[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5218-S5231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Glenn, and Mr. Roth):
  S. 675. A bill to provide a streamlined contracting and ordering 
practices for automated data processing equipment and other commercial 
items; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                        streamlining legislation

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have been fighting for more than a 
decade to streamline the Federal procurement system and save taxpayer 
dollars by encouraging the use of more off-the-shelf products. Buying 
commercial products can lower costs by reducing or eliminating the need 
for research and development. The time and effort needed to buy a 
product can be reduced since commercial products are readily available 
and can be produced on existing production lines. Because the product 
is already built and has been shown to work, the need for detailed 
design specifications and expensive testing is also reduced.
  Last fall we addressed this issue when we enacted the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act. This statute, which is the culmination of 
a comprehensive, 4-year review of the statutes governing the Federal 
procurement system, will substantially streamline the Federal 
procurement system and make it easier for Federal agencies to buy off-
the-shelf commercial products instead of paying extra to design 
Government-unique products.
  I am today introducing a bill to build on the achievement of that 
landmark legislation and further simplify the process of entering 
contracts and placing orders for commercial, off-the-shelf products. In 
particular, my bill would provide for streamlined contracting and 
ordering practices in multiple award schedule contracts for automated 
data processing equipment and other commercial items.
  Mr. President, too often when we draft legislation to address a 
perceived problem, we ignore systems that are already in place and 
working well.
  The multiple awards schedules are an example of a system that has 
served the taxpayers well. Since the 1950's, the Multiple Award 
Schedule Program has provided Federal agencies with a simplified method 
of purchasing small quantities of off-the-shelf commercial items, 
ranging from paper and furniture to sophisticated computer and 
telephone equipment. According to the General Accounting Office, the 
multiple award schedules cover in excess of 1.5 million line items, 
offered for sale by more than 4,000 vendors.
  The multiple award schedules enable agencies to order small 
quantities of commonly used goods and services at a fair and reasonable 
price without going through the complex procurement process. They 
enable commercial companies to sell their products to a large number of 
potential customers without having to negotiate separate contracts with 
each. The taxpayers save and the vendors save.
  Even so, the Multiple Award Schedule Program is not without its own 
problems. The negotiation of a single multiple award schedule contract 
can involve the review and analysis of thousands of pages of financial 
documents and may require hundreds of staff hours by both the 
government and the vendor. These paperwork demands are particularly 
unwelcome to commercial vendors, who complain that the negotiations are 
divorced from the reality of the commercial marketplace, in which 
prices are established by competition, not negotiation.
  At the same time, the cumbersome process of negotiating multiple 
award schedule contracts sometimes locks in prices that turn out to be 
higher than the going market rate. This has been a particular problem 
in the case of rapidly developing products such as computer software, 
for which aggressive competition may cause prices to drop quickly in a 
short period of time.
  Finally, because each vendor maintains its own price lists, it is 
extremely difficult for the thousands of agency officials purchasing 
products under the schedules to make any kind of effective comparison 
in vendor products and prices. As the GAO found in a June 1992 report:

       For the most part, procurement offices filled users' 
     requests for a specific manufacturer's product without 
     determining if other [Multiple Award Schedule] products could 
     satisfy the requirement at a lower cost.* * * Procurement 
     officials said that it is an unreasonable administrative 
     burden to require buyers to consider all reasonably available 
     suppliers and determine the lowest overall cost alternative 
     before placing [Multiple Award Schedule]orders. They said 
     that because many schedules have numerous suppliers offering 
     many similar items, comparing all products and prices is too 
     difficult and time-consuming, particularly because [Multiple 
     Award Schedule] information is not automated.

  All too often, this means that agencies continue to purchase the same 
products from the same vendors, even when other vendors offer better 
products through the schedules at lower cost.
  For a number of years, I have pressed the General Services 
Administration to address these problems by automating the multiple 
award schedules, using modern computer technology to make it possible 
for agency officials to compare vendor products and prices. Such 
automation would bring real competition to the desks of individual 
purchasing officials, enabling them to select the best value product 
for their agencies' needs. Happily, such competition should also reduce 
or even eliminate the need for lengthy negotiations and burdensome 
paperwork requirements placed on vendors to ensure fair pricing.
  With the enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, we 
now have the means to make such competition a reality. The new statute 
creates a system for electronic interchange of procurement information 
between the private sector and Federal agencies, known as the Federal 
Acquisition Computer Network or ``FACNET.''
  FACNET provides the ideal mechanism for automating the multiple award 
schedules. By integrating the multiple award schedules into FACNET, GSA 
can take advantage of a system that is already being developed and will 
be in place in the near future to bring the multiple award schedules 
directly to the desks of purchasing officials throughout the 
Government.
  The bill I am introducing today would require the General Services 
Administration to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by FACNET 
to bring the multiple award schedules on-line. Under the bill, GSA 
would be required to establish a system to provide Governmentwide, on-
line access to products and services that are available for ordering 
through the multiple award schedules, and to establish that system as 
an element of FACNET.
  Once the Administrator has determined that the required computer 
systems have been implemented, it should be possible to reduce or even 
eliminate the need for lengthy negotiations and burdensome paperwork 
requirements placed on vendors to ensure fair pricing. Accordingly, the 
bill would establish a pilot program, under which direct competition at 
the user level would substitute for lengthy and paperintensive price 
negotiations with vendors.
  The pilot program would sunset after 4 years, to give Congress an 
opportunity to evaluate the impact of the new approach on competition, 
on prices, on paperwork requirements, and on the small business 
community. A GAO review of the pilot program would be required to 
address these issues, as well.
  Mr. President, I am well aware that we have just completed a complete 
overhaul of the Federal procurement laws. I tend to agree with those 
who believe that it would be a mistake to reopen issues directly 
addressed by last year's legislation without first giving the 
procurement community an opportunity to absorb the changes we have 
already made.
  However, the change contemplated by the bill that I am introducing 
today is simple, feasible, and will save money and effort for both 
contractors and the 
[[Page S5219]] taxpayers. This change is possible today, in large part, 
because of last year's enactment of the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act. I believe it is an idea whose time has come. 
Regardless of how this Congress may choose to address other procurement 
proposals, I hope that this measure will be considered and 
passed.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRAMS:
  S. 676. A bill for the relief of D.W. Jacobson, Ronald Karkala, and 
Paul Bjorgen of Grand Rapids, MN, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                       private relief legislation
 Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I introduce S. 676 and submit Senate 
Resolution 104, a congressional reference bill and companion a private 
relief bill for Norwood Manufacturing of Grand Rapids, MN.
  On May 26, 1987, Norwood Manufacturing was awarded a contract by the 
U.S. Postal Service to manufacture wooden nestable pallets. On February 
9, 1988, the U.S. Postal Service informed Norwood that it was 
terminating the contract.
  The Postal Service first sought to terminate the contract for failure 
to make timely deliveries. But, when it appeared that this was not a 
legitimate claim, the Postal Service indicated that Norwood's pallets 
did not meet specification. This claim came even though Norwood's 
pallets passed all of the tests required under the contract. Norwood 
disputes the Postal Services claim and, if given a chance, can present 
evidence from the Postal Services' own inspectors that support this 
contention.
  Norwood claims that any termination by the Postal Service should have 
been for convenience, whereby the Postal Service would pay Norwood for 
its costs of producing the pallets. Instead, the Postal Service chose 
to terminate the contract for fault causing the company to dissolve, 
leaving the small businessmen who owned and operated Norwood in debt.
  The company contested the Postal Service's decision in the U.S. Court 
of Claims. On August 10, 1990, the Court of Claims ruled against 
Norwood on summary judgement; the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
affirmed the Court of Claims without any explanation or opinion. This 
came as a surprise to both the Postal Service and their lawyers in the 
Department of Justice. In fact, Justice Department lawyers had already 
indicated to Norwood a desire to discuss a settlement of the matter as 
soon as the Court of Claims denied the Postal Service's motion for 
summary judgement. Naturally, when the judge ruled in favor of the 
Postal Service the Justice Department saw no need to further negotiate 
a settlement.
  Mr. President, Norwood deserves an impartial review of the facts. 
This is why I have submitted Senate Resolution 104, which merely 
requests a review of this case by the U.S. Court of Claims. After a 1-
year review by the court, Congress will possess a determination by the 
court which will enable Congress to consider if the relief requested in 
the private bill is justified. Therefore, at this time, I am not 
advocating passage of the private bill, but instead, seeking Senate 
approval of Senate Resolution 104 that this matter deserves further 
judicial review.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 677. A bill to repeal a redundant venue provision, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                           venue legislation

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill that would 
implement a proposal made by the Judicial Conference of the United 
States to eliminate a redundant provision governing venue, section 
1392(a) of title 28. This bill would make no substantive change in the 
law governing venue. Instead, it would simply clean up the United 
States Code by eliminating a provision that no longer serves any 
purpose.
  Section 1392(a) states in its entirety: ``Any civil action, not of a 
local nature, against defendants residing in different districts in the 
same State, may be brought in any of such districts.'' I have no 
quarrel with the rule set forth in this section. I note, however, that 
it is entirely redundant of provisions of the Judicial Improvements Act 
of 1990. In that act, Congress rewrote entirely the rules in section 
1391 governing venue in diversity and Federal question cases. In so 
doing, it incorporated the rule of section 1392(a) directly into the 
provisions of section 1391. Section 1391(a)(1) now provides that venue 
in diversity cases is proper in ``a judicial district where any 
defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State.'' 
Section 1391(b)(1) uses the identical language for venue in Federal 
question cases.
  In short, these 1990 changes have exactly duplicated the rule of 
section 1392(a) within the structure of the new section 1391. Section 
1392(a) remains as a useless vestige of an earlier structure.
  Again, I note that my bill implements a proposal made by the Judicial 
Conference of the United States. Specifically, in its September 20, 
1993, report, the Judicial Conference states, ``The [Judicial] 
Conference also approved the [Federal-State Jurisdiction] Committee's 
recommendation to propose a repeal of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1392(a) as 
redundant because of recent amendments to Sec. Sec. 1391 (a)(1) and 
(b)(1).''
                                 ______

      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Craig, Mr. Campbell, 
        Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 678. A bill to provide for the coordination and implementation of 
a national aquaculture policy for the private sector by the Secretary 
of Agriculture, to establish an aquaculture development and research 
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


    the national aquaculture development research and promotion act

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National 
Aquaculture Development, Research, and Promotion Act.
  Our bill is virtually identical to the bill which the Senate 
Agriculture Committee reported to the floor last year. More than 50 
Senators cosponsored last year's legislation, but like many bills 
during the 103d Congress, we did not take final action before Congress 
adjourned.
  This bill is much more than a simple reauthorization of an expiring 
law. It will stimulate one of the fastest growing components of 
agriculture in the United States. The bill promotes policies which will 
allow our country to become more competitive in the expanding global 
market for aquaculture products. The National Aquaculture Development, 
Research, and Promotion Act can serve as a road map for America's 
future success in aquaculture.
  This legislation addresses some of the most pressing needs of 
aquaculture farmers, such as research, credit assistance, production 
and market data, conservation assistance, and better coordination among 
Federal agencies. But the bill can best be summarized in a simple, 
three word statement: aquaculture is agriculture.
  For too long, aquaculture farmers have suffered because of the 
absence of a consistent Federal policy to promote this important sector 
of agriculture. Aquaculture has also been limited by an inability to 
fully participate in many of the farm programs available to dry-land 
agriculture. The time has come for the Federal Government to recognize 
that just because the crop you harvest has fins and gills instead of 
hoofs and horns, it is still agriculture and you deserve to be treated 
just like any other farmer who works hard for a living.
  The world market for aquaculture is vast, and the United States is 
well-equipped to become a leader in aquaculture production and 
technology. Supported by a national commitment, American farmers have 
developed the most productive terrestrial agriculture system on earth. 
A similar effort is needed to help the United States increase its share 
of the rapidly expanding market for aquaculture products. Such a 
national commitment is essential to the future success of aquaculture 
in the United States. America has the finest research institutions in 
the world. We simply need to redirect some of our research energy 
toward new, promising technologies like aquaculture.
  Efforts to expand the U.S. aquaculture industry will not go
   unrewarded. The United States imports 60 percent of its fish and 
shellfish, 
[[Page S5220]] which results in a $3.3 billion annual trade deficit for 
seafood. If we could reduce our seafood trade deficit by one-third 
through expanded aquaculture production, we would create 25,000 new 
jobs. That is what this aquaculture bill is about--creating jobs and 
putting Americans to work in new, promising industries.
  By the year 2000, nearly one-quarter of global seafood consumption 
will come from fish farming. In order to keep pace with the rising 
demand for seafood, world aquaculture production must double by the end 
of this decade and increase sevenfold in the next 35 years. This 
estimate is based on current population projections and assumes a 
stable wild fishery harvest. The important question is whether U.S. 
aquaculture will share in this explosive growth.
  Aquaculture is a diverse industry that affects all regions of the 
country. More than 30 States produce at least two dozen commercially 
important aquaculture species. Yet it is disturbing that the United 
States ranks 10th among nations in the value of its production. China, 
Japan, India, Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines, Norway, Thailand, and 
the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union, all enjoy a 
larger share of the global aquaculture market. As we work to resolve 
this problem with our balance of trade, aquaculture can be part of the 
solution.
  Nowhere is the opportunity for aquaculture more promising than in 
Hawaii. We have a skilled labor force, access to Asian and North 
American markets, and a climate that permits harvesting throughout the 
year. Aquaculture can strengthen our employment base and help fill the 
gaps caused by the decline in sugar. Aquaculture farming is capable of 
supporting more jobs per acre than plantation agriculture, and these 
are usually high-wage and high-technology jobs. With the right 
encouragement, aquaculture can become a cornerstone of diversified 
agriculture in Hawaii.
  More than 100 Hawaiian production and service businesses generate 
annual aquaculture sales of $25 million from the production of 35 
different aquaculture species. Over the last 15 years, the State has 
spent $15.7 million to grow our aquaculture industry. This investment 
has helped generate cumulative revenues of $315.9 million during the 
period. The industry in Hawaii, like many other regions in the United 
States, is poised to increase production, sales revenues, and generate 
new employment opportunities.
  However, the legislation I have introduced today was not designed 
merely to promote aquaculture in Hawaii. The bill was drafted with one 
basic principle in mind; namely, to assist all aquaculture farmers 
equally. It would be wrong to promote any segment of the industry--
whether it is marine or fresh water aquaculture farming, or a 
particular species of fish or shellfish--over another.
  In summary, this bill has the potential to diversify our agricultural 
base, strengthen rural economies, increase worldwide demand for U.S. 
agricultural commodities, and thereby reduce the U.S. trade deficit. I 
hope that we can consider this legislation as part of the 1995 farm 
bill.
  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. 678

