than the use of 
virgin materials, recycling is a key step toward energy efficiency. The 
use of recyclables is also important to achieving the goals of 
pollution prevention and waste minimization.

  Let me now address what this bill provides. The Superfund Recycling 
Equity Act recognizes that the Congress did not intend to apply 
Superfund liability to those who collect and process recyclables for 
sale as raw material feedstocks. The bill removes from liability those 
who collect, process and 
[[Page S4507]] sell secondary paper, glass, plastic, metal, textiles, 
and rubber recyclables.
  It should also be pointed out that this bill clarifies the 
application of liability regarding the sale of the recycler's products. 
The bill does not alter liability for contamination that is created by 
a recycler or owner, or operator liability for a facility. CERCLA's 
existing liability scheme remains in effect where a recycler is an 
owner/operator who contaminates a facility, or sends process waste for 
treatment or disposal which contributes to contamination. Furthermore, 
for the purposes of this bill, a series of tests or criteria are 
established to help determine if a bonafide recycling transaction has 
occurred.
  During the Superfund legislation process in the previous Congress, I 
worked with a number of my colleagues to develop a recycling provision 
that addressed the problems discussed, while providing strong 
environmental protection.
  As a number of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I will 
continue to work with my colleagues as we work on reforming the 
Superfund program. I am introducing this legislation today to make 
clear my intention of clarifying the existing statute by placing 
supplies of recyclables on more equal footing with suppliers of virgin 
material.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 607

       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 ``Superfund Recycling Equity 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to promote the reuse and recycling of scrap material, 
     in furtherance of the goals of waste minimization and natural 
     resource conservation, while protecting human health and the 
     environment;
       (2) to level the playing field between the use of virgin 
     materials and recycled materials; and
       (3) to remove the disincentives and impediments to 
     recycling created by potential liability under the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF LIABILITY UNDER CERCLA FOR RECYCLING 
                   TRANSACTIONS.

       Title I of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 127. RECYCLING TRANSACTIONS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Consuming facility.--The term `consuming facility' 
     means a facility where recyclable material is handled, 
     processed, reclaimed, or otherwise managed by a person other 
     than a person who arranges for the recycling of the 
     recyclable material.
       ``(2) Recyclable material.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     `recyclable material' means scrap paper, scrap plastic, scrap 
     glass, scrap textiles, scrap rubber (other than whole tires), 
     scrap metal, or spent lead-acid, spent nickel-cadmium, or 
     other spent batteries, as well as minor quantities of 
     material incident to or adhering to the scrap or spent 
     material as a result of the normal and customary use of the 
     material prior to the material becoming scrap or spent 
     material.
       ``(B) PCBs.--The term `recyclable material' does not 
     include a material that contains polychlorinated biphenyls in 
     excess of--
       ``(i) 50 parts per million; or
       ``(ii) any standard promulgated under Federal law after the 
     date of enactment of this section.
       ``(3) Scrap metal.--The term `scrap metal' means 1 or more 
     bits or pieces of metal parts (such as a bar, turning, rod, 
     sheet, or wire), or 1 or more metal pieces that may be 
     combined together with bolts or soldering (such as a 
     radiator, scrap automobile, or railroad box car), that, when 
     worn or superfluous, can be recycled, except for--
       ``(A) a material that the Administrator excludes from the 
     definition of scrap metal by regulation; and
       ``(B) a steel shipping container with a capacity of not 
     less than 30 and not more than 3,000 liters, whether intact 
     or not, that has any hazardous substance (but not metal bits 
     or pieces) contained in or adhering to the container.
       ``(b) Limitation on Liability.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a person who 
     arranges for the recycling of recyclable material shall not 
     be liable under paragraph (3) or (4) of section 107(a).
       ``(2) Transactions deemed to be recycling of a recyclable 
     material.--For purposes of this section, a transaction 
     involving a recyclable material is considered to be arranging 
     for recycling of recyclable material if the person arranging 
     for the transaction can demonstrate, by a preponderance of 
     the evidence, that, at the time of the transaction--
       ``(A) the recyclable material met a commercial 
     specification grade;
       ``(B) a market existed for the recyclable material;
       ``(C) a substantial portion of the recyclable material was 
     made available for use as a feedstock for the manufacture of 
     a new saleable product;
       ``(D) the recyclable material could have been a replacement 
     or substitute for a virgin raw material, or the product to be 
     made from the recyclable material could have been a 
     replacement or substitute for a product made, in whole or in 
     part, from a virgin raw material;
       ``(E) in the case of a transaction occurring not later than 
     90 days after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     person exercises reasonable care to determine that the 
     consuming facility was in compliance with any substantive 
     (and not procedural or administrative) provision of Federal, 
     State, or local environmental law or regulation, and any 
     compliance order or decree issued pursuant to the law or 
     regulation, applicable to the handling, processing, 
     reclamation, storage, or other management activity associated 
     with the recyclable material;
       ``(F) in the case of a transaction involving scrap metal--
       ``(i) in the case of a transaction occurring after the 
     effective date of the issuance of a regulation or standard 
     regarding the storage, transport, management, or other 
     activity associated with the recycling of scrap metal that 
     the Administrator promulgates under the Solid Waste Disposal 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) subsequent to the date of 
     enactment of this section, the person acted in compliance 
     with the regulation or standard; and
       ``(ii) the person did not melt the scrap metal prior to the 
     transaction; and
       ``(G) in the case of a transaction involving a battery--
       ``(i) the person did not recover the valuable components of 
     the battery;
       ``(ii) in the case of a transaction involving a lead-acid 
     battery, the person acted in compliance with any applicable 
     Federal environmental regulation or standard regarding the 
     storage, transport, management, or other activity associated 
     with the recycling of a spent lead-acid battery;
       ``(iii) in the case of a transaction involving a nickel-
     cadmium battery--

       ``(I) a Federal environmental regulation or standard is in 
     effect regarding the storage, transport, management, or other 
     activity associated with the recycling of a spent nickel-
     cadmium battery; and
       ``(II) the person acted in compliance with the regulation 
     or standard; and

       ``(iv) with respect to a transaction involving a spent 
     battery other than a lead-acid or nickel-cadmium battery--

       ``(I) a Federal environmental regulation or standard is in 
     effect regarding the storage, transport, management, or other 
     activity associated with the recycling of the spent battery; 
     and
       ``(II) the person acted in compliance with the regulation 
     or standard.

       ``(3) Sweating.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(F)(ii), 
     melting of scrap metal does not include the thermal 
     separation of 2 or more materials due to differences in the 
     melting points of the materials.
       ``(4) Processing of battery by third person.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (2)(G)(i), a person who, by contract, arranges 
     or pays for processing of a battery by an unrelated third 
     person, and receives from the third person materials 
     reclaimed from the battery, shall be considered not to have 
     recovered the valuable components of the battery.
       ``(5) Reasonable care.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(E), 
     reasonable care shall be determined using criteria that 
     include--
       ``(A) the price paid to or received by the person in the 
     recycling transaction;
       ``(B) the ability of the person to detect the nature of the 
     operations of the consuming facility concerning the handling, 
     processing, reclamation, or other management activities 
     associated with the recyclable material; and
       ``(C) the result of any inquiry made to an appropriate 
     Federal, State, or local environmental agency regarding the 
     past and current compliance of the consuming facility with 
     substantive (and not procedural or administrative) provisions 
     of Federal, State, and local environmental laws and 
     regulations, and any compliance order or decree issued 
     pursuant to the laws and regulations, applicable to the 
     handling, processing, reclamation, storage, or other 
     management activity associated with the recyclable material.
       ``(c) Exclusion From Limitation on Liability.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subsection (b) shall not apply if the 
     person arranging for recycling of a recyclable material--
       ``(A) had an objectively reasonable basis to believe at the 
     time of the recycling transaction that--
       ``(i) the recyclable material would not be recycled;
       ``(ii) the recyclable material would be burned as fuel, or 
     for energy recovery or incineration; or
       ``(iii) in the case of a transaction occurring not later 
     than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this section, 
     the consuming facility acting not in compliance with a 
     substantive (and not a procedural or administrative) 
     provision of any Federal, State, or local 
     [[Page S4508]] environmental law or regulation, or a 
     compliance order or decree issued pursuant to the law or 
     regulation, applicable to the handling, processing, 
     reclamation, or other management activity associated with the 
     recyclable material;
       ``(B) added a hazardous substance to the recyclable 
     material for purposes other than processing for recycling; or
       ``(C) failed to exercise reasonable care with respect to 
     the management or handling of the recyclable material.
       ``(2) Reasonable basis for belief.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1)(A), an objectively reasonable basis for belief 
     shall be determined using criteria that include--
       ``(A) the size of any business owned by the person;
       ``(B) the customary industry practices for any business 
     owned by the person;
       ``(C) the price paid to or received by the person in the 
     recycling transaction;
       ``(D) the ability of the person to detect the nature of the 
     operations of the consuming facility concerning the handling, 
     processing, reclamation, or other management activities 
     associated with the recyclable material.
       ``(c) Permit Requirement.--For the purposes of this 
     section, a requirement to obtain a permit applicable to the 
     handling, processing, reclamation, or other management 
     activity associated with a recyclable material shall be 
     considered to be a substantive provision.
       ``(d) Regulations.--The Administrator may issue regulations 
     to carry out this section.
       ``(e) Liability for Attorney Fees for Certain Actions.--Any 
     person who commences an action for contribution against a 
     person who is alleged to be liable under this Act but is 
     found not to be liable as a result of this section shall be 
     liable to the person defending the action for all reasonable 
     costs of defending the action, including all reasonable 
     attorney and expert witness fees.
       ``(f) Effect on Pending or Concluded Actions.--This section 
     shall not affect a judicial or administrative action 
     concluded prior to the date of enactment of this section, or 
     a pending judicial action initiated by the United States 
     prior to the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(g) Effect on Other Liability.--Nothing in this section 
     affects the liability of a person under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     of section 107(a).
       ``(h) Relationship to Liability Under Other Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section affects--
       ``(1) liability under any other Federal, State, or local 
     law, or regulation promulgated pursuant to the law, including 
     any requirement promulgated by the Administrator under the 
     Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.); or
       ``(2) the ability of the Administrator to promulgate a 
     regulation under any other law, including the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 608. A bill to establish the New Bedford Whaling National 
Historical Park in New Bedford, MA, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


