[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 119 (Friday, July 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10491-S10503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1054. A bill to provide for the protection of Southeast Alaska 
jobs and communities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


        THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA JOBS AND COMMUNITIES PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reluctantly reinitiate 
a debate concerning the management of the Tongass National Forest. I 
thought and hoped that Congress had resolved this issue with the 
passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 (TTRA). I want to 
emphasize my reluctance and unhappiness with the need to initiate 
corrective legislative action because the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 
1990 was hailed by all concerned as a dramatic resolution to a long-
standing debate on how to manage the Tongass. The congressional 
deliberations leading up to passage involved, as Senator Johnston, my 
colleague from Louisiana, put it ``extraordinary cooperation'' among 
all of the parties involved.
  When we passed the Tongass Timber Reform Act in 1990, I believe that 
Congress agreed with the Bush administration that--as long as the 
demand for timber existed--the industry should be provided sufficient 
volume from the remaining 1.7 million acre commercial forest land base 
to maintain the same amount of direct timber employment from operations 
on the Tongass National Forest that it enjoyed in 1990. I believe that 
all parties agreed that maintaining this level of employment was part 
of the compromise underlying the bill.
  Well, the Congress withdrew 1.1 million acres of land; and the Bush 
administration unilaterally modified the long term timber sale 
contracts on the Tongass, and required buffer strips on all major 
anadramous streams. But the jobs portion of the compromise has been 
largely ignored by the current administration. Since 1990, direct 
timber employment on the Tongass National Forest has been reduced by 
more than 42 percent. As I see it, there are two principal reasons for 
this decline: First, the Forest Service has failed to seek to meet 
market demand as required by TTRA section 101; and second, a variety of 
environmental groups have administratively appealed or litigated most 
proposed timber sales. Today 13 of 23 currently proposed sales are held 
up because of legal action taken by the environmentalists. These 
enjoined sales now make it impossible for the Forest Service to 
ameliorate the impacts of the sales it has withdrawn from the pipeline.
  What is happening in southeast Alaska is unfortunately not unique. 
Through a combination of Clinton administration initiatives and 
environmental group litigation we are seeing all forms of economic 
activity--timber, grazing, mining, and oil and gas exploration--driven 
off our public lands throughout the country. We are engaged in a policy 
of exporting both our jobs and some of our environmental problems to 
other nations. They will meet our material needs through production 
processes far less sophisticated and environmentally sensitive than our 
own. I represent the largest national forest in our system. I cannot 
believe that this forest cannot be managed to sustain a forest 
industry. I can no longer stand by as that industry is destroyed.
  Let me first turn to Forest Service malfeasance and nonfeasance, for 
it is with the Agency's performance that I am most unhappy. There are 
four reasons why the Forest Service has been unable or unwilling to 
meet market demand: First, the Forest Service in Alaska has 
reinterpreted the definition of ``viable population of a species'' such 
that it is managing habitat to require that all species exist on all 
areas of the Tongass, not just the portion of the Tongass to which a 
particular species is indigenous; second, in accordance with its new 
hypersensitivity to species protection, the Forest Service in the 
spring of 1994 canceled the Alaska Pulp Corporation [APC] long term 
contract, withdrew 600,000 acres, and related timber sales, from the 
1.7 million acre commercial forest land base remaining after the 1990 
act, and moved Ketchikan Pulp Company [KPC] into the APC contract areas 
so that habitat conservation areas [HCAs] and goshawk reservation areas 
could be established on a portion of KPC's then existing sales; third, 
the Forest Service has subordinated Section 101 of TTRA to species 
protection concerns, interpreting this part of the compromise as non-
binding; and fourth, the environmental groups lawsuits have eliminated 
the Agency's ability to offset the effects of the first three 
developments.
  My most immediate concern with the situation that the Forest Service 
has created is that it is rapidly getting worse. That is why I, along 
with other members of the Alaska Delegation, have come to the 
conclusion that we must act today. Let me describe the situation that 
exists.
  The log shortage commenced with the Forest Service action in setting 
aside habitat conservation areas and goshawk reservation areas in the 
spring of 1994, continues to cause job reductions, and now threatens 
new job reductions. KPC has approximately 120 mmbf of timber on hand, 
needs approximately 220 mmbf to get through the winter until April or 
May of 1996, and can only achieve this additional volume if timber 
which is currently enjoined is made available by the Forest Service 
during this timber harvest season. Meanwhile, the Ketchikan sawmill is 
closed, the Wrangell sawmill is closed, and the Annette sawmill is 
operating on one shift only.
  The timber sales program for the independent and small business 
timber industry, SBA, currently has 63.6 million board feet of timber 
under contract as of July 1, 1995. Only 5.92 million board feet of 
newly advertised SBA and independent timber sales have been made 
available in 1995 from all three supervisory areas of the Tongass. This 
should result in one independent SBA production facility closing by 
September 30, 1995, with a further reduction of regional, independent 
sawmill operations in the first quarter of 1996.
  The Forest Service's response to this situation is to continue to 
assure the Alaska Delegation to rely on the Agency to rectify the 
crisis as they complete the Tongass Land Management Plan [TLMP] 
revision process. At first, this sounded attractive. But then we looked 
into how the Forest Service is conducting the plan revision process. 
The Agency is making a bad situation worse. Consequently, the TLMP 
revision will not and cannot resolve this crisis for the following 
reasons.
  The TLMP revision process is designed solely to modify the 1991 draft 
plan alternatives. The 1991 alternatives were the first revision 
designed to implement the 1990 Act. The Forest Service is modifying 
this draft to consider such matters as population viability, cave 
issues, and ecosystem management. All of these priorities will likely 
reduce timber volumes from the 1991 alternatives; and from what has 
been offered to date.
  Second, the current Forest Service approach to implementing the 1990 
act and providing timber volume is to reduce market demand to the 
capacity of only those mills which remain open. Each time a mill 
closes, volume has been reduced accordingly. This ensures the continued 
closure of the Ketchikan and Wrangell sawmills, and precludes building 
a replacement medium density fiberboard facility for the closed 
pulpmill in Sitka. In my view, all of this is contrary to Congress' 
intent in the 1990 TTRA compromise.
  Third, on June 30, 1995, Regional Forester Janik made public the 10-
year timber sale projection shown on this chart. This was the final 
straw that broke the camel's back. This schedule shows an annual 
average volume of 278 million board feet. As this 10-year period 
mirrors the 10-year planning horizon for TLMP, we can only assume that 
the Forest Service has already made up its mind to drop the ASQ to 2.5 
billion from the current 4.5 billion board feet, essentially reducing 
volume availability by almost half. This is both unacceptable, and 
unconscionable given the Agency's arguments that we rely on the TLMP 
revision process to fix the timber supply crisis.

[[Page S10492]]