       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; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Aquaculture Development, Research, and Promotion Act of 
     1995''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents; references.
Sec. 2. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. National aquaculture development plan.
Sec. 5. National Aquaculture Information Center; assignment of new 
              programs.
Sec. 6. Coordination with the aquaculture industry.
Sec. 7. National policy for private aquaculture.
Sec. 8. Water quality assessment.
Sec. 9. Native American fishpond revitalization.
Sec. 10. Aquaculture education.
Sec. 11. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 12. Eligibility of aquaculture farmers for farm credit assistance.
Sec. 13. International aquaculture information and data collection.
Sec. 14. Aquaculture information network report.
Sec. 15. Voluntary certification of quality standards.
Sec. 16. Implementation report.

       (c) References to National Aquaculture Act of 1980.--Except 
     as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
     amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, 
     or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference 
     shall be considered to be made to a section or other 
     provision of the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 
     2801 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Subsection (a) of section 2 (16 U.S.C. 
     2801(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       ``(1) The wild harvest or capture of certain seafood 
     species exceeds levels of optimum sustainable yield, thereby 
     making it more difficult to meet the increasing demand for 
     aquatic food.
       ``(2) To satisfy the domestic market for aquatic food, the 
     United States imports more than 59 percent of its seafood. 
     This dependence on imports adversely affects the national 
     balance of payments and contributes to the uncertainty of 
     supplies and product quality.
       ``(3) Although aquaculture currently contributes 
     approximately 16 percent by weight of world seafood 
     production, less than 9 percent by weight of current United 
     States seafood production results from aquaculture. As a 
     result, domestic aquaculture production has the potential for 
     significant growth.
       ``(4) Aquaculture production of aquatic animals and plants 
     is a source of food, industrial materials, pharmaceuticals, 
     energy, and aesthetic enjoyment, and can assist in the 
     control and abatement of pollution.
       ``(5) The rehabilitation and enhancement of fish and 
     shellfish resources are desirable applications of aquaculture 
     technology.
       ``(6) The principal responsibility for the development of 
     aquaculture in the United States must rest with the private 
     sector.
       ``(7) Despite its potential, the development of aquaculture 
     in the United States has been inhibited by many scientific, 
     economic, legal, and production factors, such as--
       ``(A) inadequate credit;
       ``(B) limited research and development and demonstration 
     programs;
       ``(C) diffused legal jurisdiction;
       ``(D) inconsistent interpretations between Federal 
     agencies;
       ``(E) the lack of management information;
       ``(F) the lack of supportive policies of the Federal 
     Government;
       ``(G) the lack of therapeutic compounds for treatment of 
     the diseases of aquatic animals and plants; and
       ``(H) the lack of reliable supplies of seed stock.
       ``(8) Many areas of the United States are suitable for 
     aquaculture, but are subject to land-use or water-use 
     management policies and regulations that do not adequately 
     consider the potential for aquaculture and may inhibit the 
     development of aquaculture.
       ``(9) In 1990, the United States ranked only tenth in the 
     world in aquaculture production based on total value of 
     products.
       ``(10) Despite the current and increasing importance of 
     private aquaculture to the United States economy and to rural 
     areas in the United States, Federal efforts to nurture 
     aquaculture development have failed to keep pace with the 
     needs of fish and aquatic plant farmers.
       ``(11) The United States has a premier opportunity to 
     expand existing aquaculture production and develop new 
     aquaculture industries to serve national needs and the global 
     marketplace.
       ``(12) United States aquaculture provides wholesome 
     products for domestic consumers and contributes significantly 
     to employment opportunities and the quality of life in rural 
     areas in the United States.
       ``(13) Since 1980, the United States trade deficit in 
     edible fishery products has increased by 48 percent, from 
     $1,777,921,000 to $2,634,738,000 in 1991.
       ``(14) Aquaculture is poised to become a major growth 
     industry of the 21st century. With global seafood demand 
     projected to increase 70 percent by 2025, and harvests from 
     capture fisheries stable or declining, aquaculture would have 
     to increase production by 700 percent, a total of 77 million 
     metric tons annually.
       ``(15) Private aquaculture production in the United States 
     has increased an average of 20 percent by weight annually 
     since 1980, and is one of the fastest growing segments of 
     United States and world agriculture.
       ``(16) In 1990, private United States aquaculture 
     production was 860,750,000 pounds, worth $761,500,000, up 
     from 203,178,000 pounds, worth $191,977,000, in 1980.
       ``(17) Since 1960, per capita consumption of aquatic foods 
     in the United States has increased by 49 percent to 14.9 
     pounds in 1991, and could reach 20 pounds by the year 2000. 
     Total United States demand is projected to double by 2020.''.
     [[Page S5221]]   (b) Purpose.--Subsection (b) of section 2 
     (16 U.S.C. 2801(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to promote 
     aquaculture in the United States by--
       ``(1) declaring a national aquaculture policy;
       ``(2) establishing private aquaculture as a form of 
     agriculture;
       ``(3) establishing cultivated aquatic animals, plants, 
     microorganisms, and their products produced by private 
     persons and moving in standard commodity channels as 
     agricultural livestock, crops, and commodities;
       ``(4) establishing the Department as the lead Federal 
     agency for the development, implementation, promotion, and 
     coordination of national policy and programs for private 
     aquaculture by--
       ``(A) designating the Secretary as the permanent 
     chairperson of a Federal interagency aquaculture coordinating 
     group;
       ``(B) assigning overall responsibility to the Secretary for 
     coordinating, developing, and carrying out policies and 
     programs for private aquaculture; and
       ``(C) authorizing the establishment of a National 
     Aquaculture Information Center within the Department to 
     support the United States aquaculture industry; and
       ``(5) encouraging--
       ``(A) aquaculture activities and programs in both the 
     public and private sectors of the economy of the United 
     States;
       ``(B) the creation of new industries and job opportunities 
     related to aquaculture activities;
       ``(C) the reduction of the fisheries trade deficit; and
       ``(D) other national policy benefits deriving from 
     aquaculture activities.''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 2802) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the propagation'' and 
     all that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     ``the controlled cultivation of aquatic plants, animals, and 
     microorganisms.'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``or microorganism'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (9) as 
     paragraphs (9) through (11), respectively;
       (4) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs 
     (6) and (7), respectively;
       (5) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) The term `Department' means the United States 
     Department of Agriculture.''; and
       (6) by inserting before paragraph (9) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (3)) the following:
       ``(8) The term `private aquaculture' means the controlled 
     cultivation of aquatic plants, animals, and microorganisms 
     other than cultivation carried out by the Federal Government 
     or any State or local government.''.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

       Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 2803) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of subsection (c)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (2) in the second sentence of subsection (d), by striking 
     ``Secretaries determine'' and inserting ``Secretary, in 
     consultation with the other Secretaries, determines'';
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``Secretaries'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and in consultation with the other 
     Secretaries and representatives of other Federal agencies'' 
     after ``coordinating group''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Accomplishments in Aquaculture Programs.--Not later 
     than December 31, 1995, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, 
     shall submit to Congress a report evaluating the actions 
     taken in accordance with subsection (d) with respect to the 
     Plan, and making recommendations for updating and modifying 
     the Plan. The report shall also contain a compendium on 
     Federal regulations relating to aquaculture.''.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL AQUACULTURE INFORMATION CENTER; ASSIGNMENT 
                   OF NEW PROGRAMS.

       Section 5 (16 U.S.C. 2804) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``Secretaries deem'' 
     and inserting ``Secretary, in consultation with the other 
     Secretaries, considers'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``Secretary shall--'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary--'';
       (B) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) may establish, within the Department, within the 
     Agricultural Research Service, a National Aquaculture 
     Information Center that shall--
       ``(I) serve as a repository and clearinghouse for the 
     information collected under subparagraph (A) and other 
     provisions of this Act;
       ``(II) carry out a program to notify organizations, 
     institutions, and individuals known to be involved in 
     aquaculture of the existence of the Center and the kinds of 
     information that the Center can make available to the public; 
     and
       ``(III) make available, on request, information described 
     in subclause (I) (including information collected under 
     subsection (e));'';
       (C) in clause (ii)--
       (i) by inserting ``shall'' before ``arrange''; and
       (ii) by striking the comma and inserting a semicolon; and
       (D) in clause (iii), by inserting ``shall'' before 
     ``conduct'';
       (3) in the first sentence of subsection (d), by striking 
     ``Interior,,'' and inserting ``Interior,''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Assignment of New Programs.--In consultation with 
     representatives of the United States aquaculture industry and 
     in coordination with the Secretary of the Interior, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, and the heads of other appropriate 
     Federal agencies, the Secretary may assess Federal aquatic 
     animal health programs and make recommendations as to the 
     appropriate assignment to Federal agencies of new programs, 
     initiatives, and activities in support of aquaculture and 
     resource stewardship and management.''.

     SEC. 6. COORDINATION WITH THE AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY.

       Section 6(b) (16 U.S.C. 2805(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) in order to facilitate improved communication and 
     interaction among aquaculture producers, the aquaculture 
     community, the Federal Government, and the coordinating 
     group, establish a working relationship with national 
     organizations, commodity associations, and professional 
     societies representing aquaculture interests.''.

     SEC. 7. NATIONAL POLICY FOR PRIVATE AQUACULTURE.

