[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 59 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4924-S4931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
        Faircloth, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
        Murkowski, and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 647. A bill to amend section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland 
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 to require phasing-in of 
certain amendments of or revisions to land and resource management 
plans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                 timber resource management legislation

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is time to require the U.S. Forest 
Service to act in a responsible manner when amending it's forest 
management plans and prior to revising its land and resource management 
plans.
  It is unfortunate that it is necessary to legislate this requirement, 
but past performance such as red cockaded woodpecker in the South and 
the spotted owl in the Northwest has made this necessary.
  Today is a special day. Six years ago is when the U.S. Forest Service 
unilaterally implemented arbitrary changes to forest management plans 
in the southern region and ignored one of its missions by reducing 
timber harvesting. And for 6 years elected officials have worked to 
reestablish responsible management.
  I am reintroducing my resolution which was adopted in the last 
Congress. However, this time my legislation will formally amend the 
National Forest Management Act of 1976.
  In 10 words or less my bill will: ``require the Forest Service to 
phase-in forest management plan changes.'' That is all.
  This legislation will not prevent the Forest Service, or any other 
Federal agency, from taking actions to protect endangered species.
  This legislation will not change one environmental statute.
  This legislation will not gut any environmental policies.
  This legislation will not jeopardize any efforts to protect 
endangered species.
  In fact, I would argue it will cause a greater public acceptance, 
awareness, and respect for environmental policies.
  This legislation merely dictates common sense to ensure a balanced 
and economically responsible plan is established.
  Let me be very clear, if my colleagues have a national forest in 
their State, then they have a potential problem.
  Previous forest management policy changes have failed to anticipate 
societal consequences on communities and families. Severe economic 
devastation occurred.
  I am not talking about hypothetical situations. Talk to the people in 
timber communities in Oregon, Washington, and Liberty County, FL. This 
is real and this is not smart.
  In the last Congress, I saw a number of legislative provisions 
adopted to help communities already destroyed by changes in how forests 
are managed. These legislative solutions were expensive and necessary. 
It is an unfortunate thing that they were required, but let members not 
perpetuate this reactive legislative mode.
  This legislative goal is to avoid having to enact expensive remedies 
after the fact. Congress needs to get in front of the problems caused 
by the Forest Service.
  The legislation I am introducing here today has a goal of avoiding 
having to enact expensive remedies after the fact. Congress needs to 
get in front of the problems caused by the Forest Service.
  This legislation involves an uncomplicated inexpensive four criteria 
phase-in process. In fact, it was examined by the Department of 
Agriculture when it was a resolution last year. All of its concerns 
were incorporated in the language that was accepted in the last day of 
the session.
  This legislation is straightforward.
  This legislation ensures that common sense and economic issues are 
factored into policies which change forest management plans.
  This legislation will preclude devastating economic impacts from 
public policies by suddenly reducing annual timber harvests. This 
produces significant job losses and financial ruin. It damages schools. 
In small communities it has unbelievable consequences quite often when 
it is just put into effect without proper consideration.
  [[Page S4925]] It makes sense to create a cost effective and smooth 
glidepath for timber-dependent communities as forest management plans 
are changed. It makes double sense to do this upfront, not after 
families and communities have been disrupted, devastated, and damaged 
in many ways.
  The bill will restore the essential balance which the Forest Service 
must maintain. The Forest Service must not emphasize a single mission 
at the expense of other resources.
  The bill will not challenge or prohibit the policies which protect 
our public forests. Rather it recognizes and explicitly acknowledges 
that our national forests have a multiple use mission which cannot be 
ignored. I think we have been slipping away from that in recent years.
  The legislative approach in a word is ``cash-flow.'' It means that 
the forest to be set aside will provide for just the habitat of the 
existing colony of the endangered species.
  We have had a recent proposal that 100,000 acres in the district of a 
national forest be set aside for a colony of red cockaded woodpeckers. 
I thought a colony was maybe 1,000 birds or something for 100,000 
acres. It was five--five birds. Common sense is what we are asking for 
here in our forest management policy.
  The set-aside would then increase, based on the growth of the 
population of the protected species. This means that the original set-
aside will not be based on the size of the final colony, a goal which 
may not be reached for generations.
  However, the Forest Service, under current policies, will immediately 
set aside the full habitat area--100,000 acres perhaps--for foraging, 
even though the species population will not require this area for well 
into the next century, maybe never. This is neither environmentally nor 
economically sound.
  The Forest Service approach is an arrogant abuse of public assets 
entrusted to them. I believe current Forest Service practices are 
counterproductive to public acceptance of environmental policies.
  I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this legislation. I will 
be looking for a way to move it. We had broad bipartisan support last 
year when it was just a resolution. I hope that we can find a bill that 
we can attach it to. If not, I will be looking for a vehicle to offer 
it as an amendment.
  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. 647

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

     SECTION 1. PHASING-IN OF AMENDMENTS OF AND REVISIONS TO LAND 
                   AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland 
     Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Phasing-in of Changes to Land and Resource Management 
     Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--When the Secretary amends or revises a 
     land or resource management plan with the purpose of 
     increasing the population of a species in a unit of the 
     National Forest System or in any area within a unit, the 
     Secretary shall, to the greatest extent practicable and 
     except when there is an imminent risk to public health, phase 
     in the amendment or revision over an appropriate period of 
     time determined on the basis of the considerations described 
     in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Considerations.--The considerations referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are--
       ``(A) the social and economic consequences to local 
     communities of any new policy contained in an amendment or 
     revision;
       ``(B) the length of time needed to achieve the population 
     increase that is the objective of the amendment or revision;
       ``(C) the cost of implementation of the amendment or 
     revision; and
       ``(D) the financial resources available for implementation 
     of the amendment or revision.''.
       (b) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall apply to any amendment of or revision to 
     a land or resource management plan described in the amendment 
     that is proposed on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act or that has been proposed but not finally adopted prior 
     to the date of enactment.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. 
        Faircloth):
  S. 648. A bill to clarify treatment of certain claims and defenses 
against an insured depository institution under receivership by the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                      the d'oench duhme reform act

