[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5404-S5419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Simon, Mr. 
        Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Cochran, 
        and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 684. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
programs of research regarding Parkinson's disease, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


 THE MORRIS K. UDALL PARKINSON'S RESEARCH ASSISTANCE AND EDUCATION ACT 
                                OF 1995

 Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if you want to know more about 
Parkinson's disease all you have to do is read the newspaper or watch 
the nightly news. You don't even have to read the whole paper, the 
information is usually on page 1. Prestigious and international papers 
such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal believe that the 
news is worthy of front page coverage. ``Prime Time'' had a feature on 
Parkinson's, and our very own Washington Post devoted three pages to 
promising new developments. What has caused the media fervor is the 
exciting new and dramatic medical discoveries in the field of neurology 
and neurosurgery. As I speak, scientists are uncovering new important 
data on nerve cell function and repair. Our biomedical research teams 
are on the cusp of breaking the code to nerve regeneration.
  In these times of exciting new developments, we are unfortunately 
encountering a financial impediment. Last year, the Federal funding for 
Parkinson's disease at the NIH was $26 million. To put that number in 
prospective, the annual Federal budget for Alzheimers is $300 million, 
$1 billion each for cancer and heart disease. Our commitment to 
eradicating Parkinson's disease is minuscule in comparison. I cannot 
understand the lack of financial support for a disease that affects 
over 1 million Americans and costs our society over $6 billion a year. 
This disease is so widespread that each one of us has a close friend or 
loved one who is facing the challenge of life with Parkinson's. We must 
change our message to the American public and declare that increased 
Federal funding for Parkinson's disease research is a worthy investment 
in the future health of our Nation. [[Page S5405]] 
  Today, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation that accomplishes that 
goal. The Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research, Assistance, and 
Education Act of 1995, increases the Federal investment in Parkinson's 
research to $100 million for fiscal year 1996. The bill establishes an 
Interagency Coordinating Council, composed of representatives from the 
relevant agencies and NIH, which will develop a strategic plan for 
Parkinson's research.
  At the heart of the bill is the funding of Morris K. Udall 
Parkinson's Centers which will conduct basic and clinical research and 
patient care. Having these three individual areas of research and 
treatment linked in a center will assure that the research developments 
will be coordinated and the quality of patient care will be greatly 
improved. In addition, the centers may develop teaching programs for 
health professionals and
 dissemination programs for public information. To compile necessary 
data on patients and their families a clearinghouse will be 
established. Morris K. Udall Leadership and Excellence Awards will be 
granted to scientists who excel in Parkinson's research. Finally, a 
national Parkinson's Disease Education Program will be established to 
provide technical assistance to advocacy groups and facilitate public 
understanding of Parkinson's.

  This important legislation honors Mo Udall, a dedicated Congressman 
from the Second District in Arizona. For 30 years, Mo represented his 
constituents with integrity, compassion, and humor. He is remembered 
for his stewardship of the public lands by setting aside millions of 
acres of wilderness. He also championed civil rights and political 
reform. In 1980, Congressman Udall was diagnosed with Parkinson's 
disease, and struggled with the neurologic decay for years. He resigned 
from Congress in 1991, his career prematurely and tragically ended. 
Other famous individuals such as Mohammed Ali and Harry S Truman have 
all succumbed to this disease which knows no boundaries and strikes 
without warning.
  For Mo Udall and the millions of Americans who suffer from 
Parkinson's, we must enact this legislation now. By uniting the 
advocacy groups, the scientists, the caregivers, the patients and their 
families, we can become a solidified and cohesive group dedicated to 
alleviating the hardship of Parkinson's. We must give our world-
respected researchers the funding and the time to combat this and other 
neurological diseases, and improve the future health of all Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent that this bill, a section-by-section summary, 
various letters of support, and two newspaper articles appear in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 684
       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 ``Morris K. Udall Parkinson's 
     Research, Assistance, and Education Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Parkinson's disease and related disorders (hereafter 
     referred to in this Act as ``Parkinson's'') is a neurological 
     disorder affecting as many as 1,500,000 Americans.
       (2) Approximately 40 percent of persons with Parkinson's 
     are under the age of 60.
       (3) While science has yet to determine what causes the 
     disease, research has found that cells that produce a 
     neurochemical called dopamine inexplicably degenerate, 
     causing uncontrollable tremors, muscle stiffness, and loss of 
     motor function.
       (4) Eventually, Parkinson's renders the afflicted 
     individuals incapable of caring for themselves. In addition 
     to causing disability and suffering for the afflicted 
     individuals, Parkinson's places tremendous and prolonged 
     physical, emotional, and financial strain on family and loved 
     ones.
       (5) It is estimated that the disease costs society nearly 
     $6,000,000,000 annually.
       (6) To date, the federally funded research effort has been 
     grossly underfunded. Only $26,000,000 is allocated 
     specifically for research on Parkinson's, or only about one 
     dollar for every $200 in annual societal costs.
       (7) In order to take full advantage of the tremendous 
     potential for finding a cure or effective treatment, the 
     Federal investment in Parkinson's must be expanded, as well 
     as the coordination strengthened among the National 
     Institutes of Health research institutes.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to provide for 
     the expansion and coordination of research concerning 
     Parkinson's, and to improve care and assistance for afflicted 
     individuals and their family caregivers.

     SEC. 3. BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ON PARKINSON'S DISEASE.

       Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following section:


                         ``parkinson's disease

       ``Sec. 409B. (a) In General.--The Director of NIH shall 
     establish a program for the conduct and support of research 
     and training, the dissemination of health information, and 
     other programs with respect to Parkinson's disease.
       ``(b) Interagency Coordinating Committee.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of NIH shall establish a 
     committee to be known as the Interagency Coordinating 
     Committee on Parkinson's Disease (in this subsection referred 
     to as the `Coordinating Committee').
       ``(2) Duties.--With respect to Parkinson's, the 
     Coordinating Committee shall--
       ``(A) provide for the coordination of the activities of the 
     national research institutes; and
       ``(B) coordinate the aspects of all Federal health programs 
     and activities relating to Parkinson's in order to assure the 
     adequacy, effectiveness, and technical soundness of such 
     programs and activities and in order to provide for the full 
     communication and exchange of information necessary to 
     maintain adequate coordination of such programs and 
     activities.
       ``(3) Composition.--The Coordinating Committee shall be 
     composed of--
       ``(A) the directors of each of the national research 
     institutes and other agencies involved in research with 
     respect to Parkinson's;
       ``(B) one representative of the relevant Federal 
     departments and agencies whose programs involve health 
     functions or responsibilities relevant to such disease;
       ``(C) individuals with the disease and individuals who have 
     a family history with the disease; and
       ``(D) health professionals or allied health professionals.
       ``(4) Chair.--The Coordinating Committee shall be chaired 
     by the Director of NIH (or the designee of the Director). The 
     Committee shall meet at the call of the chair, but not less 
     often than once each year.
       ``(5) Annual report.--Not later than 120 days after the end 
     of each fiscal year, the Coordinating Committee shall prepare 
     and submit to the Secretary, the Director of NIH, and the 
     directors specified in paragraph (3)(A) a report detailing 
     the activities of the Committee in such fiscal year in 
     carrying out paragraph (2).
       ``(c) Morris K. Udall Research Centers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of NIH shall award Core 
     Center Grants to encourage the development of innovative 
     multidisciplinary research and provide training concerning 
     Parkinson's. The Director shall award not more than 10 Core 
     Center Grants and designate each center funded under such 
     grants as a Morris K. Udall Center for Research on 
     Parkinson's Disease.
       ``(2) Requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to Parkinson's, each center 
     assisted under this subsection shall--
       ``(i) use the facilities of a single institution or a 
     consortium of cooperating institutions, and meet such 
     qualifications as may be prescribed by the Director of the 
     NIH; and
       ``(ii) conduct basic and clinical research and provide 
     patient care services.
       ``(B) Discretionary requirements.--With respect to 
     Parkinson's, each center assisted under this subsection may--
       ``(i) conduct training programs for scientists and health 
     professionals;
       ``(ii) conduct programs to provide information and 
     continuing education to health professionals;
       ``(iii) conduct programs for the dissemination of 
     information to the public; and
       ``(iv) develop and maintain, where appropriate, a brain 
     bank to collect specimens related to the research and 
     treatment of Parkinson's.
       ``(3) Stipends regarding training programs.--A center may 
     use funds provided under paragraph (1) to provide stipends 
     for scientists and health professionals enrolled in training 
     programs under paragraph (2)(C).
       ``(4) Duration of support.--Support of a center under this 
     subsection may be for a period not exceeding five years. Such 
     period may be extended by the Director of NIH for one or more 
     additional periods of not more than five years if the 
     operations of such center have been reviewed by an 
     appropriate technical and scientific peer review group 
     established by the Director and if such group has recommended 
     to the Director that such period should be extended.
       ``(d) Data System; Information Clearinghouse.--
       ``(1) Data system.-- The Director of NIH shall establish 
     the National Parkinson's Disease Data System for the 
     collection, storage, analysis, retrieval, and dissemination 
     of data derived from patient populations with such disease, 
     including, where possible, data involving general populations 
     for the purpose of detection of individuals with a risk of 
     developing the disease.
       ``(2) Information clearinghouse.--The Director of NIH shall 
     establish the National [[Page S5406]] Parkinson's Disease 
     Information Clearinghouse to facilitate and enhance knowledge 
     and understanding of such disease on the part of health 
     professionals, patients, and the public through the effective 
     dissemination of information.
       ``(e) Morris K. Udall Leadership and Excellence Awards.--
     The Director of NIH shall establish a grant program to 
     support scientists who have distinguished themselves in the 
     field of Parkinson's research. Grants under this subsection 
     shall be utilized to enable established investigators to 
     devote greater time and resources in laboratories to conduct 
     research on Parkinson's and to encourage the development of a 
     new generation of investigators, with the support and 
     guidance of the most productive and innovative senior 
     researchers.
       ``(f) National Parkinson's Disease Education Program.--The 
     Director of NIH shall establish a national education program 
     that is designed to foster a national focus on Parkinson's 
     and the care of those with Parkinson's. Activities under such 
     program shall include--
       ``(1) the bringing together of public and private 
     organizations to develop better ways to provide care to 
     individuals with Parkinson's, and assist the families of such 
     individuals; and
       ``(2) the provision of technical assistance to public and 
     private organizations that offer support and aid to 
     individuals with Parkinson's and their families.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of carrying out this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 
     for fiscal year 1996, and such sums as may be necessary for 
     each of the fiscal years 1997 through 2000.
       ``(2) Availability.--Of the amount appropriated under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make available not to 
     exceed $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1997 through 2000, 
     to establish Morris K. Udall Centers under subsection (c).''.
                                                                    ____

The Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research, Education and Assistance Act 
                  of 1995--Section-by-Section Summary

       Section 1--Short Title: Morris K. Udall Parkinson's 
     Research, Assistance and Education, Act of 1995.
       Section 2--Findings and Purpose: Parkinson's disease and 
     related disorders affect as many as 1.5 million Americans, 
     with costs to society of nearly $6 billion annually. To date, 
     the federal research effort has been grossly underfunded, 
     providing about $26 million a year for research on 
     Parkinson's. It is the purpose of this Act to provide for the 
     expansion and coordination of research concerning 
     Parkinson's, and to improve care and assistance for the 
     afflicted individuals and family caregivers.
       Section 3--Biomedical Research on Parkinson's Disease: 
     Amends Title IV, Part B of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 284 et seq.) with a new Section 409B--Parkinson's 
     Disease Research--


                  A. Expansion of Biomedical Research

       1. Interagency Coordinating Committee--The Director of the 
     National Institutes of Health (NIH) will establish a 
     committee to coordinate Parkinson's research, composed of the 
     directors of each of the national research institutes, 
     representatives of other agencies, and patients and their 
     families.
       2. Annual Report--Not later than 120 days after the end of 
     each fiscal year, the Coordinating Committee shall prepare 
     and submit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 
     Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the 
     directors of appropriate Federal programs a yearly report 
     detailing the activities of the Committee.
       3. Morris K. Udall Research Centers--The Director of NIH 
     shall award Core Center Grants to provide funding for not 
     more than 10 Parkinson's Research Centers, which will conduct 
     basic and clinical research, and patient care. The Centers 
     may disseminate clinical information, provide training for 
     health care personnel, develop and maintain brain banks, and 
     enhance community awareness concerning Parkinson's. Not more 
     than $10 million.
       Data System; Information Clearinghouse: The Director of NIH 
     shall establish a clearinghouse for collecting patient and 
     family data.
       Udall Leadership and Excellence Awards: The Director of NIH 
     shall establish grants for scientists who excel in 
     Parkinson's research.
       Natl. Parkinson's Disease Education Program: The Director 
     of NIH shall establish a national education program to 
     provide technical assistance to advocacy groups, establish a 
     clearinghouse to disseminate information, and facilitate 
     public understanding of Parkinson's Disease.
       Authorization of Appropriations: The bill establishes a 
     five-year authorization, and authorizes appropriations 
     beginning in fiscal year 1996. Overall funding authorizations 
     are: $100 million for FY1996, and such sums as necessary for 
     FY1997 through FY2000. Not more than $10 million will be 
     allocated in FY1996 for the funding of the Centers.
                                                                    ____

                                   Parkinson's Action Network,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 1995.
     Re Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act.
     Hon. Mark Hatfield,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: Thank you from the bottom of our 
     hearts for your great leadership in authoring the Morris K. 
     Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act.
       The impact of Parkinson's disease on its victims and their 
     loved ones is devastating. As Parkinson's neurologic 
     devastation progresses, it leaves its targets with increasing 
     difficulty with every simple motor function. That process 
     changes forever the lives, the careers and the dreams of the 
     million Americans who suffer from Parkinson's, and millions 
     more loved ones.
       Moreover, it causes Parkinson's victims and their families 
     to drop out of public life, so consumed are they with the 
     struggle to survive.
       Scientists promise that the cure of Parkinson's is very 
     near--as long as adequate support for research is available. 
     Unfortunately, this great need for research support has been 
     neglected by our government in the past.
       Your legislation can end this deadlock, by giving the 
     research community the support they need to deliver our cure.
       Words are inadequate to express our profound gratitude for 
     this bill. Equally profound is our determination to do 
     whatever it takes to ensure swift enactment of this 
     legislation, so that our suffering community can be rescued. 
     We commit to you that we no longer will be an invisible 
     community, so that our suffering will be recognized and 
     ended.
           Sincerely,
     Anne J. Udall,
       Chair.
     Joan I. Samuelson,
       President.
                                                                    ____