       The Act (16 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 7 through 11 as sections 12 
     through 16, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 6 the following:

     ``SEC. 7. NATIONAL POLICY FOR PRIVATE AQUACULTURE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Interior, and the 
     heads of other agencies, as appropriate, shall coordinate and 
     implement a national policy for private aquaculture in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Department Aquaculture Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     implement a Department Aquaculture Plan (referred to in this 
     section as the `plan') for a unified Department aquaculture 
     program to support the development of private United States 
     aquaculture.
       ``(2) Elements of plan.--The plan shall address--
       ``(A) individual agency programs related to aquaculture in 
     the Department that are consistent with Department programs 
     applied to other agricultural programs, livestock, crops, 
     products, and commodities under the jurisdiction of 
     Department agencies;
       ``(B) the treatment of cultivated aquatic animals as 
     livestock and cultivated aquatic plants as agricultural 
     crops; and
       ``(C) means for effective coordination and implementation 
     of aquaculture activities and programs within the Department, 
     including individual agency commitments of personnel and 
     resources.
       ``(3) Deadline.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the National Aquaculture Development, Research, 
     and Promotion Act of 1995, the Secretary shall submit the 
     plan to Congress.
       ``(4) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     submission of the plan pursuant to paragraph (3), and 
     annually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to Congress 
     on actions taken to implement the plan during the year 
     preceding the date of the report.
       ``(5) National aquaculture information center.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out section 5, the Secretary 
     may maintain and support a National Aquaculture Information 
     Center (referred to in this paragraph as the `Center') as a 
     repository for information on national and international 
     aquaculture.
       ``(B) Public access.--Information in the Center shall be 
     made available to the public.
       ``(C) International exchange.--The head of the Center shall 
     arrange with foreign nations for the exchange of information 
     relating to aquaculture and shall support a translation 
     service.
       ``(D) Support.--The Center shall provide direct support to 
     the coordinating group.
       ``(c) National Aquaculture Development Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the National Aquaculture Development, Research, 
     and Promotion Act of 1995, the Secretary shall revise the 
     National Aquaculture Development Plan required to be 
     established under section 4.
       ``(2) Coordination.--The Secretary shall integrate and 
     coordinate the aquaculture and related missions, major 
     objectives, and program components of individual aquaculture 
     plans of the coordinating group members.
       ``(3) Submission to congress.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of 
     [[Page S5222]] the National Aquaculture Development, 
     Research, and Promotion Act of 1995, the Secretary shall 
     submit a revised Plan to Congress.
       ``(4) Updates.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     the submission of the revised Plan pursuant to paragraph (3), 
     and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall revise the 
     National Aquaculture Development Plan.
       ``(d) Treatment of Aquaculture.--The Secretary shall, for 
     all purposes, treat--
       ``(1) private aquaculture as a form of agriculture; and
       ``(2) cultivated aquatic animals, plants, and 
     microorganisms, and products of the animals, plants, and 
     microorganisms, produced by private persons and moving in 
     standard commodity channels as agricultural livestock, crops, 
     and commodities.
       ``(e) Resolution of Interagency Conflict.--In consultation 
     with representatives of affected Federal agencies, the 
     Secretary shall be responsible for resolving any interagency 
     conflict in the coordination or implementation of the policy 
     described in this section.
       ``(f) Private Aquaculture Policy Coordination, Development, 
     and Implementation.--
       ``(1) Responsibility.--The Secretary shall have overall 
     responsibility for coordinating, developing, and carrying out 
     policies and programs for private aquaculture.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) coordinate all intradepartmental functions and 
     activities relating to private aquaculture;
       ``(B) establish procedures for the coordination of 
     functions, and consultation, with the coordinating group; and
       ``(C) recommend to the Agricultural Research Service 
     methods by which the aquaculture resources of the Service can 
     be made more easily retrievable and can be more widely 
     disseminated.
       ``(3) Liaison.--
       ``(A) Agencies of the department.--To facilitate 
     communication and interaction between the aquaculture 
     community and the Department, the head of each agency of the 
     Department shall, if requested by the Secretary, designate an 
     officer or employee of the agency to be the liaison of the 
     agency with the Secretary.
       ``(B) Departments of commerce and interior.--The Secretary 
     of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior shall each 
     designate an officer or employee of their respective 
     Departments to be the liaison of their respective Departments 
     with the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 8. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

       The Act (16 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 7 (as added by section 7) the following:

     ``SEC. 8. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

       ``(a) Assessment.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency is authorized to carry out, in 
     collaboration with the Secretary, collaborative interagency 
     programs that demonstrate the application of aquaculture to 
     environmental enhancement and assessment, including a program 
     to assess the environmental impact of waterborne contaminants 
     on naturally occurring aquatic organisms and ecosystems using 
     aquaculture-raised organisms to serve as an indicator of 
     environmental pollution.
       ``(b) Grants; Cooperative Agreements.--The Administrator 
     may provide grants or enter into cooperative agreements or 
     contracts with private research organizations for research 
     and demonstration of the technology authorized by this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 9. NATIVE AMERICAN FISHPOND REVITALIZATION.

       The Act (16 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 8 (as added by section 8) the following:

     ``SEC. 9. NATIVE AMERICAN FISHPOND REVITALIZATION.

       ``(a) Definition of Native American.--As used in this 
     section, the term `Native American' means--
       ``(1) an Indian, as defined in section 4(d) of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(d));
       ``(2) a Native Hawaiian, as defined in section 8(3) of the 
     Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11707(3)) 
     or section 815(3) of the Native American Programs Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2992c(3));
       ``(3) an Alaska Native, within the meaning provided for the 
     term `Native' in section 3(b) of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(b)); and
       ``(4) a Pacific Islander, within the meaning of the Native 
     American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2991 et seq.)
       ``(b) Authorization of Program.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture is authorized to carry out a program to 
     revitalize fishponds used by Native Americans to cultivate 
     aquatic species.
       ``(c) Grants; Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may 
     provide grants or enter into cooperative agreements with 
     individuals and organizations, including Native American 
     organizations, to promote fishpond revitalization. Funds 
     provided under this section may be used to engage in fishpond 
     research, pond culture technology development, the 
     application of traditional pond culture techniques and modern 
     aquaculture practices to ancient fishponds, technical 
     assistance and technology transfer, and such other activities 
     as the Secretary determines are appropriate.''.

     SEC. 10. AQUACULTURE EDUCATION.

       The Act (16 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 9 (as added by section 9) the following:

     ``SEC. 10. AQUACULTURE EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) Postsecondary vocational institution.--The term 
     `postsecondary vocational institution' has the same meaning 
     given the term by section 481(c) of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088(c)), except that the term only 
     includes an institution that awards an associates degree but 
     does not award a bachelor's degree.
       ``(2) Secondary school.--The term `secondary school' has 
     the same meaning given the term by section 14101(25) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801(25)).
       ``(b) Authorization of Program.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to establish a program to expand and improve 
     instruction, on aquaculture and the basic principles of 
     aquaculture farming, in the agriculture curriculum for 
     students attending secondary schools and postsecondary 
     vocational institutions.
       ``(c) Grants and Curriculum.--In carrying out subsection 
     (b), the Secretary may--
       ``(1) make grants to--
       ``(A) establish and maintain aquaculture learning centers 
     in secondary schools and postsecondary vocational 
     institutions;
       ``(B) promote aquaculture technology transfer; and
       ``(C) educate consumers and the public concerning the 
     benefits of aquaculture; and
       ``(2) develop curriculum and supporting materials on 
     aquaculture farming, field test the content of the 
     curriculum, and supply training to educators at secondary 
     schools and postsecondary vocational institutions on the 
     aquaculture curriculum and materials developed.
       ``(d) Priority for Grants.--In awarding grants under 
     subsection (c)(1), the Secretary shall give priority to--
       ``(1) the ability of the proposed aquaculture learning 
     center to gain access to--
       ``(A) a commercial aquaculture farm;
       ``(B) a regional aquaculture center established by the 
     Secretary under section 1475(d) of the National Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 3322(d));
       ``(C) an aquaculture research facility; or
       ``(D) a similar venture that would afford students the 
     opportunity to experience aquaculture research and 
     development or commercialization;
       ``(2) the ability of the center to achieve outreach to 
     minority audiences or students in inner-city schools;
       ``(3) the ability of the center to foster awareness of 
     aquaculture among consumers and the general public;
       ``(4) the ability of the center to serve as an aquaculture 
     education facility for visiting students participating in a 
     field trip or a similar educational experience for inservice 
     training; and
       ``(5) the level of assistance to be provided from non-
     Federal sources.
       ``(e) Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     grantee may not receive a grant under this section for more 
     than 5 fiscal years.
       ``(2) Waiver.--In the case of grantees that receive grants 
     under this section for fiscal year 1996, the Secretary may 
     waive the application of paragraph (1) to the grantees for 
     the fiscal year if the Secretary determines that the 
     application of paragraph (1) to the grantees would result in 
     the termination of an excessive number of grants.''.

     SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       The first sentence of section 15 (as redesignated by 
     section 7(1)) is amended to read as follows: ``There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act 
     (including the functions of the Joint Subcommittee on 
     Aquaculture established under section 6(a)) $3,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.

     SEC. 12. ELIGIBILITY OF AQUACULTURE FARMERS FOR FARM CREDIT 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 343 of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991) is amended by striking 
     ``fish farming'' both places it appears in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) and inserting ``aquaculture (as the term is defined in 
     section 3(1) of the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 
     U.S.C. 2802(1)))''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall become effective on October 1, 1995.

     SEC. 13. INTERNATIONAL AQUACULTURE INFORMATION AND DATA 
                   COLLECTION.

       Section 502 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 
     5692) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) International Aquaculture Information and Data 
     Collection.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to establish 
     and carry out a program of data collection, analysis, and 
     dissemination of information to provide continuing and timely 
     economic information concerning international aquaculture 
     production.
       ``(2) Consultation.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall consult with the Joint Subcommittee on 
     Aquaculture established under section 6(a) of the National 
     Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2805(a)), and 
     representatives of the United States aquaculture industry, 
     concerning means of effectively providing data described in 
     paragraph (1) to the Joint Subcommittee and the industry.''.
     [[Page S5223]] SEC. 14. AQUACULTURE INFORMATION NETWORK 
                   REPORT.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall report to Congress on 
     the feasibility of expanding current information systems at 
     regional aquaculture centers established by the Secretary 
     under section 1475(d) of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     3322(d)), universities, research institutions, and the 
     Agricultural Research Service to permit an on-line link 
     between those entities for the sharing of data, publication, 
     and technical assistance information involving aquaculture.

     SEC. 15. VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION OF QUALITY STANDARDS.

       The Act (16 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 10 (as added by section 11) the following:

     ``SEC. 11. VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION OF QUALITY STANDARDS.

       ``The Secretary shall develop, in consultation with 
     representatives of the aquaculture industry, a plan for 
     voluntary certification of guidelines to ensure the quality 
     of aquatic species subject to this Act in order to promote 
     the marketing and transportation of aquaculture products.''.

     SEC. 16. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     report to Congress on the progress made in carrying out this 
     Act and the amendments made by this Act.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) a description of all programs and activities of the 
     Department of Agriculture and all other agencies and 
     Departments in support of private aquaculture;
       (2) the specific authorities for the activities described 
     in paragraph (1); and
       (3) recommendations for such actions as the Secretary of 
     Agriculture determines are necessary to improve recognition 
     and support of private aquaculture in each agency of the 
     Department of Agriculture.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Lott, 
        Mr. Cochran, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Coats, 
        Mr. Shelby, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Burns, Mrs. Kassebaum, 
        Mr. Daschle, and Mr. McConnell):
  S. 679. A bill to require that Federal agencies differentiate animal 
fats and vegetable oils from other oils and greases in issuing or 
enforcing regulations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                  THE EDIBLE OIL REGULATORY REFORM ACT

 Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator 
Pressler, Senator Harkin and others in introducing legislation to 
encourage regulatory common sense. Our legislation will correct two 
problems: First, the regulation of edible oils in a manner similar to 
toxic oils like petroleum, and second, the requirement that 
Certificates of Financial Responsibility [COFR] accompanying vessels 
carrying edible oils equal those of vessels carrying toxic oils. This 
bill is similar to legislation which passed Congress last year, but was 
not given final approval.
  In response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1990, Congress passed 
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which requires several Federal agencies 
to enhance regulatory activities with regard to the shipping and 
handling of hazardous oils.
  In 1993, the Transportation Department proposed regulations to guard 
against oil spills, and require response plans if spills did occur. DOT 
proposed to treat vegetable oils--that is, salad oils--in the same way 
as petroleum. Among other things, salad oils would have been officially 
declared ``hazardous materials,'' with all the regulatory requirements 
and extra costs which that designation entails.
  This was a classic example of regulatory overreaching. Vegetable oil, 
of course, is distinctly different from petroleum. Vegetable oil 
processors thought it entirely appropriate that they undertake response 
plans to guard against major spills. The industry did not argue that 
they should be exempt from regulation.
  The industry argued that regulators should take into account obvious 
differences--in toxicity, biodegradability, environmental persistence 
and other factors--between vegetable oils on the one hand, and toxic 
petroleum oils on the other.
  Secretary Pena eventually agreed with us and prompted modification of 
DOT's position. However, he does not have jurisdiction over all 
agencies with a role in regulating oil spills. More recently, the 
industry has been working with other agencies which have a role in 
regulating oils and ensuring adequate financial responsibility in the 
event of a spill.
  No one is any longer proposing to call salad dressing or mayonnaise 
``hazardous material,'' but agencies are requiring that spill response 
plans for vegetable oils be quite similar to those for petroleum.
  The most recent problem arose in December when Coast Guard 
regulations subjected vessels carrying vegetable oil to the same 
standard of liability and financial responsibility as supertankers 
carrying petroleum. On December 28, 1994, the Coast Guard began 
requiring the same standard--a $1,200 per gross ton or $10 million of 
financial responsibility--on vessels carrying vegetable oil and 
petroleum oil in U.S. waters or calling at U.S. ports. On July 1, 
similar standards will be phased in on barges operating on U.S. 
navigable waterways.
  Prior to December 28, a COFR requirement of $150 per gross ton 
applied to all vessels regardless of the hazardous nature or toxicity 
of the cargo. The vegetable oil industry does not seek a
 return to this earlier standard, but seeks regulation under a $600 per 
gross ton COFR requirement that Coast Guard regulations apply to 
vessels carrying other commodities. It is worth noting that this new 
financial responsibility standard for edible oil would be four times 
the COFR required on toxic petroleum oils prior to December 28, 1994.