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the D'Oench Duhme 
Reform Act. I think it is safe to say that very few Members of this 
body have ever heard of the D'Oench Duhme doctrine, or understand why 
the Senate should spend its time reforming this arcane area of Federal 
banking law. But I submit that the problems that have arisen with 
respect to D'Oench Duhme are symptomatic of the more general problem 
that we see today of government acting without regard to the impact of 
its actions on the citizenry. Governmental arrogance of this sort 
corrodes public confidence in its political institutions and hinders 
the ability of government to act in the public interest. So the bill I 
introduce today has two purposes: It aims to fix a legal doctrine that 
has victimized hundreds of innocent people. But it also is designed to 
help restore confidence in government in general by reforming a law 
that is fundamentally unfair.
  I am very pleased to announce that Senators D'Amato, Bennett, and 
Faircloth are joining me as original cosponsors of the D'Oench Duhme 
Reform Act. I look forward to working with them as the bill is 
considered in the Banking Committee.
  The D'Oench Duhme doctrine is based on a 1942 Supreme Court case and 
a Federal statute enacted in 1950. The original purpose of the doctrine 
was to protect the interests of Federal bank regulatory agencies by 
making secret side agreements that do not appear in the records of an 
insured bank unenforceable when a bank fails and banking agency is 
appointed receiver.
  Over the years, however, this salutary purpose has been perverted 
into a national policy allowing the FDIC and RTC to slam the courthouse 
door in the face of litigants asserting claims and defenses that have 
nothing to do with secret side agreements. In many cases, the claimants 
have been victims of fraud by bank officials. Nonetheless, if the 
litigants' claims or defenses were based in any way on oral, unrecorded 
representations, the FDIC and RTC have successfully used D'Oench Duhme 
to lower the boom and get the claims dismissed. Individuals are abused 
twice--once by the bank and then again by the Government. The sad fact 
is that these individuals often think that they have been treated worse 
by the FDIC or RTC than they were by the bank that defrauded them.
  In January, the Subcommittee on the Oversight of Government 
Management, which I chair, held a hearing on the FDIC and RTC's 
misapplication of this powerful legal doctrine. The subcommittee heard 
testimony from individuals who have been victimized by the FDIC and 
RTC's use of D'Oench Duhme, an attorney who has represented dozens of 
clients against these agencies, and a panel of legal scholars. All of 
these witnesses documented that the Federal courts, at the urging of 
the FDIC and RTC, have expanded the doctrine in a way that has led to 
fundamentally unfair, and unjustifiable, results.
  I was especially struck by the testimony a professor who had 
represented the FDIC in a case where an elderly couple had obviously 
been victimized by officers of a savings and loan. In fact, the 
officers of the S&L were eventually convicted on 30 counts of bank 
fraud. Nonetheless, the professor succeeded in getting the elderly 
couple's civil case against the FDIC dismissed pursuant to the D'Oench
 Duhme doctrine. The patent unfairness of this result led the professor 
to write a law review article criticizing the unjustified expansion of 
the D'Oench doctrine.

  I also want to remind the Senate of an extraordinary case from Boston 
involving Rhetta and John Sweeney that I brought to the Senate's 
attention last summer. After a lengthy trial in State court, in which a 
jury decided the Sweeney's were liable on a mortgage, the trial court 
in a separate decision ruled that they had been defrauded by ComFed 
bank and won a $3 million verdict. But when ComFed failed and the RTC 
took over as receiver, the case 
[[Page S4926]] was removed to Federal court days before the court's 
decision was written, and then dismissed based under D'Oench Duhme. Now 
the Sweeneys are now facing the loss of their family home. For the 
Sweeneys, D'Oench Duhme has meant just that--doom.
  These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. D'Oench Duhme has 
been invoked by the FDIC to bar claims in approximately 5,145 cases 
since 1989. Countless other claimants probably have not even bothered 
to file claims based on their knowledge of the sweeping power of the 
D'Oench doctrine. These claimants may not have valid claims, but at 
least they should have the chance to have their cases heard on the 
merits.
  The current law is unfair and arbitrary. Bank customers are permitted 
to assert claims and defenses based on oral representations against 
solvent banks, but a different law--D'Oench Duhme--applies once a bank 
becomes insolvent.
  The FDIC and RTC have arrogated to themselves power that has not been 
granted to them by Congress. They have done so based on the belief that 
Congress wants them to resolve failed institutions as inexpensively as 
possible. But Congress did not authorize the FDIC and RTC to trample 
over individual rights for the purpose of reducing the cost of bank and 
thrift failures. The whole purpose of the bank insurance system has 
been secure public confidence in the banking system and spread the cost 
of bank failures to the public as a whole. D'Oench Duhme undermines 
both purposes. It degrades public confidence in the banking system by 
permeating the resolution process with fundamental unfairness. It also 
places a disproportionate share of the burden of bank failure on 
individuals who have done nothing wrong but to have had the misfortune 
of choosing to do business with a bank that eventually failed.
  The legislation I am introducing today will correct this inequity. 
Its purpose is to restore D'Oench Duhme to its original, narrow 
purpose. Consequently, the bill continues to bar claims and defenses 
based on secret side agreements entered into by bank insiders. But the 
bill provides relief victims of bank fraud by opening the courthouse 
doors and allowing them to have their day in court.
  Reform of the D'Oench Duhme doctrine is necessary to restore 
fundamental fairness to our banking law. Mr. President, I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section 
analysis be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows.
                      Section-by-Section Analysis