           the new bedford whaling national park act of 1995

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Kerry and I are introducing 
a bill to establish a Whaling National Historical Park in New Bedford, 
MA. This legislation is part of a bipartisan effort with Congressmen 
Barney Frank and Peter Blute, who are introducing an identical bill 
today in the House of Representatives.
  Our bill is similar to legislation introduced in 1994. However, we 
have made several changes to minimize the cost of this new park and 
enhance its public/private partnership components, in recognition of 
the current budget pressures on the National Park System. The original 
bill's funding level of $10.4 million for development and an estimated 
$6 million for operations in the first 5 years was based on the 
recommendations of a comprehensive study conducted by the Park Service. 
Our new legislation aims to achieve many of the same goals set forth in 
that study, but to do so at the lower cost of $2 million for 
development and an estimated $2 million for operations in the first 5 
years.
  The Park Service began its special resource study of New Bedford in 
1990. The study, completed in November 1993, strongly endorsed the 
establishment of a national park unit in New Bedford. The Park Service 
noted the important role of the whaling industry in 19th-century 
American history. The study concluded that this theme is not currently 
represented in the National Park System, and New Bedford would be the 
ideal site for a park commemorating that history. As the former whaling 
capital of the world, New Bedford provided the oil that fueled the 
Nation's lamps and kept the wheels of the Industrial Revolution 
turning. So prosperous was the whaling industry there that, by the mid-
19th century, New Bedford had become the wealthiest city, per capita, 
in the world.
  New Bedford's whaling history raises many significant social and 
economic themes that are essential to a true understanding of our 
American heritage. Among these are the spirit of technological 
progress, the courage that motivated daring men and women to risk their 
lives on the seas, and the many cultures that took root here, brought 
by immigrants drawn from every corner of the globe. It was this 
diversity which contributed to New Bedford's position as a center of 
the abolitionist movement in the 19th century and made it a key stop 
for fugitive slaves on the underground railroad. Frederick Douglas 
spent his first 3 years of freedom in New Bedford, working as a caulker 
on the hulls of whaleboats.
  New Bedford is also the port from which Herman Melville set sail 
aboard the whaler Acushnet in 1841. The voyage inspired ``Moby Dick,'' 
one of the greatest of all American novels. The streets that Melville 
and Ishmael wandered can still be seen in New Bedford today, as can the 
famous Seamen's Bethel, where the whalers attended religious services 
before setting off on their voyages.
  Much of New Bedford's old whaling waterfront still exists in the 
city's National Historic Landmark District, and that 20-acre site has 
become a model for historic preservation. Businesses, residents, and 
tourists coexist in an environment of restored buildings, cobblestone 
streets, and brick sidewalks from the whaling era.
  New Bedford also is the site of the Rotch-Jones-Duff House and Garden 
Museum, one of the finest examples of Greek Revival residential 
architecture in the country and the only surviving whaling era mansion 
open to the public complete with its original gardens and grounds.
  New Bedford's historical and cultural assets are not limited to its 
streets and buildings. They also include outstanding collections of 
artworks and archives associated with the whaling era and located at 
the city's public library and the renowned whaling museum. The Museum 
houses a half-size model of the whaling bark Lagoda that can be boarded 
by visitors.
  The city is also home port to the restored, 100-year-old National 
Historic Landmark vessel Ernestina, the oldest Grand Banks schooner in 
existence. The Ernestina has had a distinguished maritime career as a 
fishing vessel, as an Arctic exploration vessel under Capt. Bob 
Bartlett, and as a packet plying the route between the Cape Verde 
Islands and the United States. In her packet role, she was the last 
great sailing ship to bring immigrants to our shores.
  National park designation will be a valuable economic stimulus for 
tourism and associated development for the city. While the proposed 
Federal funding level is modest, establishment of this national park 
will spur extensive private sector preservation efforts.
  The whaling park in New Bedford will help protect a nationally 
significant historic treasure and stimulate the economy of a city in 
need. It is an investment in America's past and in a city's future. I 
urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased once again to join my good 
friend and colleague senator Kennedy in introducing legislation to 
establish a whaling national historical park in New Bedford, MA. Our 
initiative is based upon a special resource study completed by the 
National Park Service in 1993 which found that the New Bedford area 
meets the criteria for inclusion in the National Park System. However, 
this legislation, while similar to a bill we introduced last Congress, 
is a much scaled-back version. Trying to balance the need for fiscal 
restraint with the importance of protecting our National heritage, our 
new bill calls for less than one-fifth of the Federal funding of our 
original initiative and would require significant matching 
contributions from other interested parties.
  The city of New Bedford, tucked by the sea in the southeast corner of 
Massachusetts, has a rich and diverse history. For decades it was the 
center of our Nation's whaling industry. And although the whaling 
industry collapsed by the turn of the last century, New 
[[Page S4509]] Bedford is to this day remembered for its seafaring 
heritage.
  As a national park, the New Bedford National Historic Landmark 
District and surrounding area would enhance the National Park System by 
expanding its maritime history theme to include a focus on our Nation's 
whaling past. Particularly noteworthy are the historic town center, the 
waterfront with the National Historic Landmark Schooner Ernestina, and 
an array of over three dozen historically rehabilitated buildings which 
combine to provide a cultural resource that reflects the era of 
whaling.
  Since 1962, a public/private partnership--initiated by the waterfront 
historic area league of New Bedford in cooperation with the Bedford 
Landing Taxpayers Association, the Old Dartmouth Historical Society, 
private property owners and the city of New Bedford, has already raised 
$6.4 million, rehabilitated 37 buildings and created over 40 new 
businesses and 200 new jobs. That is just the kind of local 
entrepreneurship that we should be supporting. Creating a New Bedford 
Whaling Park will preserve an important piece of seafarer heritage 
while simultaneously permitting the public/private partnership to 
expand and grow.
  I am hopeful that the Senate will look favorably upon this new, 
streamlined initiative and I would encourage my colleagues to support 
this important, historically significant addition to our National Park 
System.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 609. A bill to assure fairness and choice to patients and health 
care providers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