  Application of the most stringent standard to vessels carrying 
vegetable oil adds to the cost of transporting U.S. vegetable oil to 
foreign markets. The additional costs of these burdensome regulations 
are passed back to farmers in reduced prices for commodities. Consumers 
may also bear a burden in higher food prices. In addition, there have 
already been instances in 1995 where this unjustified additional cost 
has made U.S. vegetable oil uncompetitive and has resulted in lost 
exports. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a February 15, 
1995 Journal of Commerce report detailing these losses be printed in 
the Record.
  Our bill would not exempt vegetable oil shipments from COFR 
requirements or regulation. It would only apply a more appropriate 
standard of financial responsibility to vegetable oil, similar to that 
applied to vessels carrying other commodities.
  The scientific data collected to date indicate that the animal fats 
and vegetable oils industry has an excellent spill history justifying 
differentiation of these edible materials from toxic oils. 
Specifically, these products account for less than one-half of 1 
percent of all oil spills in the U.S. In addition, most spills of these 
products are less than 1,000 gallons.
  The industry seeks a separate category for vegetable oils. This is as 
much because of scientific differences in the oils as it is for 
economic reasons. There is no reason why non-toxic vegetable oils must 
be in the same category as toxic oils.
  Second, the industry seeks response requirements that recognize the 
different characteristics of animal fats and vegetable oils within this 
separate category. A separate category without separate response 
requirements reflecting different toxicity and biodegradability is 
nothing more than a hollow gesture.
  The Senate and House of Representatives last year passed virtually 
identical legislation on different legislative vehicles to ensure that 
both of these objectives were accomplished. Under our bill, the 
underlying principles of Oil Pollution Act of 1990 would remain 
unchanged with the language to require differentiation of animal fats 
and vegetable oils from other oils. The House approved this language 
twice last year as part of H.R. 4422 and H.R. 4852. The Senate passed 
the bill as S. 2559. Since final action on this legislation was not 
completed in the last Congress, we have introduced it again.
  This bill does not tell the Coast Guard or any other agency what it 
must put into regulations. The legislation simply says that in 
rulemaking under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990, these agencies must differentiate between 
vegetable oils and animal fats on one hand, and other oils including 
petroleum on the other.
  [[Page S5224]] The bill specifies that the agencies should consider 
differences in the physical, chemical, biological or other properties 
and the effects on human health and the environment effects of these 
oils.
  This bill does not exempt vegetable oils from the Oil Pollution Act 
of 1990 or any other statute. It is a modest effort to encourage common 
sense in an area of regulation that has not always been marked by that 
characteristic. I hope my colleagues will cosponsor the 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. 679

       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 ``Edible Oil Regulatory Reform 
     Act.''

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Animal fat.--The term ``animal fat'' means each type of 
     animal fat, oil, or grease (including fat, oil, or grease 
     from fish or a marine mammal), including any fat, oil, or 
     grease referred to in section 61(a)(2) of title 13, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Vegetable oil.--The term ``vegetable oil'' means each 
     type of vegetable oil (including vegetable oil from a seed, 
     nut, or kernel), including any vegetable oil referred to in 
     section 61(a)(1) of title 13, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. DIFFERENTIATION AMONG FATS, OILS, AND GREASES.

       (a) In General.--In issuing or enforcing a regulation, an 
     interpretation, or a guideline relating to a fat, oil, or 
     grease under a Federal law, the head of a Federal agency 
     shall--
       (a) differentiate between and establish separate categories 
     for--
       (A)(i) animal fats; and
       (ii) vegetable oils; and
       (B) other oils, including petroleum oil; and
       (2) apply different standards to different classes of fat 
     and oil as provided in subsection (b).
       (b) Considerations.--In differentiating between the classes 
     of animal fats and vegetable oils referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) and the classes of oils described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(B), the head of the Federal agency shall consider 
     differences in physical, chemical, biological, and other 
     properties, and in the effects on human health and the 
     environment, of the classes.

     SEC. 4. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

       (a) Limits on Liability.--Section 1004(a)(1) of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``for a tank vessel,'' and inserting ``for a tank 
     vessel (other than a tank vessel carrying animal fat or 
     vegetable oil),''.
       (b) Financial Responsibility.--The first sentence of 
     section 1016(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 2716(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``in the case of a tank vessel,'' and inserting ``in 
     the case of a tank vessel (other than a tank vessel carrying 
     animal fat or vegetable oil),''.

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lugar 
in introducing legislation that will clarify the regulatory treatment 
of edible oils, including vegetable oils and animal fats. This 
legislation is very similar to legislation that we introduced last year 
and to legislation that both the Senate and House of Representatives 
passed last fall, but unfortunately not in the same bill.
  Common sense would dictate that regulations governing the 
transportation, handling and storage of edible oils should not be as 
stringent as those applicable to other oils, such as petroleum oils or 
other toxic oils, which pose a far more significant level of health, 
safety, and environmental risk in the event of a spill, discharge or 
mishandling. Animal fats and vegetable oils are essential components of 
food products that we consume every day. The scientific evidence 
indicates they are not toxic in the environment, are essential 
nutritional components, are biodegradable and are not persistent in the 
environment. In any event, spills of animal fats and vegetable oils are 
relatively infrequent and small in quantity. Such spills accounted for 
less than 1 percent of oil spills in and around U.S. waters between 
1986 and 1992, and were generally very small in quantity, with only 13 
spills of more than 1,000 gallons in that period.
  Regrettably, a common sense approach to regulation of animal fats and 
vegetable oils has been more difficult to achieve than one might think, 
as the experience under implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
demonstrates. At one point, it was proposed that edible vegetable oils 
be regulated as ``hazardous material''. Although some of the problems 
have been worked out, whether regulators will properly differentiate 
edible fats and oils from petroleum and other toxic oils in applying 
the Oil Pollution Act and other Federal laws. This kind of 
overregulation imposes costs which must be borne by the industry and by 
farmers, in the form of lower prices, and by consumers, in the form of 
higher prices.
  The legislation we are introducing today is simply designed to bring 
some clarity to this situation by ensuring that overly restrictive or 
unreasonable interpretations of Federal laws do not impose excessively 
burdensome or irrational regulations with respect to edible oils. The 
bill would not exempt edible oils from regulation, but would only 
require that regulators differentiate animal fats and vegetable oils 
from other oils, including petroleum oil, considering differences in 
physical, chemical, biological and other properties, and in the effects 
on human health and the environment, of the classes of oils.
  To address a specific issue that has arisen, language has been added 
to this bill that was not in the previous version to clarify that under 
the Oil Pollution Act vessels carrying animal fats and vegetable oils 
are not subject to the same level of financial responsibility 
requirements as are applicable to vessels carrying petroleum oils. 
Again, this is a common sense approach, recognizing that animal fats 
and vegetable oils simply do not pose risks comparable to those 
associated with other oils such as petroleum oils.
  In conclusion, this legislation will alleviate the substantial threat 
of overregulation of animal fats and vegetable oils in ways that 
clearly could not have been intended by Congress. It will bring some 
reasonableness and clarity to issues that are now characterized by 
confusion and uncertainty. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important, straightforward legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 680. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the 
vessel Yes Dear; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                coastwise trading privileges legislation

 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to 
direct that the vessel Yes Dear, official number 578550, be accorded 
coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of 
documentation under section 12103 of title 46, United States Code.
  The Yes Dear was constructed in Hong Kong in 1976, and the vessel is 
a wooden trawler. It is 53.6 feet in length, 15 feet in breadth, has a 
depth of 6.5 feet, and is self-propelled.
  The vessel was purchased by R. Milledge Morris of Beaufort, SC, who 
purchased it in 1991 with the intention of chartering the vessel for 
short sailing tours. The vessel was in disrepair, and Mr. Milledge has 
spent a considerable amount of time, effort, and resources in repairs. 
However, because the vessel was built in Hong Kong, it did not meet the 
requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. 
Such documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel 
for its intended purpose.
  The owner of the Yes Dear is seeking a waiver of the existing law 
because he wishes to use the vessel for charters. His desired 
intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise 
trade in U.S. waters. If he is granted this waiver, it is his intention 
to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The 
purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Yes Dear to 
engage in the coastwise trade and the fisheries of the United 
States.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HELMS (for himself and Mr. Mack):
  S. 681. A bill to provide for the imposition of sanctions against 
Colombia with respect to illegal drugs and drug trafficking; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.


         the narcotics national emergency sanctions act of 1995

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the drug problem today is worse then it was 
in 1992. Drug use by young people is up; addiction is up; and drugs on 
American streets can be acquired at cheaper prices and with greater 
purity levels than ever before. The most destructive 
[[Page S5225]] drug remains cocaine, which means the availability of 
``crack'' continues unabated; and there are worrisome reports of 
increasing heroin availability and use.
  The world's primary source of cocaine is Colombia. It is the 
headquarters for the international cocaine cartels, who are operating 
with virtual impunity in Colombia. Colombia is also a significant 
producer of heroin, having overtaken Mexico as the major Western 
Hemisphere heroin producer; and Colombia's cultivation and export of 
marijuana is increasing.
  On March 1, as required by law, the Clinton Administration announced 
its annual decision regarding Colombian cooperation with the United 
States in the fight against drugs. The Administration said Colombia 
failed to cooperate, the result of which is, in the Clinton 
Administration's own words, that ``* * * the activities of the 
Colombian drug syndicates continue to ensure that the flow of cocaine, 
heroin, and marijuana from Colombia to the United States remains 
undiminished.''
  This is a startling conclusion. Yet, the Clinton administration then 
gave Colombia a ``national interest'' waiver. The effect of this 
decision is to do nothing about Colombia's abysmal record, with our 
bilateral relationship continuing as if nothing is wrong. This is a 
grave moral and geopolitical mistake.
  This is way Senator Mack and I are introducing the Narcotics National 
Emergency Sanctions Act of 1995, a bill to cut off all economic aid, 
trade benefits, and military assistance to Colombia if the nation does 
not fulfill the antinarcotics agenda outlined by Colombia's own 
President, Ernesto Samper.
  This legislation requires the President to certify to the U.S. 
Congress that Colombia has made demonstrable progress in fighting drugs 
between now and February 6, 1996. If Colombia cannot fulfill what 
President Samper himself has outlined as his Government's antidrug 
agenda, then sanctions go into effect.
  The objectives outlined by President Samper, and contained in the 
legislation, include: investigating the financing of political parties 
and candidates by the drug lords; capturing and imprisoning the major 
drug kingpins; confiscating the profits from illegal drug activities; 
reforming the penal code and plea-bargaining system, and increasing 
penalties for drug trafficking; and destroying 44,000 hectares of 
illegal coca and poppy plants in Colombia by February 6, 1996, and all 
remaining illegal crops by February 6, 1997.
  These initiatives are in the legislation as the specific conditions 
that Colombia must meet. They were not created by this Senator, another 
Senator, or by anyone in the U.S. Government. They were announced by 
President Samper as his Government's own antidrug program in his July 
15, 1994, letter to the U.S. Congress and in a February 6, 1995, 
speech.
  We expect President Samper and the Colombian Government to fulfill 
their promises, and we will judge Colombia by their own standards.
  I do not see how we can accept a national policy that fails to hold 
the Colombian Government responsible for the poison they are allowing 
to be sent to our children, especially in the inner cities. I recognize 
that Colombia's Government is not the only one at fault. However, 
Colombia is the corporate headquarters for the booming international 
drug trade.
  How can we ask our local police and our Federal law enforcement 
agencies to continue a tough fight--including risking their lives--if 
their own national Government won't get tough with foreign governments 
protecting the drug bosses?
  I find this situation amazing, given that the Clinton
   administration was prepared to sanction China for pirating video 
tapes and computer programs. Why is the United States prepared to 
sanction nations that harm U.S. businesses that allow the theft of 
intellectual property but is not prepared to take equally strong 
measures against a Government that allows the poisoning of our 
children?