                         section 1--short title

                    section 2--findings and purposes

       This section explains that under current law, federal 
     banking agencies can use two separate lines of authority to 
     bar claims brought against them, a federal common law 
     doctrine developed pursuant to the Supreme Court case D'Oench 
     Duhme & Co. v. FDIC (1942), and a federal statute, section 
     13(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (``FDIA''). This 
     section represents a congressional finding that the use of 
     these authorities by federal banking agencies have led to 
     fundamentally unfair results because individuals with 
     potentially valid claims and defenses against depository 
     institutions have been barred from bringing such claims when 
     the institutions fail and are taken over by federal banking 
     agencies.
       This section also states that the purposes of the bill are 
     to unify the two doctrines so that all cases are handled 
     according to the federal statute and modify the statute so 
     that certain intentional tort and other claims and defenses 
     may be adjudicated on the merits.


                        section 3--clarification

       This section amends section 13(e) of the FDIA as follows:
       Section (e)(1) provides that agreements relating to assets 
     acquired by federal banking agencies during a receivership, 
     conservatorship, or by purchase and assumption, are not 
     enforceable against the agency unless they are in writing and 
     were executed in the normal course of business. This section 
     changes current laws by streamlining the recordation 
     requirements that must be met for an agreement to be 
     enforceable against the federal banking agencies.
       Section (e)(2) clarifies that certain claims and defenses 
     may be raised against the federal banking agencies, despite 
     the fact that unwritten agreements are made unenforceable 
     under section (e)(1). These claims and defenses include 
     claims that do not relate to an asset acquired by the 
     Corporation, claims that relate to transactions that would 
     not normally be recorded in the official records of a 
     depository institution, and claims commenced before the 
     appointment of a receiver or conservator. In addition, 
     intentional tort claims and claims based on state or federal 
     statutory law may be filed against the federal banking 
     agencies after their appointment as receiver or conservator 
     so long as the parties asserting the claims did not 
     participate in a scheme to defraud bank officials or federal 
     bank examiners.
       Section (e)(3) overrules a number of federal cases which 
     hold that the federal banking agencies should be treated as 
     if they were ``holders in due course'' and therefore 
     immunized from certain categories of claims and defenses. 
     This section clarifies that a federal banking agency may only 
     be considered a ``holder in due course'' if it meets all the 
     requirements for such status under the applicable state law.
       Section (e)(4) provides that agreements for the sale or 
     purchase of goods and services are enforceable against the 
     federal banking agencies.


                           section 4--repeal

       This section repeals section 11(d)(9) of the FDIA because 
     it would be rendered redundant by other sections of the bill.


                    section 5--conforming amendments

                        section 6--applicability

       This section provides that the bill will apply 
     retroactively to all claims and litigation in progress on or 
     after October 19, 1993.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
legislation sponsored by my esteemed colleague from Maine, Senator 
Cohen, to reform the legal doctrine known as D'Oench, Duhme. This 
doctrine has been expanded by banking agencies and courts far beyond it 
original intent. D'Oench, Duhme robs citizens of legal defenses after 
they have been defrauded by their lending institutions, and those 
institutions have, in turn, been taken over by the FDIC and RTC.
  In 1942, the Supreme Court decided D'Oench, Duhme & Co. versus FDIC. 
D'Oench, Duhme & Co.--``D'Oench''--executed unconditional promissory 
notes to the Bellville Bank & Trust Co. O'Oench entered into a secret 
agreement with the bank that the notes would not be called for payment. 
In 1938, the bank failed and the FDIC acquired the notes. The FDIC 
demanded payment and learned of the secret agreement. The Court held 
that the notes were enforceable and dismissed the agreement between 
D'Oench and the bank.
  In 1950, Congress attempted to codify the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine in 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [FDIA]. The statute set forth 
requirements for agreements which would defeat the interest of the FDIC 
in an asset of an acquired institution. Such agreements are 
unenforceable unless they are in writing, have been formally recorded 
in bank records, and have been approved by the bank's board of 
directors.
  The statute expanded the D'Oench decision by allowing the FDIC to use 
the doctrine against borrowers who did not commit fraud or enter into a 
secret agreement. However, the statute limited the doctrine by applying 
it only to the FDIC's interest in an acquired asset.
  The D'Oench, Duhme doctrine was originally adopted to protect 
taxpayers from secret agreements between banks and borrowers. Narrowly 
construed, D'Oench, Duhme allows the FDIC and RTC to collect on an 
institution's loans and save taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, the 
doctrine has been distorted into a weapon against innocent fraud 
victims.
  Under the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine, courts have routinely ignored the 
asset requirement for consideration. Courts have also regularly applied 
the doctrine to innocent borrowers who did not commit fraud or enter 
into secret agreements. Some courts have granted the FDIC and RTC the 
status of holder in due course. A party who gains this status takes an 
instrument free from virtually any defenses. Therefore, a holder in due 
course is immune to a defense of fraud in the inducement, as well as 
any of the other personal defenses. It makes no sense to punish fraud 
victims for the misconduct of their lending institution, but that is 
exactly what the doctrine does.
  The Federal banking agencies have zealously applied the D'Oench, 
Duhme doctrine. Cleaning services and other private vendors have not 
been paid because the agencies have used the doctrine to avoid making 
payments to them. Innocent small businesses should not be left bankrupt 
because the institution which hired them was taken over by the FDIC and 
RTC.
  [[Page S4927]] The D'Oench, Duhme Reform Act would amend the FDIA to 
ensure that fraud victims can assert valid legal defenses. Claims 
commenced before the appointment of an agency as receiver would not be 
cut short by D'Oench, Duhme. Fraud claims could be asserted after the 
appointment of an agency only if the party asserting the claim did not 
participate in any part of the fraud.
  Under this bill, the Federal banking agencies could not gain the 
status of a holder is due course unless they meet the requirements for 
such status under the applicable state law. Agreements made by a 
lending institution for the purchase of goods and services would be 
enforceable against the FDIC and RTC.
  The D'Oench, Duhme Reform Act would not automatically grant relief to 
people who claim they were defrauded. Secret agreements would remain 
unenforceable. This bill would simply give fraud victims their day in 
court.
  Mr. President, innocent people are losing their homes and businesses. 
Hardworking, honest people are defrauded, and then they are victimized 
again by the banking agencies. The FDIC and RTC are railroading these 
people into foreclosure. This practice is grossly unfair and must be 
stopped. Mr. President, the D'Oench, Duhme Reform Act will do just 
that.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMON (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Mack, Ms. Moseley-
        Braun, Mr. Warner, Mr. Pell, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. 
        Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Graham, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
        Akaka, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 649. A bill to authorize the establishment of the National African 
American Museum within the Smithsonian Institution, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