            the health care quality and fairness act of 1995

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, despite the flurry of efforts in 
the 103d Congress, many of us were deeply disappointed that healthcare 
reform legislation failed to be enacted. The American people, however, 
still are concerned about this issue, and feel that reform of our 
healthcare system should be a high priority for this Congress, although 
most feel that small steps, rather than giant leaps are now best. While 
we debate these issues in Congress, however, the number of uninsured 
continues to grow, particularly children, and health care costs, 
although moderating, may only be doing so transiently.
  The private sector has not waited for Congress to act, and has been 
rapidly transforming the healthcare delivery system for those Americans 
who are fortunate enough to have access to, and the ability to pay for 
coverage. The proliferation of managed care systems has been 
extraordinary, although their ability to control healthcare costs in 
the long run, particularly as older, sicker patients join, remains to 
be proven. Health plan standards were included in many of the 
compromise bills that emerged during the 103d Congress. There was wide, 
bipartisan agreement that there should be Federal standards to level 
the playing field in the rapidly changing healthcare delivery 
environment. Such standards would assure fairness for consumers and 
providers, while still encouraging health plans to pursue innovative 
approaches to providing high-quality, cost effective care.
  The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources recently conducted 
a 2-day hearing on healthcare reform. We heard witnesses who eloquently 
described the successes of our Nation's largest employers in 
negotiating with providers and health plans, and holding down the 
growth of health costs. These large businesses have developed demanding 
purchasing and performance standards that they use to select plans and 
develop provider networks. Unfortunately, however, small employers and 
individual purchasers often lack the expertise and resources necessary 
to navigate through the health plan maze. In order to ensure that 
health care of the highest quality is available to all consumers, it is 
essential that all health plans be required to meet minimum standards.
  Discussions of these safeguards got lost in the tussle over larger 
and more contentious issues during the healthcare reform debate last 
year. I believe now more than ever, especially with talk of 
restructuring Medicare and Medicaid being framed along the lines of 
restraining the growth of costs while maintaining choice and quality, 
that provisions to ensure that consumers are adequately protected and 
informed are absolutely imperative.
  With these thoughts in mind, today I am introducing the Health Care 
Quality and Fairness Act of 1995, which is designed to assure fairness 
and choice to patients and health care providers. Its scope would 
include all health plans including those that are self-funded, not just 
HMO's or managed care plans. Its major provisions include:
  Protection of consumer choice by requiring an employer to
   offer a choice of at least three types of health plan--managed care, 
point-of-service, and traditional insurance. Currently, only about half 
of all Americans who get their health insurance through employers are 
offered more than one plan. Evidence suggests that employers are 
increasingly limiting their employees' choice of health plans, while 
this bill would assure adequate choice is provided;

  Establishment of an Office of Consumer Information Counseling and 
Assistance to perform public outreach and provide education and 
assistance regarding consumer rights with regard to health insurance. 
This effort would build on an existing Medigap model that has been 
highly successful in a number of States;
  Development of health plan standards, including utilization review 
activities, credentialing of health professionals, and handling of 
grievances by providers or consumers. These standards would ensure 
fairness in the interactions between health plans, consumers, and 
providers;
  Requirements for health plan solvency standards to be developed to 
protect employees and individual purchasers from being left high and 
dry;
  Provision of information on plan coverage, benefits, loss ratio, 
satisfaction statistics, and quality indicators to assist consumers in 
making wise purchasing decisions; and
  Insurance market reforms including guaranteed issue and renewability, 
prohibitions on preexisting condition exclusions, and risk adjustment. 
Insurance reform, if carefully crafted, would stabilize premiums for 
small employers and individual purchasers and prevent plans from 
excluding those who most need coverage.
  This legislation has broad support among provider groups, including 
the American Medical Association and the Advocates for Practitioner 
Equity Coalition which includes nonphysician provider groups like the 
American Optometric Association, the American Podiatric Medical 
Association, the American Occupational Therapy Association, and 
consumer groups, including Consumers Union and Citizen Action. Together 
these groups hope to form a partnership to work with health plans to 
assure that fair, high-quality care is delivered, utilizing the 
standards enacted in the Health Care Quality and Fairness Act.
  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. 609
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as ``The Health 
     Care Quality and Fairness Act of 1995''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     are as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

                 TITLE I--PROTECTION OF CONSUMER CHOICE

Sec. 101. Protection of consumer choice.
Sec. 102. Enrollment.

  TITLE II--OFFICE FOR CONSUMER INFORMATION, COUNSELING AND ASSISTANCE

Sec. 201. Establishment.

                   TITLE III--UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT

Sec. 301. Definitions.
Sec. 302. Requirement for utilization review program.
Sec. 303. Standards for utilization review.

                    TITLE IV--HEALTH PLAN STANDARDS

Sec. 401. Health plan standards.
Sec. 402. Minimum solvency requirements.
Sec. 403. Information on terms of plan.
Sec. 404. Access.
Sec. 405. Credentialing for health professionals.
Sec. 406. Grievance procedures.
[[Page S4510]] Sec. 407. Confidentiality standards.
Sec. 408. Discrimination.
Sec. 409. Prohibition on selective marketing.

                TITLE V--HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET REFORM

Sec. 501. Guaranteed issue and renewability.
Sec. 502. Nondiscrimination based on health status.
Sec. 503. Adjustments based on age, geography and family size.
Sec. 504. Risk adjustment.
Sec. 505. Lifetime limits.
Sec. 506. Patient's right to self-determination.
Sec. 507. Affect on State law.
Sec. 508. Association plans.

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. Enforcement.
Sec. 602. Effective date.
     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Unless specifically provided otherwise, as used in this 
     Act:
       (1) Carrier.--The term ``carrier'' means a licensed 
     insurance company, a hospital or medical service corporation 
     (including an existing Blue Cross or Blue Shield 
     organization, within the meaning of section 833(c)(2) of 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act), a health maintenance 
     organization, or other entity licensed or certified by the 
     State to provide health insurance or health benefits.
       (2) Covered individual.--The term ``covered individual'' 
     means a member, enrollee, subscriber, covered life, patient 
     or other individual eligible to receive benefits under a 
     health plan.
       (3) Dependent.--The term ``dependent'' means a spouse or 
     child (including an adopted child) of an enrollee in a health 
     plan who is financially dependent upon the enrollee.
       (4) Emergency services.--The term ``emergency services'' 
     means those health care services that are provided to a 
     patient after the sudden onset of a medical condition that 
     manifests itself by symptoms of sufficient severity, 
     including severe pain, and the absence of such immediate 
     medical attention could reasonably be expected, to result 
     in--
       (A) placing the patient's health in serious jeopardy;
       (B) serious impairment to bodily function; or
       (C) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.
       (5) Health plan.--The term ``health plan'' includes any 
     organization that seeks to arrange for, or provide for the 
     financing and coordinated delivery of, health care services 
     directly or through a contracted health professional panel, 
     and shall include health maintenance organizations, preferred 
     provider organizations, single service health maintenance 
     organizations, single service preferred provider 
     organizations, other entities such as physician-hospital or 
     hospital-physician organizations, employee welfare benefit 
     plans (as defined in section 3(1) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(1)), and multiple 
     employer welfare plans or other association plans, as well as 
     carriers.
       (6) Health professional.--The term ``health professional'' 
     means individuals who are licensed, certified, accredited, or 
     otherwise credentialed to provide health care items and 
     services as authorized under State law.
       (7) Managed care plan.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``managed care plan'' means a 
     plan operated by a managed care entity (as defined in 
     subparagraph (B)), that provides for the financing and 
     delivery of health care services to persons enrolled in such 
     plan through--
       (i) arrangements with selected providers to furnish health 
     care services;
       (ii) explicit standards for the selection of participating 
     providers;
       (iii) organizational arrangements for ongoing quality 
     assurance, utilization review programs, and dispute 
     resolution; and
       (iv) financial incentives for persons enrolled in the plan 
     to use the participating providers and procedures provided 
     for by the plan.
       (B) Managed care entity.--The term ``managed care entity'' 
     includes a licensed insurance company, hospital or medical 
     service plan (including physician and physician-hospital 
     networks), health maintenance organization, an employer or 
     employee organization, or a managed care contractor (as 
     defined in subparagraph (C)), that operates a managed care 
     plan.
       (C) Managed care contractor.--The term ``managed care 
     contractor'' means a person that--
       (i) establishes, operates, or maintains a network of 
     participating providers;
       (ii) conducts or arranges for utilization review 
     activities; and
       (iii) contracts with an insurance company, a hospital or 
     medical service plan, an employer, an employee organization, 
     or any other entity providing coverage for health care 
     services to operate a managed care plan.
       (8) Physician.--The term ``physician'' means a doctor of 
     medicine, a doctor of osteopathy, or a doctor of allopathy.
       (9) Provider.--The term ``provider'' means a physician, an 
     organized group of physicians, a facility or any other health 
     care professional licensed or certified by the State, where 
     licensure or certification is required.
       (10) Provider network.--The term ``provider network'' 
     means, with respect to a health plan that restricts access, 
     those providers who have entered into a contract or agreement 
     with the plan under which such providers are obligated to 
     provide items and services under the plan to eligible 
     individuals enrolled in the plan, or have an agreement to 
     provide services on a fee-for-service basis.
       (11) Point-of-service plan.--The term ``point-of-service 
     plan'' means a plan that offers services to enrollees through 
     a provider network and also offers additional services or 
     access to care by network or non-network providers.
       (12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (13) Small group market.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``small group market'' means, 
     with respect to a calendar year, employers (including sole 
     proprietorships, firms, corporations, partnerships, or 
     associations actively engaged in business) that, on at least 
     50 percent of its business days, employ at least one but not 
     more than 50 employees. In determining the number of 
     employees for purposes of this paragraph, entities that are 
     affiliated, or that are eligible to file a combined tax 
     return, shall be considered as a single employer.
       (B) Application of provisions.--Except as specifically 
     provided otherwise, the requirements of this Act that apply 
     to an employer in the small group market shall continue to 
     apply to such employer through the end of the rating period 
     in which the employer has failed to meet the requirements of 
     subparagraph (A).
       (14) Specialized treatment expertise.--The term 
     ``specialized treatment expertise'' means expertise in 
     diagnosing and treating unusual diseases and condition, 
     diagnosing and treating diseases and conditions that are 
     usually difficult to diagnose or treat, and providing other 
     specialized health care.
       (15) Sponsor.--The term ``sponsor'' means a carrier or 
     employer that provides a health plan.
       (16) Traditional insurance plan.--The term ``traditional 
     insurance plan'' includes plans that offer a health benefits 
     package and that pay for medical services on a fee-for-
     service basis using a usual, customary, or reasonable payment 
     methodology or a resource based relative value schedule, 
     usually linked to an annual deductible and/or coinsurance 
     payment on each allowed amount.
       (17) Utilization review.--The term ``utilization review'' 
     means a set of formal techniques designed to monitor and 
     evaluate the clinical necessity, appropriateness and 
     efficiency of health care services, procedures, providers and 
     facilities. Techniques may include ambulatory review, 
     prospective review, second opinion, certification, concurrent 
     review, case management, discharge planning and retrospective 
     review.
                 TITLE I--PROTECTION OF CONSUMER CHOICE