  Let me clearly state that I have no quarrel with the Colombian 
people. There are many dedicated Colombians who risk their lives every 
day fighting the drug cartels. Colombian citizens have suffered more 
wanton violence from greedy drug lords than any people on Earth. My 
concern is that the Colombian Government is not supporting these 
courageous individuals.
  Mr. President, here is just a brief review of Colombia' record:
  No arrest of any significant member of the Cali drug cartel, which 
accounts for 80 percent of the cocaine shipped into the United States. 
The brother of a major Cali cartel trafficker was arrested recently, 
but there are many--including some law enforcement agencies--who doubt 
that this person is a ``big fish.'' He may be a sacrifice by the drug 
lords to try to help the Colombian Government show resolve.
  No significant steps have been taken to investigate or prosecute some 
15,000 drug corruption cases, including no serious investigations into 
allegations that Colombian President Samper's Presidential campaign 
received millions of dollars from the Cali cartel or into corruption of 
Members of the Colombian Congress.
  A plea-bargaining system that Colombia's own Justice Ministry 
criticized for its lenient use, noting that nearly 40 percent of 
convicted drug traffickers have been freed on parole, without serving a 
day in prison. According to Colombia's Chief Prosecutor, ``the system 
results in virtual impunity.''
  Mr. President, the American people have every right to expect full 
cooperation in the ``drug war'' so long as our youth are being poisoned 
by Colombian cocaine. Countries that produce drugs should be put on 
notice that the United States will not look the other way.
  William J. Bennett, former U.S. ``drug czar,'' and I jointly prepared 
an op-ed piece for yesterday's Wall Street Journal in which we 
asserted:

       The Colombian leaders must be sent a clear and unmistakable 
     message: In the war on drugs, they can either continue to 
     ally themselves with the [drug] cartels, and thereby become a 
     pariah state like Libya and Iran; or they can return to the 
     community of civilized nations, fulfill the promises 
     President Samper made, and join with the U.S. in an effort to 
     put the cartels out of business. The choice is theirs.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Bennett-Helms Wall 
Street Journal op-ed piece, along with President Samper's July 15, 
1994, letter to Senator Helms and his February 6, 1995, counterdrug 
speech, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of The Narcotics 
National Emergency Sanctions Act of 1995 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 681

       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 ``Narcotics National Emergency 
     Sanctions Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Cocaine is the primary drug threat to the United 
     States, and heroin poses an increasingly serious drug threat 
     to the United States.
       (2) Colombia is the ``corporate headquarters'' for the 
     international cartels responsible for the production and 
     distribution of at least 80 percent of the cocaine that 
     enters the United States.
       (3) Colombia is the primary producer of heroin in the 
     Western Hemisphere and is a significant cultivator of 
     marijuana.
       (4) Courageous and dedicated Colombians risk their lives 
     every day in order to fight drug traffickers, and these 
     Colombians deserve the support of the United States and of 
     the Government of Colombia.
       (5) The Government of Colombia did not take significant 
     actions in 1994 to dismantle drug cartels in Colombia, 
     capture drug kingpins, or reverse the influence of drug-
     related corruption on the political system of Colombia.
       (6) The lack of achievement of the Government of Colombia 
     in 1994 in its efforts against drugs raises significant 
     questions as to whether the Colombian people presently 
     receive the support of that government in such efforts.
       (7) The political and judicial systems of Colombia are 
     plagued by drug-related corruption, including an ineffective 
     plea-bargaining system that leaves law-abiding citizens 
     virtually unprotected against crime.
       (8) The plea-bargaining system in Colombia is so 
     ineffective that at least 33 percent of the convictions for 
     drug-related crimes do not result in imprisonment.
       (9) The Prosecutor General of Colombia has stated that the 
     judicial process in Colombia system ``results in virtual 
     impunity [for drug traffickers]''.
     [[Page S5226]]   (10) Colombia is a significant center for 
     money-laundering activities, and, as a result, the financial 
     system of Colombia is inundated with illegal monies.
       (11) Despite repeated assurances it considers the war 
     against drugs to be a ``moral imperative'' and a ``matter of 
     national security'' requiring ``an all out effort, without 
     limits,'' the Government of Colombia has failed to keep 
     specific commitments made on July 15, 1994 by President-elect 
     Samper that Colombia would--
       (A) devote law enforcement resources, including creating an 
     elite corps of investigators, to the investigation, 
     apprehension, arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment of major 
     drug traffickers and their accomplices, including political 
     allies;
       (B) rapidly reform the penal code of Colombia, including 
     increasing penalties for drug traffickers, closing loopholes 
     in the plea bargain system, and strengthening anti-corruption 
     and money-laundering laws; and
       (C) participate in the creation of an anti-narcotics force 
     for Caribbean Basin countries and the implementation of a 
     global export monitoring system for precursor chemicals.
       (12) Evidence suggests that the influence of drug kingpins 
     reaches the Congress of Colombia and the Office of the 
     President of Colombia.
       (13) The Government of Colombia has not taken any 
     significant steps to investigate or prosecute cases of drug-
     related corruption, nor has that government undertaken a 
     meaningful investigation into allegations that the campaign 
     treasury of President Samper received millions of dollars 
     from the Cali cartel or into allegations of extensive 
     corruption in the Congress of Colombia.
       (14) The Government of Colombia has not demonstrated the 
     political will to move against major drug traffickers in 
     Colombia, and President Samper has not used his considerable 
     public influence to build political support for direct, 
     effective action against drug kingpins and the scourge of 
     drugs in Colombia.
       (15) The Government of Colombia has not arrested or 
     imprisoned any significant member of the Cali drug cartel, a 
     cartel which accounts for at least 80 percent of the cocaine 
     that is shipped into the United States.
       (16) Colombia has in effect laws to address drugs and drug-
     related corruption in a meaningful manner, but the Government 
     of Colombia does not enforce such laws.
       (17) The democratically-elected Government of Colombia is 
     being subjugated to the interests of drug traffickers in 
     Colombia.
       (18) On February 6, 1995, the President of Colombia 
     outlined a program of the Government of Colombia called the 
     ``Program of the War Against Illicit Drugs''.
       (19) In promising to pursue the program, the President of 
     Colombia stated that Colombia ``will continue fighting 
     [narcotics] because we are convinced that the struggle 
     against this serious scourge is a moral imperative, a 
     response to a public health problem, and, most of all, an 
     issue of national security.''

     SEC. 3. SANCTIONS.

       Subject to sections 4 and 6, the following sanctions shall 
     apply against Colombia as of February 6, 1996:
       (1) Bilateral assistance.--Funds available under the 
     following programs of assistance may not be obligated or 
     expended to provide assistance with respect to Colombia:
       (A) Development assistance.--Assistance to carry out 
     chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (B) Economic support fund assistance.--Assistance to carry 
     out chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961.
       (C) Foreign military financing.--Financing under section 23 
     of the Arms Export Control Act.
       (D) IMET Assistance.--Assistance to carry out chapter 5 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (E) Overseas private investment corporation.--Activities of 
     the Overseas Private Investment Corporation under title IV of 
     chapter 2 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (F) Export-import bank.--Financing by the Export-Import 
     Bank of the United States under the Export-Import Bank Act of 
     1945.
       (2) Multilateral development banks.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall instruct each United States executive director 
     of a multilateral development bank to vote against any loan 
     or other utilization of the funds of the respective bank to 
     or for Colombia.
       (3) Licenses for commercial arms exports.--Appropriated 
     funds may not be obligated or expended to license the 
     commercial export of items on the United States Munitions 
     List under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act to 
     Colombia.
       (4) Military activities.--Appropriated funds may not be 
     obligated or expended for purposes of carrying out military 
     activities in Colombia or that benefit Colombia, including 
     joint military activities involving the Armed Forces of the 
     United States and the Armed Forces of Colombia.
       (5) Trade preferences.--
       (A) Andean trade preference act.--The President shall 
     withdraw the designation of Colombia as a beneficiary country 
     under section 203 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3202). The President shall make such withdrawal 
     without regard to the procedures set forth in subsection (e) 
     of that section. Such withdrawal shall apply to goods 
     entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, after 
     the date that is 45 days after the date sanctions under this 
     section first apply to Colombia and such goods shall be 
     subject to duty at the rates of duty specified for such goods 
     under the general subcolumn of column 1 of the Harmonized 
     Tariff Schedule of the United States.
       (B) Trade act of 1974.--The President shall terminate the 
     designation of Colombia as a beneficiary developing country 
     under section 502 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462). 
     The President shall terminate such designation without regard 
     to the procedures set forth in subsection (a)(2) of that 
     section. Such withdrawal shall apply to goods entered, or 
     withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, after the date that 
     is 45 days after the date sanctions under this section first 
     apply to Colombia and such goods shall be subject to duty at 
     the rates of duty specified for such goods under the general 
     subcolumn of column 1 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
     the United States.
       (C) Other trade preference programs.--Colombia may not be 
     designated as eligible to receive preferential trade 
     treatment under any other program.
       (D) Free trade agreements.--Colombia shall not be--
       (i) extended tariff or quota treatment equivalent to that 
     accorded to members of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement; or
       (ii) allowed to participate in the discussion or 
     implementation of a free trade agreement involving Western 
     Hemisphere countries.
       (E) Superseding existing law.--The sanctions described in 
     this paragraph shall apply notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law.
       (6) Exclusion from entry into united states.--
       (A) In general.--The President shall take all reasonable 
     steps provided by law to ensure that public officials in 
     Colombia, regardless of rank, who are implicated in drug-
     related corruption, their immediate relatives, and business 
     partners are not permitted entry into the United States, 
     consistent with the provisions of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
       (B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply in the 
     case of a public official in Colombia, and the relatives and 
     business partners of such official, until the completion by 
     the Government of Colombia of an investigation into the drug-
     related corruption of the official that is satisfactory to 
     the Secretary of State and the Attorney General of the United 
     States and is so certified to the President.

     SEC. 4. DETERMINATION AND CERTIFICATION.

       (a) Certification Procedures for Initial Period.--Subject 
     to section 7(a)(1), the sanctions described in section 3 
     shall not apply to Colombia during the period beginning 
     February 6, 1996, and ending February 5, 1997, if the 
     President determines and certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees on February 6, 1996, the matters set 
     forth in subsection (b).
       (b) Determination.--The determination referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) is the following:
       (1) That the Government of Colombia has made substantial 
     progress in the following matters:
       (A) Investigating contributions by drug traffickers to 
     political parties in Colombia.
       (B) Providing funding for a sustainable alternative 
     development program to encourage Colombia farmers to grow 
     legal crops.
       (C) Utilizing the law enforcement resources of Colombia to 
     investigate, capture, convict, and imprison major drug lords 
     in Colombia and their accomplices.
       (D) Implementing and funding fully a proposed plan for the 
     improvement of the administration of the Ministry of Justice 
     of Colombia.
       (E) Acting effectively to confiscate profits from 
     activities relating to illegal drugs.
       (F) Enacting legislation to implement the United Nations 
     Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and 
     Psychotropic Substances.
       (G) Dismantling the infrastructure in Colombia that is used 
     for processing illegal drugs, interdicting the chemicals used 
     for such processing, and seizing or disabling vehicles 
     (including airplanes and ships) used to transport processed 
     illegal drugs.
       (H) Investing in technology to improve surveillance of 
     airports, waterways, and seaports in Colombia.
       (I) Constructing an installation for the Colombia Coast 
     Guard on San Andres Island, Colombia, in order to provide 
     effective surveillance of airplane and ship traffic that 
     departs from the island.
       (J) Improving the aircraft detection and interception 
     systems of Colombia, including the purchase of aircraft 
     detectors.
       (K) Encouraging and participating in the adoption of an 
     Inter-American convention to ban the establishment of a 
     financial safe haven in any country in the Western 
     Hemisphere.
       (2) That the Government of Colombia has accomplished the 
     following:
       (A) The reform of the penal code of Colombia in order to 
     increase penalties for drug traffickers and to remove 
     opportunities for such traffickers to enter into plea 
     bargains.
       (B) The creation of an effective investigation unit to 
     detect and bring to prosecution individuals in Colombia who 
     engage in corrupt activities related to drugs.
       (C) The enactment of legislation to implement the statute 
     prohibiting money laundering that was enacted by the Colombia 
     legislature in 1994.
     [[Page S5227]]   (D) The destruction of 44,000 hectares of 
     coca and poppy plants in Colombia by January 1, 1996.
       (c) Certification Procedures for Subsequent Period.--
     Subject to section 7(a)(1), the sanctions described in 
     section 3 shall not apply to Colombia, and any trade 
     designations withdrawn or terminated under section 3(5) shall 
     be reinstated with respect to Colombia, if the President 
     determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional 
     committees on February 6, 1997, the matters set forth in 
     subsection 6(b).