  Fourth, the TLMP scientists have been given an extremely short 
schedule which provides them insufficient time to collect and analyze 
data. This converts the TLMP science into off-hand impressions, which 
will be extremely conservative because of insufficient data. The 
October 24-26, 1994 meeting notes of the Forest Service's so-called 
goshawk committee, which have already been the subject of press 
reports, highlight this problem.
  The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee conducted two 
oversight hearings on the management of the Tongass National Forest. 
The hearings were held in Washington, DC, on May 18; and in Wrangell, 
AK on June 1. In all, the committee heard from 55 witnesses, with an 
additional 100 or so statements for the record. The Clinton 
administration was well represented at each hearing.
  The Alaska Delegation has also been involved in a prolonged 
discussion with the administration--including an exchange of detailed 
correspondence with Secretary Glickman--in an attempt to fashion an 
administrative solution to the timber supply crisis on the Tongass 
National Forest.
  Regrettably, that does not now seem possible. The administration 
appears to be fixed on a path that can only increase job losses in the 
region. The administration seems to be wedded to a Tongass land 
management plan revision process that cannot solve the problem. So, 
where does this leave us?
  In short, if we continue on our current path, we will most certainly 
not provide for sufficient volume to maintain jobs at the 1990 level. 
The compromise I envisioned in enacting the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform 
Act will not be realized.
  The Southeast Alaska Jobs and Communities Protection Act which I am 
introducing today addresses these problems by restoring the 1990 
compromise, and by providing the Forest Service with the ability which 
it says it lacks to reconcile the provisions of the 1990 Tongass Timber 
Reform Act and the more general public land and environmental statutes. 
The organizing principle behind my proposal is the protection of jobs--
the number of jobs that existed in 1990, and that we sought to protect 
with the 1990 act. The mechanism to accomplish this goal is very 
simple. Whenever the Forest Service feels it has to reduce the timber 
base on the Tongass in a fashion that will reduce jobs, the Agency must 
revisit the land set-asides in the 1990 act and replace the loss of 
timber base with enough lands to maintain the jobs.
  By focusing on jobs, and providing the Forest Service with 
flexibility that it says it does not now have, the Southeast Alaska 
Jobs and Communities Protection Act avoids tying the Agency's hands, or 
setting a mandated harvest level. Indeed, provisions in the bill 
requiring additional primary processing and encouraging value added 
manufacturing ensure that we get the maximum employment potential out 
of each stick of timber.
  Mr. President, I will not review each provision of the bill. Rather, 
I will submit a section-by-section summary for the record. Suffice it 
to say that the bill incorporates suggestions from all sides included 
in the 155 or more pieces of testimony received at our oversight 
hearings.
  In the same spirit as the 1990 act and today's proposal were drafted, 
I now invite all interested parties to offer in their constructive 
suggestions. I will schedule hearings on the measure, and hope to work 
closely with the administration and Senator Johnston in the same kind 
of extraordinary cooperation that was the hallmark of the 1990 effort.
  This cooperation is necessary because the status quo has become 
untenable. Even so, we have heard from some that: First, there is no 
timber supply problem on the Tongass; second, even if there is, they 
are not at fault; third, we need many more hearings before we do 
anything; and fourth, we need to sit back and allow the Forest Service 
to make the 1990 act work.
  The general pattern of these arguments is not unfamiliar to me. 
Change a few words, and you could be summarizing the timber industry's 
arguments prior to 1990 in defending the status quo embodied in the 
1980 act. In the late 1980's the Forest Service was slow to acknowledge 
that there was a problem, and then grudgingly worked with the Congress 
toward a solution. They are in a similar posture today. Also, as was 
the case in the late 1980's, middle ground interests like the Southeast 
Conference went beyond the posturing and the rhetoric to help isolate 
the problems and identify solutions. That is also the approach that the 
Southeast Conference took at our oversight hearings. Many of their 
suggestions are included in today's proposal.
  By contrast, polemical broadsides and ad hominem attacks are neither 
helpful in solving this problem, nor an effective smokescreen to 
distract people who are losing their jobs. It is true that today both 
sides in the Tongass debate are in court challenging the implementation 
of the 1990 compromise. They both have lawyers, plenty of them. Forest 
conflicts usually increase the number of lawyers, even as they decrease 
the amount of timber. If lawyers were as useful as 2x4's maybe we 
wouldn't have such a problem today.
  But it is time for everyone concerned to get beyond denial. The 
current situation will be improved neither by the TLMP revision, nor by 
more lawsuits. We will act because we have no choice. Unless we do, we 
will: First, lose the opportunity to reopen the Wrangell and Ketchikan 
sawmills; second, forego by default the possibility of establishing a 
medium density fiberboard mill in Sitka; third, discourage 
entrepreneurs who are presently considering the construction of a 
sawmill and kiln-dry facilities in Sitka; and fourth, suffer additional 
production curtailments at the Ketchikan pulp mill, and the closure of 
additional sawmills.
  We are eager to receive--and are already receiving from thoughtful 
people--suggestions on how to proceed. Our objective is simply this: 
restore the compromise, and the jobs inherent in it, in the 1990 TTRA.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered printed in the 
Record, as follows:
Summary of the Provisions of the Southeast Alaska Jobs and Communities 
                         Protection Act of 1995

       Section 1. The objective of this section is to make the 
     changes necessary in the Tongass Land management Planning 
     (TLMP) process so that sufficient volume can be made 
     available from the Tongass National Forest to provide 
     approximately 2400 direct timber jobs, which is the number of 
     such jobs which existed when the bill passed in 1990.
       All Tongass lands are to be considered in the TLMP process 
     except those designated as Wilderness under Sections 503 and 
     703 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
     (ANILCA)(702(a)(1)).
       For the Secretary to reduce the volume of timber available 
     for harvesting from that needed to protect jobs at the 1990 
     level, the Secretary will have to do two things: (a) provide 
     a jobs impact statement showing that the reduction of the 
     jobs from the 1990 level and the adverse impacts on timber 
     dependent communities is outweighed by the environmental 
     gains to be achieved by the reductions; and (b) provide 
     equivalent substitute timber volume. (709(a)(1) and 
     709(a)(2))
       Timber cannot be withdrawn to maintain plant or animal 
     diversity unless the Secretary makes a written determination 
     that such action is necessary to prevent the species from 
     becoming threatened or endangered. Even then, a jobs impact 
     versus an environmental benefit review must be obtained and 
     substitute timber must be provided. In addition, the State of 
     Alaska must be consulted about controlling predators which 
     prey upon the species of concern, and all nonsubsistence uses 
     of the species must be terminated. (709(a)(3))
       The Secretary is directed to manage second growth timber 
     stands to maximize future timber production, and to make 
     second growth timber suitable for deer habitat and for other 
     species. (709(a)(4))
       Subsection (b) of Subsection 1 states that the timber 
     substitution process required under subsection (a) will be 
     done without the need for a National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (NEPA) review. (709(b))
       Subsection (c) makes it clear that a revised TLMP plan, 
     meeting the requirements of this section, shall be found to 
     be consistent with other laws pertaining to the National 
     Forests. This Act takes precedence over less specific 
     legislation.
       Section 2. The objective of this section is to require the 
     Forest Service to meet market demand with a supply of mid-
     market timber.
       Subsection (a) requires that the Secretary meet market 
     demand with a supply of mid-market timber on an annual and 
     planning cycle basis. (705(a))
       Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to monitor the timber 
     supply and demand from the Tongass National Forest, and 
     provide a report to the public on January 1 of each year, 
     providing that information and explaining how the Secretary 
     intends to reconcile market demand with other requirements of 
     law. (705(b))

[[Page S10493]]

       Subsection (c) requires that the Secretary's determination 
     required by subsection (b) is utilized in setting timber sale 
     volume and offering levels for the Tongass. The explanation 
     shall be contained in the President's budget for that fiscal 
     year. (705(c))
       Subsection (d) prohibits the reduction of timber volumes 
     available for harvest, unless the Secretary determines that 
     the timber job reductions and resulting adverse impacts upon 
     timber dependent communities are outweighed by the 
     environmental benefits to be achieved. Where such a reduction 
     occurs, equivalent volume of lands economically suitable for 
     timber production must be substituted. (705(d))
       Subsection (e) describes how such substitution is to take 
     place. (705(e))
       Subsection (f) requires regulations be promulgated to 
     implement the provisions of Section 2, within 60-days of 
     enactment of the section. (705(f))
       Subsection (g) provides that a court shall not find that a 
     sale or offering of timber on the Tongass National Forest 
     which complies with this section is inconsistent with other 
     laws providing for forest management. This Act takes 
     precedence over less specific legislation.
       Section 3. Section 3 amends Section 102 of the Tongass 
     Timber Reform Act to make Section 6(k) of the National Forest 
     Management Act (NFMA) consistent with the provisions of this 
     Act. Moreover, Section 6(k) cannot be used to delete volume 
     from the Tongass unless substitute timber is provided.
       Section 4. The objective of Section 4 is to require the 
     Secretary to provide an annual volume of 80 million board 
     feet of timber to small business concerns and to better 
     tailor timber sales to the needs of small businesses.
       Section 5. Section 5 provides a direct cause of action to 
     persons and communities adversely affected by the Secretary's 
     actions under this Act. Sixty days notice to the Secretary is 
     required as a predicate to filing such a suit. This provision 
     is necessary as a counterweight to the environmental 
     organization's ability to stop or enjoin timber sales under 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
       Section 6. This section requires the Secretary to request 
     annual appropriations sufficient to provide at least a three-
     year supply of unharvested timber and requires the Secretary 
     to provide reports to the public concerning that timber.
       Section 7. The objective of Section 7 is to allow a 
     purchaser of Tongass National Forest timber to lay out timber 
     sales pursuant to the Record of Decision signed by the 
     Contracting Officer following completion of a NEPA analysis 
     for that sale. The Forest Service has the authority to modify 
     or approve such a layout.
       Section 8. Section 8 repeals Section 301(c)(2) of the 
     Tongass Timber Reform Act, which requires proportionality for 
     timber offerings made pursuant to the long term contracts. 
     Now that there is only one pulp mill left, and Classes 5, 6 
     and 7 timber are being considered together, this provision is 
     unnecessary. The technical aspects of implementing such a 
     provision have been enjoined on several occasions. The new 
     Forest Service method for determining proportionality in 
     response to such lawsuits is a process that costs $200,000 
     and an entire operating season to implement. In short, the 
     section is repealed because the environmental benefits are 
     far outweighed by the costs associated with the provision.
       Section 9. The objective of Section 9 is to direct the 
     Secretary to reschedule the timber sales and offerings which 
     were deferred because of the June 1994 habitat conservation 
     areas (HCAs) and goshawk reservation area withdrawals by the 
     Forest Service.
       Section 10. Section 10 amends Section 1326(b) of ANILCA to 
     add a definition of the term ``withdrawal'' as used in that 
     section. Section 1326(a) precludes a withdrawal of more than 
     5,000 acres of public land in the aggregate unless such a 
     withdrawal is made by the President and concurred by 
     Congress. The new definition of ``withdrawal'' includes 
     temporary reservations or deferrals. This is to avoid 
     situations as those that occurred with the HCAs and goshawk 
     reservation areas in June 1994 when one-third of the 
     commercial forest land was withdrawn and remains withdrawn 
     because the Agency contends that it does not constitute a 
     land withdrawal, as that term is currently defined in ANILCA.
       Section 11. This section prohibits the export of all 
     sawlogs, pulp logs, utility logs and chips (based on a 90% 
     test). It also permits the State of Alaska to decide whether 
     or not to allow the export of timber from timber sales on 
     state lands.
       Section 12. Section 12 directs the Secretary of Agriculture 
     to study the prospects for encouraging value added 
     manufacturing utilizing Tongass National Forest timber 
     resources.
       Section 13. Section 13 defines terms used in the bill.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 1055. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to 
eliminate the requirement for preemployment alcohol testing in the mass 
transit, railroad, motor carrier, and aviation industries, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