     SEC. 101. PROTECTION OF CONSUMER CHOICE.

       (a) In General.--Each employer, including a self-insured 
     employer, who offers, provides, or makes available to 
     employees a health plan must provide to each such employee a 
     choice of health plans as required under subsection (b).
       (b) Offering of Plans.--Each employer referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall include among its health plan offerings 
     at least one of each of the following types of health plans, 
     where available:
       (1) A managed care plan, including a health maintenance 
     organization or preferred provider organization.
       (2) A point-of-service plan.
       (3) A traditional insurance plan (as defined in section 2).

     SEC. 102. ENROLLMENT.

       Each employer including a self-insured employer, who 
     offers, provides, or makes available a health plan shall 
     establish a process for enrollment in such plan which 
     consists of--
       (1) a general annual open enrollment period of at least 30 
     days; and
       (2) special open enrollment periods for changes in 
     enrollment as required by the Secretary.
 TITLE II--OFFICE FOR CONSUMER INFOR- MATION, COUNSELING AND ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall award a grant to each 
     State for the establishment of an Office for Consumer 
     Information, Counseling and Assistance (hereafter referred to 
     in this section as the ``Office'') in each such State. Each 
     such Office shall perform public outreach and provide 
     education and assistance concerning consumer rights with 
     respect to health insurance as provided for in subsection 
     (d).
       (b) Use of Grant.--
       (1) In general.--A State shall use a grant under this 
     section--
       (A) to administer the Office and carry out the duties 
     described in subsection (d);
       (B) to solicit and award contracts to private, nonprofit 
     organizations applying to the State to administer the Office 
     and carry out the duties described in subsection (d); or
       (C) in the case of a State operating a consumer information 
     counseling and assistance program on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, to expand and improve such program.
       (2) Contracts.--With respect to the contract described in 
     paragraph (1)(B), the contract period shall be not less than 
     2 years and not more than 4 years.
       (c) Staff.--A State shall ensure that the Office has 
     sufficient staff (including volunteers) and local offices 
     throughout the State 
     [[Page S4511]] to carry out its duties under this section and 
     a demonstrated ability to represent and work with a broad 
     spectrum of consumers, including vulnerable and underserved 
     populations.
       (d) Duties.--An Office established under this section 
     shall--
       (1) establish a State-wide toll-free hotline to enable 
     consumers to contact the Office;
       (2) have the ability to provide appropriate assistance 
     under this subsection to individuals with limited English 
     language ability;
       (3) develop outreach programs to provide health insurance 
     information, counseling, and assistance;
       (4) provide outreach and education relating to consumer 
     rights and responsibilities under this Act, including the 
     rights and services available through the Office;
       (5) provide individuals with assistance in enrolling in 
     health plans (including providing plan comparisons) or in 
     obtaining services or reimbursements from health plans;
       (6) provide individuals with assistance in filing 
     applications for appropriate State health plan premium 
     assistance programs;
       (7) provide individuals with information concerning 
     existing grievance procedures and institute systems of 
     referral to appropriate Federal or State departments or 
     agencies for assistance with problems related to insurance 
     coverage (including legal problems);
       (8) ensure that regular and timely access is provided to 
     the services available through the Office;
       (9) implement training programs for staff members 
     (including volunteer staff members) and collect and 
     disseminate timely and accurate health care information to 
     staff members;
       (10) not less than once each year, conduct public hearings 
     to identify and address community health care needs;
       (11) coordinate its activities with the staff of the 
     appropriate departments and agencies of the State government 
     and other appropriate entities within the State; and
       (12) carry out any other activities determined appropriate 
     by the Secretary.
       (e) State Duties.--
       (1) Access to information.--The State shall ensure that, 
     for purposes of carrying out the duties of the Office, the 
     Office has appropriate access to relevant information, 
     subject to the application of procedures to ensure 
     confidentiality of enrollee and proprietary health plan 
     information.
       (2) Reporting and evaluation requirements.--
       (A) Report.--The Office shall annually prepare and submit 
     to the State a report on the nature and patterns of consumer 
     complaints received by the Office during the year for which 
     the report is prepared. Such report shall contain any policy, 
     regulatory, and legislative recommendations for improvements 
     in the activities of the Office together with a record of the 
     activities of the Office.
       (B) Evaluation.--The State shall annually evaluate the 
     quality and effectiveness of the Office in carrying out the 
     activities described in subsection (d).
       (3) Conflicts of interest.--The State shall ensure that no 
     individual involved in selecting the entity with which to 
     enter into a contract under subsection (b)(1)(B), or involved 
     in the operation of the Office, or any delegate of the 
     Office, is subject to a conflict of interest.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.
                   TITLE III--UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title:
       (1) Adverse determination.--The term ``adverse 
     determination'' means a determination that an admission to or 
     continued stay at a hospital or that another health care 
     service that is required has been reviewed and, based upon 
     the information provided, does not meet the clinical 
     requirements for medical necessity, appropriateness, level of 
     care, or effectiveness.
       (2) Ambulatory review.--The term ``ambulatory review'' 
     means utilization review of health care services performed or 
     provided in an outpatient setting.
       (3) Appeals procedure.--The term ``appeals procedure'' 
     means a formal process under which a covered individual (or 
     an individual acting on behalf of a covered individual), 
     attending physician, facility or applicable health care 
     provider may appeal an adverse utilization review decision 
     rendered by the health plan or its designee utilization 
     review organization.
       (4) Case management.--The term ``case management'' means a 
     coordinated set of activities conducted for the individual 
     patient management of serious, complicated, protracted or 
     chronic health conditions that provides cost-effective and 
     benefit-maximizing treatments for extremely resource-
     intensive conditions.
       (5) Clinical review criteria.--The term ``clinical review 
     criteria'' means the recorded (written or otherwise) 
     screening procedures, decision abstracts, clinical protocols 
     and practice guidelines used by the health plan to determine 
     necessity and appropriateness of health care services.
       (6) Concurrent review.--The term ``concurrent review'' 
     means utilization review conducted during a patient's 
     hospital stay or course of treatment.
       (7) Discharge planning.--The term ``discharge planning'' 
     means the formal process for determining, coordinating and 
     managing the care a patient receives following the discharge 
     of the patient from a facility.
       (8) Facility.--The term ``facility'' means an institution 
     or health care setting providing the prescribed health care 
     services under review. Such term includes hospitals and other 
     licensed inpatient facilities, ambulatory surgical or 
     treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, residential 
     treatment centers, diagnostic, laboratory and imaging centers 
     and rehabilitation and other therapeutic health care 
     settings.
       (9) Prospective review.--The term ``prospective review'' 
     means utilization review conducted prior to an admission or a 
     course of treatment.
       (10) Retrospective review.--The term ``retrospective 
     review'' means utilization review conducted after health care 
     services have been provided to a patient. Such term does not 
     include the retrospective review of a claim that is limited 
     to an evaluation of reimbursement levels, veracity of 
     documentation, accuracy of coding and adjudication for 
     payment.
       (11) Second opinion.--The term ``second opinion'' means an 
     opportunity or requirement to obtain a clinical evaluation by 
     a provider other than the provider originally making a 
     recommendation for a proposed health service to assess the 
     clinical necessity and appropriateness of the initial 
     proposed health service.
       (12) Utilization review organization.--The term 
     ``utilization review organization'' means an entity that 
     conducts utilization review.