     SEC. 5. DISCRETIONARY SANCTIONS.

       (a) Authority.--The President may impose on Colombia the 
     sanctions described in section 4, or such other sanctions as 
     the President considers appropriate, if the President 
     determines that the Government of Colombia is not cooperating 
     with the United States in counter-drug activities in and with 
     respect to Colombia.
       (b) Requirements for Imposition.--The President shall 
     impose sanctions under this section by transmitting to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a notice of the 
     imposition of the sanctions. The notice shall set forth the 
     sanctions imposed and the effective date of the sanctions.
       (c) Termination of Sanctions.--(1) Subject to section 
     7(a)(2), sanctions imposed under this section shall terminate 
     45 days after the date on which the President transmits to 
     the appropriate congressional committees the determination 
     and certification referred to in section 6(a).
       (2) Upon the termination of sanctions under this section, 
     any trade designation withdrawn or terminated under section 
     3(5) shall be reinstated with respect to Colombia.
       (d) Expiration of Authority.--The authority of the 
     President to impose sanctions under this section shall expire 
     on February 5, 1996.

     SEC. 6. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Subject to subsection (c) and section 
     7(a)(2), the sanctions described in section 3 shall terminate 
     45 days after the date on which the President determines and 
     certifies to the appropriate congressional committees the 
     matters set forth in subsection (b).
       (2) Upon the termination of sanctions under this 
     subsection, any trade designation withdrawn or terminated 
     under section 3(5) shall be reinstated with respect to 
     Colombia.
       (b) Determination.--The determination referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) is the following:
       (1) That the Government of Colombia continues to make 
     substantial progress with respect to the following matters:
       (A) Investigating contributions by drug traffickers to 
     political parties in Colombia.
       (B) Prosecuting the persons responsible for illegal 
     contributions to political parties and campaigns.
       (C) Providing funding for a sustainable alternative 
     development program to encourage Colombia farmers to grow 
     legal crops.
       (D) Utilizing the law enforcement resources of Colombia to 
     investigate, capture, convict, and imprison major drug lords 
     in Colombia and their accomplices.
       (E) Implementing a reform of the penal code of Colombia so 
     as to punish and incarcerate drug traffickers and to 
     terminate the availability of lenient plea bargains.
       (F) Deploying an effective investigation unit to detect and 
     bring to prosecution individuals in Colombia who engage in 
     corrupt activities related to drugs.
       (G) Implementing and funding fully a proposed plan for the 
     improvement of the administration of the Ministry of Justice 
     of Colombia.
       (H) Acting effectively to confiscate profits from 
     activities relating to illegal drugs.
       (I) Enforcing effectively the statute prohibiting money 
     laundering that was enacted by the Colombia legislature in 
     1994.
       (J) Investing in technology to improve surveillance of 
     airports, waterways, and seaports in Colombia and utilizing 
     such technology.
       (K) Improving the aircraft detection and interception 
     systems of Colombia and utilizing such systems.
       (L) Encouraging and participating in the adoption of an 
     Inter-American convention to ban the establishment of a 
     financial safe haven in any country in the Western 
     Hemisphere.
       (2) That the Government of Colombia has accomplished the 
     following:
       (A) The enactment of legislation to implement the United 
     Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs 
     and Psychotropic Substances.
       (B) The destruction of all remaining hectares of illicit 
     crops in Colombia.
       (C) The construction of an installation for the Colombia 
     Coast Guard on San Andres Island, Colombia, and in order to 
     provide effective surveillance of airplane and ship traffic 
     that departs from the island.
       (c) Date of Transmittal.--The President shall transmit the 
     determination and certification described in this section, if 
     at all, not earlier than February 6, 1997.

     SEC. 7. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Review of applicability.--The sanctions described in 
     section 3 shall apply to Colombia notwithstanding a 
     determination of the President under subsection (a) or (c) of 
     section 4 if, within 45 days after receipt of a certification 
     under such subsection (a) or (c), respectively, Congress 
     enacts a joint resolution disapproving the determination 
     contained in such certification. The effective date of such 
     sanctions shall be the date on which Congress enacts a joint 
     resolution disapproving the determination concerned.
       (2) Review of termination.--The sanctions described in 
     section 3, and the sanctions authorized by section 5, shall 
     not terminate notwithstanding a determination of the 
     President under section 6(a) or 5(c), respectively, if, 
     within 45 days after receipt of a certification under such 
     section 6(a) or 5(c), respectively, Congress enacts a joint 
     resolution disapproving the determination contained in such 
     certification.
       (b) Procedures.--The procedures for the consideration of a 
     joint resolution disapproving a determination under this 
     section shall be governed by the procedures set forth in 
     section 490A(f)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2291k(f)(2)).

     SEC. 8. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WITH 
                   RESPECT TO COLOMBIA.

       In fiscal year 1996 and in any other fiscal year in which 
     sanctions are imposed on Colombia under this Act, the 
     President shall transmit the applicable determination and 
     certification under this Act in lieu of the determination and 
     certification, if any, required with respect to Colombia in 
     such fiscal year under section 490A of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291k).

     SEC. 9. REPORTS.

       (a) Requirement.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary 
     of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report on--
       (1) the progress made by the Government of Colombia in the 
     matters set forth in paragraph (1) of section 4(b); and
       (2) the accomplishments of that government with respect to 
     the matters set forth in paragraph (2) of that section.
       (b) Dates of Submittal.--The Secretary shall submit a 
     report under this subsection not later than--
       (1) September 1, 1995; and
       (2) September 1 of each year thereafter until the year 
     following the year in which sanctions, if any, on Colombia 
     under this Act terminate.

     SEC. 10. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term 
     ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Drug.--The term ``drug'' refers to any substance that, 
     if subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, would be 
     a controlled substance within the meaning of section 102(6) 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
       (3) Drug trafficker.--The term ``drug trafficker'' means 
     any person who transports, transfers, or otherwise disposes 
     of illegal drugs, to another, as consideration for anything 
     of value, or makes or obtains control of illegal drugs with 
     the intent to so transport, transfer, or dispose of.
       (4) Multilateral development banks.--The term 
     ``multilateral development banks'' includes the International 
     Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International 
     Development Association, and the Inter-American Development 
     Bank.
                                                                    ____

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 4, 1995]

            Colombia, America's Favorite ``Narco-Democracy''

                (By William J. Bennett and Jesse Helms)

       The deluge of illegal drugs flooding into the U.S. has 
     become one of the principal threats to our national security. 
     More Americans die each year from the use of cocaine, heroin 
     and other illegal drugs than from international terrorism. 
     Yet, while the Clinton administration has rightly maintained 
     a tough line with Libya, Iran and other governments known to 
     be sponsoring terrorism, it has let Colombia--which ships 
     more cocaine into the U.S. than any other country--completely 
     off the hook. It is time for the administration to stiffen 
     its spine and show some resolve in its anti-drug efforts.
       The administration's recent annual review of international 
     cooperation on counter-drug efforts by major drug-producing 
     and trafficking countries is instructive. Under this review, 
     countries that fail to meet certain minimum standards of 
     performance in combating drug trafficking are supposed to be 
     denied U.S. aid. The Clinton administration acknowledged in 
     its report that Colombia has indeed failed to meet minimum 
     standards, yet, amazingly, granted Colombia a ``national 
     interest waiver'' allowing U.S. aid to flow into Colombia 
     despite its miserable record.
       This is a grave moral and geopolitical mistake. All 
     available evidence clearly indicates Colombia has totally 
     capitulated to the drug lords. By extending certification to 
     Colombia, despite overwhelming evidence that its government 
     is rife with narco-corruption, the Clinton administration has 
     sent a troubling signal to all drug-producing nations: The 
     U.S. will impose no penalty for collusion in trafficking with 
     the drug lords.
       Colombia is no borderline case. It has indisputably become 
     a ``narco-democracy''--a country with a facade of democratic 
     government that is effectively controlled by drug kingpins 
     who manipulate the political establishment with cocaine 
     money. According to the administration's own background 
     papers on Colombia:
       The Cali cartel has been left free by the Colombian 
     government to exploit the banking system and launder vast 
     sums of drug money with impunity.
       [[Page S5228]] There is practically no effective 
     investigation or prosecution of the more than 15,000 current 
     cases of corruption involving government officials (more than 
     half of them senior-level authorities).
       A ``guilt-laundering'' system exists, in which Cali drug 
     lords surrender, and submit to a jerry-rigged plea-bargaining 
     system that leaves their assets intact and allows them to 
     plead to minor charges.
       The government's eradication programs have been half-
     hearted at best, despite massive increases in the growing of 
     opium and new cocaine cultivation.
       High-level government collusion enables the shipment of 
     enormous quantities of cocaine into the U.S., with 727 jets 
     transiting in Mexico with tons of the drug.
       There is evidence of the corruption of many members of the 
     Colombian Congress, and increasing evidence of presidential 
     ties to the drug cartels.
       The Clinton administration cannot plead ignorance as the 
     excuse for its abdication of responsibility. But conditions 
     in Colombia are in fact worse than even the administration's 
     report acknowledges. The influence of the cartels and their 
     blood money pervades almost all aspects of Columbia's 
     political, social and economic life. Cartel money finances 
     political campaigns. It silences journalists. It buys judges. 
     It infiltrates virtually every major business activity in 
     Columbia--from cut flowers, to oil, to paper, to banking.
       Colombia is now the primary base for the cartels to extend 
     their drug operations throughout the hemisphere. Despite the 
     fact that the Cali cartel now supplies more than 80% of all 
     the cocaine entering the U.S., the Colombian government has 
     failed to arrest or prosecute even one significant cartel 
     member. To the contrary, Colombia has given the cartel cover 
     and protection from international extradition, allowing these 
     drugs to end up on American streets and in American schools, 
     where they destroy the lives of American children.
       We believe the Colombian government collusion with the drug 
     lords poses a direct threat to the national security of the 
     U.S. It is time to meet this threat head-on. And since the 
     Clinton administration has failed to provide leadership on 
     this issue, it is all the more important that Congress assume 
     responsibility. That is why a Senate Foreign Relations 
     subcommittee will hold a hearing today on the issue. And why 
     legislation will be introduced this week to cut off all 
     economic support, trade benefits, and military assistance to 
     Colombia by Feb. 6, 1996, unless the president of the United 
     States can certify that Colombian President Ernesto Samper 
     has implemented the reform agenda he promised the U.S. 
     Congress he would enact.
       Elements of this agenda include investigating the financing 
     by drug traffickers of political parties and candidates in 
     Colombia; putting law enforcement resources behind 
     investigating, capturing, convicting and imprisoning major 
     drug lords in Colombia; ending the ``guilt-laundering'' 
     system; confiscating assets of cartel leaders; and destroying 
     44,000 hectares (108,680 acres) of coca and poppy plants in 
     Colombia by Jan. 1, 1996 (and all remaining acreage by Jan. 
     1, 1997).
       The Colombian leaders must be sent a clear and unmistakable 
     message: In the war on drugs, they can either continue to 
     ally themselves with the cartels, and thereby become a pariah 
     state like Libya and Iran; or they can return to the 
     community of civilized nations, fulfill the promises 
     President Samper made, and join with the U.S. in an effort to 
     put the cartels out of business. The choice is theirs.
                                                                    ____