                 the national african american museum act

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I reintroduced a bill that would authorize 
the establishment of an African-American Museum within the Smithsonian 
Institution. My colleague, Congressman John Lewis, offered the 
companion measure in the House on February 1, 1995.
  The purpose of this legislation is to inspire and educate our Nation 
and the world about the cultural legacy of African-Americans and the 
contributions made by African-Americans.
  Throughout American history, two racial groups--African-Americans and 
native Americans--have been consistently mistreated and 
underrepresented. To help make up for this mistreatment, a memorial to 
the native American experience has already been authorized. This 
legislation would commemorate the African-American community and 
experience.
  There are many wonderful private museums that are dedicated to the 
preservation and presentation of the African-American art, culture and 
history. These museums contribute greatly to their communities, and 
should continue. On a different scale, however, there should be a 
national African-American Museum. We need an institution that can serve 
as a national and international center.
  A national museum dedicated to education and research would provide a 
broader and better understanding of the contributions made by African-
Americans. The inadequate presentation and preservation of African-
American life, art, history and culture undermines the ability of 
Americans to understand themselves and their past.
  With a better understanding of our collective past, we will be a 
stronger Nation. There are many issues abroad and at home that clamor 
for our immediate attention. To face these issues, we need a 
comprehensive understanding of our history.
  Of the 30 million visitors to the Smithsonian every year, many are 
from other countries. After visiting the African-American museum, these 
travelers will have a more complete understanding of our Nation.
  Mr. President, I recognize that these are times of fiscal constraint. 
This legislation does not require any additional appropriation.
  Currently, one corner of the Smithsonian's Arts and Industries 
Building has been set aside for the African-American Museum project. 
Claudine Brown, the project's current director, and her staff have 
worked hard on this temporary exhibit. Ms. Brown will soon be leaving 
the project to return to New York. Her contribution has helped to lay 
the foundation upon which we can now build.
  I was disappointed last Congress when this legislation did not pass 
the Senate prior to adjournment last Congress. That unfortunate 
outcome, however, makes our renewed initiative all the more pressing. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in support of the National African 
American Museum 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. 649

       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 ``National African American 
     Museum Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the presentation and preservation of African American 
     life, art, history, and culture within the National Park 
     System and other Federal entities are inadequate;
       (2) the inadequate presentation and preservation of African 
     American life, art, history, and culture seriously restrict 
     the ability of the people of the United States, particularly 
     African Americans, to understand themselves and their past;
       (3) African American life, art, history, and culture 
     include the varied experiences of Africans in slavery and 
     freedom and the continued struggles for full recognition of 
     citizenship and treatment with human dignity;
       (4) in enacting Public Law 99-511, the Congress encouraged 
     support for the establishment of a commemorative structure 
     within the National Park System, or on other Federal lands, 
     dedicated to the promotion of understanding, knowledge, 
     opportunity, and equality for all people;
       (5) the establishment of a national museum and the 
     conducting of interpretive and educational programs, 
     dedicated to the heritage and culture of African Americans, 
     will help to inspire and educate the people of the United 
     States regarding the cultural legacy of African Americans and 
     the contributions made by African Americans to the society of 
     the United States; and
       (6) the Smithsonian Institution operates 15 museums and 
     galleries, a zoological park, and 5 major research 
     facilities, none of which is a national institution devoted 
     solely to African American life, art, history, or culture.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL AFRICAN AMERICAN 
                   MUSEUM.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Smithsonian Institution a Museum, which shall be known as the 
     ``National African American Museum''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Museum is to provide--
       (1) a center for scholarship relating to African American 
     life, art, history, and culture;
       (2) a location for permanent and temporary exhibits 
     documenting African American life, art, history, and culture;
       (3) a location for the collection and study of artifacts 
     and documents relating to African American life, art, 
     history, and culture;
       (4) a location for public education programs relating to 
     African American life, art, history, and culture; and
       (5) a location for training of museum professionals and 
     others in the arts, humanities, and sciences regarding museum 
     practices related to African American life, art, history, and 
     culture.

     SEC. 4. LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NATIONAL AFRICAN 
                   AMERICAN MUSEUM.

       The Board of Regents is authorized to plan, design, 
     reconstruct, and renovate the Arts and Industries Building of 
     the Smithsonian Institution to house the Museum.