     SEC. 302. REQUIREMENT FOR UTILIZATION REVIEW PROGRAM.

       A health plan shall have in place a utilization review 
     program that meets the requirements of this title and that is 
     certified by the State.

     SEC. 303. STANDARDS FOR UTILIZATION REVIEW.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish standards 
     for the establishment, operation, and certification and 
     periodic recertification of health plan utilization review 
     programs.
       (b) Alternative Standards.--
       (1) In general.--A State may certify a health plan as 
     meeting the standards established under subsection (a) if the 
     State determines that the health plan has met the utilization 
     standards required for accreditation as applied by a 
     nationally recognized, independent, nonprofit accreditation 
     entity.
       (2) Review by state.--A State that makes a determination 
     under paragraph (1) shall periodically review the standards 
     used by the private accreditation entity to ensure that such 
     standards meet or exceed the standards established by the 
     Secretary under this title.
       (c) Utilization Review Program Requirements.--The standards 
     developed by the Secretary under subsection (a) shall require 
     that utilization review programs comply with the following:
       (1) Documentation.--A health plan shall provide a written 
     description of the utilization review program of the plan, 
     including a description of--
       (A) the delegated and nondelegated activities under the 
     program;
       (B) the policies and procedures used under the program to 
     evaluate medical necessity; and
       (C) the clinical review criteria, information sources, and 
     the process used to review and approve the provision of 
     medical services under the program.
       (2) Prohibition.--With respect to the administration of the 
     utilization review program, a health plan may not employ 
     utilization reviewers or contract with a utilization 
     management organization if the conditions of employment or 
     the contract terms include financial incentives to reduce or 
     limit the medically necessary or appropriate services 
     provided to covered individuals.
       (3) Review and modification.--A health plan shall develop 
     procedures for periodically reviewing and modifying the 
     utilization review of the plan. Such procedures shall provide 
     for the participation of providers in the health plan in the 
     development and review of utilization review policies and 
     procedures.
       (4) Decision protocols.--
       (A) In general.--A utilization review program shall develop 
     and apply recorded (written or otherwise) utilization review 
     decision protocols. Such protocols shall be based on sound 
     medical evidence.
       (B) Protocol criteria.--The clinical review criteria used 
     under the utilization review decision protocols to assess the 
     appropriateness of medical services shall be clearly 
     documented and available to participating health 
     professionals upon request. Such protocols shall include a 
     mechanism for assessing the consistency of the application of 
     the criteria used under the protocols across reviewers, and a 
     mechanism for periodically updating such criteria.
       (5) Review and decisions.--
       (A) Review.--The procedures applied under a utilization 
     review program with respect to the preauthorization and 
     concurrent review of the necessity and appropriateness of 
     medical items, services or procedures, shall require that 
     qualified medical professionals supervise review decisions. 
     With respect to a decision to deny the provision of medical 
     items, services or procedures, a physician shall conduct a 
     subsequent review to determine the medical appropriateness of 
     such a denial. Board certified physicians from the 
     appropriate specialty areas of medicine and surgery shall be 
     utilized in the review process as needed.
     [[Page S4512]]   (B) Decisions.--All utilization review 
     decisions shall be made in a timely manner, as determined 
     appropriate when considering the urgency of the situation.
       (C) Adverse determinations.--With respect to utilization 
     review, an adverse determination or noncertification of an 
     admission, continued stay, or service shall be clearly 
     documented, including the specific clinical or other reason 
     for the adverse determination or noncertification, and be 
     available to the covered individual and the affected provider 
     or facility. A health plan may not deny or limit coverage 
     with respect to a service that the enrollee has already 
     received solely on the basis of lack of prior authorization 
     or second opinion, to the extent that the service would have 
     otherwise been covered by the plan had such prior 
     authorization or a second opinion been obtained.
       (D) Notification of denial.--A health plan shall provide a 
     covered individual with timely notice of an adverse 
     determination or noncertification of an admission, continued 
     stay, or service. Such a notification shall include 
     information concerning the utilization review program appeals 
     procedure.
       (6) Requests for authorization.--A health plan utilization 
     review program shall ensure that requests by covered 
     individuals or physicians for prior authorization of a 
     nonemergency service shall be answered in a timely manner 
     after such request is received. If utilization review 
     personnel are not available in a timely fashion, any medical 
     services provided shall be considered approved.
       (7) New technologies.--A utilization review program shall 
     implement policies and procedures to evaluate the appropriate 
     use of new medical technologies or new applications of 
     established technologies, including medical procedures, 
     drugs, and devices. The program shall ensure that appropriate 
     professionals participate in the development of technology 
     evaluation criteria.
       (8) Special rule.--Where prior authorization for a service 
     or other covered item is obtained under a program under this 
     section, the service shall be considered to be covered unless 
     there was fraud or incorrect information provided at the time 
     such prior authorization was obtained. If a provider supplied 
     the incorrect information that led to the authorization of 
     medically unnecessary care, the provider shall be prohibited 
     from collecting payment directly from the enrollee, and shall 
     reimburse the plan and subscriber for any payments or 
     copayments the provider may have received.
       (d) Health Plan Requirements.--
       (1) Disclosure of information.--
       (A) Prospective covered individuals.--A health plan shall, 
     with respect to any materials distributed to prospective 
     covered individuals, include a summary of the utilization 
     review procedures of the plan.
       (B) Covered individuals.--A health plan shall, with respect 
     to any materials distributed to newly covered individuals, 
     include a clear and comprehensive description of utilization 
     review procedures of the plan and a statement of patient 
     rights and responsibilities with respect to such procedures.
       (C) State officials.--
       (i) In general.--A health plan shall disclose to the State 
     insurance commissioner, or other designated State official, 
     the health plan utilization review program policies, 
     procedures, and reports required by the State for 
     certification.
       (ii) Streamlining of procedures.--To the extent 
     practicable, a State shall implement procedures to streamline 
     the process by which a health plan documents compliance with 
     the requirements of this Act, including procedures to 
     condense the number of documents filed with the State 
     concerning such compliance.
       (2) Toll-free number.--A health plan shall have a 
     membership card which shall have printed on the card the 
     toll-free telephone number that a covered individual should 
     call to receive precertification utilization review 
     decisions.
       (3) Evaluation.--A health plan shall establish mechanisms 
     to evaluate the effects of the utilization review program of 
     the plan through the use of member satisfaction data or 
     through other appropriate means.
       (e) Emergency Care.--
       (1) In general.--A health plan shall provide coverage for 
     emergency services provided to an enrollee without regard to 
     whether the health professional or provider furnishing such 
     services has a contractual (or other arrangement) with the 
     plan.
       (2) Preauthorization.--With respect to emergency services 
     furnished in a hospital emergency department, a health plan 
     shall not require prior authorization for the provision of 
     such services if the enrollee arrived at the emergency 
     department with symptoms that reasonably suggested an 
     emergency medical condition, regardless of whether the 
     hospital was affiliated with the health plan. All procedures 
     performed during the evaluation and treatment of an emergency 
     condition shall be covered under the health plan.
                    TITLE IV--HEALTH PLAN STANDARDS

     SEC. 401. HEALTH PLAN STANDARDS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish standards 
     for the certification and periodic recertification of health 
     plans, including standards which require plans to meet the 
     requirements of this title.
       (b) State Certification.--
       (1) In general.--A State shall provide for the 
     certification of health plans if the certifying authority 
     designated by the State determines that the plan meets the 
     applicable requirements of this Act.
       (2) Requirement.--Effective on January 1, 1997, a health 
     plan sponsor may only offer a health plan in a State if such 
     plan is certified by the State under paragraph (1).
       (c) Construction.--Whenever in this title a requirement or 
     standard is imposed on a health plan, the requirement or 
     standard is deemed to have been imposed on the sponsor of the 
     plan in relation to that plan.

     SEC. 402. MINIMUM SOLVENCY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), each 
     State shall apply minimum solvency requirements to all health 
     plans offered or operating with the State. A health plan 
     shall meet the financial reserve requirements that are 
     established by the State to assure proper payment for health 
     care services provided under the plan.
       (b) Federal Standards.--The Secretary shall establish 
     minimum solvency standards that shall apply to all self-
     insured health plans. Such standards shall at least meet the 
     solvency requirements established by the National Association 
     of Insurance Commissioners.