   the omnibus transportation employee testing act amendments of 1995
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would clarify the Department of Transportation's authority with respect 
to preemployment alcohol testing of our transportation workers. The 
bill seeks to make the program originally instituted through the 
Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 more effective by 
eliminating the requirement for preemployment alcohol testing, and 
making the test permissive instead. Mothers Against Drunk Driving 
[MADD], which was very involved in the original bill, recently said 
that the mandatory pre-employment testing of all applicants 
``regardless of their other qualifications may be unduly burdensome. It 
does not seem to make much sense to require that an applicant be tested 
who did not have the qualifications for the job and who was not going 
to be offered a position.'' I agree with MADD, and so does Secretary 
Pena, who has asked that I sponsor this clarifying legislation. The 
legislation, if enacted, could save the affected industries about $30 
million. It is an effort to streamline the Department's regulations and 
make them more reasonable, while not changing in any way our commitment 
to eliminating the use and abuse of alcohol and drugs.
  From 1987 until 1991, I fought to require drug and alcohol testing of 
our transportation system employees. The Commerce Committee reported 
numerous bills in an effort to improve safety after the tragic rail 
accident at Chase, MD, in which 16 people were killed. The Omnibus 
Transportation Employee Testing Act was considered and passed by this 
body 13 times before we were able to make it the law of the land as 
part of Public Law 102-143, the Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1992.
  The act mandated drug and alcohol testing of safety-sensitive 
employees in the aviation, rail, truck, and bus sectors. The act was 
designed to prevent needless and senseless accidents caused by those 
individuals who are irresponsibly using and abusing drugs and alcohol 
while operating our transportation system. I had heard too much 
testimony, read too many articles, and seen too many reports of 
accidents where our citizens were put at risk, and injured or killed, 
because of the foolish actions of some. I said when the bill was passed 
that the vast majority of transportation sector workers are highly 
dedicated professionals that do not use drugs or abuse alcohol. Yet, 
the Act was made necessary to protect workers and travelers from the 
senseless actions of but a few of their coworkers.
  The bill today continues our commitment to the traveling public, in a 
responsible and reasonable manner.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. 
        Coverdell, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Lott, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
        Grams, and Mr. Faircloth):
  S. 1056. A bill to prohibit certain exempt organizations from 
receiving Federal funding; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                the federal advocacy reform act of 1995

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am proud to join today with my friend, 
the senior Senator from Wyoming, Alan Simpson, and several other 
colleagues, in introducing the Federal Advocacy Reform Act of 1995. In 
reality, this bill is a Taxpayers' declaration of independence from the 
special interests.
  This is not an issue of left-versus-right: It's about principles that 
apply across the board:
  Public money should be spent on the public interest, and not on the 
political agendas of special interests. The Federal Government should 
not give special interests money to pay for lobbying for more money, or 
for political advocacy. Our effort is about ensuring Government 
integrity and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers 
should not be compelled to fund special interest lobbying that is 
against their interests.
  Many groups who claim to speak for grass roots members or large 
groups of Americans actually use Federal dollars inappropriately to 
amplify the voices of a few.
  Next week, the Senate is supposed to take up gift and lobbying reform 
bills. People are correctly focused on lobbyists' gifts to legislators; 
but we also 

[[Page S10494]]
need to worry about the Government's gifts to lobbyists. Senator 
Simpson and I plan to pursue an amendment like today's bill at that 
time, next week, when the Senate considers lobbying reform. Mr. 
President, our bill is real lobbying reform. It will protect the 
taxpayers' pocketbooks from the abuse that has gone on too long for the 
benefit of narrow, special interests.
  Today, in the House of Representatives, the Appropriations Committee 
was scheduled to consider an amendment on this same general topic, 
written by Congressmen Ernie Istook, Dave McIntosh, and Bob Ehrlich. 
Although our specific approaches may differ, our goals are the same. I 
commend their work and look forward to watching both bodies progress in 
our consideration of this issue.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. D'Amato. Mr. Bond, Mr. Faircloth, 
        and Mr. Mack):
  S. 1057. A bill to amend section 1956 of title 18, United States Code 
to include equity skimming as a predicate offense, to amend section 
1516 of title 18, United States Code to curtail delays in the 
performance of audits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                      Equity Skimming Legislation

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I reintroduce legislation to help the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development deal with the fraudulent 
practice of equity skimming.
  As the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on 
Oversight, I have investigated a disturbing number of instances of 
fraud.
  Over the past 2 years, I have been looking at the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development's [HUD] subsidy and mortgage insurance 
programs. This investigation has focused on an outrageous practice know 
as equity skimming.
  Equity skimming is the term used to describe a particular type of 
housing fraud. It occurs when an owner of a HUD-insured project takes 
money intended to be used to pay the mortgage and provide maintenance 
and upkeep of the project and diverts it for his or her own use. This 
diversion of funds often causes the owner to default on their mortgage, 
forcing HUD--which guaranteed the loans--to pay the private lender the 
balance of the mortgage. At this point, HUD assumes the mortgage and 
the owner is required to make mortgage payments to HUD. Regrettably, 
however, the owner often continues to divert funds for personal use 
rather than meet mortgage and other expenses. As a result, these 
projects often fall into disrepair, forcing the tenants to endure 
intolerable living conditions.
  The term ``equity skimming'' is somewhat of a misnomer in that the 
actual equity that the owner invests in the project is relatively small 
compared to the amount skimmed by the owner.
  The HUD IG estimates that equity skimming has cost taxpayers 
approximately $6 billion to date. HUD has approximately 20,000 total 
projects in its insured mortgage portfolio, totaling over $40 billion. 
HUD holds another $10 billion in mortgages already in default. An 
additional $10 billion worth of HUD-insured mortgages are estimated to 
be at risk of default and in fiscal year 1993 alone HUD paid $965 
million in multifamily housing mortgage insurance claims to private 
lenders. HUD's IG believes that a significant amount of the defaults 
are a result of equity skimming.
  The tragedy of this fraud goes beyond the waste of taxpayer dollars. 
As a result of equity skimming, tenants have been forced to live in 
horrible conditions because needed repairs go unattended to. At the 
same time, the owners of these projects live the high life while HUD is 
stuck with the cost of insuring the mortgage and rehabilitating the 
deteriorated project.
  Let me give a couple of examples of how this shoddy practice has 
worked.
  In upstate New York, partners in a nursing home claimed to be broke 
and failed to make payments on a $5.1 million HUD-insured mortgage. 
While they were defaulting on the mortgage and sticking the taxpayers 
with the bill, the partners used various guises to divert some $500,000 
to personal use and paid themselves another $1.7 million in fees for 
unverified services. While these partners were lining their own 
pockets, nursing home residents were going without appropriate care.
  Another case of equity skimming involved a company in Texas, which 
managed approximately 86 HUD insured and/or subsidized multifamily 
projects. Results of a HUD IG audit revealed that $19.6 million of the 
expenses were either ineligible or questionable because of insufficient 
support or evidence; The management company inadequately documented 
$1.2 million in maintenance expenses and lacked documentation for some 
$5.6 million in contracting expenses. The management company also 
diverted $500,000 in project funds. The projects deteriorated at the 
expense of HUD, the taxpayers and the tenants who lived in seriously 
substandard housing. Due to the management company's lack of 
cooperation with HUD's auditors, HUD was unable to identify all the 
diversions and unsupported expenses.
  In yet another case of equity skimming, the owner of four projects in 
Tennessee, diverted some $4.7 million for personal benefit after 
defaulting on the HUD-insured mortgages. The owner also diverted almost 
$800,000 to his wife rather than pay the mortgage. The owner also used 
another $1 million to pay another loan and diverted $1.2 million to his 
other companies.
  Because of improper diversion of project funds, the condition of a 
housing project in Kansas deteriorated leaving the tenants, who were 
receiving Federal rent subsidies, living in deplorable conditions. 
Apartments were roach infested, ceilings were falling down, and doors 
and windows provided neither security nor protection from the weather. 
The cost to rehabilitate the project came to an estimated $1.4 million 
on a property worth $1.8 million.
  Two other cases of equity skimming in Minnesota cost the Government 
almost $600,000. In one case, two partners collected rent and 
Government subsidies while failing to make full mortgage payments on 
their federally insured mortgages. The total cost to the taxpayers in 
this case was about $425,000. In the other case, two owners of five 
subsidized buildings collected more than $173,000 in rent while 
neglecting to make mortgage payments.
  HUD is taking positive steps to crack down on the owners engaged in 
equity skimming. HUD is working to prevent the diversions from 
happening in the first place but, if this fails, HUD intends to step up 
its efforts to recover the diverted
 moneys. My legislation will give HUD some much needed tools to help 
curb the problem of equity skimming.