                                    The American Parkinson Disease


                                            Association, Inc.,

                                   Washington, DC., April 1, 1995.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: The American Parkinson Disease 
     Association and the more than 1 million people with 
     Parkinson's and their families, commend and enthusiastically 
     support the introduction of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's 
     Research, Education & Assistance Act to the 104th Congress.
       Your introduction of this bill; the first legislative 
     initiative to strengthen the federal Parkinson's research 
     program, will ensure proper funding and coordination of 
     Parkinson's research. The current science gives us hope that 
     major breakthroughs are within reach. We can no longer ignore 
     the tremendous scientific potential.
       The Udall Bill will assure that scientific advances are 
     able to move to the stage of treating and curing people with 
     Parkinson's.
       Thank you for your leadership and initiative embodied in 
     this legislation, as we work together to achieve the ultimate 
     goal--a cure for Parkinson's.
           Sincerely,
     Salvatore J. Esposito, Jr.,
           President, Board of Directors.
     Frank L. Williams,
       Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                 Oregon Health    
                                              Sciences University,


                                   Parkinson Center of Oregon,

                                      Portland, OR, April 3, 1995.
     Hon. Mark Hatfield,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: Your introduction of the ``Morris K. 
     Udall Parkinson's Research Assistance and Education Act'' 
     could not have come at a more opportune time. Medical 
     scientists need support to follow up on some very important 
     clues into the cause and treatment of Parkinson's disease and 
     related neurodegenerative disorders. We have a greater 
     understanding of Parkinson's disease in comparison to other 
     neurodegenerative disorders; medical scientists are closer to 
     breakthroughs in the understanding of the cause and treatment 
     of Parkinson's disease, which could serve as a model for 
     similar approaches in the other disorders such as Alzheimer's 
     disease and Lou Gehrig's disease.
       I am particularly pleased that not only does the bill fund 
     research centers but also productive biomedical researchers 
     with good ideas who can train younger, promising 
     investigators to continue the work. The data system and 
     information and clearing house provided in the bill will be a 
     valuable tool for facilitating the work of the scientists.
       Because Parkinson's disease is a chronic disorder that 
     consumes valuable family and community resources, the 
     education program is also extremely important. We need to 
     facilitate the delivery of education and assistance to the 
     families and communities struggling with this debilitating 
     disease.
       Thank you again for providing the leadership to provide the 
     much needed support to conquer Parkinson's disease and 
     related degenerative disorders.
           Sincerely yours,
                                         John P. Hammerstad, M.D.,
                                           Professor of Neurology.
     [[Page S5407]]
     
     
                                                                    ____
                                                     WILL-COPE    
                                     (Williamette Columbia    

                                        Parkinsonian Society),

                                                    April 5, 1995.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: We are delighted to learn of your 
     intention to introduce a revised version of the Morris K. 
     Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act.
       Parkinson's disease steals the golden years from many of us 
     and is taking away the economic productive lives of younger-
     onset Parkinsonians. We know what causes our tremors and 
     makes our bodies freeze but research has not yet provided the 
     cause. Without this needed research, many fine people are 
     trapped in bodies that limit their potential.
       Nationwide there are approximately one million Parkinson's 
     patients. U.S. support for research for research of this 
     condition amounts to less than $30.00 per patient which is 
     far less than the help other diseases receive.
       Please continue with whatever actions are needed to secure 
     additional Federal funds for continued research towards 
     finding an early cure for this dreaded condition.
       Our thanks for your attention, efforts and support.
           Sincerely,
                                                      L.R. Greger,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                            University of Colorado


                                       Health Sciences Center,

                                       Denver, CO, March 29, 1995.
     Hon. Mark Hatfield,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: I wish you well with your bill, the 
     Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act, which 
     you will reintroduce to the Senate on April 6th. As a 
     physician and scientist who has spent the last 20 years 
     trying to improve the treatment of Parkinson's disease, I am 
     delighted to see a proposal which recognizes that Parkinson's 
     disease may be cured if adequate resources are devoted to the 
     problem for the next few years.
       Even with the current low level of Federal research support 
     for Parkinson's disease, this disease is still the neurologic 
     disorder most likely to be cured in the next decade. While 
     neural transplantation with fetal tissue has already been 
     shown to produce substantial clinical benefit in some 
     patients, genetically engineered alternatives to fetal cells 
     offer promise to supply a limitless amount of tissue for 
     brain repair. These and other fundamental breakthroughs will 
     certainly occur with accelerated research.
       Your bill recognizes this unusual opportunity. If we can 
     cure Parkinson's disease, the lessons that we learn will 
     apply to many other disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, 
     Huntington's disease, and epilepsy. Research in other areas 
     such as diabetes will also be benefited.
       Although we live in a time of fiscal constraint, I can 
     assure you that money spent on research for Parkinson's 
     disease will be repaid many times over by increased 
     productivity and reduced medical costs. Research success will 
     take people who are frozen invalids and give them back the 
     freedom to move.
           Yours sincerely,

                                          Curt R. Freed, M.D.,

         Professor and Head, Division of Clinical Pharmacology and 
           Toxicology.
                                                                    ____

                                              Springfield, MO,

                                                    April 3, 1995.
     Hon. Mel Hancock,
     U.S. Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hancock: On July 19, 1994 Senator Mark O. 
     Hatfield and Congressman Henry Waxman introduced the Morris 
     K. Udall Parkinson's Research, Education and Assistance Act 
     of 1994. (S. 2294 & H. 4789) This bill is critical to the 
     Parkinson's community. We are seeking strong support for this 
     bill and would like your cosponsorship.
       The Udall Bill would establish research and education 
     centers, promote a coordinated research agenda, establish 
     research and training grants and establish a national 
     education program.
       More than 1 million Americans are afflicted with 
     Parkinson's disease. Approximately 50,000 Americans are 
     diagnosed with Parkinson's each year. Parkinson's disease is 
     estimated to cost the U.S. $6 billion a year in direct 
     health-related expenses, lost productivity and indirect 
     disability costs.
       I am able to speak in regard to this matter with authority 
     and experience. Three years ago my family was virtually torn 
     apart when I received the diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease at 
     the early age of 37. Four years prior to my diagnosis, I went 
     through many emotional ups and downs, expensive tests and 4 
     different doctors. I was a hard-working career mom with two 
     teenage daughters and a 10 year old son. Two weeks after my 
     diagnosis my oldest daughter ran away. With increasing 
     disability, I had to leave my job at the Prosecuting 
     Attorneys Office 8 months ago which I truly loved and still 
     miss every day. In a year and a half I will lose my benefits 
     with my previous job and my family will be responsible to 
     pick up the costs of sky-rocketing prescription costs. At the 
     present time my health care pays $418 for my drug treatment 
     which will only increase with progression. We are scared, 
     really scared and no longer make plans for our future. Do we 
     even have a future?
       I urge you to co-sponsor the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's 
     Research, Education and Assistance Act of 1994 to give my 
     family and so many families HOPE! I look forward to hearing 
     your views on this subject.
           Sincerely,
     Karen Kidwell.
                                                                    ____

                                        The Parkinson's Institute,
                                    Sunnydale, CA, March 29, 1995.
     Hon. Mark Hatfield,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: I strongly support and applaud your 
     re-introduction of the ``Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research 
     and Education Act'' to the U.S. Senate. I am a neurologist 
     who treats a large number of patients with Parkinson's 
     disease and I know first hand of their suffering. In my view, 
     passage of this bill would greatly bolster promising research 
     efforts that are now in limbo because of reduced funding by 
     NIH and others.
       A few areas of research that would benefit if this bill 
     were to pass include: 1) a project testing several compounds 
     that have been shown to revive damaged dopamine producing 
     neurons in several models of Parkinson's disease, 2) a 
     project aimed at testing the possibility of inducing certain 
     brain cells to produce dopamine by directly injecting 
     specific genes into the brain, 3) several projects 
     investigating possible genetic factors that might predispose 
     to the disease, 4) a project aimed at discovering the 
     underlying mechanisms of neuronal degeneration in Parkinson's 
     disease. All of these projects are very promising, but are 
     suffering because of insufficient funding.
       I do hope that Congress will recognize the compelling 
     arguments for this legislation. I commend your efforts as 
     well as those of Ms. Samuelson and all who have supported 
     this bill.
           Sincerely,
     James W. Tetrud, M.D.
                                                                    ____

                                                American Parkinson


                                          Disease Association,

                                    Salisbury, MD, March 30, 1995.
     Hon. Mark Hatfield,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield and other Members of the Senate: We, 
     the Parkinsonians and the caregivers of the Delmarva Chapter/
     Support Group of the American Parkinson Disease Association, 
     strongly support and encourage passage of the Morris K. Udall 
     Parkinson's Research, Assistance, and Education Act of 1995 
     and hope that adequate funding will follow.
       Parkinson's disease is stealing the ``golden years'' from 
     many in our group, and, increasingly, is taking away the 
     economic productive life of the young-onset Parkinsonians and 
     many caregiver children. We know the thief who causes our 
     tremors and makes our bodies writhe or freeze, but we do not 
     know where he comes from or how to rid ourselves of him. 
     Research does not guarantee our finding the cause or the 
     cure, but, without medical research, we can be sure we will 
     never know where Parkinson's disease comes from.
       We want to help ourselves, but we can do only so much. I 
     give financially in spite of an early unplanned Parkinson's 
     induced retirement. I give my time as a local hospital 
     volunteer worker; as president of the Delmarva Pakinson's 
     chapter/support group; and as writer, editor, printer, and 
     circulation manager of the monthly Parkinson's Newsletter 
     with a complimentary circulation of 483 [March 1995] which 
     carries chapter news, hints for coping with Parkinson's, and 
     a synopsis of research. I give myself. Since 1991 I have been 
     a ``guinea pig'' in two double blind Parkinson's experimental 
     drug tests at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New 
     Brunswick, New Jersey; been a subject in a PET scan 
     Parkinson's diagnosis experiment at Johns Hopkins in 
     Baltimore which resulted in a medical journal article; and 
     participated in a Parkinson's olfactory test experiment at 
     Graduate Hospital in Philadelphia. It is not enough.
       We need help. A national investment now in finding the 
     cause and cure for Parkinson's should pay off in better and 
     more productive lives for us and future Parkinsonians.
           Sincerely,

                                                Will Johnston,

                                                        President,
     Delmarva Chapter/Support Group.
                                                                    ____

                                      University of Minnesota,

                                  Minneapolis, MN, March 29, 1995.
     Hon. Mark Hatfield,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: I have recently learned that you 
     will re-introduce the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research 
     and Education Act. I am writing to show my strong support for 
     this bill.
       I am a Ph.D. candidate in Neuroscience at the University of 
     Minnesota. My research work for my thesis is on the cellular 
     mechanisms involved in the death of brain cells and novel 
     protective therapies that can be utilized to prevent cell 
     death. As you know, the hallmark of Parkinson's disease is 
     the death of the dopamine-producing cells (neurons) in the 
     brain. [[Page S5408]] 
       This is an extremely exciting time in neuroscience 
     research. Breakthroughs in our understanding of how the brain 
     functions in normal and diseased states as well as new 
     therapies to treat neurological disorders are occurring at an 
     unprecedented pace. Research relating to Parkinson's disease 
     (PD) is at an especially exciting crossroads, since we 
     understand more about PD than many other neurological 
     disorders. Novel therapies, such as neural tissue 
     transplantation, selective neural ablation techniques, and 
     protective drug therapies, are being aggressively studied in 
     laboratories at the University of Minnesota, as well as in 
     laboratories across the country. These important studies hold 
     hope and promise for the more than 1 million people in the 
     United States who have Parkinson's disease, as well as the 
     many more people in the next generation destined to be struck 
     down with this devastating disease.
       I would like to make one additional point about this type 
     of neuroscience research. The death of neurons in Parkinson's 
     disease undoubtedly employs cellular mechanisms similar to 
     that which occurs in many other neurodegenerative diseases. 
     Therefore, advances made in Parkinson's disease research 
     today will be applicable to many, many other neurological 
     diseases. The knowledge gained will advance the research on 
     diseases such as Alzheimer's and Huntington's diseases, as 
     well as stroke and cerebral palsy, to name just a few. This 
     bill promises to give a boost to so many areas of 
     neuroscience research which affect each and every one of us.
       Thank you for your attention and your support of these 
     important efforts. Please contact me if there is anything 
     that I might do to answer questions or to help facilitate the 
     passage of this bill.
           Sincerely,
     Elizabeth M. Jansen.
                                                                    ____

                                    Axion Research Foundation,

                                        Hamden, CT, April 4, 1995.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: The Axion Research Foundation, its 
     supporters, and researchers are most grateful to you and 
     other supporters for the re-introduction of the Morris K. 
     Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act.
       Our Foundation has played an important role in carrying out 
     and funding important breakthroughs related to cellular and 
     genetic brain circuit restorations as possible treatments for 
     Parkinson's disease. We have recently helped to develop the 
     first practical diagnostic test for Parkinson's disease, 
     which should dramatically facilitate studies aimed at 
     determining its cause. Other research areas also offer great 
     promise at the present time. But it is clear that the 
     combined efforts of the private sector and the federal 
     government must increase to produce clinical benefits for 
     patients and the reduction of health care costs which would 
     result from a cure.
       The Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act 
     is a great step in the right direction and will be eagerly 
     supported by patients, their families, and neuroscience 
     researchers.
           Sincerely,
                                     D. Eugene Redmond, Jr., M.D.,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                                  Yale University,


                                           School of Medicine,

                                     New Haven, CT, April 3, 1995.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: As director of the Neural Transplant 
     Program at Yale University, I am writing to thank you and 
     other supporters for re-introducing the Morris K. Udall 
     Parkinson's Research and Education Act to the 104th Congress.
       This is a particularly exciting period of research in which 
     novel treatments for Parkinson's disease are being developed 
     and evaluated, and research is progressing to determine the 
     cause of the disease. Although there is potential for 
     incredible breakthroughs, such progress is not inevitable. 
     Without funding, the breakthroughs might never happen. 
     Techniques for cellular and genetic reconstruction of neural 
     circuits which are being developed in our research and 
     elsewhere may some day be applicable to other neurological 
     and medical diseases as well.
       I hope that you will be able to explain to your colleagues 
     in the Congress that this investment in research will save 
     money on health care and increase productivity from people 
     who now become incapacitated over a period of many years.
       This excellent legislation will not be helpful unless it 
     actually adds dollars to the funding relevant to this 
     disease, and does not shift funding from investigator-
     initiated basic science projects.
           Sincerely,
                                     D. Eugene Redmond, Jr., M.D.,
     Director.
                                                                    ____

                               Parkinson's Disease Foundation,

                                     New York, NY, March 31, 1995.
     Re Morris K. Udall Parksinson's Research and Education Act.