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                    July 15, 1994.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     Ranking Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate Dirksen Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Helms: Next month I will assume the Presidency 
     of Colombia at a very important time in the relations between 
     our two countries and in our common struggle against drug 
     trafficking. I am well aware of your dedication and interest 
     in this issue and I appreciate your efforts in support of 
     Colombia. As I prepare my administration for the challenges 
     which lie ahead, I wanted to take this opportunity to share 
     with you my views about the ways we can strengthen our fight 
     against drug trafficking.
       I know, in a very personal way, the kind of threat 
     drugtraffickers represent to our democracies. The four 
     bullets still lodged in my body are a constant reminder of 
     the 1989 Cartel attempt to assassinate me at Bogota 
     International Airport. I was lucky, unlike many of my 
     compatriots who have fallen victim of the brutal violence the 
     cartels have wreaked in my country.
       Once again, we are the target of their diabolic 
     machinations. The taping of telephone conversations between a 
     Cali Cartel leader and a journalist known to be on the 
     Cartel's payroll revealed their frustrated efforts to 
     infiltrate the campaign organizations of Colombian 
     presidential candidates.
       I was perfectly aware of this threat when I entered the 
     Presidential race. That is why I established an independent 
     moral ombudsman in my campaign. That is why my campaign books 
     and records have always been open to public scrutiny. I also 
     expelled several sympathizers when it became evident that 
     they were not up to our rigid ethical standards. We rejected 
     several contributions because of their unclear or obscure 
     origin. That is why I am completely confident that my 
     campaign was successful in rejecting drug traffickers 
     undercover efforts to spread their corrupting influence. 
     Nevertheless, I have called for a special investigation to
      carefully examine all of these issues and will take further 
     action as needed to protect the integrity of my 
     government.
       Those who thought that the drug war was over with the 
     destruction of Pablo Escobar's organization were wrong. We 
     are entering what could be the last but decisive phase of the 
     drug war. The Cartels know that their campaign of terror and 
     intimidation has failed. Nevertheless, they will try to 
     regain the ground lost during the past years. The Cali Cartel 
     will rely on powerful weapons of choice: violence and fear, 
     bank accounts, legal loopholes, computer networks and 
     corruption.
       Today, the task is much more complex and the international 
     community has to readjust its strategy, sharpen its skills 
     and develop new legal and institutional tools. Starting on 
     the day of my inauguration, I will aggressively seek to 
     secure the tools we will need to win, both at home and 
     abroad. I invite the United States to join Colombia in 
     leading this effort.
       First, we will continue doing what we have done 
     successfully: vigorously applying all our law enforcement 
     resources to investigate, track and put in jail the drug 
     lords and their accomplices. We know who the bosses of the 
     Cali Cartel are and we will capture them. To achieve that 
     goal we need a continuous commitment from the U.S. in terms 
     of technical support, training, intelligence and evidence 
     sharing. We must establish a high-level bilateral commission 
     to permanently evaluate our cooperation, improve its 
     performance and promptly overcome any problem or obstacle.
       My administration will accelerate the reform of Colombia's 
     penal code, increasing the penalties for drug traffickers and 
     removing the loopholes in our plea-bargaining system. We will 
     not tolerate leniency.
       Drug traffickers failed in taking over our democracy 
     through terrorism and assassination. Now they want to destroy 
     it through infiltration and corruption. They will not 
     succeed. An ``elite corp'' of investigators will be created 
     to track down corruption and send the political cronies of 
     the cartels to jail and we will present to Colombia's 
     Congress stringent anti-corruption legislation. Additionally, 
     we will introduce new legislation to strengthen our laws 
     against money-laundering, that should be enforced with the 
     support of a U.S.-Colombian financial crime task force, 
     conformed by our best prosecutors and experts.
       Equally important, we will urge the U.S. Congress to 
     establish mandatory targets for the reduction of domestic 
     drug consumption and to provide the resources needed to 
     achieve those targets.
       Our two countries cannot solely bear the burden of the 
     global war on drugs. Consequently, my administration will 
     work towards the enactment of the following initiatives:
       The creation of a Caribbean Basin multilateral anti-
     narcotics force.
       Joining current radar capabilities in a Hemispheric network 
     to track trafficking activities.
       The implementation of a global export monitoring system to 
     impose strict controls on the flows of precursor chemicals, 
     crucial to drug production, as well as assault and automatic 
     weapons used by cartel hitmen.
       The adoption of a new Inter-American convention to ban 
     financial safe havens in the hemisphere. Drug Traffickers 
     cannot be allowed to enjoy the benefits of their ill-gotten 
     gains.
       These are concrete initiatives I will launch August 7th, 
     the day of my inauguration. I hope the United States will 
     choose to help Colombia win the drug war instead of being 
     paralyzed by the drug lords' disinformation campaign. I 
     invite the United States to redouble its faith in the 
     determination and courage of Colombians by joining us again 
     in the difficult battles that lie ahead.
       My administration looks forward to working with you on 
     these issues and others of interest to both our countries.
           Sincerely,
                                            Ernesto Samper-Pizano,
     President-elect of Colombia.
                                                                    ____

  Speech by Dr. Ernesto Samper Pizano, President of Colombia, at the 
 Presentation of the Policy Against Drugs, Santafe de Bogota, February 
                                6, 1995

       I wish to take the opportunity, on the occasion of the 
     appointment of the Manger of the Illicit Crops Alternative 
     Development Plan, to outline the Program of the War Against 
     Illicit Drugs that my Administration will carry out in the 
     years ahead. At the same time, I also wish to inform you 
     about what we have already achieved in the first few months 
     of my Administration.
       Colombia has been seriously engaged for several years in 
     the war against drug trafficking. Many of our countrymen have 
     fallen in this battle, and the economic price we have had to 
     pay has been very high, requiring us to postpone other 
     important needs and make great sacrifices.
       We are fighting this battle and we will continue fighting 
     because we are convinced that the struggle against this 
     serious scourge is a moral imperative, a response to a public 
     health problem, and, most of all, an issue of national 
     security.
                   [[Page S5229]] an integrated policy

       The challenge posed by drug traffickers demands an 
     integrated policy. We cannot continue in a cycle of action 
     and reactions. This leads to doubt and uncertainty about the 
     effectiveness of what we are doing. My Government is 
     committed to an integrated policy that will be led and 
     supervised directly by the President of the Republic.
       The new policy's components are as follows:

                          1. Crop eradication

       Unfortunately, Colombia has become a coca producing 
     country: 14 percent of the land under coca cultivation 
     worldwide is in our country.
       Between 1993 and 1994, the number of hectares under 
     cultivation increased 13 percent.
       We will eradicate the coca and poppy crops. We will take 
     advantage of the fact that most of these crops are grown for 
     commercial reasons and are not for traditional use, as in 
     other neighboring countries.
       We have begun ``Operation Radiance'' that will destroy all 
     existing illicit crops in the country in the next two years. 
     The target for this year is 44,000 hectares.
       The Government will be especially careful to ensure that 
     these operations cause the least adverse social and 
     environmental impact.
       Those who criticize spraying operations often forget that 
     the worst ecological damage is being caused by those who are 
     destroying our natural reserves to grow illicit drugs. Two 
     and a half hectares of forest are destroyed in order to plant 
     one hectare of illicit crop, at the expense of approximately 
     180,000 hectares each year. If production continues like 
     this, according to U.N. calculations, before the end of the 
     century Colombia will have lost one-third of its tropical 
     rain forest.

                    2. Alternative development plan

       The objective of the Alternative Development Plan that we 
     are announcing today is to provide an alternative means of 
     living for the 300,000 small coca growers.
       And, simultaneously to develop preventive programs in other 
     areas of the country which are abandoned and could become 
     areas for producing new crops. We do not want confrontations 
     to happen again like the ones in Guaviare and Putumayo last 
     year.
       I have requested the Solidarity Network to institute 
     programs in the most sensitive areas so that government 
     programs will begin work before the drug traffickers arrive.
       The Plan will provide better roads, health, education and 
     working conditions to small farmers in isolated areas.
       Likewise, with the assistance of government programs, the 
     trading and marketing of substitute crops will begin.
       The Plan will duplicate substitution programs that have 
     been successful in other places.
       In order to finance this ambitious crop substitution 
     program, we have a US$150 million budget which we hope to 
     double with international assistance.
       My goal is to eliminate all illicit crops by the end of my 
     term in office.

                   3. Industrial production of drugs

       In addition to coca cultivation, we are also a drug 
     producing country. To eliminate production, we will attack 
     the infrastructure used for the processing of drugs, such as 
     laboratories, importation of processing chemicals, and 
     vehicles used to transport drugs.
       With the use of the reinstalled radar system in the South, 
     we will interdict the entry of coca paste, the essential raw 
     material for the production of cocaine.

                            4. Distribution

       Colombia will take strong actions to destroy the internal 
     systems for the distribution and export of drugs through the 
     following programs:
       Investment in technology to improve the control capacity of 
     airports, waterways and seaports.
       Build a coast guard base on San Andres Island with 
     resources already allocated in the 1995 and 1996 budgets, 
     that will control all air and sea traffic arriving and 
     departing from the island.
       Improve the airplane interception system through the 
     purchase of detectors, aerial platforms, and electronic 
     intelligence gathering equipment.

                          5. Money laundering

       Recent estimates show that profits from drug trafficking 
     can reach nearly US$500 billion a year, which is ten times 
     Colombia's gross national product.
       Most of these funds are ``laundered'' through world 
     financial markets. It is very important that controls be 
     established in each country as well as at the international 
     level.
       If we allow the income produced by drugs, 75 percent of 
     which is held in international financial centers, to be 
     ``recycled'' into legitimate business, we will never be able 
     to end drug trafficking.
       At the hemispheric summit called by President Clinton and 
     held in Miami, Colombia suggested that the countries of the 
     region hold a convention to consider a War against Money 
     Laundering. This initiative was received with enthusiasm. The 
     organizational details of this convention will be spelled out 
     during the first quarter of 1995.
       On the domestic front, with the support of the Attorney 
     General's Office, the Banking Superintendency, the DIAN (tax 
     and national customs department), and the Stock Market 
     Superintendency, we will act more forcefully to confiscate 
     profits from illicit enrichment. We have already proposed 
     changes in the law to give my Government the necessary powers 
     to carry this out.

                  6. The rise of domestic consumption

       Colombia is at risk of becoming a drug consuming country, 
     according to the figures during the last few years.
       We will strongly fight against any increase in drug use, 
     particularly among our youth.
       The Government's action in this regard will be directed at 
     drug prevention, rehabilitation, special attention to 
     individuals that are vulnerable to becoming drug users, and a 
     massive education effort through the media and education 
     centers, under the coordination of the Youth Vice-Ministry, 
     on the harmful effects of drug use.
            7. Law enforcement and administration of justice

       The ``Surrender to Justice'' policy has become an open door 
     to impunity because of inadequate convictions and sentencing 
     by certain judges and prosecutors.
       Its implementation included minimum sentences and granted 
     maximum benefits.
       We are going to reformulate the policy, so that turning 
     oneself in is no longer perceived as a way to avoid 
     prosecution.
       We know that criminals will not turn themselves in if we do 
     not maintain pressure on them. We will pursue them until 
     either we catch them or they surrender.
       We are convinced that the new policy, with international 
     judicial cooperation, will enable us to successfully fight 
     against criminal cartels.

                  8. Changes in justice administration

       Those who think that all these changes require basic reform 
     of our justice system are right. The battle against drugs 
     must be fought within the rule of law. With our current weak 
     judicial system and inefficient criminal policy, we will not 
     be able to subject organized crime to the laws and justice of 
     the State.
       A Justice Department Plan, with allocations of around $500 
     million, will make the administration of justice more 
     effective.
       It is the intention of my Government to modernize the 
     justice system to include a new program to find ways to 
     defeat organized crime, especially kidnappers and drug 
     cartels.

                       9. Prosecution of cartels

       The Government has the clear intention to pursue, 
     apprehend, prosecute, and convict drug traffickers. We are 
     actively working to achieve this goal as soon as possible. To 
     obtain it, we will improve our intelligence gathering 
     capabilities against drug cartels with technical assistance 
     from various foreign governments, starting, of course, with 
     help from the Government of the United States.

                    10. International responsibility

       It is clear that our objectives cannot be fulfilled 
     entirely without more help and support from the international 
     community. Colombia's efforts will have little impact on 
     international narco-trafficking--
       If the rising levels of consumption do not decrease;
       If the control of air and sea traffic is not intensified;
       If progress is not made to control international money 
     laundering activities; and,
       If the sale of precursor chemicals is not reduced.
       Colombia will be alert to the international achievements on 
     each of these issues while maintaining its own responsibility 
     to combat the drug problem.
       It is not a matter of unloading one's responsibility onto 
     others. It is simply a matter of understanding that the 
     complexity and seriousness of the drug trafficking problem 
     are so extensive that its solution requires EVERYONE'S 
     PARTICIPATION, with no exceptions nor excuses.