     SEC. 5. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MUSEUM.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Smithsonian 
     Institution the Board of Trustees of the National African 
     American Museum.
       (b) Composition and Appointment.--The Board of Trustees 
     shall be composed of 23 members as follows:
       (1) The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
       (2) An Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 
     designated by the Board of Regents.
       (3) Twenty-one individuals of diverse disciplines and 
     geographical residence who are committed to the advancement 
     of knowledge of African American art, history, and culture, 
     appointed by the Board of Regents, of whom 9 members shall be 
     from among individuals nominated by African American museums, 
     historically black colleges and universities, and cultural or 
     other organizations.
       (c) Terms.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     members of the Board of Trustees shall be appointed for terms 
     of 3 years. Members of the Board of Trustees may be 
     reappointed.
       (2) Staggered terms.--As designated by the Board of Regents 
     at the time of initial appointments under paragraph (3) of 
     subsection (b), the terms of 7 members shall expire at the 
     end of 1 year, the terms of 7 members shall expire at the end 
     of 2 years, and 
     [[Page S4928]] the terms of 7 members shall expire at the end 
     of 3 years.
       (d) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Board of Trustees shall 
     not affect its powers and shall be filled in the manner in 
     which the original appointment was made. Any member appointed 
     to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term 
     for which the predecessor of the member was appointed shall 
     be appointed for the remainder of the term.
       (e) Noncompensation.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (f), members of the Board of Trustees 
     shall serve without pay.
       (f) Expenses.--Members of the Board of Trustees shall 
     receive per diem, travel, and transportation expenses for 
     each day, including travel time, during which such members 
     are engaged in the performance of the duties of the Board of 
     Trustees in accordance with section 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code, with respect to employees serving intermittently 
     in the Government service.
       (g) Chairperson.--The Board of Trustees shall elect a 
     chairperson by a majority vote of the members of the Board of 
     Trustees.
       (h) Meetings.--The Board of Trustees shall meet at the call 
     of the chairperson or upon the written request of a majority 
     of its members, but shall meet not less than 2 times each 
     year.
       (i) Quorum.--A majority of the Board of Trustees shall 
     constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting business, but 
     a lesser number may receive information on behalf of the 
     Board of Trustees.
       (j) Voluntary Services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of 
     title 31, United States Code, the chairperson of the Board of 
     Trustees may accept for the Board of Trustees voluntary 
     services provided by a member of the Board of Trustees.

     SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MUSEUM.

       The Board of Trustees shall--
       (1) recommend annual budgets for the Museum;
       (2) consistent with the general policy established by the 
     Board of Regents, have the sole authority to--
       (A) loan, exchange, sell, or otherwise dispose of any part 
     of the collections of the Museum, but only if the funds 
     generated by such disposition are used for additions to the 
     collections of the Museum or for additions to the endowment 
     of the Museum;
       (B) subject to the availability of funds and the provisions 
     of annual budgets of the Museum, purchase, accept, borrow, or 
     otherwise acquire artifacts and other property for addition 
     to the collections of the Museum;
       (C) establish policy with respect to the utilization of the 
     collections of the Museum; and
       (D) establish policy regarding programming, education, 
     exhibitions, and research, with respect to the life and 
     culture of African Americans, the role of African Americans 
     in the history of the United States, and the contributions of 
     African Americans to society;
       (3) consistent with the general policy established by the 
     Board of Regents, have authority to--
       (A) provide for restoration, preservation, and maintenance 
     of the collections of the Museum;
       (B) solicit funds for the Museum and determine the purposes 
     to which such funds shall be used;
       (C) approve expenditures from the endowment of the Museum, 
     or of income generated from the endowment, for any purpose of 
     the Museum; and
       (D) consult with, advise, and support the Director in the 
     operation of the Museum;
       (4) establish programs in cooperation with other African 
     American museums, historically black colleges and 
     universities, historical societies, educational institutions, 
     and cultural and other organizations for the education and 
     promotion of understanding regarding African American life, 
     art, history, and culture;
       (5) support the efforts of other African American museums, 
     historically black colleges and universities, and cultural 
     and other organizations to educate and promote understanding 
     regarding African American life, art, history, and culture, 
     including--
       (A) the development of cooperative programs and 
     exhibitions;
       (B) the identification, management, and care of 
     collections;
       (C) the participation in the training of museum 
     professionals; and
       (D) creating opportunities for--
       (i) research fellowships; and
       (ii) professional and student internships;
       (6) adopt bylaws to carry out the functions of the Board of 
     Trustees; and
       (7) report annually to the Board of Regents on the 
     acquisition, disposition, and display of African American 
     objects and artifacts and on other appropriate matters.

     SEC. 7. DIRECTOR AND STAFF.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Smithsonian 
     Institution, in consultation with the Board of Trustees, 
     shall appoint a Director who shall manage the Museum.
       (b) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--The 
     Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution may--
       (1) appoint the Director and 5 employees of the Museum, 
     without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States 
     Code, governing appointments in the competitive service; and
       (2) fix the pay of the Director and such 5 employees, 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of such title, relating to classification 
     and General Schedule pay rates.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Arts and industries building.--The term ``Arts and 
     Industries Building'' means the building located on the Mall 
     at 900 Jefferson Drive, S.W. in Washington, the District of 
     Columbia.
       (2) Board of regents.--The term ``Board of Regents'' means 
     the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
       (3) Board of trustees.--The term ``Board of Trustees'' 
     means the Board of Trustees of the National African American 
     Museum established in section 5(a).
       (4) Museum.--The term ``Museum'' means the National African 
     American Museum established under section 3(a).
                                 ______