     The Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: On behalf of my fellow directors of 
     the Parkinson's Disease Foundation (PDF), I am writing to 
     thank you and to support your introduction of this bill.
       The authorization of funds to launch a Parkinson's research 
     initiative, coordinating between the several institutes now 
     conducting research in Parkinson's disease, would give added 
     impetus to the efforts of scientists to improve their 
     understanding of this debilitating illness. Although PDF 
     scientists are working to improve our understanding of the 
     brain, we still do not know what causes people to develop the 
     illness, so we cannot develop a cure. The boost to the 
     research effort that the establishment of the Morris K. Udall 
     Research Centers would provide would allow for additional 
     resources toward our goal: to find the cause and then the 
     cure.
       As our population ages, there is no doubt that the 
     prevalence of Parkinson's disease will increase. It is, 
     therefore, imperative to work together towards a breakthrough 
     in Parkinson's disease. Only the federal government can 
     provide sufficient financial support and leadership to 
     sustain a coordinated approach to the search for the cause 
     and cure.
       Your leadership, and that of your Congressional supporters, 
     are deeply appreciated by all of us who seek to improve the 
     quality of life of those afflicted with Parkinson's and 
     related disorders.
           Most sincerely,
                                                Page Morton Black,
     Chairman of the Board.
                                                                    ____

                                           Movers & Shakers, Young


                                  Parkinson's Support Network,

                                     San Diego, CA, April 4, 1995.
     The Morris K. Udall Parkisnon's Research and Education Act.

     Senator Mark Hatfield,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: Parkinson's disease and related 
     neurological disorders are said to cost society $6 billion 
     annually. This monetary cost, although staggering, is 
     minuscule when compared to the human suffering these 
     disorders inflict on the patient and family. Research is 
     needed to push ever closer to finding the cause and the cure 
     for these disorders. In the mean time quality of life can be 
     raised through education of patients, care givers and 
     community support services.
       The Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act 
     allows Congress to embark on a major effort to increase the 
     knowledge of the causes, treatments and cures for these 
     disorders. It further sets patient, care giver, support 
     services and community understanding as a priority in raising 
     the quality of life of those affected by these disorders. The 
     1990's form the Decade of the Brain. It is only fitting that 
     Congress move swiftly to enact this important legislative 
     initiative for it symbolizes hope of major breakthroughs for 
     the millions of Americans affected by these disorders.
       I commend you for your leadership in this very important 
     legislative initiative. Your leadership is much appreciated 
     and supported by the Young Parkinson's Support Network of 
     California.
           Sincerely,
     Tom G. Brown,
       President.
           Sincerely,
     Alan L. Bonander,
       Past President.
                                                                    ____

                [From the Washington Post, Apr. 4, 1995]

                     Diseases That Attack the Brain

                            (By Rick Weiss)

       She was a retired Swedish lawyer, 69, and during the past 
     eight years she had sunk into the foggy oblivion of 
     Alzheimer's disease. Long gone were the details of case law 
     and logic upon which she had built her career. Now she was 
     housebound and confused, unable to survive without round-the-
     clock care.
       He was a 45-year-old high school teacher and basketball 
     coach in Wisconsin who began to notice a loss of strength in 
     his hands--some difficulty unscrewing jars or turning house 
     keys. Then he watched in despair over a period of months as 
     the muscles in his arms and neck grew flaccid and weak. The 
     diagnosis: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's 
     disease, the paralytic syndrome that stole the strength and 
     ultimately the life of the baseball great.
       The alzheimer analogy is apt. Viewed under a microscope, 
     nerve cells look a lot like trees and shrubs, with 
     bifurcating roots and boughs sprouting from either end of a 
     stem or trunk. As every gardener knows, fertilizer is the key 
     to growth, and scientists have long assumed that the body 
     makes its own neural nutrients--in great quantities, no 
     doubt, during embryo development, but perhaps in smaller 
     maintenance doses throughout life.
       The challenge faced by neuroscientists pursuing nerve 
     regeneration was to identify those naturally occurring 
     products and mass produce them in the laboratory so they 
     could be given as drugs.
       In their quest to discover such substances, researchers 
     have gone to great and gory lengths.
       Figuring the best place to look for a nerve nurturing 
     compound was around nerve cells themselves, one team ground 
     up 100 pig brains. They distilled from that mass less than a 
     drop of a rare brain chemical called BDNF, which does indeed 
     now show promise as drug to protect nerves in patients with 
     Lou Gehrig's disease.
       Another team teased thousands of sciatic nerves from the 
     legs of rats, then ground the nerves up to get a smidgen of 
     something they call CNTF, which is also now in clinical 
     trials in Lou Gehrig's patients. [[Page S5409]] 
       Yet another group isolated a potent nerve growth factor 
     from the juices of hundreds of mouse salivary glands. Saliva, 
     it turns out, is rich in natural healing compounds--a fact 
     that may explain the propensity of animals to lick one's 
     wounds. The salivary substance, known as NGF, is now being 
     tested in diabetics with peripheral neuropathy and in a 
     handful of patients with Alzheimer's disease.
       Then there was the 63-year-old woman from Stockholm with 
     Parkinson's disease. For the past 19 years her condition had 
     gradually worsened, despite treatment with the best available 
     drugs, like L-dopa. At times now her entire body would 
     suddenly freeze up, becoming so rigid she would crash to the 
     floor. At other times her hands trembled so severely and her 
     head shook so much that she felt as though the whole world 
     were crumbling.
       Three patients with three very different diseases. But all 
     of them have one thing in common: They are among the first to 
     enter a radical new field of medicine, in which doctors are 
     using a novel class of drugs to regenerate dying nerve cells 
     in the brain and spinal cord.
       No one can say yet whether the treatments will work. 
     Preliminary results from about 1,000 patients getting a 
     handful of different compounds for various neuro-degenerative 
     diseases are a mix of encouragement and disappointment. In 
     some cases, patients' symptoms subsided but were replaced by 
     worrisome side effects.
       But for each of these diseases the prognosis is so poor 
     that even a sliver of improvement--or a brief reprieve from 
     the otherwise inevitable decline--would be welcome.
       ``We are dealing with diseases that are uniformly fatal,'' 
     said Ted Munsat, a neurologist and professor of neurology at 
     Tufts University in Boston, ``so the hope and anticipation is 
     more heightened than ever.''
       It's almost impossible to get ailing nerve cells to grow, 
     or to get injured ones to sprout new parts. Unlike most 
     peripheral neuropathy (the painful nerve irritation that 
     afflicts many people with advanced diabetes and some patients 
     getting cancer chemotherapy), Huntington's disease (the 
     dementia-inducing brain disease that strikes by surprise in 
     the prime of life) or the paralysis that results from serious 
     injuries to the spine or head.
       But everyone has grown nerve cells at least once before. 
     The central nervous system, which includes the brain and 
     spinal cord, is one of the first organ systems to develop in 
     a fertilized egg, its rudimentary structure already evident 
     in the third week of gestation when the embryo is still less 
     than 3 millimeters long. Nine months later more than a 
     trillion neurons have settled into position, some of them 
     almost six feet long.
       If we can do it once, why not again?
       For decades, the common wisdom was that it can't be done. 
     But with a little help from some compounds called nerve 
     growth factors, scientists are changing their minds.
       ``These are nerve fertilizers,'' said Steven Ringel, a 
     professor of neurology at the University of Colorado Medical 
     Center in Denver. ``We can make these neurons grow like 
     grass. It's a remarkable tool and incredibly exciting.''
       ``Until growth factors were discovered there was no 
     molecule known that could rescue dying neurons. When neurons 
     died, they were gone forever,'' said Frank Baldino, president 
     and CEO of Cephalon, a biotech company in West Chester, PA. 
     ``When growth factors were discovered, everyone was 
     thrilled.''
       The newest nerve growth factor, recently purified from rat 
     brain cells, may be the most promising of them all. The 
     substance is called glial cell line-derived neurotrophic 
     factor, or GDNF. In experiments with brain-injured animals 
     published in January, researchers documented its ability to 
     spur regeneration of the types of nerve cells that disappear 
     in people with Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's diseases.
       ``You can really get substantial regeneration of nerve 
     fibers,'' said Frank Collins, a neuroscientist at Amgen in 
     Thousand Oaks, Calif., speaking of GDNF's effects in animals. 
     ``It suggests that the benefits in early-stage patients may 
     be very profound. And that's very exciting.''
       Exciting, yes, except for one problem: It's almost 
     impossible to get GDNF--or any of the other nerve growth 
     compounds--into the human brain, where the compounds are 
     needed.


                           delivery problems

       It turns out that every nerve growth factor so far 
     discovered is, to put it plainly, a big fat protein. Proteins 
     tend to break down quickly when taken as pills or injected 
     into the blood. And even if these particular proteins could 
     survive in the bloodstream and make it to a person's head, 
     they are too large to diffuse through blood vessel walls and 
     make their way into the brain.
       This may not be a serious problem when it comes to treating 
     peripheral neuropathy, where the problem is mostly limited to 
     nerve cells in the fingers and toes that can be treated with 
     injections beneath the skin. Simple injections may also work 
     for Lou Gehrig's disease, since the motor neurons that are 
     affected extend out from the brain, down the spine and all 
     the way to every extremity. Studies have shown that CNTF and 
     BDNF injected into the thigh, arm or elsewhere in the body 
     are absorbed by nerve endings and travel up those cells into 
     the spinal cord.
       But when it comes to the most common and serious 
     neurological diseases--Alzheimer's and Parkinson's--the 
     neurons that are dying are deep within the brain, where no 
     nerve growth factor can get on its own. So with the 
     physiological potency of growth factors now well established, 
     the challenge of making these compounds into useful drugs is 
     actually more a problem of engineering and delivery than of 
     medicine or biology.
       In animal experiments, scientists have gotten around this 
     problem by injecting doses directly into the creatures' 
     brains. And though most researchers have been reluctant to 
     try this in people, one team of scientists in Sweden is doing 
     so.
       The first patient to get such a treatment was the retired 
     lawyer with Alzheimer's disease. Lars Olson and his 
     colleagues at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm 
     surgically implanted a pump the size of a hockey puck into 
     the woman's abdomen. They ran a thin plastic tube from the 
     pump up through her torso and neck, all within her body, and 
     underneath her scalp to the crown of her head. There they 
     drilled a hole through her skull and fed the hidden tube 
     through the opening and into a space in her brain near the 
     area that degenerates in Alzheimer's patients. For three 
     months, the pump supplied a constant low dose of NGF, the 
     nerve growth factor isolated from mouse salivary glands.
       It is still not clear whether the approach is worth the 
     trouble. The researchers did note an increase in blood flow 
     in the brain, a more normal electroencephalogram (EEG) and 
     improvement in a word recognition test that is used to 
     measure cognitive function. But the woman also experienced 
     serious back pain, anxiety, sleeplessness and weight loss--
     symptoms the scientists think may be due to an unintended 
     activation of nearby nerves in the brain. She also had a 
     painful outbreak of shingles, which indicated that a herpes 
     virus that normally stays dormant inside nerve cells had for 
     some reason ``woken up.'' And in every cognitive test other 
     than the word recognition test, the woman's performance 
     stayed the same or declined.
       The Swedish team is trying the technique on a few other 
     patients, and researchers in the United States have proposed 
     doing essentially the same thing, using plastic tubes, or 
     cannulas, to get NGF into the brain. The Food and Drug 
     Administration officials have so far rejected the approach, 
     in part because animal studies suggest that the procedure can 
     itself cause brain damage.
       ``Cannulas in the brain may be fine for animals, but not 
     for 4 million Alzheimer's patients,'' said Baldino of 
     Cephalon. ``It's a great way to show proof of concept--to 
     show that growth factors can have an effect in the brain. But 
     practically speaking, I don't think patients are going to be 
     lining up at the clinic.''


                             mini-factories

       Another way to get bulky proteins into a person's gray 
     matter is to first give a drug that temporarily pokes holes 
     in the brain's blood vessels--that is, make those vessels 
     leaky--and then infuse the nerve growth factor into such a 
     vessel. Some scientists are already using this technique to 
     get cancer drugs, some of which are molecular mammoths, to 
     brain tumor. But the approach makes it difficult to aim the 
     shot of growth factor to the precise part of the brain where 
     it is needed, and so risks stimulating ``innocent bystander'' 
     neurons better left alone.
       ``A good drug in the wrong place can give serious side 
     effects,'' said Fred Gage, a neuroscientist at the University 
     of California-San Diego.
       Gage and others suggest that the best way to give the brain 
     a healthy dose of growth factors is to arrange for those 
     factors to be made on-site, in the brain itself. ``Instead of 
     giving a drug,'' Gage said, ``you engineer some cells to make 
     what's needed.''
       The idea of implanting robust, hormone-secreting cells into 
     the brain to nurse ailing nerve cells back to health has its 
     roots in an older and more controversial strategy for 
     Parkinson's disease. In the original approach, scientists 
     took cells from the brains of aborted fetuses and 
     transplanted them into the brains of people with Parkinson's 
     disease. Fetal cells produce copious quantities of dopamine, 
     the brain chemical lacking in Parkinson's patients.
       Such transplants do seem to hold some potential. More than 
     40 patients with Parkinson's disease have been treated that 
     way in the United States, and some patients are showing 
     modest improvement. But 95 percent or more of the 
     transplanted fetal cells generally die in the weeks or month 
     after transplantation.
       Olson and his colleagues in Sweden recently used nerve 
     growth factors to better those odds. After transplanting 
     healthy dopamine-producing cells into the brain of a patient 
     with Parkinson's, they drenched the transplanted cells with 
     NGF for 23 days, dripping the liquid fertilizer through a 
     plastic tube inserted directly into her brain. Preliminary 
     results suggest that the patient became less rigid and more 
     mobile than did patients who got cell transplants without 
     NGF, though it's difficult to tell much from a single 
     patient. Two others have since been treated but results have 
     not been published.
       Gage, however, proposes a more elegant means of getting 
     growth factors into the brain--a method that would make 
     plastic tubes and fetal transplants completely unnecessary. 
     He and others have put the genes for nerve growth factors 
     like NGF into [[Page S5410]] hardy, laboratory-reared skin 
     cells, instantly endowing those ordinary cells with the 
     specialized ability to churn out the therapeutic factors. 
     They have transplanted those cells into the brains of rodents 
     with a condition resembling Alzheimer's disease, with the 
     hope that these growth-factor mini-factories might revitalize 
     failing nerve cells nearby.
       Sure enough, the animals began to spout new and healthy 
     neurons in the area around the nutrient-spewing transplants. 
     While highly experimental, the approach is about to get its 
     clinical debut. This month, Swiss researchers will insert 
     CNTF genes into cells and inject the cells into the spines of 
     patients with Lou Gehrig's disease, marking the first human 
     test of cells engineered to produce a nerve growth factor. 
     They hope that the locally made CNTF will revive ailing motor 
     neurons there more effectively than if the substance were 
     injected into the skin.