     SEC. 403. INFORMATION ON TERMS OF PLAN.

       (a) In General.--A health plan shall provide prospective 
     covered individuals with written information concerning the 
     terms and conditions of the health plan to enable such 
     individuals to make informed decisions with respect to a 
     certain system of health care delivery. Such information 
     shall be standardized so that prospective covered individuals 
     may compare the attributes of all such plans offered within 
     the coverage area.
       (b) Understandability.--Information provided under this 
     section, whether written or oral shall easily understandable, 
     truthful, linguistically appropriate and objective with 
     respect to the terms used. Descriptions provided in such 
     information shall be consistent with standards developed for 
     supplemental insurance coverage under title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act.
       (c) Required Information.--Information required under this 
     section shall include information concerning--
       (1) coverage provisions, benefits, and any exclusions by 
     category of service or product;
       (2) plan loss ratios with an explanation that such ratios 
     reflect the percentage of the premiums expended for health 
     services;
       (3) prior authorization or other review requirements 
     including preauthorization review, concurrent review, post-
     service review, post-payment review and procedures that may 
     lead the patient to be denied coverage for, or not be 
     provided, a particular service or product;
       (4) an explanation of how plan design impacts enrollees, 
     including information on the financial responsibility of 
     covered individuals for payment for coinsurance or other out-
     of-plan services;
       (5) covered individual satisfaction statistics, including 
     disenrollment statistics;
       (6) advance directives and organ donation;
       (7) the characteristics and availability of health care 
     professionals and institutions participating in the plan, 
     including descriptions of the financial arrangements or 
     contractual provisions with hospitals, utilization review 
     organizations, physicians, or any other provider of health 
     care services that would affect the services offered, 
     referral or treatment options, or physician's fiduciary 
     responsibility to patients, including financial incentives 
     regarding the provision of medical or other services; and
       (8) quality indicators for the plan and for participating 
     health professionals and providers under the plan, including 
     population-based statistics such as immunization rates and 
     performance measures such as survival after surgery, adjusted 
     for case mix.

     SEC. 404. ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--A health plan shall demonstrate that the 
     plan has a sufficient number, distribution, and variety of 
     qualified health care providers to ensure that all covered 
     health care services will be available and accessible in a 
     timely manner to adults, infants, children, and individuals 
     with disabilities enrolled in the plan.
       (b) Availability of Services.--A health plan shall ensure 
     that services covered under the plan are available in a 
     timely manner that ensures a continuity of care, are 
     accessible within a reasonable proximity to the residences of 
     the enrollees, are available within reasonable hours of 
     operation, and include emergency and urgent care services 
     when medically necessary and available which shall be 
     accessible within the service area 24-hours a day, seven days 
     a week.
       (c) Specialized Treatment.--A health plan shall demonstrate 
     that plan enrollees have access, when medically or clinically 
     indicated in the judgment of the treating health 
     professional, to specialized treatment expertise.
       (d) Chronic Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--Any process established by a health plan 
     to coordinate care and control costs may not impose an undue 
     burden on enrollees with chronic health conditions. The plan 
     shall ensure a continuity of care and shall, when medically 
     or clinically indicated in the judgment of the treating 
     health professional, ensure direct access to relevant 
     specialists for continued care.
       (2) Care coordinator.--In the case of an enrollee who has a 
     severe, complex, or chronic condition, the health plan shall 
     determine, based on the judgment of the treating health 
     professional, whether it is medically or clinically necessary 
     or appropriate to use a care coordinator from an 
     interdisciplinary team or a specialist to ensure continuity 
     of care.
     [[Page S4513]]   (e) Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The requirements of this section may not 
     be waived and shall be met in all areas where the health plan 
     has enrollees, including rural areas. With respect to 
     children, such services shall include pediatric services.
       (2) Out-of-network services.--If a health plan fails to 
     meet the requirements of this section, the plan shall arrange 
     for the provision of out-of-network services to enrollees in 
     a manner that provides enrollees with access to services in 
     accordance with this section.

     SEC. 405. CREDENTIALING FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.

       (a) In General.--A health plan shall credential health 
     professionals furnishing health care services under the plan.
       (b) Credentialing Process.--
       (1) In general.--A health plan shall establish a 
     credentialing process. Such process shall ensure that a 
     health professional is credentialed prior to that 
     professional being listed as a health professional in the 
     health plan's marketing materials, in accordance with 
     recorded (written or otherwise) policies and procedures.
       (2) Responsibility of medical director.--The medical 
     director of the health plan, or another designated health 
     professional, shall have responsibility for the credentialing 
     of health professionals under the plan.
       (3) Uniform applications.--A State shall develop a basic 
     uniform application that shall be used by all health plans in 
     the State for credentialing purposes.
       (4) Credentialing committee.--
       (A) Establishment.--The health plan shall establish a 
     credentialing committee that shall be composed of licensed 
     physicians and other health professionals to review 
     credentialing information and supporting documents.
       (B) Requirement.--The credentialing process shall provide 
     for the review of an application for credentialing by a 
     credentialing committee with appropriate representation of 
     the applicant's medical specialty.
       (5) Standards.--
       (A) In general.--Credentialing decisions under a health 
     plan shall be based on objective standards with input from 
     health professionals credentialed under the plan. Information 
     concerning all application and credentialing policies and 
     procedures shall be made available for review by the health 
     professional involved upon written request.
       (B) Requirement.--The standards referred to in subparagraph 
     (A) shall include determinations as to--
       (i) whether the health professional has a current valid 
     license to practice the particular health profession 
     involved;
       (ii) whether the health professional has clinical 
     privileges in good standing at the hospital designated by the 
     practitioner and the primary admitting facility, as 
     applicable;
       (iii) whether the health professional has a valid DEA or 
     CDS certificate, as applicable;
       (iv) whether the health professional has graduated from 
     medical school and completed a residency, or received Board 
     certification, as applicable;
       (v) the work history of the health professional;
       (vi) whether the health professional has current, adequate 
     malpractice insurance in accordance with the policy of the 
     health plan; and
       (vii) the professional liability claims history of the 
     health professional.
       (C) Right to review information.--A health professional who 
     undergoes the credentialing process shall have the right to 
     review the basis information, including the sources of that 
     information, that was used to meet the designated 
     credentialing criteria.

     SEC. 406. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--A health plan shall adopt a timely and 
     organized system for resolving complaints and formal 
     grievances filed by covered individuals. Such system shall 
     include--
       (1) recorded (written or otherwise) procedures for 
     registering and responding to complaints and grievances in a 
     timely manner;
       (2) documentation concerning the substance of complaints, 
     grievances, and actions taken concerning such complaints and 
     grievances, which shall be in writing, and be available upon 
     request to the Office for Consumer Information, Counseling 
     and Assistance;
       (3) procedures to ensure a resolution of a complaint or 
     grievance;
       (4) the compilation and analysis of complaint and grievance 
     data;
       (5) procedures to expedite the complaint process if the 
     complaint involves a dispute about the coverage of an 
     immediately and urgently needed service; and
       (6) procedures to ensure that if an enrollee orally 
     notifies a health plan about a complaint, the plan (if 
     requested) must send the enrollee a complaint form that 
     includes the telephone numbers and addresses of member 
     services, a description of the plan's grievance procedure, 
     and the telephone number of the Officer for Consumer 
     Information, Counseling and Assistance where enrollees may 
     register complaints.
       (b) Appeal Process.--A health plan shall adopt an appeals 
     process to enable covered individuals to appeal decisions 
     that are adverse to the individuals. Such a process shall 
     include--
       (1) the right to a review by a grievance panel;
       (2) the right to a second review with a different panel, 
     independent from the health plan, or to a review through an 
     impartial arbitration process which shall be described in 
     writing by the plan; and
       (3) an expedited process for review in emergency cases.