      By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
        Bennett, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Bond, Mr. Dole, and Mr. Gramm):
  S. 650. A bill to increase the amount of credit available to fuel 
local, regional, and national economic growth by reducing the 
regulatory burden imposed upon financial institutions, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


   the economic growth and regulatory paperwork reduction act of 1995

 Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, credit availability is vital to the 
livelihood of every American. It is the fuel that drives personal 
financial, business, and economic growth in this country.
  Promoting greater credit availability should, therefore, be an 
important economic policy goal. I know that it is to me. For this 
reason, for the third Congress in a row, I am introducing comprehensive 
regulatory relief legislation aimed at reducing the burdens that drive 
up the cost of credit and hamper credit availability.
  Three years ago, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination 
Council released a study that found that the regulatory cost of 
compliance was as high as $17.5 billion a year. Mr. President, that was 
3 years ago. While Senator Mack and I were successful in gaining some 
relief last year in the Community Development Financial Institutions 
and Regulatory Relief Act, regulatory initiatives continue to flood the 
pages of the Federal Register, inflating it to all-time highs.
  Mr. President, fighting Government regulation and regulatory burdens 
is not a one time battle; it is a constant battle. It is a war that 
never ends, but only ebbs.
  After months of comments and input from bankers and regulators, 
Senator Mack and I have returned once again to forge an ambitious 
comprehensive reform bill that promises long-overdue relief to an 
overburdened financial services industry.
  Like last year's bill, this year's bill targets laws and regulations 
that impose regulatory burdens which are extraneous to safety and 
soundness concerns and act to restrict rather than promote credit 
availability.
  The bill strikes out at the giants that hold down lending with 
excessive costs, like Truth-in-Lending and RESPA, Truth-in-Savings, the 
Community Reinvestment Act, and other overly burdensome laws whose 
legitimate central purpose has been lost in a sea of regulation.
  The bill streamlines or cuts duplicative and unnecessary reporting 
requirements, eliminates excessive compliance costs, and reforms laws 
that no longer make sense and cost the industry millions without any 
corresponding benefit to either the consumer or the health and 
stability of the banking system.
  Mr. President, an example of a law that may have had good intentions 
but does not make sense and has cost the banking industry about $400 
million is the Truth-in-Savings Act. A law intended to prevent 
institutions from calculating interest on investible balances has 
become a leviathon of Broad, highly complex disclosure requirements 
that extend far beyond the original intent of the law.
  Consumer protection laws should do just that, Mr. President. Laws 
like Truth-in-Lending and Truth-in-Savings have become so complex that 
the actual benefits these laws confer on consumers are highly 
questionable.
  Another law consistently identified as one of the most burdensome and 
in need of review is the Community Reinvestment Act. CRA is seen as all 
stick 
[[Page S4929]] and no carrot. Even though banks expend significant 
resources to adequately comply with the law, they are susceptible to 
protests that promote meritless delay and result in extortive 
practices.
  Large banks with billions in assets have less difficulty diverting 
assets to achieve compliance under the law than does the small, 
community bank. The livelihood of small banks--under $250 million in 
assets--is by their very nature dependent upon reinvesting in their 
community.
  Mr. President, the costs on community banks are tangible and 
quantifiable, wile the benefits of imposing CRA compliance on community 
banks are illusive and questionable.
  If not properly reformed, CRA threatens to be an albatross of redtape 
and complexity with little or no way of gauging its benefits or 
success.
  Reducing regulatory burden and compliance costs on our financial 
institutions promotes credit availability, facilitates capital 
creation, and fuels our business, our communities, and our economy.
  Mr. President, our bill today represents a starting point. The 
process is open and I expect a great deal of dialogue on the core of 
our bill as introduced, as well as many other relief provisions that 
may be raised for inclusion in the process.
  Congressman Bereuter is introducing similar regulatory relief 
legislation in the House today. Mr. President, with the support of the 
House and Senate leadership and Banking Committee Chairmen D'Amato and 
Leach, I am confident that our regulatory relief legislation will gain 
the same broad bipartisan support it enjoyed last year, and I would 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
 Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
with Senator Shelby, Senator Mack, and Senator D'Amato to reduce the 
paperwork burden for our Nation's financial services companies. I 
believe we can streamline paperwork burdens and at the same time 
improve the usefulness of disclosures to consumers. Anyone who has 
recently gone through financing or refinancing a mortgage knows that 
too much paperwork can overwhelm consumers and defeat the purpose of 
these consumer disclosures.
  I applaud the Clinton administration's efforts at regulatory relief 
and believe this bill will complement their efforts. For instance, the 
administration is expected to shortly release their revision of the 
Community Reinvestment Act [CRA], that should address many of the 
concerns we have over the application of the act. Once we have the 
opportunity to review the proposed revision, I expect we will make 
changes to the CRA provisions in this legislation.
  We all support the goals of CRA but feel its implementation can be 
improved. I have heard from smalltown Nevada bankers who have to take 
personnel away from providing loans in order to meet paperwork 
requirements. I believe there are better ways to achieve the goals of 
CRA that don't entail the diversion of valuable resources. I look 
forward to working with the administration in crafting an effective CRA 
mechanism.
  I believe this bill builds on the success of efforts last year to 
reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. In the Community Development 
Banking and Financial Institutions Act, Public Law 103-325, a number of 
paperwork burdens were streamlined. I was particularly proud of the 
reforms we accomplished in the area of currency transaction reports 
[CTR's]. The law requires a 30-percent reduction in the number of CTR's 
financial institutions must file while, at the same time, improving law 
enforcement's ability to track down money launderers. These kinds of 
reforms are critical if we are to keep American industry competitive.
  While I do not believe this legislation is perfect, I do believe it 
raises a number of areas which must be worked on and improved. The 
administration is aware of this need and will be working with us every 
step of the way. I am confident that we can craft legislation that both 
reduces unnecessary paperwork and improves consumer protection at the 
same time. That is my goal and will be my guiding principle throughout 
this process.
  The thrust of this legislation is in the right direction. I do not 
support all of its provisions and, in fact, have difficulty with the 
magnitude of some of these changes. However, I believe this legislation 
starts us down the path of coming up with a compromise bill which 
President Clinton can sign.
 Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor the 
Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 
bill opens the door for a meaningful deliberation on the regulatory 
burdens choking our Nation. As cochairman of the Senate Regulatory 
Relief Task Force with Senator Hutchison, we have examined our Nation's 
regulatory framework and identified those rules which impede economic 
growth without providing offsetting social benefits.
  In particular, regulation is choking our Nation's banks. This 
legislation seeks to end the cycle of mounting regulation in that 
industry. I applaud the bill's efforts to eliminate burdensome rules 
and to streamline reporting and compliance procedures. My colleagues 
Senators Shelby and Mack have provided a great starting point for the 
debate on banking regulation reform. I will continue to work with them 
in refining this legislation so that it upholds the safety and 
soundness of the banking system while satisfying the investment needs 
of our communities.
  Mr. President, the cost of regulatory compliance is astounding. The 
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council estimates that the 
industry's annual compliance costs exceed $17.5 billion. This burden is 
the result of decades of largely unintegrated legislative and 
regulatory initiatives.
  Since 1968 our Nation's banks have faced a major new law almost every 
11 months. In the past 5 years, Congress has passed more than 40 laws 
affecting bank operations. While most of these laws begin as well-
intentioned ideas, they usually mushroom into administrative complexity 
unintended by Congress.
  This layering of regulation--bill after bill, year after year--has 
created great inefficiency, redundancy, overlap, and common 
contradiction in the laws that govern the banking industry. We must end 
this cycle.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 651. A bill to establish the Office of the Inspector General 
within the General Accounting Office, modify the procedure for 
congressional work requests for the General Accounting Office, 
establish a Peer Review Committee, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