                            Avenues of Hope

       Even if researchers find a good way to administer nerve 
     growth factors, there is no guarantee that patients will be 
     able to tolerate the drugs. CNTF injections already have run 
     into trouble in preliminary experiments in Lou Gehrig's 
     patients, causing flu-like symptoms and weight loss serious 
     enough to convince one company to give the research up. 
     Another company is now trying smaller doses, and others are 
     testing BDNF. Though side effects have been rare in these 
     latter studies, it's too soon to say whether the more mellow 
     regimens will be potent enough to stem the disease's 
     progress.
       Similarly, some of the early tests of NGF injections for 
     peripheral neuropathy have been plagued by a serious side 
     effect: A super-sensitivity to pain that makes normally 
     innocuous stimuli unbearable. A lukewarm shower, for example, 
     can become an excruciatingly painful experience in which 
     drops of water feel like little burning arrows.
       Ultimately, scientists said, a cocktail of different nerve 
     growth factors--perhaps delivered by a variety of different 
     routes--may work best of all. ``We now have a number of 
     molecules looking good,'' said Ronald Lindsay, a 
     neuroscientist at Regeneron, a Tarrytown, N.Y., biotech 
     company developing nerve growth factors. ``It doesn't make 
     sense to bet on a single horse.''
       Unfortunately, the race is still far from the home stretch, 
     and that's disappointing news for people already suffering 
     from nervous system diseases. The lawyer with Alzheimer's 
     disease, for example, has continued down the path of senility 
     since receiving her experimental drizzle of nerve growth 
     factor. And her counterpart with Parkinson's is again subject 
     to freeze-ups and jitters.
       On the other hand, the basketball coach with Lou Gehrig's 
     disease has improved since getting treated with CNTF. ``He 
     has more neck strength and breathing strength,'' said 
     Benjamin Brooks, a professor of neurology and director of the 
     University of Wisconsin's ALS Clinical Research Center in 
     Madison. ``Now he's back at work one hour a day, which is 
     something we never would have expected with this disease.''


    Brain and Nerve Diseases for Which Nerve Growth Factors May Help

       Alzheimer's Disease--4 million patients in the United 
     States.
       Nerve growth factor (NGF) is being infused directly into 
     the brains of a few patients in Sweden; potentially serious 
     side effects have been reported, including extreme 
     sensitivity to pain. NGF is also being given by injections 
     under the skin in the United States as an experimental 
     treatment for peripheral neuropathy, a loss of sensation in 
     the extremities common among diabetics and patients getting 
     cancer chemotherapy.
       Parkinson's Disease--1 million patients in the United 
     States.
       One patient in Sweden has received brain infusions of NGF 
     to enhance survival of healthy neurons that researchers had 
     previously transplanted into his brain, with some possible 
     benefits. A newly discovered nerve growth factor, called 
     glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), looks 
     promising in animal studies and may enter human trials in the 
     next year or two.
       Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) 5,000 
     new cases a year in the United States.
       A nerve growth factor called ciliary neurotrophic factor 
     (CNTF) is being injected into the skin, where it can be 
     absorbed by nerves. Doses have recently been lowered, 
     however, because of side effects. Swiss researchers are about 
     to transplant the first genetically engineered versions of 
     CNTF-secreting cells into the spines of ALS patients. Another 
     growth factor, brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), is 
     also in clinical trials with apparently fewer side effects, 
     Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) is an injectable cell 
     growth factor not specific for nerve cells but now being 
     tested in patients with ALS. Results are expected this year.
                                                                    ____

             Science Closer To a Treatment For Parkinson's

                         (By Michael Waldholz)

       Researchers say experiments involving a powerful substance 
     discovered in the human nervous system may lead to new drugs 
     to slow the progress of Parkinson's disease and Lou Gehrig's 
     disease.
       Four separate research teams are reporting test-tube and 
     animal experiments showing the new substance acts as a 
     biological shield, protecting crucial nerve cells from damage 
     that normally kills them. Death of these cells is the 
     hallmark of Parkinson's and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, 
     also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease.
       The substance is perhaps most potent of a series of human 
     proteins--discovered in recent years by scientists at 
     biotechnology companies--that the body uses to spur nerve-
     cell growth. The new growth factor was uncovered by 
     researchers working separately at Synergen Corp., now owned 
     by Amgen Inc., a biotech company in Thousand Oaks, Calif.; 
     and by scientists at Genentech Inc., of South San Francisco, 
     Calif. All four research teams conducted their experiments in 
     association with one of the two biotechnology companies.
       It is unclear whether ownership rights for the substance 
     will be disputed between Amgen and Genentech. But officials 
     at both companies say that because of the promising results 
     of the new experiment, they have decided to move forward to 
     develop the substance as a potential treatment against 
     Parkinson's and other nerve disorders.
       The new factor is called glial cell-line derived 
     neurotrophic factor, or GDNF. Its discovery is so recent that 
     scientists don't know exactly how GDNF spurs cell growth, or 
     how it protects neurons from lethal damage. But the new 
     experiments provide persuasive evidence that the factor plays 
     an important role in the life cycle of neurons, and that 
     scientists may be able to exploit that role in their search 
     for new medicines against degenerative nerve diseases.
       GDNF ``is by far the most powerful nerve-growth factor we 
     have tested yet,'' says Ronald Oppenheim, of Bowman Gray 
     School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., who led one of the 
     research teams. Dr. Oppenheim's experiments in laboratory 
     mice showed the GDNF kept alive almost all the cells that 
     normally would have died within three weeks after researchers 
     damaged them. ``We were surprised because none of the other 
     factors we've tested were that protective,'' he says.
       Still, the researchers emphasize that the new results are 
     preliminary, suggesting that many years of work will be 
     needed before they know GDNF or some related chemical will be 
     helpful.
       Researchers say experiments involving a powerful substance 
     discovered in the human nervous system may lead to new drugs 
     to slow the progress of Parkinson's disease and Lou Gehrig's 
     disease.
       Four separate research teams are reporting test-tube and 
     animal experiments showing the new substance acts as a 
     biological shield, protecting crucial nerve cells from damage 
     and normally kills them. Death of these cells in the hallmark 
     of Parkinson's and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known 
     as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease.
       The substance is perhaps most potent of a series of human 
     proteins--discovered in recent years by scientists at 
     biotechnology companies--that the body uses to spur nerve-
     cell growth. The new growth factor was uncovered by 
     researchers working separately at Synergen Corp., now owned 
     by Amgen Inc., a biotech company in Thousand Oaks, Calif.; 
     and by scientists at Genentech Inc., of South San Francisco, 
     Calif. All four research teams conducted their experiments in 
     association with one of the two biotechnology companies.
       It is unclear whether ownership rights for the substance 
     will be disputed between Amgen and Genentech. But officials 
     at both companies say that because of the promising results 
     of the new experiments, they have decided to move forward to 
     develop the substance as a potential treatment against 
     Parkinson's and other nerve disorders.
       The new factor is called glial cell-line derived 
     neurotrophic factor, or GDNF. Its discovery is so recent that 
     scientists don't know exactly how GDNF spurs cell growth, or 
     how it protects neurons from lethal damage. But the new 
     experiments provide persuasive evidence that the factor plays 
     an important role in the life cycle of neurons, and that 
     scientists may be able to exploit that role in their search 
     for new medicines against degenerative nerve diseases.
       GDNF ``is by far the most powerful nerve-growth factor we 
     have tested yet,'' says Ronald Oppenheim, of Bowman Gray 
     School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., who led one of the 
     research teams. Dr. Oppenheim's experiments in laboratory 
     mice showed that GDNF kept alive almost all the cells that 
     normally would have died within three weeks after researchers 
     damaged them. ``We were surprised because none of the other 
     factors we've tested were that protective,'' he says.
       Still, the researchers emphasize that the new results are 
     preliminary, suggesting that many years of work will be 
     needed before they know GDNF or some related chemical will be 
     helpful to patients.
       Indeed, a similar kind of nerve-growth factor called CNTF, 
     developed by the biotech company Regeneron Pharmaceuticals 
     Inc., Tarrytown, N.Y., produced troubling side effects when 
     tested last year in ALS patients. Regeneron, Amgen, Genentech 
     and several other biotech companies are researching other 
     promising nerve-growth factors.
       Even so, the new experiments, published today in the 
     British journal Nature, provide several hints that in 
     uncovering GDNF, scientists have found a new doorway to the 
     treatment of nerve diseases that continue to defy adequate 
     treatment. ``It's a fairly exciting set of results,'' says 
     Ronald Lindsay, vice president for neurobiology research at 
     [[Page S5411]] Regeneron, noting that ``it provides strong 
     competition for the [factors] we've been working with.''
       In several experiments using GDNF developed by Synergen and 
     now owned by Amgen, researchers used the substance to protect 
     nerve cells from destruction caused by a toxic substance 
     called MPTP. When given to mice, MPTP produces symptoms 
     similar to the debilitating muscle tremors caused by 
     Parkinson's disease in humans.
       In one surprising experiment by scientists at Karolinska 
     Institute in Stockholm and at Synergen in Boulder, Colo., 
     GDNF restored nerve activity to cells already damaged by the 
     MPTP toxin.
       GDNF was first isolated in 1990 by Frank Collins, a 
     biologist working at Synergen. He identified it in glial 
     cells, which provide nutrients to neurons. Dr. Collins didn't 
     publish the discovery until 1993, when Synergen received a 
     patient. About the same time, Dr. Collins was hired by Amgen. 
     In an interview, Dr. Collins said that acquiring the rights 
     to GDNF was one of the reasons Amgen bought Synergen several 
     months ago.
       ``I've been given the green light to go full steam ahead in 
     developing GDNF for use against Parkinson's disease,'' says 
     Dr. Collins, senior director of neuroscience research at 
     Amgen. He said it may be possible to begin testing the 
     substance in humans within a year or two.
       Currently, the symptoms of Parkinson's disease can be 
     treated with several medicines, but their effectiveness wears 
     off after time. Amgen hopes GDNF can protect nerve cells 
     being relentlessly killed by the disease, thereby prolonging 
     the existing treatments' usefulness. But GDNF will do nothing 
     to stop the underlying cause of the illness, which is still 
     unknown.
       A significant hurdle facing GDNF is that cells under attack 
     by Parkinson's are located in the brain. Because GDNF is a 
     large molecule that can't get into the brain if ingested or 
     injected into the bloodstream, it will have to be infused 
     directly.
                                 ______

      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 685. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain lighthouses 
located in the State of Maine; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.


                   lighthouse conveyance legislation

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
that would help to preserve historic lighthouses in the State of Maine 
and ensure that future generations will be able to appreciate these 
treasured landmarks.
  The legislation, also known as the Maine Lights Program, authorizes 
the Secretary of Transportation to convey four lighthouses in Maine to 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and (29) others to the Island 
Institute of Rockland, ME. Founded in 1983, the Island Institute is a 
nationally recognized nonprofit organization dedicated to the 
preservation and protection of Maine's coastal lights. This legislation 
was crafted in close coordination with the Island Institute, and it is 
an extraordinary opportunity to preserve the most obvious symbols of 
Maine's living maritime heritage.
  The Maine Lights Program is strongly supported by the U.S. Coast 
Guard. The Coast Guard currently owns each of these lighthouses, and it 
is a strong proponent of preserving their historic character. But the 
cost of maintaining these historic structures is becoming particularly 
difficult for the Coast Guard in these times of tight budgetary 
constraints. These lighthouses were built in an age when they had to be 
manned continuously. Today's advanced technology has made it possible 
to build automated aids to navigation that do not require around-the-
clock manning, and this technology has made these historic lighthouses 
expensive anachronisms for the Coast Guard. The Maine Lights Program 
would relieve the Coast Guard of the financial burden of maintaining 
these lighthouses.
  The program also mandates continued Coast Guard maintenance of the 
active aids to navigation in these lighthouses--the lights and horns--
and it ensures that each lighthouse will remain an effective marine 
navigational aid despite the conveyance. Maritime safety will not be 
sacrificed in the name of saving money. The Coast Guard will still be 
responsible for maintaining the aids to navigation themselves. Only the 
lighthouses and structures associated with them are impacted by this 
program.
  By conveying these lighthouses to the Island Institute, the program 
ensures that the lighthouses will be preserved as an important part of 
our coastal maritime heritage. The Island Institute will never be 
allowed to sell these properties. The institute would be required to 
transfer the lighthouses to third parties without any compensation to 
itself within a 3-year period beginning on the date of the conveyance 
of the lighthouse to the institute by the Coast Guard. The Island 
Institute would be required to identify appropriate nonprofit 
corporations, educational agencies, community development 
organizations, and any Federal, State, or local government or other 
eligible entity that would assume responsibility for the lighthouse.
  This legislation sets specific eligibility requirements for 
organizations and entities that wish to take the responsibility of a 
lighthouse. They must be financially able to maintain the lighthouse, 
and they must agree to regular inspections by the State historic 
preservation officer of the State of Maine in order to ensure that the 
lighthouses are being properly maintained in a manner that preserves 
their historic characteristics. Moreover, those receiving a lighthouse 
must also assure continued public access to the lighthouse.
  This legislation also provides that if the Secretary of 
Transportation determined at any time that a lighthouse is not being 
used or maintained as required by the law, that the lighthouse would 
revert to the United States and then be transferred to other 
institutions or entities according to existing law.
  Finally, the legislation requires the Secretary to report to Congress 
after 5 years about the effectiveness of the program in maintaining, 
preserving, and repairing historic lighthouse properties, maintaining 
public access, and finding and transferring lighthouse property to 
appropriate third parties.
  The Island Institute has already identified suitable candidates for 
receiving many of these lighthouses. For example, the town of Camden 
will receive the Curtis Island Light, which is located in Camden 
Harbor. The town already owns Curtis Island and all of the buildings on 
it except for the light tower itself, and this program will 
appropriately convey the light tower to the town of Camden.
  The Maine Lights Program is an innovative approach to historic 
maritime preservation. It will become a model for the conveyance of 
other lighthouses for historic preservation all across the country. At 
the same time it will save the Coast Guard hundreds of thousands, if 
not millions, of dollars a year in maintenance costs. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 685

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

     SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN LIGHTHOUSES LOCATED IN 
                   MAINE.