  My legislation has three parts. The first part would allow equity 
skimming to fall under provisions of the Federal money laundering 
statute. Under current law, when the Federal Government sues project 
owners who steal or misappropriate money from federally insured housing 
projects, owners are able to protect their ill-gotten gains by 
transferring these assets to other individuals or parties during the 
lengthy litigation process. Making equity skimming a violation of the 
Federal money laundering statute will allow the Government to seize the 
assets.
  The second part would make HUD insured mortgage programs subject to 
the statute which makes it unlawful to obstruct Federal auditors. 
Unfortunately, there is currently some question as to whether this 
existing statute applies to owners who receive HUD-insured mortgages 
because the owners receive no direct Federal payment. Because the 
mortgages are insured and no money goes directly to the owner from the 
Government, owners are able to use the ambiguity in the law to 
stonewall Federal auditors. My bill would make clear that owners of 
housing projects financed with government-insured mortgages are subject 
to the audit obstruction statute. Perpetrators of equity skimming would 
no longer be able to hide their books from Federal auditors.
  The third provision in the bill requires HUD to provide in its 
agreements with borrowers that HUD could recover from project owners 
any funds lost by HUD as a result of equity skimming. Under this new 
provision, if an owner is convicted of equity skimming, the owner will 
be responsible for HUD's entire loss. Currently, HUD is unable to 
recover any funds it used to pay off the balance of the defaulted 
mortgage even if the borrowers are found guilty of equity skimming.

[[Page S10495]]

  Mr. President, this legislation should go far in slamming the door on 
fraudulent owners and managers who take advantage of both taxpayers and 
tenants to line their own pockets.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the inspector general at 
HUD, Susan Gaffney, in support of this legislation, and the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1057

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal Government makes available mortgage 
     insurance and other assistance to encourage investors and 
     lending institutions to provide housing to low-income 
     individuals and families;
       (2) in general, this current system functions well;
       (3) some unscrupulous owners of federally assisted housing, 
     however, have diverted Federal housing subsidies and other 
     funds to personal and other improper uses, while failing to 
     make payments on their insured mortgages or maintain the 
     assisted housing;
       (4) this practice of diverting funds, known as equity 
     skimming, has cost the Nation's taxpayers an estimated 
     $6,000,000,000; and
       (5) current law is inadequate to deter or prevent the 
     practice of equity skimming.

     SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF EQUITY SKIMMING AS A LAUNDERING OFFENSE.

       Seciton 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``sanction 254 of the National Housing 
     Act (relating to equity skimming),'' before ``or any felony 
     violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act''.

     SEC. 3. OBSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL AUDIT.

       Section 1516(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``or relating to any property that is security 
     for a mortgage that is insured, guaranteed, acquired, or held 
     by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to 
     any provision of law described in section 254(a) of the 
     National Housing Act,'' after ``under a contract or 
     subcontract,''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECT OF EQUITY SKIMMING ON MORTGAGE INSURANCE.

       Seciton 254 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-
     19) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--Whoever''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Effect of Violation.--Each contract for insurance 
     under any provision of law described in subsection (a) shall 
     provide that if an owner, agent, manager, or other person who 
     is otherwise in custody, control, or possession of any 
     property described in subsection (a) is convicted of a 
     violation of that subsection, the Secretary may recover from 
     such owner, agent, manager, or other person an amount equal 
     to the sum of--
       ``(1) any benefit of insurance conferred on the mortgagee 
     by the Secretary with respect to such property; and
       ``(2) any loss incurred by the Secretary in connection with 
     such property; if the Secretary determines that the violation 
     contributed to such conferred benefit or incurred loss. Any 
     recovery under this subsection shall be in addition to any 
     fine, imprisonment, or other penalty imposed under subsection 
     (a).''.
                                                                    ____

                                         Department of Housing and


                                            Urban Development,

                                Washington, DC, February 16, 1995.
     Hon. William S. Cohen,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
         Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing you to express my 
     appreciation and support of your efforts to address equity 
     skimming in HUD multifamily projects by promoting legislation 
     for more effective enforcement authority.
       As part of Operation Safe Home, HUD has initiated an 
     aggressive proactive effort to pursue affirmative litigation 
     against owners of multifamily housing projects whose owners 
     misuse project operating funds. The goal of Operation Safe 
     Home is to stop major abuses in HUD programs that result in 
     unacceptable living conditions for the millions of needy 
     people who look to HUD for help. As you know, equity skimming 
     has done much to undermine HUD's ability to provide quality 
     affordable housing and has significantly impacted the cost of 
     doing so.
       A primary objective of the Equity Skimming aspect of 
     Operation Safe Home is to create an enforcement program that 
     provides an effective deterrent and recovery mechanism for 
     the misuse of income and assets at projects having HUD 
     insured or Secretary-held mortgages.
       One of our goals is to initiate changes to statutes, HUD 
     regulations, and contracts with HUD program participants that 
     will facilitate the application of enforcement actions. Your 
     efforts to change statutes to make equity skimming a money 
     laundering offense, hold owners personally liable for related 
     losses incurred by the Federal Government, and to deter the 
     obstruction of Federal audits, are significant. Such statutes 
     will enable us to better ensure compliance with the 
     requirements for the operation of assisted multifamily 
     housing in a decent and safe manner for all of those who rely 
     upon HUD for housing.
       If I can be of any further support or assistance to your 
     efforts for addressing these important enforcement issues, 
     please let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Susan Gaffney,
                                                Inspector General.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 1058. A bill to provide a comprehensive program of support for 
victims of torture; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


          the comprehensive torture victims relief act of 1995

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I introduce the Comprehensive 
Torture Victims Relief Act of 1995. I am joined today by Senators 
Spector, Hatfield, Jeffords, Harkin, Moynihan, and Kennedy, as original 
cosponsors of this measure. This bipartisan legislation outlines a 
comprehensive strategy for providing critical assistance to refugees, 
asylees, and parolees who are torture survivors in the United States 
and abroad. It is an important blueprint for an overall approach to the 
serious problem of torture. This legislation provides a focus and a 
framework for a newly reenergized debate about where torture survirors, 
and our response to the practice of torture by other countries, fit 
within our foreign policy priorities.
  The bill authorizes funds for torture rehabilitation programs, both 
here and abroad. It also increases the U.S. contribution to the U.N. 
Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims. It is similar to legislation 
introduced toward the end of last year by myself, and Senator 
Durenburger and Harkin. The bill is being supported by over 65 
organizations concerned with human rights issues. This legislation is 
also similar to H.R. 1416, introduced earlier this year in the other 
body by Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey and cosponsored 
by a bipartisan group of ideologically diverse
 Representatives ranging from Representative Hyde to Representative 
Frank, and including Representatives Lantos, Wolf, Rohrabacher, Yates, 
Pelosi, Sabo, McKinney, and Vento. With such bipartisan support, I hope 
that Congress will move quickly to enact this important legislation.

  While the huge cuts in foreign aid programs that have been proposed 
in Congress will make even a modest expansion of torture treatment 
assistance doubly difficult, I want to do everything I can to see the 
key provisions of this bill enacted into law. I hope that enactment of 
this legislation will be a watershed in the movement to garner broader 
public and private support, both here and abroad, for much-needed 
torture rehabilitation programs.
  Specifically, the Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act would 
authorize funds for domestic refugee assistance centers as well as 
bilateral assistance to torture treatment centers worldwide. It would 
also change our immigration laws to give a priority to torture 
survivors; provide for specialized training for U.S. consular personnel 
who deal with torture survivors; and commission a comprehensive study 
by the National Institutes of Health on the numbers and geographical 
distribution of refugees and asylees who are torture survivors now in 
the United States. That study should help refine our goals and then 
help us to target those people in need of rehabilitation assistance.
  Finally, the bill would allow an increase in the U.S. contribution to 
the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims, which funds and supports 
rehabilitation programs worldwide. In 1994, this fund contributed over 
$3.7 million to 106 projects in 60 countries. I believe that continuing 
to expand the U.S. contribution to the fund is necessary as a show of 
genuine U.S. commitment to human rights, and I will continue to push 
until these programs receive the funding they need and deserve.
  This bill would not cause an increase in the Federal budget deficit 
because spending would be reallocated from among funds already provided 
for in 

[[Page S10496]]
Federal law. For example, as a demonstration of our commitment, the 
United States could reallocate funds to these rehabilitation programs 
from military assistance to foreign governments which torture their own 
people, or condone it within their borders. Reducing military aid to 
countries which practice torture or ignore its existence has a certain 
symmetry, and would be another way of signifying our opposition to 
torture.
  Mr. President, the practice of torture is one of the most serious 
human rights issues of our time. Governmental torture, and torture 
being condoned by officials of governments, occurs in at least 70 
countries today. We have seen this most horribly demonstrated recently 
in Bosnia, where torture, rape, and other atrocities have become 
commonplace. We can and must do more to stop torture, and to treat its 
victims. Treating torture victims
 must be a much more central focus of our efforts as we work to promote 
human rights worldwide.