  the general accounting office oversight and improvement act of 1995

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the General 
Accounting Office Oversight and Reform Act. The GAO is Congress' 
watchdog, auditor, and analyst, and in carrying out its important 
mission the GAO has a significant influence on our Nation's legislative 
agenda.
  Due to the importance of the GAO's mission, the Congress has an 
obligation to ensure that the agency meets the highest standards of 
excellence and maintains a reputation beyond reproach. Unfortunately, 
in recent years, numerous complaints about bias, partisanship, and 
inferior work quality have dogged the agency. The legislation I am 
introducing today will take the necessary remedial steps. It would 
institute independent oversight of the agency and bolster the GAO's 
internal quality control procedures.
  Mr. President, the legislation seeks to create an independent office 
of the inspector general within the GAO. With a budget of over $400 
million and over 4,000 employees, the GAO should have an independent 
officer to monitor its activities and improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of its programs.
  This proposal also seeks to institute a number of changes in GAO's 
operating procedures to enhance fairness, professionalism, and 
nonpartisanship. First, the bill would require the Comptroller General 
to notify the ranking member of a committee when the GAO is received 
from the chairman of a committee. It would also require notification in 
the Congressional Record when the GAO approves any work request. These 
measures will improve communication between GAO and Congress in a 
nonpartisan manner and address the concern that the GAO can be used for 
partisan sneak attacks.
  [[Page S4930]] Second, the bill would codify a GAO policy that gives 
equal status to requests from committee chairman and ranking members. 
As an objective investigator and fact finder, the GAO should be 
statutorily required to treat these requests equally. Third, the bill 
would also require the GAO to provide affected agencies with an 
opportunity to comment on GAO's findings and to include relevant 
comments in its investigative reports.
  Only two-thirds of GAO's reports include such written input, and 
Members can ask the GAO to forgo contacting the agency. This practice 
is unfair and unwarranted.
  Fourth, the bill would require the GAO to reference its sources of 
factual information and list all organizations contacted in the conduct 
of an investigation. This will reassure the Congress and the public 
that all reports are researched fairly and thoroughly.
  Fifth, the bill will prohibit the release of any report until GAO's 
internal quality control procedures have been complied with. The 
premature release of unconfirmed reports should not be permitted.
  In addition to these specific statutory changes, Mr. President, this 
legislation would establish a special GAO peer review committee to help 
craft appropriate and responsible measures.
  Among the directives that this bill vests the panel with are: The 
formation of a formal GAO product review process which will enable 
agencies to appeal to the GAO to correct factual errors, and reconsider 
certain findings; the implementation of guidelines to eliminate 
inappropriate advocacy of policy; developing a policy that would enable 
congressional requesters to remain anonymous to the actual GAO auditors 
or investigators; ending duplicative or superfluous auditing and 
investigative activities; and reporting to the Congress on the number 
of man hours expended and the cost incurred by respondents to GAO 
audits.
  Finally, Mr. President, the bill calls on the Comptroller General to 
implement the recommendations of the peer review committee to the 
greatest extent practicable. The Comptroller General will be required 
to notify the congressional leadership in writing regarding any peer 
review panel recommendations he rejects.
  Let me say that I believe the GAO does an excellent job in many 
areas, and that most GAO employees are well trained, highly motivated, 
and honorable public servants. The Comptroller General should be 
congratulated on his many successes and his continued commitment to 
correct problems--real and perceived--at the GAO.
  Nevertheless, the GAO has been the subject of disturbing criticism in 
recent years. Most disturbing is the perception that the GAO has become 
arbitrary and ineffective, and suffers from insufficient oversight of 
its own. The GAO cannot afford to have its credibility eroded by 
continuing questions about whether the GAO is subservient to major 
requesters, or that there has been a decline in knowledge of Federal 
programs.
  Clearly, the GAO can only be as effective as its reputation for 
objectivity, fairness, and accuracy. I believe this legislation will 
help improve the reality and perception of all of these key factors. 
The enactment of this legislation would be good for the GAO, the 
Congress, and the people we have been elected to serve.
  It is time for checks and balances at the GAO. The creation of an 
independent inspector general and improved quality control procedures 
at the GAO will ensure that the Congress and the American people have a 
watchdog of the highest integrity and excellence. We deserve that much 
and can afford no less.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 653. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Aura; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                     jones act waiver for ``aura''