       (a) Authority To Convey.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the 
     Secretary of Transportation may convey, without 
     consideration, to the Island Institute, Rockland, Maine (in 
     this section referred to as the ``Institute''), all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to any of the 
     facilities and real property and improvements described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Covered facilities.--Paragraph (1) applies to 
     lighthouses, together with any real property and other 
     improvements associated therewith, located in the State of 
     Maine as follows:
       (A) Whitehead Island Light.
       (B) Deer Island Thorofare (Mark Island) Light.
       (C) Burnt Island Light.
       (D) Rockland Harbor Breakwater Light.
       (E) Monhegan Island Light.
       (F) Eagle Island Light.
       (G) Curtis Island Light.
       (H) Moose Peak Light.
       (I) Great Duck Island Light.
       (J) Goose Rocks Light.
       (K) Isle au Haut Light.
       (L) Goat Island Light.
       (M) Wood Island Light.
       (N) Doubling Point Light.
       (O) Doubling Point Front Range Light.
       (P) Doubling Point Rear Range Light.
       (Q) Little River Light.
       (R) Spring Point Ledge Light.
       (S) Ram Island Light (Boothbay).
       (T) Seguin Island Light.
       (U) Marshall Point Light.
       (V) Fort Point Light.
       (W) West Quoddy Head Light.
       (X) Brown's Head Light.
       (Y) Cape Neddick Light.
       (Z) Halfway Rock Light.
       (AA) Ram Island Ledge Light.
       (BB) Mount Desert Rock Light.
       (CC) Whitlock's Mill Light. [[Page S5412]] 
       (3) Limitation on conveyance.--The Secretary shall retain 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     any historical artifact, including any lens or lantern, that 
     is associated with the lighthouses conveyed under this 
     subsection, whether located at the lighthouse or elsewhere. 
     The Secretary shall identify any equipment, system, or object 
     covered by this paragraph.
       (4) Deadline for conveyance.--The conveyances authorized by 
     this subsection shall take place, if at all, not later than 5 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (5) Additional conveyances to united states fish and 
     wildlife service.--The Secretary may transfer, in accordance 
     with the terms and conditions of subsection (b), the 
     following lighthouses, together with any real property and 
     improvements associated therewith, directly to the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service:
       (A) Two Bush Island Light.
       (B) Egg Rock Light.
       (C) Libby Island Light.
       (D) Matinicus Rock Light.
       (b) Conditions of Conveyance.--The conveyance of a 
     lighthouse, and any real property and improvements associated 
     therewith, under subsection (a) shall be subject to the 
     following conditions:
       (1) That the lighthouse and any such property and 
     improvements be used for educational, historic, recreational, 
     cultural, and wildlife conservation programs for the general 
     public and for such other uses as the Secretary determines to 
     be not inconsistent or incompatible with such uses.
       (2) That the lighthouse and any such property and 
     improvements be maintained at no cost to the United States in 
     a manner that ensures the use of the lighthouse by the Coast 
     Guard as an aid to navigation.
       (3) That the use of the lighthouse and any such property 
     and improvements by the Coast Guard as an aid to navigation 
     not be interfered with, except with the written permission of 
     the Secretary.
       (4) That the lighthouse and any such property and 
     improvements be maintained in a manner consistent with the 
     provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
       (5) That public access to the lighthouse and any such 
     property and improvements be ensured.
       (c) Reservations.--In the conveyance of a lighthouse under 
     subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall reserve to the United 
     States the following:
       (1) The right to enter the lighthouse, and any real 
     property and improvements conveyed therewith, at any time, 
     without notice, for purposes of maintaining any aid to 
     navigation at the lighthouse, including any light, antennae, 
     sound signal, and associated equipment located at the 
     lighthouse, and any electronic navigation equipment or system 
     located at the lighthouse.
       (2) The right to enter the lighthouse and any such property 
     and improvements at any time, without notice, for purposes of 
     relocating, replacing, or improving any such aid to 
     navigation, or to carry out any other activity necessary in 
     aid of navigation.
       (3) An easement of ingress and egress onto the real 
     property conveyed for the purposes referred to in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2).
       (4) An easement over such portion of such property as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate in order to ensure the 
     visibility of the lighthouse for navigation purposes.
       (5) The right to obtain and remove any historical artifact, 
     including any lens or lantern that the Secretary has 
     identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subsection (a).
       (d) Maintenance of Aids to Navigation.--The Secretary may 
     not impose upon the Institute, or upon any entity to which 
     the Institute conveys a lighthouse under subsection (g), an 
     obligation to maintain any aid to navigation at a lighthouse 
     conveyed under subsection (a)(1).
       (e) Reversionary Interest.--All right, title, and interest 
     in and to a lighthouse and any real property and improvements 
     associated therewith that is conveyed to the Institute under 
     subsection (a)(1) shall revert to the United States and the 
     United States shall have the right of immediate entry thereon 
     if--
       (1) the Secretary determines at any time that the 
     lighthouse, and any property and improvements associated 
     therewith, is not being utilized or maintained in accordance 
     with subsection (b); or
       (2) the Secretary determines that--
       (A) the Institute is unable to identify an entity eligible 
     for the conveyance of the lighthouse under subsection (g) 
     within the 3-year period beginning on the date of the 
     conveyance of the lighthouse to the Institute under 
     subsection (a)(1); or
       (B) in the event that the Institute identifies an entity 
     eligible for the conveyance within that period--
       (i) the entity is unable or unwilling to accept the 
     conveyance and the Institute is unable to identify another 
     entity eligible for the conveyance within that period; or
       (ii) the committee established under subsection (g)(3)(A) 
     disapproves of the entity identified by the Institute and the 
     Institute is unable to identify another entity eligible for 
     the conveyance within that period.
       (f) Inspection.--The State Historic Preservation Officer of 
     the State of Maine may inspect any lighthouse, and any real 
     property and improvements associated therewith, that is 
     conveyed under this section at any time, without notice, for 
     purposes of ensuring that the lighthouse is being maintained 
     in the manner required under subsections (b)(4) and (b)(5). 
     The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Institute, 
     and any subsequent conveyee of the Institute under subsection 
     (g), shall cooperate with the official referred to in the 
     preceding sentence in the inspections of that official under 
     this subsection.
       (g) Subsequent Conveyance.--
       (1) Requirement.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Institute shall convey, without consideration, all right, 
     title, and interest of the Institute in and to the 
     lighthouses conveyed to the Institute under subsection 
     (a)(1), together with any real property and improvements 
     associated therewith, to one or more entities identified 
     under paragraph (2) and approved by the committee established 
     under paragraph (3) in accordance with the provisions of such 
     paragraph (3).
       (B) Exception.--The Institute, with the concurrence of the 
     committee and in accordance with the terms and conditions of 
     subsection (b), may retain right, title, and interest in and 
     to the following lighthouses conveyed to the Institute:
       (i) Whitehead Island Light.
       (ii) Deer Island Thorofare (Mark Island) Light.
       (2) Identification of eligible entities.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Institute 
     shall identify entities eligible for the conveyance of a 
     lighthouse under this subsection. Such entities shall include 
     any department or agency of the Federal Government, any 
     department or agency of the Government of the State of Maine, 
     any local government in that State, or any nonprofit 
     corporation, educational agency, or community development 
     organization that--
       (i) is financially able to maintain the lighthouse (and any 
     real property and improvements conveyed therewith) in 
     accordance with the conditions set forth in subsection (b);
       (ii) agrees to permit the inspections referred to in 
     subsection (f); and
       (iii) agrees to comply with the conditions set forth in 
     subsection (b) and to have such conditions recorded with the 
     deed of title to the lighthouse and any real property and 
     improvements that may be conveyed therewith.
       (B) Order of priority.--In identifying entities eligible 
     for the conveyance of a lighthouse under this paragraph, the 
     Institute shall give priority to entities in the following 
     order, which are also the exclusive entities eligible for the 
     conveyance of a lighthouse under this section:
       (i) Agencies of the Federal Government.
       (ii) Entities of the Government of the State of Maine.
       (iii) Entities of local governments in the State of Maine.
       (iv) Nonprofit corporations, educational agencies, and 
     community development organizations.
       (3) Selection of conveyees among eligible entities.--
       (A) Committee.--
       (i) In general.--There is hereby established a committee to 
     be known as the Maine Lighthouse Selection Committee (in this 
     paragraph referred to as the ``Committee'').
       (ii) Membership.--The Committee shall consist of five 
     members appointed by the Secretary as follows:

       (I) One member, who shall serve as the Chairman of the 
     Committee, shall be appointed from among individuals 
     recommended by the Governor of the State of Maine.
       (II) One member shall be the State Historic Preservation 
     Officer of the State of Maine, with the consent of that 
     official, or a designee of that official.
       (III) One member shall be appointed from among individuals 
     recommended by State and local organizations in the State of 
     Maine that are concerned with lighthouse preservation or 
     maritime heritage matters.
       (IV) One member shall be appointed from among individuals 
     recommended by officials of local governments of the 
     municipalities in which the lighthouses referred to in 
     subsection (a) are located.
       (V) One member shall be appointed from among individuals 
     recommended by the Secretary of the Interior.

       (iii) Appointment deadline.--The Secretary shall appoint 
     the members of the Committee not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (iv) Membership term.--

       (I) Members of the Committee shall serve for such terms not 
     longer than 3 years as the Secretary shall provide. The 
     Secretary may stagger the terms of initial members of the 
     Committee in order to ensure continuous activity by the 
     Committee.
       (II) Any member of the Committee may serve after the 
     expiration of the term of the member until a successor to the 
     member is appointed. A vacancy in the Committee shall be 
     filled in the same manner in which the original appointment 
     was made.

       (v) Voting.--The Committee shall act by an affirmative vote 
     of a majority of the members of the Committee.
       (B) Responsibilities.--
       (i) In general.--The Committee shall--

       (I) review the entities identified by the Institute under 
     paragraph (2) as entities eligible for the conveyance of a 
     lighthouse; and
       (II) approve one such entity, or disapprove all such 
     entities, as entities to which the Institute may make the 
     conveyance of the lighthouse under this subsection.

       (ii) Approval.--If the Committee approves an entity for the 
     conveyance of a lighthouse, [[Page S5413]] the Committee 
     shall notify the Institute of such approval.
       (iii) Disapproval.--If the Committee disapproves of the 
     entities, the Committee shall notify the Institute and, 
     subject to subsection (e)(2)(B), the Institute shall identify 
     other entities eligible for the conveyance of the lighthouse 
     under paragraph (2). The Committee shall review and approve 
     or disapprove of entities identified pursuant to the 
     preceding sentence in accordance with this subparagraph.
       (C) Exemption from faca.--The Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Committee, 
     however, all meetings of the Committee shall be open to the 
     public and preceded by appropriate public notice.
       (D) Termination.--The Committee shall terminate 8 years 
     from the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (4) Conveyance.--Upon notification under paragraph 
     (3)(B)(ii) of the approval of an entity for the conveyance of 
     a lighthouse under this subsection, the Institute shall, with 
     the consent of the entity, convey the lighthouse to the 
     entity.
       (5) Responsibilities of conveyees.--Each entity to which 
     the Institute conveys a lighthouse under this subsection, or 
     any successor or assign of such entity in perpetuity, shall--
       (A) use and maintain the lighthouse in accordance with 
     subsection (b) and have such terms and conditions recorded 
     with the deed of title to the lighthouse and any real 
     property conveyed therewith; and
       (B) permit the inspections referred to in subsection (f).
       (h) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of any lighthouse, and any real property and 
     improvements associated therewith, conveyed under subsection 
     (a) shall be determined by the Secretary.
       (i) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for the next 7 
     years, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     conveyance of lighthouses under this section. The report 
     shall include a description of the implementation of the 
     provisions of this section, and the requirements arising 
     under such provisions, in--
       (1) providing for the use and maintenance of the 
     lighthouses conveyed under this section in accordance with 
     subsection (b);
       (2) providing for public access to such lighthouses; and
       (3) achieving the conveyance of lighthouses to appropriate 
     entities under subsection (g).
       (j) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require any additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with a conveyance under subsection (a) that the Secretary 
     considers appropriate in order to protect the interests of 
     the United States.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 686. A bill to establish a Commission to examine the costs and 
benefits, and the impact on voter turnout, of changing the deadline for 
filing Federal income tax returns to the date on which Federal 
elections are held; to the Committee on Finance.


           the voter turnout enhancement study commission act

 Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I introduce the Voter Turnout 
Enhancement Study [VoTES] Commission Act, a bill to establish a 
temporary Commission to consider whether the deadline for filing 
Federal income tax returns should be changed to the date on which 
Federal elections are held.
  Our constituents demonstrated last fall that they want real change. I 
can't think of anything that would change the Congress more than to 
move tax day to election day so the American people could vote as they 
pay. It would not only enhance voter turnout rates, but also give the 
American people an opportunity to vote at the same time they pay their 
taxes, thus holding politicians accountable to the people on the day 
they are most focused on the cost of their Government.
  While just about every day of the year is celebrated by special 
interest groups around the country for the Government largesse they 
receive, the taxpayers--the silent majority--have only one day of the 
year to focus on what that largesse means to them--how much it costs 
them--and that is tax day.
  The Voter Turnout Enhancement Study [VoTES] Commission Act would 
provide for a thoughtful and thorough analysis of the date change, its 
potential impact on voter turnout, as well as any economic impact it 
might have. The bill explicitly requires that an independent Commission 
conduct a cost-benefit analysis--a requirement that Congress would be 
wise to impose routinely on legislative initiatives to separate good 
ideas from the bad, and save taxpayers a lot of money in the process. A 
number of other cost-limiting provisions have been included to protect 
taxpayers' interests.
  I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this important 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. 686

       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 ``Voter Turnout Enhancement 
     Study Commission Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a 
     fundamental right;
       (2) Federal, State, and local governments have a duty to 
     promote the exercise of the right to vote to the greatest 
     extent possible;
       (3) the power to tax is only guardedly granted to Federal, 
     State, and local governments by the citizens of the United 
     States;
       (4) the only regular contact that most Americans have with 
     their government consists of filing personal income tax 
     returns and voting in Federal, State, and local elections;
       (5) in 1992, almost 115,000,000 Federal income tax returns 
     were filed by individuals and couples, but only approximately 
     104,000,000 votes were cast in the year's presidential 
     election;
       (6) an estimated 116 million Federal income tax returns 
     will be filed by individuals and couples for 1994, but only 
     about half that number of votes were cast in that year's 
     congressional elections; and
       (7) more closely tying the rights of individuals as voters 
     to their obligations as taxpayers will provide additional 
     incentives for individuals to both participate in the 
     electoral process and scrutinize the costs and benefits of 
     government policies.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is established a commission to be known as the Voter 
     Turnout Enhancement Study Commission (in this Act referred to 
     as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 4. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Number and Appointment.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 9 members appointed as follows:
       (1) 3 members appointed by the President.
       (2) 3 members appointed by the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate, upon the joint recommendation of the majority leader 
     and the minority leader of the Senate.
       (3) 3 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, upon the joint recommendation of the Speaker 
     and the minority leader of the House of Representatives.
       (b) Political Affiliation.--Not more than 2 of the 3 
     members of the Commission appointed under any 1 paragraph of 
     subsection (a) may be of the same political party.
       (c) Time of Appointment.--Members of the Commission shall 
     be appointed not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Terms.--Members of the Commission shall be appointed to 
     serve for the life of the Commission.
       (e) Vacancies.-- Any vacancy in the Commission shall be 
     filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
       (f) Compensation.--
       (1) Rate of pay.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     members of the Commission shall serve without pay.
       (2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall 
     be entitled to receive travel expenses, including per diem in 
     lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 
     5, United States Code, for persons employed intermittently in 
     the Government service.
       (g) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold a hearing.
       (h) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall 
     select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among its 
     members.
       (i) Meetings.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall meet at the call of 
     the Chairperson or a majority of its members.
       (2) Initial meeting.--The Commission shall hold its initial 
     meeting not later than 30 days after the date on which all 
     members of the Commission have been appointed.