     The Secretary shall develop guidelines for the structure and 
     requirements applicable to the independent review panel and 
     impartial arbitration process described in paragraph (2).
       (c) Notification.--With respect to the complaint, 
     grievance, and appeals processes required under this section, 
     a health plan shall, upon the request of a covered 
     individual, provide the individual a written decision 
     concerning a complaint, grievance, or appeal in a timely 
     fashion.
       (d) Non-Impediment to Benefits.--The complaint, grievance, 
     and appeals processes established in accordance with this 
     section may not be used in any fashion to discourage or 
     prevent a covered individual from receiving medically 
     necessary care in a timely manner.
       (e) Due Process with Respect to Credentialing.--
       (1) Receipt of information.--A health professional who is 
     subject to credentialing under section 405 shall, upon 
     written request, receive from the health plan any information 
     obtained by the plan during the credentialing process that, 
     as determined by the credentialing committee, does not meet 
     the credentialing standards of the plan, or that varies 
     substantially from the information provided to the health 
     plan by the health professional.
       (2) Submission of corrections.--A health plan shall have a 
     formal, recorded (written or otherwise) process by which a 
     health professional may submit supplemental information to 
     the credentialing committee if the health professional 
     determines that erroneous or misleading information has been 
     previously submitted. The health professional may request 
     that such information be reconsidered in the evaluation for 
     credentialing purposes.
       (3) No entitlement.--
       (A) In general.--A health professional is not entitled to 
     be selected or retained by a health plan as a participating 
     or contracting provider whether or not such professional 
     meets the credentialing standards established under section 
     405.
       (B) Economic considerations.--If economic considerations, 
     including the health care professional's patterns of 
     expenditure per patient, are part of a selection decision, 
     objective criteria shall be used in examining such 
     considerations and a written description of such criteria 
     shall be provided to applicants, participating health 
     professionals, and enrollees. Any economic profiling of 
     health professionals must be adjusted to recognize case mix, 
     severity of illness, and the age of patients of a health 
     professional's practice that may account for higher or lower 
     than expected costs, to the extent appropriate data in this 
     regard is available to the health plan.
       (4) Termination, reduction or withdrawal.--
       (A) Procedures.--A health plan shall develop and implement 
     procedures for the reporting, to appropriate authorities, of 
     serious quality deficiencies that result in the suspension or 
     termination of a contract with a health professional.
       (B) Review.--A health plan shall develop and implement 
     policies and procedures under which the plan reviews the 
     contract privileges of health professionals who--
       (i) have seriously violated policies and procedures of the 
     health plan;
       (ii) have lost their privilege to practice with a 
     contracting institutional provider; or
       (iii) otherwise pose a threat to the quality of service and 
     care provided to the enrollees of the health plan.

     At a minimum, the policies and procedures implemented under 
     this subparagraph shall meet the requirements of the Health 
     Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986.
       (C) Due process.--The policies and procedures implemented 
     under subparagraph (B) shall include requirements for the 
     timely notification of the affected health professional of 
     the reasons for the reduction, withdrawal, or termination of 
     privileges, and provide the health professional with the 
     right to appeal the determination of reduction, withdrawal, 
     or termination.
       (D) Availability.--A written copy of the policies and 
     procedures implemented under this paragraph shall be made 
     available to a health professional on request prior to the 
     time at which the health professional contracts to provide 
     services under the plan.

     SEC. 407. CONFIDENTIALITY STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--A health plan shall ensure that the 
     confidentiality of specified enrollee patient information and 
     records is protected.
       (b) Policies and Procedures.--A health plan shall have 
     written confidentiality policies and procedures. Such 
     policies and procedures shall, at a minimum--
       (1) maintain the confidentiality of enrollee patient 
     information within the administrative structure of the health 
     plan;
       (2) protect medical record information;
       (3) protect claim information;
       (4) establish requirements for the release of information; 
     and
       (5) inform employees of the confidentiality policies and 
     procedures.
     [[Page S4514]]   (c) Patient Care Providers and Facilities.--
     A health plan shall ensure that providers, offices and 
     facilities responsible for providing covered items or 
     services to plan enrollees have implemented policies and 
     procedures to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent 
     disclosure of confidential patient information to individuals 
     who should not have access to such information.
       (d) Release of Information.--An enrollee in a health plan 
     shall have the opportunity to approve or disapprove the 
     release of identifiable personal patient information by the 
     health plan, except where such release is required under 
     applicable law.

     SEC. 408. DISCRIMINATION.

       (a) Enrollees.--A health plan (network or non-network) may 
     not discriminate or engage (directly or through contractual 
     arrangements) in any activity, including the selection of 
     service area, that has the effect of discriminating against 
     an individual on the basis of race, national origin, gender, 
     language, socio-economic status, age, disability, health 
     status, or anticipated need for health services.
       (b) Providers.--A health plan may not discriminate in the 
     selection of members of the health professional or provider 
     network (and in establishing the terms and conditions for 
     membership in the network) of the plan based on--
       (1) the race, national origin, or disability of the health 
     professional;
       (2) the socio-economic status, disability, health status, 
     or anticipated need for health services of the patients of 
     the health professional or provider; or
       (3) the health professional or provider's lack of 
     affiliation with, or admitting privileges at, a hospital.
       (c) License or Certification.--A health plan may not 
     discriminate in participation, reimbursement, or 
     indemnification against a health professional who is acting 
     within the scope of the license or certification of the 
     professional under applicable State law solely on the basis 
     of the license or certification of the health professional. A 
     health plan may not discriminate in participation, 
     reimbursement, or indemnification against a health provider 
     that is providing services within the scope of services that 
     it is authorized to perform under State law.

     SEC. 409. PROHIBITION ON SELECTIVE MARKETING.

       A health plan may not engage in marketing or other 
     practices intended to discourage or limit the issuance of 
     health plans to individuals on the basis of health condition, 
     geographic area, industry, or other risk factors.
                TITLE V--HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET REFORM

     SEC. 501. GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWABILITY.

       (a) Guaranteed Issue.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, a health plan sponsor offering a health plan to a 
     class of individuals shall offer such plan to any individual 
     within such class who applies for coverage (either directly 
     with the plan or through an employer) under such plan. A 
     health plan may not engage in any practice that has the 
     effect of attracting or limiting enrollees on the basis of 
     personal characteristics, such as occupation or affiliation 
     with any person or entity.
       (b) Renewability.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), a health plan sponsor may not refuse to renew, or may 
     not terminate, coverage under a health plan with respect to 
     any individual or family.
       (2) Grounds for refusal to renew or terminate.--Paragraph 
     (1) shall not apply in the case of--
       (A) nonpayment of premiums;
       (B) fraud on the part of the individual relating to such 
     plan;
       (C) misrepresentation of material facts on the part of the 
     individual relating to an application for coverage or claim 
     for benefits; or
       (D) the occurrence of other acts as prescribed in standards 
     developed by the National Association of Insurance 
     Commissioners.
       (3) Termination of plans.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 
     shall develop standards under which a health plan sponsor may 
     terminate a health plan.

     SEC. 502. NONDISCRIMINATION BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.

       (a) No Limits on Coverage; No Pre Existing Condition 
     Limits.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a health plan 
     may not--
       (1) terminate, restrict, or limit coverage or establish 
     premiums based on the health status, medical condition, 
     claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, 
     anticipated need for health care services, disability, 
     genetic predisposition to medical conditions, or lack of 
     evidence of insurability of an individual;
       (2) terminate, restrict, or limit coverage in any portion 
     of the plan's coverage area;
       (3) except as provided in section 501(b)(2), cancel 
     coverage for any individual until that individual is enrolled 
     in another applicable health plan;
       (4) impose waiting periods before coverage begins; or
       (5) impose a rider that serves to exclude coverage of 
     particular individuals or particular health conditions.
       (b) Treatment of Preexisting Condition Exclusions.--
       (1) In general.--A health plan may impose a limitation or 
     exclusion of benefits relating to treatment of a condition 
     based on the fact that the condition preexisted the effective 
     date of the plan with respect to an individual if--
       (A) the condition was diagnosed or treated during the 3-
     month period ending on the day before the date of enrollment 
     under the plan;
       (B) the limitation or exclusion extends for a period not 
     more than 6 months after the date of enrollment under the 
     plan;
       (C) the limitation or exclusion does not apply to an 
     individual who, as of the date of birth, was covered under 
     the plan; or
       (D) the limitation or exclusion does not relate to 
     pregnancy.
       (2) Continuous coverage.--A health plan shall provide that 
     if an individual under such plan is in a period of continuous 
     coverage with respect to particular services as of the date 
     of enrollment under such plan, any period of exclusion of 
     coverage with respect to a preexisting condition as permitted 
     under paragraph (1) shall be reduced by 1 month for each 
     month in the period of continuous coverage.
       (3) Definitions.--As used in this subsection:
       (A) Period of continuous coverage.--The term ``period of 
     continuous coverage'' means the period beginning on the date 
     an individual is enrolled under a health plan or health care 
     program which provides benefits equivalent to those provided 
     by the plan in which the individual is seeking to enroll with 
     respect to coverage of a preexisting condition and ends on 
     the date the individual is not so enrolled for a continuous 
     period of more than 3 months.
       (B) Preexisting condition.--The term ``preexisting 
     condition'' means, with respect to coverage under a health 
     plan, a condition which was diagnosed, or which was treated, 
     within the 3-month period ending on the day before the first 
     date of such coverage (without regard to any waiting period).

     SEC. 503. ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON AGE, GEOGRAPHY AND FAMILY 
                   SIZE.