  Without active programs of healing and recovery, torture survivors 
often suffer continued physical pain, depression and anxiety, intense 
and incessant nightmares, guilt and self-loathing. They often report an 
inability to concentrate or remember. The severity of the trauma makes 
it difficult to hold down a job, study for a new profession, or acquire 
other skills needed for successful adjustment into society.
  Providing treatment for torture survivors is one of the best ways we 
can show our concern for human rights around the world. The United 
States and the international community have been increasingly aware of 
the need to prevent human rights abuses and to punish the perpetrators 
when abuses take place. But too often we have failed to address the 
needs of the victims. We pay little if any attention to the treatment 
of victims after their rights have been violated.
  The commitment to protect human rights is one shared by many around 
the world. In 1984, the United Nation approved the United Nations' 
Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or 
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The U.S. Senate ratified it in April 
1994. Although Congress has taken some steps to implement parts of the 
convention, we have not yet taken action
 to provide sufficient rehabilitation services in the spirit of the 
language of article 14 of the convention.

  Certainly, there exists a great need for the rehabilitation programs 
supported by this legislation. The generally accepted estimate of the 
number of torture survivors, including refugees, asylees, and parolees 
in the United States, hovers around 200,000--although some experts in 
the field believe it may be closer to 400,000. In my State of Minnesota 
alone, there are estimated to be over 8,000 survivors of torture. The 
Federal Government's response to this problem so far has been minimal.
  In Minnesota, we began to think about the problem of torture, and act 
on it, over 10 years ago. The Center for Victims of Torture in 
Minneapolis is the only fully-staffed torture treatment facility in the 
country and one of a select few worldwide. They just celebrated their 
10th anniversary. The center offers outpatient services which can 
include medical treatment, psychotherapy and help gaining economic and 
legal stability. Its advocacy work also helps to inform people about 
the problem of torture and the lingering effects it has on victims, and 
ways to combat torture worldwide. The center has treated or provided 
services to hundreds of people over the last 10 years.
  Some of the often shrill public rhetoric these days seems to argue 
that we, as a nation, can no longer afford to remain engaged with the 
world, or to assist the poor, the elderly, the feeble,
 refugees, those seeking asylum--those most in need of aid who are 
right here in our midst. The Center for Victims of Torture stands as a 
repudiation of that idea. Its mission is to rescue and rehabilitate 
people who have been crushed by torture, and it has been accomplishing 
that mission admirably over the last 10 years. It is a light of hope in 
the lives of those who have for so long seen only darkness, a darkness 
brought on by the brutal hand of the torturer.

  I would like to thank the distinguished human rights leaders who 
helped craft this bill, including those at the Center for Victims of 
Torture in Minneapolis and others in the human rights community here in 
Washington and in Minnesota. Without their energy and skills as 
advocates for tough U.S. laws which promote respect for internationally 
recognized human rights worldwide, the cause of human rights here in 
the United States would be seriously diminished. I salute them today. 
We must commit ourselves to aiding torture survivors and to building a 
world in which torture is relegated to the dark past. My hope is that 
we can help bring about a world in which the need for torture treatment 
programs becomes obsolete. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, 
and I urge its timely passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that a partial list of organizations 
supporting the Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act be printed in 
the Record along with a copy of the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                S. 1058

       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 ``Comprehensive Torture 
     Victims Relief Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The American people abhor torture by repressive 
     governments and other parties. The existence of torture 
     creates a climate of fear and international insecurity that 
     affects all people.
       (2) Torture is the strategic use of pain to destroy both 
     individuals and society. The effects of torture are long 
     term. Those effects can last a lifetime for the survivors and 
     affect future generations.
       (3) By eliminating leadership of their opposition and 
     frightening the general public, repressive governments use 
     torture as a weapon against democracy.
       (4) Torture victims remain under physical and psychological 
     threats, especially in communities where the perpetrators are 
     not brought to justice. In many nations, even those who treat 
     torture victims are threatened with reprisals, including 
     torture, for carrying out their ethical duties to provide 
     care. Both the survivors of torture and their treatment 
     providers deserve, and often require, protection from further 
     repression.
       (5) A significant number of refugees and asylees entering 
     the United States have been victims of governmental torture. 
     Those claiming asylum deserve prompt consideration of their 
     applications for political asylum to minimize their 
     insecurity and sense of danger. Many torture survivors now 
     live in the United States. They should be provided with the 
     rehabilitation services which would enable them to become 
     productive members of our communities.
       (6) The development of a treatment movement for torture 
     survivors has created new opportunities for action by the 
     United States and other nations to oppose state-sponsored and 
     other acts of torture.
       (7) There is a need for a comprehensive strategy to protect 
     and support torture victims and their treatment providers 
     together with overall efforts to eliminate torture.
       (8) By acting to heal the survivors of torture and protect 
     their families, the United States can help to heal the 
     effects of torture and prevent its use around the world.
       (9) The United States has ratified the Convention Against 
     Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or 
     Punishment, but has not implemented all provisions of the 
     convention.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) In General.--Except as otherwise provided, the terms 
     used in this Act have the meaning given such terms in section 
     101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (2) Torture.--The term ``torture'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 2340(1) of title 18, United States Code, 
     and includes the use of rape and other forms of sexual 
     violence by a person acting under the color of law upon 
     another person under his custody or physical control.
     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON INVOLUNTARY RETURN OF PERSONS FEARING 
                   SUBJECTION TO TORTURE.

       (a) Prohibition.--The United States shall not expel, 
     extradite, or return involuntarily an individual to a country 
     if there is substantial evidence of circumstances that would 
     lead a reasonable person to believe that the individual would 
     fear subjection to torture.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``to return involuntarily'', in the case of an individual in 
     any locale, means the following:
       (1) To return the individual without the individual's 
     consent, whether or not the return is induced by physical 
     force.
       (2) To take an action by which it is reasonably foreseeable 
     that the individual will be returned, whether or not the 
     return is induced by physical force.

     SEC. 5. IMMIGRATION PROCEDURES FOR TORTURE VICTIMS.

       (a) In General.--Any alien--

[[Page S10497]]

       (1) who presents a credible claim of having been subjected 
     to torture in the alien's country of nationality, or, in the 
     case of an alien having no nationality, the country in which 
     the alien last habitually resided, and
       (2) who applies for--
       (A) refugee status under section 207 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act,
       (B) asylum under section 208 of that Act, or
       (C) withholding of deportation under section 243(h) of that 
     Act,

     shall be processed in accordance with this section.
       (b) Consideration of the Effects of Torture.--In 
     considering applications for refugee status, asylum, or 
     withholding of deportation made by aliens described in 
     subsection (a), the appropriate officials shall take into 
     account--
       (1) the manner in which the effects of torture can affect 
     the applicant's responses in the application and in the 
     interview process or other immigration proceedings, as the 
     case may be;
       (2) the difficulties torture victims often have in 
     recounting their suffering under torture; and
       (3) the fear victims have of returning to their country of 
     nationality where, even if torture is no longer practiced or 
     the incidence of torture is reduced, their torturers may have 
     gone unpunished and may remain in positions of authority.
       (c) Expedited Processing of Refugee Admissions.--For 
     purposes of section 207(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act, a refugee who presents a credible claim of having been 
     subjected to torture shall be considered to be a refugee of 
     special humanitarian concern to the United States and shall 
     be accorded priority in selection from the waiting list of 
     such refugees based on compelling humanitarian concerns.
       (d) Expedited Processing for Asylum and Withholding of 
     Deportation.--Upon the request of the alien, the alien's 
     counsel, or a health care professional treating the alien, an 
     asylum officer or special inquiry officer may expedite the 
     scheduling of an asylum interview or an exclusion or 
     deportation proceeding for an alien described in subsection 
     (a), if such officer determines that an undue delay in making 
     a determination regarding asylum or withholding of 
     deportation with respect to the alien would aggravate the 
     physical or psychological effects of torture upon the alien.
       (e) Parole in Lieu of Detention.--The finding, upon 
     inspection at a port of entry of the United States, that an 
     alien described in subsection (a) suffers from the effects of 
     torture, such as depressive and anxiety disorders, shall be a 
     strong presumptive basis for a grant of parole, under section 
     212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in lieu of 
     detention.
       (f) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Attorney General shall allocate resources sufficient to 
     maintain in the Resource Information Center of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service information relating 
     to the use of torture in foreign countries.