     SEC. 5. DUTIES.

       (a) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive 
     study of all matters relating to the possibility of changing 
     the filing date for Federal income tax returns to the 1st 
     Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November. The study shall 
     include an analysis of--
       (1) the costs and benefits of the change in filing date; 
     and
       (2) the likelihood that establishment of a single date on 
     which individuals can fulfill obligations of citizenship as 
     both electors and taxpayers will increase participation in 
     Federal, State, and local elections.
       (b) Consultation.--The Commission shall consult with 
     Governors, Federal and State election officials, the 
     Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and any other person, 
     agency, or entity that the Commission determines to be 
     appropriate.
     [[Page S5414]]
     
     SEC. 6. POWERS.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold the hearings, sit 
     and act at the times and places, take the testimony, and 
     receive the information that the Commission considers 
     advisable to carry out the purposes of this Act.
       (b) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as any other 
     Federal department or agency.
       (c) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of 
     the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any 
     action that the Commission is authorized to take under this 
     section.
       (d) Requests for Official Information.--The Commission may 
     request from a Federal department or agency information 
     necessary to enable the Commission to carry out this Act. The 
     head of the department or agency shall provide the 
     information to the Commission unless release of the 
     information to the public by the agency is prohibited by law.

     SEC. 7. STAFF ASSISTANCE FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       Upon the request of the Commission or the Chairperson of 
     the Commission, the head of any Federal department or agency 
     may detail any of the personnel of the department or agency 
     to the Commission to assist the Commission to carry out this 
     Act.

     SEC. 8. REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Commission shall submit to the President and 
     the Congress a report that contains--
       (1) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of 
     the study required by section 5; and
       (2) recommendations of the Commission regarding any 
     legislation or administrative action the Commission considers 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 9. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate upon the submission of the 
     report required by section 8.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRYOR:
  S. 687. A bill to improve and strengthen child support enforcement, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


               the child support enforcement act of 1996

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Support 
Enforcement Act of 1995. This bill is modeled after the bipartisan 
approaches contained in child support enforcement legislative proposals 
of last year.
  The problems that we currently face in this area have been well 
researched and analyzed in a recently released report, written at my 
request, by the General Accounting Office [GAO]. One of the most 
telling facts in the GAO report is that the national child support 
enforcement caseload grew 180 percent between 1980 and 1992. This 
statistic speaks volumes. In 1994, the 15 million support cases 
nationwide represent a significant portion of our neediest families. If 
the estimated $34 billion that is owed these families could be 
collected, the taxpayers would receive some much needed relief as a 
result of the corresponding reductions that would be possible in many 
welfare programs.
  Mr. President, I held a hearing on child support enforcement last 
July to try to better understand why this money is not being collected. 
This hearing lead me to conclude that until we improve the way the 
system works at the local, State, and Federal levels we will never be 
able to ensure that children receive the financial support from their 
respective families to which they are entitled.
  There were many issues raised in the hearing that are worthy of 
attention, but one I wish to especially highlight is the caseload of 
most of the State workers who are trying to help custodial parents 
collect their payments.
  One witness, a caseworker from Virginia, testified that she could 
only spend about 12 minutes a month with any one client. Mr. President, 
12 minutes a month is simply not enough time to effectively deal with 
all of the complex issues involved in these cases.
  Another witness was Ms. Judy Jones Jordan, the administrator of the 
Child Support Enforcement Program in Arkansas. My State is indeed 
fortunate to have an outstanding administrator of such a critical 
program. She testified that the system had bogged down. Rather than 
having a clear mission, the State programs are subject to so much 
Federal oversight that getting the job done has become almost 
impossible. She said:

       The program has changed from one designed to assist 
     families and reduce the cost of public assistance programs to 
     one focused on passing audits and avoiding Federal penalties.

  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is an attempt 
to address the problem identified by Ms. Jordan. In a country where the 
default rate on used car loans is 3 percent and the default rate on 
child support orders is nearly 50 percent, we need to greatly improve 
the way that the partnership between the Federal Government and the 
States works.
  This legislation that I am introducing addresses the key issues that 
I think will make a significant difference in the operation of the 
child support system. First, the Federal audit requirements will be 
revised so that they become a far less onerous burden on the States. In 
fact, I believe the new procedures will transform this process into a 
helpful and necessary evaluation that will provide the States with 
useful information on the effectiveness of their program while ensuring 
accountability of Federal dollars.
  The second thing that my legislation would do, is the funding system 
will be modified to address the GAO's finding that the present system 
does not provide incentives to States for improving the performance of 
the program.
  Third, the legislation will require States to suspend drivers 
licenses and other licenses, both professional and recreational, of 
parents who are delinquent in their child support payments. My State of 
Arkansas has found that this program is very effective in encouraging 
noncustodial parents to promptly pay their child support obligations.
  Finally, the legislation attempts to address the difficult issue of 
the overburdened case workers in of the State child support offices. 
The Department of Health and Human Services and the States will sit 
down together and determine the level of staffing necessary for each 
State to effectively carry out its child support program. It is my hope 
that with the benefit of this joint effort, the State programs will 
then be able to at least partially address this critical area.
  Mr. President, while personal responsibility is the key to taking 
care of children, it is my belief the Government has a limited but 
important role to ensure that it is easy for noncustodial parents to 
fulfill their duties, and difficult for them to avoid it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
    Title I--Eligibility and Other Matters Concerning Child Support 
                      Enforcement Program Clients

     Sec. 101. Cooperation requirement and good cause exception
       Section 101 amends the CSE, AFDC, and Medicaid statutes to 
     require that, effective 10 months after enactment (or 
     earlier, at State option)--
       The State CSE agency (rather than the AFDC and Medicaid 
     agencies, as under current law) will make determinations of 
     whether applicants for AFDC and Medicaid are cooperating with 
     efforts to establish paternity and obtain child support, or 
     have good cause not to cooperate;
       The AFDC and Medicaid agencies must immediately refer 
     applicants needing paternity establishment services to the 
     CSE agency, and the CSE agency must make an initial 
     cooperation or good cause determination within 10 days of 
     such referral;
       The mother or other custodial relative of a child born 10 
     months or more after enactment of these amendments will not 
     be found to cooperate with efforts to establish paternity 
     unless that individual names the putative father and supplies 
     information that could assist the IV-D agency to identify 
     him; and
       Cooperation with initial efforts to establish paternity 
     (except where good cause is found) is a precondition to 
     eligibility for program benefits, except where the applicant 
     is eligible for emergency assistance under title IV-A or is a 
     pregnant woman presumptively eligible for Medicaid, where an 
     appeal of a finding of lack of good cause is pending, or 
     where the CSE agency has not made a timely determination.
     Sec. 102. State obligation to provide paternity establishment 
         and child support enforcement services
       Section 102 requires State laws to require that--
       Every child support order established or modified in the 
     State on or after October 1, 1998 be entered in a central 
     case registry to be operated by the IV-D agency (see section 
     301 of the bill); [[Page S5415]] 
       Child support be collected (except where parents agree to 
     opt out under limited circumstances) through a centralized 
     collections unit to be operated by the IV-D agency or its 
     contractor (see section 302 of the bill)--
       On and after October 1, 1998, in all cases being enforced 
     under the State plan; and
       On and after October 1, 1999, in all cases entered in the 
     central case registry.
       Section 102 amends the IV-D State plan requirements to 
     eliminate distinctions between welfare recipients and other 
     applicants for IV-D services with respect to services 
     available and fees for such services. Under these 
     amendments--
       No fees may be imposed on any custodial or noncustodial 
     parent--
       After September 30, 1998, for application for IV-D 
     services; or
       At any time, for inclusion in the central state registry;
       No other fees (other than those specified in current law 
     for genetic testing and tax refund offset) may be imposed on 
     the custodial parent; and
       Any other costs or fees may be imposed on the noncustodial 
     parent (but any fees for support collections through the 
     centralized collections unit must be added to and not deleted 
     from the support award).
     Sec. 103. Distribution of payments
       Section 103 amends the provisions of title IV-D concerning 
     the order of priority for distribution of child support 
     collections, to provide that--
       A family not receiving AFDC shall be paid the full amount 
     of current support, plus arrearages for any period after the 
     family ceased to receive AFDC, before any amount is retained 
     by the State to reimburse AFDC;
       The State would have the option, in the case of a family 
     receiving AFDC, either to make distribution as under current 
     law or to pay the family the full amount of current support 
     due before retaining any amount to reimburse the AFDC agency;
       Where the parent owing support marries (or remarries) the 
     custodial parent, and the parents' combined income is less 
     than twice the Federal poverty line, the State must, upon 
     application by the parents, suspend or cancel any debts owed 
     the State on account of AFDC paid to the family.
       This section also requires the Secretary to promulgate 
     regulations--
       Under title IV-D, establishing a uniform national standard 
     for distribution where a parent owes support to more than one 
     family; and
       Under title IV-A, establishing standards for States 
     choosing the alternative distribution formula, to minimize 
     irregular monthly payments to AFDC families.
       Finally, this section, together with the corresponding 
     amendment to title IV-A in title VII of this bill, increases 
     the amount of monthly support to be paid to the family by the 
     CSE agency and disregarded for purposes of AFDC eligibility 
     and benefits. The new ``passthrough and disregard'' amount 
     would be the current $50 increased by the CPI, or such 
     greater amount as the State may choose.
     Sec. 104. Due process rights
       Section 104. requires State IV-D plans, effective October 
     1, 1997, to provide for procedures to ensure that--
       Parties to cases in which IV-D services are being provided 
     receive notice of all proceedings in which support 
     obligations might be established or modified, and of any 
     order establishing or modifying a support obligation within 
     10 days of issuance; and
       Individuals receiving IV-D services have available to them 
     fair hearing or other formal complaint procedure.
     Sec. 105. Privacy safeguards
       Section 105 requires State IV-D plans, effective October 1, 
     1996, to provide for safeguards to protect privacy rights 
     with respect to sensitive and confidential information, 
     including safeguards against unauthorized use of disclosure 
     of information relating to paternity and support proceedings, 
     and prohibitions on disclosing the whereabouts of one 
     individual to another person who is subject to a protective 
     order, or convicted of criminal assault or abuse against such 
     individual, or against whom a proceeding is pending seeking 
     such a protective order or conviction.
     Sec. 106. Requirement to facilitate access to services.
       Section 106 requires State IV-D plans, effective October 1, 
     1996, to include outreach plans to increase parents' access 
     to CSE services, including plans responding to the needs of 
     working parents and parents with limited proficiency in 
     English.


              title ii--program administration and funding

     Sec. 201. Federal matching payments
       Section 201 increases the basic eral matching rate for 
     State IV-D programs (currently 66 percent) to 69 percent for 
     FY 1997, 72 percent for FY 1998, and 75 percent for FY 1999 
     and thereafter.
       Section 201 also adds a maintenance of effort requirement 
     that--
       Total State expenditures (other than for automated data 
     processing systems development), after deducting Federal 
     matching payments (but not incentive payments) not be less 
     than such expenditures for FY 1996, and
       Total State expenditures for FY 1997 and 1998, after 
     deducting Federal matching payments and incentive payments, 
     not be less than such expenditures for FY 1996.
     Sec. 202. Performance-based incentives and penalties
       Section 202 replaces the system of incentive payments to 
     States under section 458 of the Act with a new program of 
     incentive adjustments to the Federal matching rate. Under 
     this program, States could receive increases of up to 5 
     percentage points based on Statewide paternity establishment, 
     and increases of up to 10 percentage points based on overall 
     CSE performance.
       Section 202 also makes amendments (effective with respect 
     to quarters beginning on and after the date of enactment) 
     providing for a penalty reduction of AFDC matching payments 
     where a State's CSE program does not meet specified 
     performance standards:
       Section 452(g) is amended to make minor and technical 
     amendments to the formula for determining the paternity 
     establishment percentage under the IV-D program (the 
     amendments correct errors introduced by OBRA 1993).
       Section 403(h) is amended (effective with respect to 
     calendar quarters beginning one year or more after enactment) 
     to simplify the penalty reduction procedure. The penalty is 
     to be deferred for one year pending State corrective action, 
     and to be canceled if all deficiencies are eliminated by the 
     end of that year.
       The Secretary would specify in regulations the levels of 
     accomplishment (or improvement) needed to qualify for each 
     incentive adjustment rate. States would report performance 
     data after the end of FY 1995 and each succeeding year; the 
     Secretary would determine the amount (if any) of adjustment 
     due each State, based on State data determined by the 
     Secretary to be reliable, and would apply the adjustment to 
     matching payments for the succeeding fiscal year (beginning 
     with FY 1997).
     Sec. 203. Federal and State reviews and audits
       Section 203 makes amendments, effective beginning one year 
     after enactment, shifting the focus of title IV-D audits from 
     the manner in which activities are conducted to performance 
     outcomes, as follows:
       A new State plan element requires the States annually--
       To determine, and report to the Secretary concerning, 
     conformity with State plan requirements; and
       To extract from their ADP systems, and transmit to the 
     Secretary, data and calculations concerning their compliance 
     with Federal performance requirements.
       The Secretary's responsibilities are revised to require--
       Annual review of the State reports on plan conformity; 
     determinations of amounts of penalty adjustments to States; 
     and provisions of comments, recommendations, and technical 
     assistance to the States);
       Evaluation of elements of State programs in which 
     significant deficiencies are indicated by the State reports; 
     and
       Triennial audits of State reporting systems and financial 
     management, and for other purposes the Secretary finds 
     necessary.
     Sec. 204. Automated data processing
       Section 204 recognizes and clarifies title IV-D State plan 
     requirements concerning automated data processing, and adds 
     requirements that the State agency ADP system (1) be used to 
     calculate the State's performance for purposes of the 
     incentive and penalty adjustments under sections 403(h) and 
     458; and (2) incorporate safeguards on information integrity 
     and security.
       This section also revises the statutory provisions for 
     State implementation of all Federal ADP requirements 
     (currently required by October 1, 1995), to provide that:
       All requirements enacted on or before enactment of the 
     Family Support Act of 1988 are to be met by October 1, 1996; 
     and
       All requirements (including those enacted in OBRA 1993 and 
     this bill) are to be met by October 1, 1999.
       Ninety percent Federal matching for ADP start-up costs 
     remains available through FY 1996. For the next 5 years, the 
     match rate for startup costs is the higher of (i) 80 percent 
     or (ii) the matching rate generally applicable to the State 
     IV-D program (including any incentive increases); total 
     Federal payments to States are limited to $260,000,000, to be 
     distributed among States on a formula set in regulations 
     which takes into account the relative size of State caseloads 
     and the level of automation needed to meet applicable ADP 
     requirements.
     Sec. 205. Director of CSE Program; training and staffing
       Section 205--
       Eliminates the requirement that the individual responsible 
     for day-to-day operation of the Federal CSE program report 
     directly to the Secretary;
       Requires the Secretary to develop a national training 
     program for State IV-D directors, and a core curriculum and 
     training standards for State agencies, and authorizes the 
     Secretary to charge States fees for such programs;
       Requires State IV-D agencies to have training programs 
     consistent with the national standards and curriculum, and to 
     provide for initial standards and curriculum, and to provide 
     for initial and ongoing training of all staff, and permits 
     use of IV-D funds (with the Secretary's approval) for 
     training of non-agency personnel with related 
     responsibilities (including judges, law enforcement 
     personnel, and social workers); and
       Requires the Secretary to study and report to Congress on 
     the staffing of each State's [[Page S5416]] CSE program 
     (including a review of needs created by requirements for ADP 
     systems, central case registries, and centralized support 
     collections).
     Sec. 206. Funding for secretarial assistance to State 
         programs
       Section 206 makes available to the Secretary, from annual 
     appropriations for payments for State programs under title 
     IV-D for FY 1995 and succeeding years--
       An amount equal to 1 percent of the Federal share of child 
     support collections on behalf of AFDC recipients for the 
     preceding fiscal year, for use for assistance to State IV-D 
     agencies through technical assistance, training, and related 
     activities; projects of regional or national significance; 
     and
       An amount equal to 2 percent of the Federal share of such 
     collections, for operation of the FPLS and the National 
     Welfare Reform Information Clearinghouse established by 
     section 305 (to the extent such costs are not recovered in 
     user fees.)
     Sec. 207. Data collection and reports by the Secretary
       Section 207 amends data collection and reporting 
     requirements, effective with respect to FY 1994 and 
     succeeding fiscal years, to conform the requirements to the 
     changes made by the bill, and to eliminate requirements for 
     unnecessary or duplicative information.
     Sec. 208. Coordination with income eligibility verification 
         system
       Section 208 amends the authority for the Income Eligibility 
     Verification System (IEVS)--
       To permit IEVS information furnished to state CSE programs 
     to be used to assist in carrying out any title IV-D program 
     purpose (rather than only for income eligibility 
     verification); and
       To require the state CSE agency to make information in the 
     central State case registry available to State agencies 
     administering the AFDC, Medicaid, Food Stamp, and 
     unemployment compensation programs.