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a 
bill to allow the vessel Aura to be employed in coastwise trade of the 
United States. This boat has a relatively small passenger capacity, 
carrying up to 49 passengers on a charter business based out of Hull, 
MA. The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones 
Act which prohibit foreign-made vessels from operating in coastwise 
trade. The waiver is necessary because, under the law, a vessel is 
considered foreign-made unless all major components of its hull and 
superstructure are fabricated in the United States and the vessel is 
assembled entirely in the United States. This vessel was originally 
built in a foreign shipyard in 1957, but since then has been owned and 
operated by American citizens. The owners of Aura have invested 
substantially more than the cost of building the boat in making repairs 
to it and maintaining it--in American shipyards with American products. 
They wish to start a small business, a charter boat operation, 
seasonally taking people out of Hull.
  After reviewing the facts in the case of the Aura, I find that this 
waiver does not compromise our national readiness in times of national 
emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act 
requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, 
I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit 
the Aura to engage in coastwise trade. I hope and trust the Senate will 
agree and will speedily approve the bills being introduced 
today.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 654. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwide trade for the vessel Sunrise; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                    jones act waiver for ``SUNRISE''

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a 
bill to allow the vessel Sunrise to be employed in coastwise trade of 
the United States. This boat has a relatively small passenger capacity, 
carrying up to 12 passengers on a charter business based out of Boston, 
MA. The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones 
Act which prohibit foreign-made vessels from operating in coastwise 
trade. The waiver is necessary because, under the law, a vessel is 
considered foreign made unless all major components of its hull and 
superstructure are fabricated in the United States and the vessel is 
assembled entirely in the United States. This vessel was originally 
built in a foreign shipyard in 1989, but since then has been owned by 
American citizens, repaired in American shipyards, and maintained with 
American products. In addition, Sunrise is a catamaran, a type of 
vessel which was not built in the United States prior to 1992. The 
owners of Sunrise have invested substantially in the outfitting of the 
vessel and wish to start a small business, a charter boat operation, 
seasonally taking people out of Boston. At the present time they will 
not be in competition with any other similar vessels.
  After reviewing the facts in the case of the Sunrise, I find that 
this waiver does not compromise our national readiness in times of 
national emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act 
requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, 
I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit 
the Sunrise to engage in coastwise trade. I hope and trust the Senate 
will agree and will speedily approve the bills being introduced 
today.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 655. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Marantha; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                   JONES ACT WAIVER FOR ``MARANTHA''

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a 
bill to allow the vessel Marantha to be employed in coastwise trade of 
the United States. 
[[Page S4931]] This boat has a relatively small passenger capacity, 
carrying up to 20 passengers on a charter business based out of Boston. 
The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones Act 
which prohibit foreign-made vessels from operating in coastwise trade. 
The waiver is necessary because, under the law, a vessel is considered 
foreign made unless all major components of its hull and superstructure 
are fabricated in the United States and the vessel is assembled 
entirely in the United States. This vessel was originally built in a 
foreign shipyard in 1977, but since then has been owned and operated by 
American citizens. The owners of the vessel have invested substantially 
more than the cost of building the boat in making repairs and 
maintaining the vessel in American shipyards with American products. 
The owners wish to start a small business, a charter boat and charter 
fishing operation, seasonally taking people out of Boston.
  After reviewing the facts in the case of the Marantha, I find that 
this waiver does not compromise our national readiness in times of 
national emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act 
requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, 
I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit 
the Marantha to engage in coastwise trade. I hope and trust the Senate 
will agree and will speedily approve the bill being introduced 
today.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 656. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Quietly; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                    Jones Act waiver for ``quietly''

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a 
bill to allow the vessel Quietly to be employed in coastwise trade of 
the United States. This boat has a small passenger capacity, carrying 
up to eight passengers on a charter business. The purpose of this bill 
is to waive those sections of the Jones Act which prohibit foreign-made 
vessels from operating in coastwise trade. The waiver is necessary 
because, under the law, a vessel is considered foreign made unless all 
major components of its hull and superstructure are fabricated in the 
United States and the vessel is assembled entirely in the United 
States. This vessel was originally built in a foreign shipyard in 1983, 
but since then has been owned and operated by American citizens. The 
owner of the vessel has invested substantially in repairing and 
maintaining it--in American shipyards with American products. The owner 
wishes to start a small business, a charter boat operation, seasonally 
taking people out for cruises.
  After reviewing the facts in the case of the Quietly, I find that 
this waiver does not compromise our national readiness in times of 
national emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act 
requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, 
I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit 
the Quietly to engage in coastwise trade. I hope and trust the Senate 
will agree and will speedily approve the bill being introduced 
today.


                          ____________________