     SEC. 6. SPECIALIZED TRAINING FOR CONSULAR, IMMIGRATION, AND 
                   ASYLUM PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall provide 
     training for immigration inspectors and examiners, 
     immigration officers, asylum officers, special inquiry 
     officers, and all other relevant officials of the Department 
     of Justice, and the Secretary of State shall provide training 
     for consular officers, with respect to--
       (1) the identification of the evidence of torture;
       (2) the identification of the surrounding circumstances in 
     which torture is practiced;
       (3) the long-term effects of torture upon the person;
       (4) the identification of the physical, cognitive, and 
     emotional effects of torture, including depressive and 
     anxiety disorders, and the manner in which these effects can 
     affect the interview or hearing process; and
       (5) the manner of interviewing victims of torture so as not 
     to retraumatize them, eliciting the necessary information to 
     document the torture experience, and understanding the 
     difficulties victims often have in recounting their torture 
     experience.
       (b) Gender-Related Considerations.--In conducting training 
     under subsection (a)(4) or subsection (a)(5), gender specific 
     training shall be provided on the subject of interacting with 
     women and men who are victims of torture by rape or any other 
     form of sexual violence.

     SEC. 7. STUDY AND REPORT ON TORTURE VICTIMS IN THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       (a) Study.--The National Institutes of Health shall conduct 
     a study with respect to refugees and asylees admitted to the 
     United States since October 1, 1987, who were tortured 
     abroad, for the purpose of identifying--
       (1) the estimated number and geographic distribution of 
     such persons;
       (2) the needs of such persons for recovery services; and
       (3) the availability of such services.
       (b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1997, the National 
     Institutes of Health shall submit a report to the Judiciary 
     Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     setting forth the findings of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a), together with any recommendation for 
     increasing the services available to persons described in 
     subsection (a), including any recommendation for legislation, 
     if necessary.

     SEC. 8. DOMESTIC TREATMENT CENTERS.

       (a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
     Section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1522) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Assistance for Treatment of Torture Victims.--(1) The 
     Secretary may provide grants to programs in the United States 
     to cover the cost of the following services:
       ``(A) Services for the rehabilitation of victims of 
     torture, including treatment of the physical and 
     psychological effects of torture.
       ``(B) Social services for victims of torture.
       ``(C) Research and training for health care providers 
     outside of treatment centers or programs for the purpose of 
     enabling such providers to provide the services described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `torture' 
     has the meaning given to such term in section 3 of the 
     Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act.''.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Department of Health and Human Services for fiscal 
     year 1996, there is authorized to be appropriated such sums 
     as may be necessary to carry out section 412(g) of that Act 
     (relating to assistance for domestic centers and programs for 
     the treatment of victims of torture), as added by subsection 
     (a). Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall 
     remain available until expended.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1995.

     SEC. 9. FOREIGN TREATMENT CENTERS.

       (a) Amendments of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.--Part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding 
     at the end of chapter 1 the following new section:
       ``Sec. 129. Assistance for Victims of Torture.--(a) The 
     President is authorized to provide assistance for the 
     rehabilitation of victims of torture.
       ``(b) Such assistance shall be provided in the form of 
     grants to treatment centers and programs in foreign countries 
     which are carrying out projects or activities specifically 
     designed to treat victims of torture for the physical and 
     psychological effect of the torture.
       ``(c) Such assistance shall be available--
       ``(1) for direct services to victims of torture; and
       ``(2) to provide research and training to health care 
     providers outside of treatment centers or programs for the 
     purpose of enabling such providers to provide the services 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(d) For purposes of this section, the term `torture' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 3 of the Comprehensive 
     Torture Victims Relief Act.''.
       (b) Funding.--Of the total amount authorized to be 
     appropriated in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 pursuant to 
     chapter 1 of part I and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 and pursuant to section 31 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act, there is authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out section 129 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act, as added by subsection (a). Amounts 
     appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain 
     available until expended.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1995.

     SEC. 10. MULTILATERAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 pursuant to chapter 1 of part I 
     and chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 and pursuant to section 31 of the Arms Export Control 
     Act, there are authorized to be appropriated to the United 
     Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Fund'') the following amounts 
     for the following fiscal years:
       (1) For fiscal year 1996, $4,000,000.
       (2) For fiscal year 1997, $5,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the President, acting through the United States 
     Permanent Representative to the United Nations, should--
       (1) request the Fund--
       (A) to find new ways to support and protect treatment 
     centers and programs that are carrying out rehabilitative 
     services for victims of torture; and
       (B) to encourage the development of new such centers and 
     programs;
       (2) use the voice and vote of the United States to support 
     the work of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and the 
     Committee Against Torture established under the Convention 
     Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 
     Treatment or Punishment; and
       (3) use the voice and vote of the United States to 
     establish a country rapporteur or similar procedural 
     mechanism to investigate human rights violations in a country 
     if either the Special Rapporteur or the Committee Against 
     Torture indicates that a systematic practice of torture is 
     prevalent in that country.
                                                                    ____

  Partial List of Organizations Supporting the Comprehensive Torture 
                           Victims Relief Act

       Advocates for Survivors of Trauma and Torture.
       American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

[[Page S10498]]

       American Association for the Advancement of Science.
       American Friends Service Committee.
       American Immigration Lawyers Association.
       American Psychological Association.
       Amnesty International U.S.A.
       Amigos de los Sobrevivientes.
       Bread for the World.
       Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, Maryknoll 
     Fathers and Brothers.
       Center for Development of International Law.
       Center for Human Rights Legal Action.
       Center for International Policy.
       Center for the Victims of Torture.
       Church World Service Immigration and Refugee Program.
       Coalition ``Missing'' (U.S. Citizens Murdered, Tortured, 
     Assaulted or Missing in Guatemala)
       Columbian Fathers Justice and Peace Office.
       Commission on International Human Rights, International 
     Peace Research Association.
       Conference of the Major Superiors of Men.
       Doctors of the World, U.S.A.
       Episcopal Migration Ministries.
       Ethiopian Community Development Council, Inc.
       Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights, 
     Harvard School of Public Health.
       Friends Committee on National Legislation.
       Fund for New Priorities in America.
       General Board of Church and Society, The United Methodist 
     Church.
       Guatemala Human Rights Commission--U.S.A.
       Human Rights Advocates, San Francisco.
       Human Rights Clinic, Montefiore Medical Center.
       Human Rights Watch.
       Immigration Refugee Service of America.
       Indian Law Resource Center.
       Institute for Policy Studies.
       Institute for the Study of Psycho-Political Trauma.
       International Educational Development, Inc.
       International Human Rights Law Group.
       International Labor Rights Fund.
       International Rescue Committee.
       Kentucky Interreligious Task Force on Central America.
       Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
       Lutheran Office for Government Affairs, Evangelical 
     Lutheran Church in America.
       MADRE, Inc., New York, NY.
       Marjorie Kovler Center, Chicago.
       Mennonite Central Committee.
       Minority Rights Group, Washington, D.C.
       National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha' is of the U.S.
       Network, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
       Office for Church and Society, The United Church of Christ 
     (U.S.A.)
       Physicians for Human Rights
       Physicians for Social Responsibility
       Program for Torture Victims, Venice, CA
       Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights
       Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
       Survivors International, San Francisco
       Unitarian Universalist Association
       United Church Board for World Ministries, The United Church 
     of Christ (U.S.A.)
       United Nations Association of San Francisco
       United States Catholic Conference
       United States Committee for Refugees
       Veterans for Peace
       Washington Office on Africa
       Washington Office on Latin America
       World Federalist Association
       Xanthos, Inc., Almeda, California.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 1059. A bill to amend section 1864 of title 18, United States 
Code, relating to tree spiking, to add avoidance costs as a punishable 
result; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                        TREE SPIKING LEGISLATION