                  Title III--Locate and Case Tracking

     Sec. 301. Central State case registry.
       Section 301 requires the State IV-D agency's ADP system--
       To perform the functions of a single central registry 
     containing records with respect to each case in which 
     services are being provided by the State agency (including 
     each case in which an order has been entered or modified on 
     or after October 1, 1998);
       For each case, to maintain and regularly update a complete 
     payment record of all amounts collected and distributed; 
     amounts owed or overdue (including interest or late payment 
     penalties and fees); and the termination date of the support 
     obligation;
       Regularly to update and monitor case records on the basis 
     of information on judicial and administrative actions, 
     proceedings, and orders relating to paternity and support; 
     information from data matches; information on support 
     collections and distributions; and other relevant 
     information; and
       To extract data for purposes of sharing and matching with 
     Federal, in-State, and interstate data bases and locator 
     services, including the FPLS, the data bases
      created by this bill, other State IV-D agencies, and State 
     agencies administering AFDC, Foster Care, and Medicaid.
     Sec. 302. Centralized collection and disbursement of support 
         payments
       Section 302 requires State IV-D agencies, on and after 
     October 1, 1997--
       To operate a centralized, automated unit for collection and 
     disbursement of child support which--
       Is operated directly by the State IV-D agency or by a 
     contractor responsible directly to the State agency;
       Collects and disburses support in all cases being enforced 
     by the State agency (including all cases under orders entered 
     on or after October 1, 1998);
       Uses automated procedures, electronic processes, and 
     computer-driven technology to the maximum extent feasible, 
     efficient, and economical; and
       Is coordinated with the State agency's ADP system;
       To use the State agency ADP system to assist and facilitate 
     the operations of the centralized collections unit, through 
     functions including--
       Generation of wage withholding notices and orders to 
     employers;
       Ongoing monitoring to promptly identify nonpayment; and
       Automatic use of administrative enforcement mechanisms; and
       To have sufficient State staff (including State employees 
     and contractors) to carry out these monitoring and 
     enforcement responsibilities.
     Sec. 303. Amendments concerning income withholding
       Section 303 requires State laws concerning income 
     withholding to provide--
       That all child support orders issued or modified before 
     October 1, 1995, which are not otherwise subject to income 
     withholding, will become subject to income
      withholding immediately if arrearages occur, without need 
     for a judicial or administrative hearing;
       That employers withholding wages must forward payments to 
     the State centralized collections unit within 5 working days 
     after the amount withheld would otherwise have been paid to 
     the employee;
       That the notice from the State to employers directing wage 
     withholding must be in a standard format prescribed by the 
     Secretary;
       For the imposition of fines against employers who fail to 
     withhold support from wages, or to make appropriate and 
     timely payment to the State collections unit.
       This section also makes amendments--
       Conforming the income withholding requirements to the 
     requirement for a centralized State collections unit; and
       Requiring the Secretary to promulgate regulations defining 
     income and other terms for purposes of title IV-D.
     Sec. 304. Locator information from interstate networks and 
         labor unions
       Section 304 adds a requirement for State laws providing--
       That the State will neither finance nor use any automated 
     interstate locator system network for purposes relating to 
     (i) motor vehicles or (ii) law enforcement unless all Federal 
     and State IV-D agencies (including the FPLS and the new 
     Federal data matching services) have access on the same basis 
     as any other user of the system or network (but only, in the 
     case of law enforcement data, where such access is otherwise 
     allowed by State and Federal law); and
       Requiring labor unions and their hiring halls to furnish to 
     the IV-D agency, upon request, locator information (relating 
     to residence and employment) on any union member against whom 
     a paternity or support obligation is sought to be established 
     or enforced.
     Sec. 305. National Child Support Information Clearinghouse
       Section 305 amends title IV-D to require the Secretary to 
     establish and operate a National Child Support Information 
     Clearinghouse (NCSIC).
       The NCSIC would include Federal Parent Locator Service 
     under section 453 of the Act, The Secretary is also required 
     to establish within the NCSIC, by October 1, 1998, two new 
     automated data matching services designed to locate 
     individuals (and their assets) for CSE purposes:
       The National Child Support Registry would contain minimal 
     information (including names, social security numbers or 
     other uniform identification numbers, and State case 
     identification numbers) on each case in a State central case 
     registry, based on information furnished and regularly 
     updated by State IV-D agencies.
       The National Directory of New Hires would contain 
     identifying information--
       Supplied by employers, within 10 business days of hiring 
     (or, if the employer makes automated reports, 10 business 
     days after the close of the corresponding payroll period), on 
     each individual hired on or after October 1, 1998, and
       Consisting of extracts from reports to the Secretary of 
     Labor under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, supplied by 
     States either quarterly or on such more frequent basis as 
     such reports are supplied to the Secretary of Labor, in such 
     format and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       (An employer failing to make a timely report concerning an 
     employee would be subject to a civil money penalty of the 
     lesser of $500 or 1 percent of the wages paid to the 
     employee.)
       The Secretary is required to disclose or match data in the 
     Clearinghouse as follows:
       Data are to be shared with the Social Security 
     Administration for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of 
     identifying information reported.
       The New Hire Directory and Child Support Registry are to be 
     matched every 2 working days, and resulting information to be 
     reported to State CSE agencies.
       Other Clearinghouse registries are to be matched against 
     each other, and resulting information is to be reported to 
     State CSE and AFDC agencies, to the extent found effective.
       Data in Clearinghouse registries are to be disclosed 
     through the IEVS system to the AFDC, Medicaid,
      unemployment compensation, food stamp, and territorial cash 
     assistance programs, for income eligibility verification 
     and any other purpose permitted under section 1137 of the 
     Act.
       Registry data are to be disclosed to the Social Security 
     Administration for use in determining the accuracy of 
     supplemental security income payments under title XVI and in 
     connection with benefits under title II of the Act.
       Data in the New Hire Directory are to be disclosed--
       To the Secretary of the Treasury, for administration of the 
     earned income tax credit program and for verification of 
     claims concerning employment on tax returns; and
       To State agencies administering unemployment compensation 
     and workers compensation programs, to assist determinations 
     on the allowability of claims.
       The Secretary may disclose Clearinghouse data, without 
     personal identifiers, for research serving the purposes of 
     specified programs under title IV of the Act.
       This section provides for reimbursement by the Secretary to 
     SSA and to State employment security agencies (SESAs) for 
     their costs of carrying out this section; and for 
     reimbursement to the Secretary by State and Federal agencies 
     receiving information from the Clearinghouse. This section 
     also include provisions designed to safeguard information in 
     the Clearinghouse from inappropriate disclosure or use.
       This section makes related amendments to the Federal 
     Unemployment Tax Act and title III of the Social Security 
     Act, requiring [[Page S5417]] SESAs to furnish wage and 
     unemployment compensation information to the Directory of New 
     Hires.
     Sec. 306. Expanded locate authority
       Section 306; makes various amendments to remove legal 
     barriers and otherwise increase the effectiveness of 
     electronic data matches for CSE purposes. The FPLS authority 
     is amended--
       To broaden the purpose of the FPLS to include locating 
     information on wages and other employment benefits, and on 
     other assets (or debts), for purposes of establishing or 
     setting the amount of support obligations;
       To require the FPLS to obtain information from consumer 
     reporting agencies; and
       To authorize the Secretary to set reasonable rates for 
     reimbursement to other Federal agencies, State agencies, and 
     consumer reporting agencies for the costs of providing 
     information to the FPLS.
       This section also makes complementary amendments to other 
     laws, as follows:
       Section 608 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is amended to 
     make available to the FPLS all information on individuals in 
     the files of consumer reporting agencies (rather than only 
     locate information, as under current law).
       Section 6103(1) (6) and (8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (providing for IRS and Social Security Administration 
     disclosures of tax return information to Federal, State, and 
     local CSE agencies) are amended--
       To eliminate the restriction that IRS may disclose return 
     information only if the information is not reasonably 
     available from any other source; and
       To permit disclosures by the Social Security Administration 
     to OCSE.
     Sec. 307. Studies and demonstrations concerning parent 
         locator activities
       Section 307 requires the Secretary--
       To study, report, and make recommendations to the Congress 
     concerning issues involved in (1) making FPLS information 
     available to noncustodial parents, and (2) operating 
     electronic data interchanges between the FPLS and major 
     consumer credit reporting bureaus; and
       To fund State demonstrations testing automated data 
     exchanges with other State data bases (using funds available 
     to the Secretary for technical assistance to States under the 
     provision added by section 616 of the bill).
     Sec. 308. Use of Social Security numbers
       Section 308 requires State laws requiring the recording of 
     social security numbers of the parties on marriage licenses 
     and divorce decrees, and of parents on birth records and 
     child support and paternity orders.
       This section also makes an amendment to title II of the 
     Act, to clarify that social security numbers of parents must 
     be recorded on children's birth records, but that this 
     requirement authorizes release of social security numbers 
     only for purposes related to child support enforcement.


          title iv--streamlining and uniformity of procedures

     Sec. 401. Adoption of uniform State laws
       Section 401 requires States, by January 1, 1996, to adopt 
     in its entirety the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 
     with the following modifications and additions:
       The State law is to apply in any case (1) involving an 
     order established or modified in one State and for which a 
     subsequent modification is sought in another State; or (2) in 
     which interstate activity is required to enforce an order;
       The State law shall provide that a tribunal in the State 
     with jurisdiction over a child who is a resident of the State 
     has jurisdiction over both parents;
       The State law shall provide that the State may modify an 
     order issued in another State if (1) all parties do not 
     reside in the issuing State, and either reside in or are 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the State in question; and (2) 
     (if any other State is exercising or seeks to exercise 
     jurisdiction), the conditions applicable to simultaneous 
     proceedings are met to the same extent as required for 
     proceedings to establish orders;
       The State law shall permit consenting parties to permit the 
     State which issued an order to retain jurisdiction which it 
     would otherwise lose because the parties are no longer 
     present in that State;
       The State law shall recognize as valid service of process 
     upon persons in the State by any means acceptable in the 
     State which is the initiating or responding State in a 
     proceeding;
       The State must have procedures requiring all public and 
     private entities in the State to provide promptly, in 
     response to the request of the IV-D agency of that or any 
     other State, information on employment, compensation, and 
     benefits of any employee or contractor of such entity.
       Section 401 provides for expedited appeal to the Supreme 
     Court of any district court ruling on the constitutionality 
     of the above provision concerning long-arm jurisdiction based 
     on the child's residence.
       This section also makes conforming amendments to 
     authorities requiring States to give full faith and credit to 
     other States' child support orders.
     Sec. 402. State laws providing expedited proceedings
       Section 402 requires State laws to give the State IV-D 
     agency the authority (and recognize and enforce the authority 
     of State agencies of other States), to take the following 
     actions relating to establishment of paternity and 
     establishment and enforcement of support orders without 
     obtaining an order from a separate judicial or administrative 
     tribunal (but subject to due process safeguards):
       To establish the amount of support in any case being 
     enforced by the State agency, and to modify any support order 
     included in the central case registry, based on State 
     guidelines;
       To order genetic testing for paternity establishment where 
     appropriate preconditions are met;
       To enter a default order--
       Establishing paternity (where a putative father refuses to 
     submit to genetic testing); and
       To establish or modify a support obligation, where an 
     obligor or obligee fails to respond to notice to appear;
       To subpoena financial or other information needed to 
     establish, modify, or enforce an order, and to sanction 
     failure to respond to a subpoena;
       To obtain access (including automated access, if 
     available), subject to appropriate safeguards, to--
       Records of other State and local government agencies, 
     including records on vital statistics; tax and revenue; real 
     and titled personal property; occupational and professional 
     licenses; ownership and control of corporations and other 
     business entities; employment security; public assistance; 
     motor vehicles; and corrections;
       Customer records of public utilities and cable television 
     companies; and
       Information held by financial institutions on individuals 
     who owe or are owed support (or against or with respect to 
     whom a support obligation is sought);
       To order wage or other income withholding;
       To direct that the payee under an order be changed (in 
     cases being enforced by the State agency) to the appropriate 
     government entity;
       For the purpose of securing overdue support--
       To intercept and seize any payment to the obligor by or 
     through a State or local government agency;
       To attach and seize assets of the obligor held by financial 
     institutions;
       To attach retirement funds (where permitted by the 
     Secretary);
       To impose liens and, in appropriate cases, to force sale of 
     property and distribution of proceeds; and
       To increase monthly support payments to include amounts for 
     arrearages.
       To suspend drivers' licenses of individuals owing past-due 
     support.
       Section 402 also requires State laws to provide for the 
     following substantive and procedural rules and authority, 
     applicable to all proceedings to establish paternity or to 
     establish, modify, or enforce support orders:
       Procedures permitting presumptions of notice in child 
     support cases, under which parties to a paternity or child 
     support proceeding must file with the tribunal, and update, 
     information on location and identity, which may be relied on 
     in any subsequent child support enforcement action between 
     the same parties for purposes of providing notice and service 
     of process (if due diligence has otherwise been exercised in 
     attempting to locate such party);
       Procedures ensuring Statewide jurisdiction in child support 
     cases, under which the IV-D agency and tribunals hearing 
     child support and paternity cases have Statewide 
     jurisdiction; their orders have Statewide effect; and (where 
     orders in such cases are issued by local jurisidictions) a 
     case may be transferred within the State without loss of 
     jurisdiction.
       This section would bar the Secretary from granting States 
     exemptions from State law requirements under section 466 of 
     the Act concerning procedures for paternity establishment; 
     modification of orders; recording of orders in the central 
     State case registry; recording of social security numbers; 
     interstate enforcement; or expedited administrative 
     procedures.
       Finally, this section requires the IV-D agency's ADP system 
     to be used, to the maximum extent feasible, to implement the 
     above expedited administrative procedures.