                                results

       Now let me review the results obtained in the first few 
     months since we began this integrated program.
       During the first months of my Administration, until 
     December 1994:
       1. 6,950 hectares of illicit crops were eradicated, double 
     the amount from the same period last year.
       2. 18,416 kilos of cocaine were seized, an increase of 428% 
     compared to the same period last year.
       3. 20,200 kilos of coca paste was seized, 782% more than 
     the same period the year before.
       4. 194 cocaine laboratories were destroyed.
       5. 530,000 gallons of fluid and 213,000 kilos of solid 
     chemical precursors were seized, up from 219,000 gallons and 
     108,000 kilos seized the previous year.
       6. 940 people linked to drug trafficking activities were 
     arrested, of them 59 were foreigners and 5 were extradited.
       7. Special Joint Command operations, whose basic 
     responsibility is to pursue the heads of the drug trafficking 
     cartels, were doubled.
       It is clear that these statistics indicate progress in the 
     eradication, capture, and interdiction campaign that we 
     expect to continue.
       More than that, during the first six months of my 
     Government:
       1. A disciplinary emergency was declared for the City of 
     Cali police. More than half of the officers were dismissed.
       2. The National Police Anti-Corruption Unit was created.
       [[Page S5230]] 3. The United Nations Convention Against 
     Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 
     was ratified.
       4. Thanks to the action of the National Government and the 
     cooperation of the political parties, we were able to defeat 
     a legislative proposal that would have greatly weakened the 
     legal barriers to illicit enrichment.
       5. Money laundering was classified as a crime and national 
     legislation has been drafted and submitted to Congress as 
     part of the anti-corruption statute, which will soon be 
     passed by Congress.
       6. A budget of $150 million per year was allocated for the 
     next three years for the Alternative Development Plan we are 
     presenting today.
       7. The Attorney General's Office was reorganized to make it 
     more effective in the fight against drug trafficking.
       8. The Security Administration Department (DAS) was 
     reorganized in order to improve the professional capabilities 
     to combat organized crime.
       9. Prison Emergency was declared in order to control highly 
     dangerous prisoners, to clean up the areas surrounding 
     maximum security prisons, and to improve performance of 
     prison guards.
       10. The Surrender to Justice Policy Study Commission was 
     created by decree No. 159, 1995, in order to study and report 
     on sentences and benefits adjustments, as well as to suggest 
     any other reforms to the policy by March 6.


                              CONCLUSIONS

       The Government of Colombia has been active for several 
     years in the struggle against drug trafficking.
       My Government reiterates its commitment to continue our 
     efforts as I have described above.
       The country has an excellent team to undertake this program 
     including: The Attorney General of the Nation, the Ministers 
     of Defense and Justice, as well as the DAS Director and the 
     National Police Director, who have been working coherently 
     and effectively since the beginning of my Administration in 
     this struggle against drugs.
       In the development of this program, Colombia has had the 
     cooperation of several foreign governments among them the 
     U.S. Government.
       We trust that the policies and the facts presented here, 
     together with the achievements of my predecessor's 
     government, will renew the confidence that has characterized 
     the relations between our two countries over the years.
       Anything other than a strong bilateral relationship based 
     on confidence would weaken the joint efforts we have 
     undertaken and would only benefit the drug cartels' 
     interests.
       Colombia accepts international cooperation to achieve its 
     anti-drug objectives, but only after acknowledgment of its 
     sovereign right to formulate this policy on its own.
       Over the years, during many administrations, we have never 
     accepted any type of conditions from abroad.
       I am optimistic that in the near future we will defeat the 
     scourge of narco-trafficking.
       The Colombian people deserve a better international image 
     than that created by organized crime.
       We deserve to be known as a country that respects the law.
       We deserve to be judged on the basis of the majority of our 
     hard working citizens who love their country, who fight for 
     its progress, and who desire to leave their children the 
     possibility of a life led with dignity.
       To achieve this, we all have to make a commitment to fight 
     against violence, beginning with narco-trafficking, which has 
     plagued us like a curse.
       We do not want any more heroes or martyrs buried in our 
     cemeteries. Therefore, we must and we will bring crime and 
     violence under control.
       As President, I am sure that this would have been the wish 
     of the four presidential candidates, the 23 magistrates, the 
     63 journalists, and the three thousand policemen who in the 
     last ten years lost their lives fighting narco-trafficking.
       In their memory we will overcome future difficulties. We 
     are working very hard on this problem and we will continue to 
     do so.
       Thank you very much.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, there are any number of reasons, from the 
massive amount of cocaine entering the United States from Colombia, to 
the rise in high school drug use over the past 2 years, that I could 
rely on to explain my decision to cosponsor the Narcotics National 
Emergency Sanctions Act [NNESA]. The poor performance of Colombia's 
government in interrupting the flow of heroin, marijuana, and cocaine 
that originates or is processed in Colombia, would be justification 
enough for the extraordinary measures created by the NNESA. Above all, 
however, I am moved by the rank corruption the drug trade has spawned 
in Colombia and the colossal abuse of public trust by officials who 
ally themselves with criminals rather than the people they serve.
  Colombia's government institutions, including the courts, the 
Congress, and the highest levels of the executive, have been penetrated 
by the influence of narcotics traffickers. Not surprisingly, in 1994, 
Colombia failed to meet minimum standards of performance in combating 
drug trafficking. The Clinton administration responded by granting a 
national interest waiver. Although it is possible to imagine 
circumstances in which a national interest waiver might be justified, 
Colombia is not such a case.
  Colombia deserves to be taken out of the normal narcotics cooperation 
certification process because it is in a league of its own. We do not 
seek to penalize Colombia unnecessarily, or to impose an arbitrary 
standard. The NNESA responds directly to public commitments President 
Samper has repeatedly made to improve Colombia's anti-narcotics 
performance.
  Unfortunately, the Clinton administration itself has sent mixed 
signals about its commitment to the fight against illegal drugs. 
Enforcement of drug laws enjoys low priority at the Justice Department 
where Federal mandatory minimum prison terms are criticized as too 
harsh. Nationwide, Federal prosecutions of narcotics-related crimes 
have dropped dramatically since 1992. Colombia and Peru were refused 
intelligence information crucial to the interdiction of narcotics 
flights for several months in 1994. Although later overturned, the 
decision to cut off intelligence sharing dealt a severe blow to 
counter-drug efforts and broadcast the administration's ambivalence 
about the drug war. Overall, international interdiction efforts receive 
little support and dwindling resources in spite of efforts by some 
officials to protect this indispensable function.
  The Clinton White House must restore anti-narcotics policy to the top 
priority status it has enjoyed under previous administrations. It can 
start by endorsing the NNESA and sending an unambiguous message to 
Colombia: the United States has no national interest in cooperating 
with any government that colludes with drug traffickers.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FORD:
  S. 682. A bill to provide for the certification by the Federal 
Aviation Administration of airports serving commuter air carriers, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                  commuter airport safety legislation

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which 
will provide authority for the Federal Aviation Administration to issue 
safety certificates to airports serving commuter aircraft of 10 or more 
passenger seats. The FAA's authority to issue airport certificates is 
currently limited to airports serving air carrier aircraft with more 
than 30 passenger seats. This legislation is a result of a recent study 
of commuter airline safety conducted by the National Transportation 
Safety Board, which led the Federal Aviation Administration to issue a 
series of recommendations. The legislation I am proposing today 
compliments that regulatory effort by providing specific authority for 
the Federal Aviation Administrator to insure the safety of commuter 
airports. Safety improvements called for by new airport certification 
requirements will be eligible for grant funding consideration under the 
FAA's Airport Improvement Program.
  This legislation will not mandate the issuance of airport 
certificates to commuter airports. It will only provide general 
authority pursuant to which the FAA Administrator may promulgate 
appropriate regulatory standards. To do so, the FAA will need to issue 
a proposed regulation that will undergo a public comment process before 
any final regulation will be issued as they do with any other safety 
regulation.
  I am aware of a serious sense within the airport community with this 
new FAA authority. I would urge the FAA to initiate a negotiated 
process with the airport community which has been successful in the 
past. I understand the FAA is currently organizing a working group of 
affected aviation groups to assist in defining potential costs and 
reasonable certification requirements. I would urge the FAA to work 
with the industry as the goal of all concerned is safety.
   [[Page S5231]] FAA is often criticized for the tombstone mentality 
in that safety regulations are often the result of major accidents. The 
new authority in this legislation is proactive in nature. This 
legislation will put in place reasonable safety standards to protect 
commuter airline passengers before there are any fatalities. Let us not 
wait until an accident to justify the need for safety improvements. I 
commend the leadership at the FAA--David Hinson, Administrator and 
Linda Daschle, Deputy Administrator for this change in attitude. It is 
refreshing that FAA is looking forward instead of backward.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 682

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       Section 44706(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) that serves any scheduled passenger operation of an 
     air carrier aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats 
     or any unscheduled passenger operation of an air carrier 
     aircraft designed for more than 30 passenger seats;''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Brown, Mr. Inhofe, 
        and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 683. A bill to protect and enforce the equal privileges and 
immunities of citizens of the United States and the constitutional 
rights of the people to choose Senators and Representatives in 
Congress; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


                    electoral rights enforcement act

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as a strong supporter of congressional term 
limits and one who has promised voluntarily to limit my own tenure in 
Congress, I am today introducing a bill that would allow States to set 
their own limits.
  The American people have spoken. Approximately 80 percent of them 
support term limits. Measures limiting congressional service have been 
passed in one form or another in 22 States. This Congress needs to 
restore the faith of a wary American public in its Federal Government 
by addressing this issue.
  The legislation which I am introducing today would recognize the 
rights of the States to place term limits on their elected officials. 
Some may view this statute as redundant because the States already have 
the right to impose term limits on their Members of Congress. But a 
legal challenge by term-limit opponents is currently under 
consideration by the Supreme Court.
  This legislation is designed to insulate State-imposed term limits 
from court challenges. It is based on section 5 of the 14th amendment, 
which lets Congress enforce the rights to due process and equal 
protection of the laws. To enhance fair and open competition for 
elective offices and promote effective representative government, 
States should be allowed to limit congressional terms. The legislation 
is also based on other rights afforded in other amendments to the 
Constitution.
  Perhaps most importantly, this bill would restore the power to the 
American people to set the limits they prefer, without congressional 
interference. This Congress has already acknowledged that many of the 
important decisions about how this country is run should be left to the 
States. I believe that our citizens should determine whether and how to 
impose limits on their congressional representatives.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important 
measure.
                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 256

  At the request of Mr. Dole, the name of the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
Akaka] was added as a cosponsor of S. 256, a bill to amend title 10, 
United States Code, to establish procedures for determining the status 
of certain missing members of the Armed Forces and certain civilians, 
and for other purposes.


                                 S. 281

  At the request of Mr. D'Amato, the name of the Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. Campbell] was added as a cosponsor of S. 281, a bill to amend 
title 38, United States Code, to change the date for the beginning of 
the Vietnam era for the purpose of veterans benefits from August 5, 
1964, to December 22, 1961.


                                 S. 303

  At the request of Mr. Pressler, his name was added as a cosponsor of 
S. 303, a bill to establish rules governing product liability actions 
against raw materials and bulk component suppliers to medical device 
manufacturers, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 403

  At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. Campbell] was added as a cosponsor of S. 403, a bill to amend 
title 38, United States Code, to provide for the organization and 
administration of the Readjustment Counseling Service, to improve 
eligibility for readjustment counseling and related counseling, and for 
other purposes.


                                 S. 413

  At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from South 
Carolina [Mr. Hollings] was added as a cosponsor of S. 413, a bill to 
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage 
rate under such act, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 440

  At the request of Mr. Warner, the names of the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Murkowski], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], and the Senator 
from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] were added as cosponsors of S. 440, a bill to 
amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for the designation of 
the National Highway System, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 490

  At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota [Mr. Pressler] was added as a cosponsor of S. 490, a bill to 
amend the Clean Air Act to exempt agriculture-related facilities from 
certain permitting requirements, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 565

  At the request of Mr. Pressler, the name of the Senator from New 
Mexico [Mr. Domenici] was added as a cosponsor of S. 565, a bill to 
regulate interstate commerce by providing for a uniform product 
liability law, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 568

  At the request of Mr. Coats, the name of the Senator from North 
Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] was added as a cosponsor of S. 568, a bill to 
provide a tax credit for families, to provide certain tax incentives to 
encourage investment and increase savings, and to place limitations on 
the growth of spending.


                                 S. 647

  At the request of Mr. Lott, the names of the Senator from Louisiana 
[Mr. Breaux] and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] were added 
as cosponsors of 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.


                       Senate Joint Resolution 26

  At the request of Mr. Simpson, the name of the Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. Brown] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 26, a 
joint resolution designating April 9, 1995, and April 9, 1996, as 
``National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day.''


                       Senate Joint Resolution 31

  At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Montana 
[Mr. Burns] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 31, a 
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States to grant Congress and the States the power to prohibit 
the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.


                          Senate Resolution 85

  At the request of Mr. Chafee, the names of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 
Glenn] and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] were added as 
cosponsors of Senate Resolution 85, a resolution to express the sense 
of the Senate that obstetrician-gynecologists should be included in 
Federal laws relating to the provision of health care.


                         Senate Resolution 100

  At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from 
Alabama [Mr. Heflin] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 100, 
a resolution to proclaim April 5, 1995, as National 4-H Day, and for 
other purposes.




                          ____________________