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I regret that I must come to the floor 
today to introduce this legislation. But some extreme preservation 
groups apparently know no bounds in their zealotry to stop timber 
harvest on national forests. They leave me no choice but to put a stop 
to their insane acts.
  A preservation group in Idaho has just announced that they have 
spiked trees scheduled to be cut in an active timber sale. This is the 
last, desperate act of radicals who did not get their way with the 
Forest Service or in court. To gain their objectives, they are willing 
to jeopardize the lives of men and women working in the woods and in 
the sawmill. The possibility of a head rig exploding as it hits a spike 
bothers them not at all.
  There should be no controversy over this timber sale. The U.S. 
Congress specifically guaranteed that this particular Cove-Mallard area 
of the Nez Perce National Forest was to be used for multiple-use 
purposes. On that basis, the Forest Service completed their forest plan 
and the appropriate NEPA documents for timber harvest. The radicals did 
not like that, so they appealed the NEPA decision. Their appeal was 
denied.
  The radicals did not like being denied so they filed suit claiming 
violations of NEPA and the National Forest Management Act. The court 
disagreed. It found that the Forest Service had properly applied all 
the environmental laws in awarding the timber sale contracts in Cove-
Mallard. So, logging began in Cove-Mallard.
  Most of all, the radicals do not like logging, so they have taken 
this last, desperate act to force their wishes on all the rest of us. 
They have spiked trees in the Cove-Mallard timber sale.
  And they brag about it. They brag that they have used ceramic spikes 
which cannot be found by metal detectors. They brag they have spiked 
the trees far up the stem of the tree so as to hide them and assure 
they cannot be disposed of easily when found.
  This tree-spiking incident just proves that some preservation groups 
will not take no for an answer--even when that ``no'' comes from the 
Congress and from the courts. They feel their mission is beyond the 
law.
  Well, it is not. My legislation will exact a heavy price from those 
who break the law. It will amend Public Law 100-690 to add strong 
penalties for the disruption, expense, and damage of tree spiking.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in condemning this outrageous act. 
I ask their support to move this legislation very quickly as a signal 
that Congress will simply not tolerate this kind of blackmail.
                                 ______

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Nunn):
  S. 1062. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 to increase the purchasing power of individuals and employers, 
to protect employees whose health benefits are provided through 
multiple employer welfare arrangements, to provide increased security 
of health care benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources.


            the employer group purchasing reform act of 1995

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I introduce the Employer Group 
Purchasing Reform Act of 1995 for myself and my Democratic colleague 
Senator Nunn. Our bill amends the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974 (ERISA) in three significant ways. First, we provide 
increased protection for approximately 46 million employees in self-
funded employee benefit health plans. Second, we increase the 
purchasing power and affordability of health insurance for small 
employers by putting into place the States ability to crack down on the 
fraudulent and abusive practices used by unscrupulous multiple employer 
welfare arrangement (MEWA) operators that have left thousands of small 
businesses and their employees without health insurance. We then make 
the way for voluntary health plan purchasing coalitions to flourish.
  This bill complements S. 1028, the Health Insurance Reform Act of 
1995, which is the bi-partisan bill that Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy 
introduced last week, of which I am proud to be an original co-sponsor. 
As I said last week, the foundation for incremental health reform is a 
well-functioning private market. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill makes great 
strides in addressing many of the problems in the insured market and 
also begins to level the playing field in both the insured and self-
insured markets by applying the same national rules to both segments of 
the marketplace.
  This Health Insurance Reform Act deals with one of the central 
concerns for all Americans, knowing their health insurance will be 
portable from job to job. Generally, portability means all people who 
have insurance today will be able to purchase affordable insurance 
tomorrow, even if they get sick, or change or lose their jobs. In order 
for this to occur, we have to convert the rules in today's insurance 
market, which reward excluding people, into rules where health plans 
must take all comers. The Health Insurance Reform Act takes a giant 
step toward this goal.
  S. 1028 provides much needed improvements at the national level, but 
at the same time allows States the flexibility they need to move ahead 

[[Page S10499]]
with their own reform efforts. Unfortunately, unless we make greater 
strides in leveling the playing field between the ERISA self-funded 
market and the insured market, the current trend of more and more 
businesses moving from the insured State regulated market to the self-
insured federally regulated market, as documented in a soon to be 
released GAO report, will continue.
  You may ask what is self-insured or self-funded anyway, and why 
should I be concerned about this trend? Well, self-funding is merely a 
pay-as-you-go financing mechanism used by employers and unions to fund 
health benefits for employees. The term is used synonymously for any 
ERISA health plan--but--in actuality ERISA health plans can be either 
insured or self-funded. The irony is that the term self-funded is never 
used in ERISA and therefore has never been defined. This lack of 
clarity about how much risk an ERISA plan must assume to be self-funded 
has caused havoc in the insured marketplace regulated by the States. 
This fragmentation has caused prices in the insured marketplace to 
continue to rise because of the risk segmentation. In addition, it is 
the insured market that gets assessed for providing subsidies for State 
high risk pools.
  Employers choose to self-fund for basically two reasons. First, it 
provides greater flexibility and uniformity in benefit plan design and 
second, if you have a healthy workforce it costs less to provide your 
employees health benefits. Unfortunately, when some employers who self-
fund experience an employee with a catastrophic illness they contain 
their costs by lowering life-time limits of health coverage. Our bill 
would prohibit this practice.
  Many employees who are in self-funded ERISA plans are not aware of 
this fact because many of the large insurance companies, like Cigna, 
administer the claims and the employees' insurance card will usually 
say Cigna on the front. If a problem occurs with the plan most people 
will file a complaint with a State insurance department only to find 
out there is nothing the State can do because the plan is under ERISA 
and lacks many of the protections afforded people with insured plans.
  When ERISA was passed, over 20 years ago, the many years of thought 
and architecture that went into the pension provisions that gave 
employees real security regarding their retirement were not duplicated 
in the health arena. As a matter of fact, the broadly drafted language 
of the preemption clause actually took protection away from employees 
who were not in an insured health plan.
  A major reason the drafters did not take the same precision in the 
health benefit area was the certainty that this was not necessary 
because national health reform was just right around the corner. Well, 
here we are in 1995 still talking about health reform. As a matter of 
fact the talk has moved from the national front of last year toward 
looking to the States to move forward with reform. But the States are 
only able to reform the insured market. It is up to Congress to address 
the problems ERISA preemption has caused in the private market. If we 
do not figure out a way to level the regulatory playing field in the 
market we are never going to have a solid foundation for market based 
health reform.
  The Employer Group Purchasing Reform Act levels the playing field
   in some significant ways. First, we define self-funding to make it 
clear that employers must assume substantial financial responsibility 
if they are to be afforded preemption from State insurance laws. 
Second, it emulates the portability protection individuals have when a 
group health plan disbands. Americans who purchase health insurance 
have the protection of State guarantee funds in the event a health 
insurer goes belly-up. Individuals who are in self-funded plans will 
now be assured a 3 month conversion policy in the event their employer 
goes out of business. Employees will no longer face a double whammy of 
losing a job and also their health insurance. Rather than have the 
Federal Government regulate and determine the appropriate solvency 
requirements for self-funded plans this bill has the market set the 
standards. Our bill will require self-funded plans to purchase 
involuntary plan termination insurance in the event of bankruptcy.

  As I mentioned when the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill was introduced last 
week, I was most grateful for the inclusion of the health plan 
purchasing coalition section of S. 1028. I believe that the key to 
making health insurance more affordable for individuals and small 
employers is properly designed voluntary group purchasing arrangements. 
The health plan purchasing coalitions in our bill are very similar to 
those in S. 1028 except that we allow the coalition more flexibility in 
the design of the benefits offered through the multiple health plans in 
the coalition.
  Employer group purchasing is not a new concept. Many employers have 
been pooling funds and contracting with entrepreneurs to offer health 
benefits to their employees at reduced rates, for many years, through 
something defined as MEWA's under ERISA. A MEWA is an arrangement where 
two or more employers group together to purchase health benefits. This 
definition, added to ERISA by the 1982 Erlenborn amendment, is very 
broad and encompassed all types of insurance-like arrangements that 
involve more than one employer, regardless of their corporate 
structure, insurance status, or status as an employee welfare benefit 
plan. Categorizing the various types of MEWA's is difficult primarily 
because different people use different terms to refer to the same 
entity.
  While a number of MEWA's fill an important gap in our present health 
benefits system, some MEWA administrators have taken advantage of the 
confusion as to who bears the responsibility for regulatory oversight, 
the Feds or the States. They have been able to create and run ``Ponzi'' 
schemes designed to take premium payments with no intention of covering 
any major health claims. It has taken the States over 10 years to 
finally get the Federal courts to interpret that self-funded MEWA's 
were intended to be regulated by the States. Unfortunately, not all 
courts are in agreement.
  My esteemed cosponsor of this legislation, Senator Nunn, led the 
effort to uncover the corruption in the operation of fraudulent MEWA's 
when he chaired the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He 
was instrumental in drafting the section of the bill that addresses 
MEWA reform. Simply put, we make it clear once and for all that the 
States are responsible for regulating all MEWA's. Therefore, the 
numbers of States that have moved forward in this area will no longer 
have to be involved in costly litigation, using precious State 
resources, to prove they are the regulators. Hopefully, we have now 
paved the way for other States to do the same. The Employer Group 
Purchasing Reform Act gives clear authority for State's to shut down 
fraudulent MEWA's and clear authority to certify the well designed and 
defined health plan purchasing coalitions which do not assume risk and 
are membership driven.
  At this time, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate my 
colleague in the House, Congressman Fawell, for leading efforts in the 
House to address the MEWA problems. Although we have taken different 
approaches to resolving this problem, I look forward to working with 
him and the cosponsors of his bill in finding the best way for small 
businesses to group together and finally get the same purchasing power 
in the market that has previously only been afforded to the large 
employers.
  I won't take the time now to go over the rest of this bill but would 
ask unanimous consent to include a section-by-section analysis of he 
bill in the Record.
  I am very excited about the bipartisan approach taken by both the 
Health Insurance Reform Act and the Employer Group Purchasing Reform 
Act. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Labor 
Committee to make improvements in these bills and then take the best of 
these bills and report a bipartisan bill out of committee that we all 
can be proud to bring to the floor of the Senate this year.
  There being no objection, the section-by-section analysis was ordered 
to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis of Employer Group Purchasing Reform Act of 
                                  1995


              title I--employee group health plan security

       Section 101. Employee Benefit Group Health Plan Non-
     Discrimination Requirements. Prohibits discrimination 
     practices; 