                    title v--paternity establishment

     Sec. 501. State laws concerning paternity establishment
       Section 501 amends the provisions concerning State laws on 
     paternity establishment to require such laws--
       To permit the initiation of proceedings to establish 
     paternity before the birth of the child concerned;
       To provide authority to order genetic testing upon request 
     of a party when such request is supported by a sworn 
     statement establishing a reasonable possibility of parentage;
       To require the IV-D agency, when it orders genetic testing, 
     to pay the costs (subject (at State option) to recoupment 
     from the putative father if paternity is established), and to 
     obtain additional testing (upon advance payment) where test 
     results are disputed;
       To require the State to admit into evidence results of any 
     genetic test that is of a type generally acknowledged by 
     accreditation bodies designated by the Secretary as reliable 
     evidence of paternity, and performed by a laboratory approved 
     by such an accreditation body; [[Page S5418]] 
       To make cooperation by hospitals and other health care 
     facilities in voluntary paternity acknowledgment procedures a 
     condition of Medicaid participation;
       To require any State that treats a voluntary acknowledgment 
     as a rebuttable presumption to provide that the presumption 
     becomes conclusive within one year (unless rebutted or 
     invalidated);
       To provide (at State option, notwithstanding the preceding 
     provision) for vacating an acknowledgement of paternity, upon 
     the request of a party, on the basis of new evidence, the 
     existence of fraud, or the best interest of the child; and
       To provide that no judicial or administrative proceedings 
     are required or permitted to ratify an unchallenged 
     acknowledgement of paternity;
       To provide that parties to a paternity proceeding are not 
     entitled to jury trial;
       To require issuance of an order for temporary support, upon 
     motion of a party, pending an administrative or judicial 
     determination of parentage, where paternity is indicated by 
     genetic testing or other clear and convincing evidence;
       To provide that bills for pregnancy, childbirth, and 
     genetic testing are admissible without foundation testimony;
       To grant discretion to the tribunal establishing paternity 
     and support to waive rights to amounts owed to the State (but 
     not to the mother) for costs relating to pregnancy, 
     childbirth, genetic testing, and child support arrears, where 
     the father cooperates or acknowledges paternity;
       To ensure that putative fathers have a reasonable 
     opportunity to initiate paternity actions.
     Sec. 502. Outreach for voluntary paternity establishment
       Section 502 requires State IV-D plans, effective October 1, 
     1996, to provide that the State will publicize the 
     availability and encourage the use of procedures for 
     voluntary establishment of paternity and child support 
     through a variety of means, which--
       Will include distribution of materials at health care 
     facilities and other locations, such a schools; and follow-up 
     on each child for whom paternity has not been established 
     discharged from a hospital after birth; and
       May include programs to educate expectant couples on rights 
     and responsibilities relating to paternity, in which all 
     expectant IV-A recipients may be require to participate).
       90 percent Federal matching would be available for the 
     above outreach activities in quarters beginning on and after 
     October 1, 1996.
     Sec. 503. Penalty for failure to establish paternity promptly
       Section 503 provides for reduction of Federal matching 
     otherwise payable to a State IV-A program, for quarters 
     beginning 10 months or more after enactment of this bill, for 
     failure to establish paternity for children born 10 months or 
     more after enactment who are receiving public assistance, 
     whose mothers or custodial relatives have cooperated with 
     State agency efforts for the entire preceding year, but for 
     whom paternity has not been established. The reduction 
     formula would be establish in regulations; it would equal the 
     product of (1) the number of such children in the State 
     (after making allowance for a tolerance level of a percentage 
     of such children, ranging from 25 percent for FY 1998 to 10 
     percent for FY 2004 and succeeding fiscal years); (2) the 
     average monthly AFDC payment; and (3) one-half the applicable 
     Federal matching rate under title IV-A.
     Sec. 504. Incentives to parents to establish paternity
       Section 504 authorizes the Secretary to approve IV-D State 
     plan amendments providing for incentive payments to families 
     to encourage paternity establishment. State payments for this 
     purpose would be matched as ordinary IV-D expenditures.
       This section also requires the Secretary to authorize up to 
     3 States to conduct demonstrations providing financial 
     incentives to families for establishment of paternity. 90 
     percent Federal matching would be available under title IV-D 
     for State payments to families under these demonstrations, up 
     to a $1 million cap on Federal expenditures.


       title vi--establishment and modification of support orders

     Sec. 601. National Commission on Child Support Guidelines
       Section 601 authorizes the Secretary to establish a 
     National Commission on Child Support Guidelines to consider 
     the advisability of a national child support guideline (or 
     parameters for State guidelines) and, if appropriate, to 
     develop a proposed guideline for congressional consideration. 
     The Commission is to consider matters including the adequacy 
     of State guidelines; the definition of income and 
     circumstances under which income should be imputed; tax 
     treatment of support; cases in which parents have
      obligations to more than one family, treatment of expenses 
     for child care, health care, and special needs; the 
     appropriate duration of support, and issues raised by 
     shared custody.
       The Commission would have 2 members appointed by the 
     Chairman and 1 by the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate 
     Finance Committee; 2 appointed by the Chairman and 1 by the 
     Ranking Minority Member of the House Ways and Means 
     Committee; and 6 appointed by the Secretary. Members would be 
     appointed by March 1, 1996, and would make a final report to 
     the President and the Congress within 2 years after 
     appointment.
       Appropriations are authorized of $1 million for each of FYs 
     1996 and 1997, to remain available until expended.
     Sec. 602. State laws concerning modification of child support 
         orders
       Section 602 requires States, effective October 1, 2000, to 
     have in effect laws concerning modification of child support 
     order under which--
       The IV-D agency modifies all support order (including 
     judicial orders) included in the central case registry, in 
     accordance with State guidelines on award amounts;
       All orders in the central case registry are revised and 
     adjusted at least every 36 months unless adjustment is not in 
     the child's best interests, or unless both parents decline 
     modification in writing.
       Support orders must be reviewed upon the request of either 
     parent whenever either parent's income has changed by more 
     than 20 percent, or other substantial changes in 
     circumstances have occurred, since the order was established 
     or most recently reviewed.
       This section also amends current due process provisions to 
     eliminate specific Federal timetables and to require instead 
     application of State due process safeguards.
     Sec. 603. Study on use of tax return information for 
         modification of child support orders
       Section 603 requires the Secretaries of HHS and Treasury to 
     conduct a study to determine how tax return information might 
     be used to facilitate the process of modifying child support 
     awards.
     Sec. 604. Cost-of-living adjustment of child support awards
       This section directs the States to include in their State 
     plan procedures to ensure that child support orders shall be 
     adjusted an annual basis in line with the Consumer Price 
     Index.
                Title VII--Enforcement of Support Orders

     Sec. 701 Revolving loan fund for program improvements to 
         increase collections
       Section 701 authorizes appropriation of a total of $100 
     million ($10 million each for FYs 1999 and 2000, and $20 
     million each for FYs 2001 through 2004), to establish in 
     title IV-D a revolving fund for loans by the Secretary to 
     States for short-term projects making operational 
     improvements in State and local IV-D programs with the 
     potential for achieving substantial increases in child 
     support collections.
       Loans from the fund could not exceed $5 million per State 
     or $1 million per project (or $5 million for a single 
     Statewide project in a large State); loan durations could not 
     exceed 3 years. Loans would be repaid through offsets against 
     the increase in State incentive payments, plus additional 
     offsets against State IV-D payments as necessary to ensure 
     full repayment in 3 years. Loan funds received by a State 
     could be used by the State as the non-Federal share of 
     expenditures under the State IV-D program.
     Sec. 702. Federal income tax refund offset
       Section 702 makes amendments, effective January 1, 1997, 
     relating to the authority to offset child support arrearages 
     against Federal income tax refunds, as follows:
       The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to provide 
     that offsets of child support arrears (whether owed to the 
     family or assigned to the State) against income tax 
     overpayments would take priority over debts owed Federal 
     agencies (other than debts owed to HHS or the Department of 
     Education for student loans);
       Title IV-D is amended--
       To eliminate disparate treatment of families not receiving 
     public assistance, by repealing provisions (applicable only 
     to support arrears not assigned to the State) that--
       Make the offset available only for minor or disabled 
     children who are still owed current support;
       Set a higher threshold amount of arrears before tax offset 
     is available; and
       Permit higher fees to be charged for the offset service.
     Sec. 703. Internal Revenue Service collection of arrears
       Section 703 amends the provision of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 which provides authority to collect child 
     support arrears as if they were a tax owed by the obligor, 
     upon certification of arrears by the Secretary of HHS, to bar 
     imposition by IRS of additional fees for adjustment to the 
     amount of arrears previously certified with respect to the 
     same obligor.
     Sec 704. Authority to collect support from employment-related 
         payments by the United States
       Section 704 amends title IV-D, effective 6 months after 
     enactment, to eliminate the separate rules for withholding of 
     child support from wages, pensions, and other employment-
     related compensation of Federal employees. These amendments 
     treat U.S. employment income the same as income from any 
     other employer for purposes of the income withholding 
     provisions of title IV-D.
       This section also amends 10 U.S.C. to remove barriers to 
     availability of military retirees' compensation for payment 
     of child support, by making clear that these funds can be 
     reached by administrative as well as judicial orders, and to 
     provide for payment through a designated governmental entity.
     Sec. 705. Motor vehicle liens
       Section 705 amends the title IV-D requirements for State 
     laws concerning liens with [[Page S5419]] respect to child 
     support arrears to require that States have and use 
     procedures to place liens on titled motor vehicles owned by 
     individuals owing child support arrears equal to two months 
     of support. Such liens would take precedence over all other 
     encumbrances on a vehicle title, other than a purchase money 
     security interest, and could be used to force seizure and 
     sale of the vehicle.
     Sec. 706. Voiding of fraudulent transfers
       Section 706 requires States to have in effect the Uniform 
     Fraudulent Conveyance Act of 1981, the Uniform Fraudulent 
     Transfer Act of 1984, or an equivalent law providing for 
     voiding of transfers of income or property made to avoid 
     payment of child support.
     Sec. 707. State law authorizing suspension of licenses
       Section 707 requires enactment of laws giving the State 
     authority to withhold, suspend, or restrict use of driver's 
     licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and 
     recreational licenses of individuals owing overdue child 
     support or failing to respond to subpoenas or warrants 
     relating to paternity or child support proceedings.
     Sec. 708. Reporting arrearages to credit bureaus
       Section 708 amends the requirement for a State law 
     providing for the reporting of child support arrears to 
     consumer credit bureaus (which currently must permit such 
     reporting) to require such reporting when payment is one 
     month overdue.
     Sec. 709. Extended statute of limitation for collection of 
         arrearages
       Section 709 requires that State law provide a statute of 
     limitations on child support arrears extending at least until 
     the child reaches age 30. (This amendment would not require a 
     State to revise any payment obligation which had lapsed on 
     the effective date of the State law.)
     Sec. 710. Charges for arrearages
       Section 710 requires State laws to provide, not later than 
     October 1, 1998, for assessment of interest or penalties for 
     child support arrearages.
     Sec,. 711. Visitation issue barred
       Section 711 requires State laws to provide that failure to 
     pay child support is not a defense to denial of visitation 
     rights, and denial of visitation rights is not a defense to 
     failure to pay child support.
     Sec. 712. Denial of passports for nonpayment of child support
       Section 712 amends 4 U.S.C., effective October 1, 1996, to 
     provide that the Secretary of State, upon a certification by 
     a State IV-D agency that an individual owes child support 
     arrears of over $5,000, must refuse to issue a passport to 
     the individual and may revoke or restrict a passport already 
     issued.
     Sec. 713. Denial of Federal benefits, loans, and guarantees
       This section provides that no Federal agency may make a 
     loan to, provide any guarantee for the benefit or, or provide 
     any benefit to any person who has a child support arrearage 
     exceeding $1,000 and who is not in compliance with a plan or 
     an agreement to repay this obligation. This provision is 
     designed to elevate the issue of child support in the 
     operations of the Federal government. The Federal agencies 
     determine, for example, if a contractor is on the suspension 
     and debarment list before the agency awards a contract to the 
     company. The purpose of this section is to create this type 
     of screening system for child support obligations.
     Sec. 714. Seizure of lottery winnings
       This section provides that the distributor of lottery 
     winnings, insurance settlements, judgments, and/or property 
     seizures shall first seek a determination from the State 
     child support enforcement agency as to whether the person 
     owes a child support arrearage. If there is an arrearage, 
     then there shall be a withholding of that amount which shall 
     be sent to the Child Support agency for distribution.

                          ____________________