       (a) In General.--With respect to health plan premiums, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the NAIC, shall specify 
     uniform age, geography, and family size categories and 
     maximum rating increments for age, geography, and family size 
     adjustment factors that reflect the relative actuarial costs 
     of benefit packages among enrollees.
       (b) Age Factors.--With respect to age adjustment factors 
     established under subsection (a), for individuals who have 
     attained age 18 but not age 65, the highest age adjustment 
     factor may not exceed twice the lowest age adjustment factor.
       (c) Phase-In Period.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     the NAIC, shall establish a schedule for the phase-in of age-
     adjusted community rates so as to minimize disruption of the 
     insurance market.
       (d) Application.--A health plan shall ensure that the 
     factors developed under this section are applied uniformly 
     across each of the small group and individual markets.

     SEC. 504. RISK ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) In General.--A health plan shall participate in a risk 
     adjustment program developed by the State involved under 
     standards established by the Secretary in consultation with 
     the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Such a 
     risk adjustment program shall--
       (1) with respect to a plan offered within the small group 
     market; or
       (2) with respect to a plan offered within the individual 
     market,

     provide for adjustments based on risk within the market in 
     which the plan is marketed.
       (b) Process.--A program developed under subsection (a) 
     shall include a process designed to share the risk associated 
     with, or to equalize, high cost claims, claims of high cost 
     individuals, costs of variations among carriers based on 
     demographic factors associated with the individuals insured 
     which correlate with such cost variations, to protect health 
     plans from the disproportionate adverse risks of offering 
     coverage to all applicants. Risk adjustment mechanisms under 
     the program shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be 
     prospective to minimize the uncertainty associated with the 
     setting of premiums by health plans to maintain consumer 
     choice from among multiple health plans based on rates that 
     reflect the relative medical and administrative efficiencies 
     of health plans.

     SEC. 505. LIFETIME LIMITS.

       A health plan may not impose a lifetime limitation on the 
     amount or provision of benefits under the plan.

     SEC. 506. PATIENT'S RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.

       A health plan shall be considered to be an eligible 
     organization under title XVIII of the Social Security Act for 
     purposes of applying the rules under section 1866(f) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)).

     SEC. 507. AFFECT ON STATE LAW.

       (a) Preemption.--The requirements of this title do not 
     preempt any State law unless such State law directly 
     conflicts with such requirements. The provision of additional 
     consumer protections under State law shall not be considered 
     to directly conflict with such requirements. Such State 
     consumer protection laws which are not preempted under this 
     title include--
       (1) laws that limit the exclusions for preexisting medical 
     conditions to periods that are less than those provided for 
     in section 502;
       (2) laws that limit variations in premium rates beyond the 
     variations permitted under section 503; and
     [[Page S4515]]   (3) laws that would expand the small group 
     market.
       (b) State Reform Measures.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed as prohibiting a State from enacting health care 
     reform measures that exceed the measures established under 
     this title, including reforms that expand access to health 
     care services, control health care costs, and enhance the 
     quality of care.

     SEC. 508. ASSOCIATION PLANS.

       With respect to health plans offered to small employers and 
     individuals through associations or other intermediaries, 
     such plans shall meet the requirements of this title.
                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 601. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--A State shall prohibit the offering or 
     issuance of any health plan in such State if such plan does 
     not--
       (1) have in place a utilization review program that is 
     certified by the State as meeting the requirements of title 
     III;
       (2) comply with the standards developed under title IV;
       (3) have in place a credentialing program that meets the 
     requirements of section 405;
       (4) comply with the requirements of title V; and
       (5) meet any other requirements determined appropriate by 
     the Secretary.
       (b) Self-Insured Plans.--The Secretary of Labor shall 
     develop health plan standards, consistent with this Act, that 
     are applicable to self-insured plans. The Secretary of Labor 
     may take corrective action to terminate or disqualify a self-
     insured plan that does not meet the standards developed under 
     this subsection.

     SEC. 602. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, this Act shall take effect on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Standards.--The standards and programs required under 
     this Act shall apply to health plans beginning on January 1, 
     1997.
       (c) Office for Consumer Information, Counseling and 
     Assistance.--A State shall have in place the Office required 
     under section 201 on January 1, 1997. The Secretary may award 
     grants for the establishment of such Offices beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Other Requirements.--The requirements of titles I and V 
     shall apply to health plans beginning on January 1, 
     1997.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LOTT:
  S. 610. A bill to provide for an interpretive center at the Civil War 
Battlefield of Corinth, Mississippi, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                  corinth mississippi battlefield act

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
relevant to historic preservation. This legislation proposes to 
establish an interpretive center at the Siege and Battle of Corinth 
sites in Corinth, MS. The battlefield of Corinth is a significant part 
of our Nation's history. Corinth was the scene of a monumental battle 
during the War between the States.
  I would like my colleagues to know, that on two occasions during the 
103d Congress, legislation for this proposed interpretive center was 
favorably reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. In addition, legislation for this proposed interpretive 
center was passed twice in the 103d Congress, by the full Senate. This 
legislation needs to come to closure. It needs to be passed by both 
Chambers of Congress and signed into law. It is long overdue.
  The Siege and Battle of Corinth sites are the only sites in my home 
State of Mississippi, which have been included on a Department of the 
Interior's American Battlefield Protection Program. Also, the sites are 
two of only twenty-five nationwide placed on a list of Priority Civil 
War Battlefields for preservation by former Secretary of the Interior, 
Manuel Lujan.
  The Battle of Corinth, the largest to take place in Mississippi, and 
the Siege of Corinth, both rank, in terms of aggregate numbers of 
troops involved, among the largest in the history of the Western 
Hemisphere.
  Of all the major Civil War crusades, the Battle of Corinth and the 
Corinth Siege are indisputably the least known and definitely the least 
recognized. The site area has already received National Historic 
Landmark designation. It is time to go one step further to ensure that 
this important chapter of American history is preserved.
  It is most appropriate that we safeguard our national heritage and 
protect this significant battlefield upon which our ancestors lost life 
and limb in pursuit of their most fundamental ideals. I encourage my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the 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. 610

       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 ``Corinth, Mississippi, 
     Battlefield Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the sites located in the vicinity of Corinth, 
     Mississippi, that were designated as a National Historic 
     Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior in 1991 represent 
     nationally significant events in the Siege and Battle of 
     Corinth during the Civil War; and
       (2) the Landmark sites should be preserved and interpreted 
     for the benefit, inspiration, and education of the people of 
     the United States.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide for a 
     center for the interpretation of the Siege and Battle of 
     Corinth and other Civil War actions in the region and to 
     enhance public understanding of the significance of the 
     Corinth Campaign in the Civil War relative to the Western 
     theater of operations, in cooperation with State or local 
     governmental entities and private organizations and 
     individuals.

     SEC. 3. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT CORINTH, MISSISSIPPI.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to 
     in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall acquire by donation, 
     purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, 
     such land and interests in land in the vicinity of the 
     Corinth Battlefield, in the State of Mississippi, as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary for the construction of 
     an interpretive center to commemorate and interpret the 1862 
     Civil War Siege and Battle of Corinth.
       (b) Publicly Owned Land.--Land and interests in land owned 
     by the State of Mississippi or a political sub-division of 
     the State of Mississippi may be acquired only by donation.

     SEC. 4. INTERPRETIVE CENTER AND MARKING.

       (a) Interpretive Center.--
       (1) construction of center.--The Secretary shall construct, 
     operate, and maintain on the property acquired under section 
     3 a center for the interpretation of the Siege and Battle of 
     Corinth and associated historical events for the benefit of 
     the public.
       (2) description.--The center shall contain approximately 
     5,300 square feet, and include interpretive exhibits, an 
     auditorium, a parking area, and other features appropriate to 
     public appreciation and understanding of the site.
       (b) Marking.--The Secretary may mark sites associated with 
     the Siege and Battle of Corinth National Historic Landmark, 
     as designated on May 6, 12991, if the sites are determined by 
     the Secretary to be protected by State or local governmental 
     agencies.
       (c) Administration.--The land and interests in land 
     acquired, and the facilities constructed and maintained 
     pursuant to this Act, shall be administered by the Secretary 
     as a part of Shiloh National Military Park, subject to the 
     appropriate laws (including regulations) applicable to the 
     park, the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park 
     Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916 
     (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and the Act entitled ``an Act to 
     provide for the preservation of historic American sites, 
     buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance 
     and for other purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 
     461 et seq.).

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this Act.
       (b) Construction.--Of the amounts made available to carry 
     out this Act, not more than $6,000,000 may be used to carry 
     out section 4(a).
     

                          ____________________