[[Page S10500]]
     limits waiting periods based on preexisting conditions; requires credit 
     for qualifying previous coverage; prohibits lifetime limits.
       Non-discrimination. Prohibits health plans (fully-insured 
     or self-insured) from denying coverage based on health 
     status, medical condition, claims experience, medical 
     history, anticipated medical needs, or disability. Plans may, 
     however, offer discounts to members who participate in 
     programs of health promotion or disease prevention.
       Preexisting Conditions. Limits preexisting condition 
     waiting periods to 12 months from enrollment, and then only 
     if the condition was diagnosed or treated in the 6 month 
     period prior to enrollment. Health plans may not impose a 
     preexisting condition limitation to newborns or pregnancies.
       Credit for Qualifying Previous Coverage. If a new health 
     plan participant was still enrolled in qualifying coverage 
     under another health plan within 30 days of enrollment in the 
     health plan, the health plan must reduce its preexisting 
     condition period by one month for each month the participant 
     was enrolled in the previous qualifying coverage.
       Lifetime limits. A health plan may not impose catastrophic 
     or lifetime limits on any provision of its coverage.
       Section 102. Disclosure Requirements. Enhances the plan 
     notification, disclosure and termination requirements for 
     ERISA health plan (fully insured or self-insured). Provides 
     increased security of health benefits for employees enrolled 
     in employer-sponsored plans.
       Insurer Notification. Requires insurers to disclose, prior 
     to selling a policy to an employer, information relating to 
     rate changes, renewability, preexisting condition provisions, 
     benefits.
       Self-Funded Health Plans. Requires self-funded plans to 
     inform participants that the Plan is governed by federal law, 
     and is not subject to state laws relating to licensure, 
     benefits, and solvency. Plans also must inform participants 
     of the individual participant's liability for services should 
     the plan deny benefits of become insolvent. Plans must inform 
     participants of material changes in the terms of the plan.


       section 103. proof of plan involuntary termination policy.

       Notification to participants. Requires plans sponsors to 
     notify each participant of the termination of a health plan 
     (fully insured or self-insured) as least 90 days prior to the 
     termination. Employers may not modify benefits or 
     contributions levels in the 90-day period before termination.
       Termination Policy Required. Requires self-funded health 
     plans to purchase an involuntary termination policy, which 
     must provide participants 90 days of coverage beyond the 
     plan's termination date. This gives participants 3 months of 
     protection in case of insolvency of a self-funded plan. An 
     exception exists for single-employer plans with a AAA bond 
     credit rating, and for multiemployer plans that meet the 
     requirements of Sec. 302 of the Labor Management Relations 
     Act.


         title II--multiple employer welfare arrangement reform

       Section 201. Definitions. The objective of this session is 
     to prevent fraudulent and mismanaged MEWAs from leaving small 
     businesses and their employees bankrupt and without health 
     coverage.
       Status of MEWA Plans. Clarifies the status of plans 
     maintained by MEWAs by providing that even if a MEWA is not 
     treated as a benefit plan for ERISA purposes, each employer 
     participating in a MEWA will be treated as maintaining 
     (through the MEWA) a benefit plan, and the employer's 
     employees will be treated as the plan's participants.
       MEWA Definition. Amends the definition of MEWA to include 
     certain employee leasing arrangements.
       MEWA Registration. Requires MEWAs to register annually with 
     the Department of Labor.
       Common Control. Clarifies the definition of common control 
     for single employer arrangements.
       Section 202. Modification of Preemption Rules for Multiple 
     Employer Welfare Arrangements. Provides that state insurance 
     laws apply to any MEWA which is an employee group health 
     plan.
       Section 203. Application of Criminal Penalties. Outlines 
     felony criminal penalties for false representation of the 
     MEWA product to any employer, employee, sponsor, State, or 
     the Department of Labor.


              title III--health plan purchasing coalitions

       Section 301. Health Plan Purchasing Coalitions. Establishes 
     ``health plan purchasing coalitions'' to provide small 
     employers and individuals meaningful power to negotiate 
     prices in the health care market.
       Definition. Purchasing coalitions may be formed by 
     individuals or employers, but not by insurers, agents, or 
     brokers.
       Certification. Provides for state certification and Federal 
     registration of purchasing coalitions.
       Domicile. A purchasing coalition is considered domiciled in 
     the State in which the most of its members are located.
       Board of Directors. Provides that each purchasing coalition 
     be governed by a board of directors; imposes certain 
     requirements on board composition.
       Membership. Permits purchasing coalitions to establish 
     membership criteria.
       Marketing Area. Permits states to establish rules regarding 
     the geographic area served by a purchasing coalition.
       Duties and Responsibilities. Delineates the following 
     duties of a purchasing coalition: (1) enter into agreements 
     with insured health plans; (2) enter into agreements with 
     members; (3) participate in state established risk adjustment 
     or reinsurance programs; (4) prepare and distribute materials 
     to permit members to compare plans; (5) market within the 
     service area; (6) act as ombudsman for all enrollees; and (7) 
     perform certain other functions as approved by the board of 
     directors.
       Prohibited Activities. Prohibits the purchasing coalition 
     from performing certain other activities, including licensing 
     health plans and assuming financial risk.
       Relationship to Plan Sponsors. Provides that members of the 
     purchasing coalition (employers or plans) will be treated as 
     maintaining a benefit plan on behalf of plan participants. 
     The purchasing coalition may act as plan administrator for 
     employer members.
       Preemption of State Laws. Preempts state fictitious group 
     laws, certain state rating requirement laws, and certain 
     state mandated benefit laws.
       Section 302. Cooperation Between Federal and State 
     Authorities. Clarifies the roles of the Federal Government 
     and the States with regard to MEWAs and Health Plan 
     Purchasing Coalitions.
       State Enforcement. Permits the States to apply to the 
     Secretary for partial or complete authority to enforce 
     provisions in the Act relating to MEWAs and purchasing 
     coalitions.
       Assistance to States. Permits the Secretary to provide 
     assistance to the States by: (1) establishing communications 
     between the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration and 
     State agencies to share information on specific cases; (2) 
     providing technical assistance relating to regulation of 
     MEWAs; (3) assisting States in getting advisory opinions; and 
     (4) distributing advisory opinions to State insurance 
     commissioners.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I today join my colleague Senator Jeffords, 
the distinguished junior Senator from Vermont, in introducing 
legislation designed to address certain problems in the area of 
employer-sponsored health plans. Although the regulation of health 
insurance companies has been a matter historically left to the States, 
the provision of health benefits to employees through employer-
sponsored health plans was subjected to Federal regulation under the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [ERISA]. Unfortunately, 
this concurrent system of State regulation of health insurers and 
Federal regulation of employer-sponsored health plans has led to a 
great deal of ambiguity when it comes to attempts to provide 
legislative protection to the participants in employer health plans, 
particularly those in self-funded plans. This ambiguity has left many 
participants in these plans without certain basic insurance safeguards 
and has, in some instances, left employers and employees alike at the 
mercy of unscrupulous promoters of fraudulent insurance schemes.
  The legislation Senator Jeffords and I are introducing today, the 
Employer Group Purchasing Reform Act of 1995, attempts to resolve some 
of these problems by amending ERISA to: (1) enhance plan notification, 
disclosure, and termination requirements for all ERISA health plans; 
(2) clarify the authority of States to regulate certain multiple 
employer health plan arrangements known as MEWA's; and (3) encourage 
the purchase of fully-insured health insurance products through the 
formation of employer health plan purchasing coalitions.
  I am pleased to note that this legislation draws in part upon work 
done by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations from 1990 
to 1992. In hearings which I had the privilege of chairing in 1990, and 
in a subsequent report, the Subcommittee revealed how the promoters of 
fraudulent insurance plans have been able to use the MEWA provisions of 
ERISA as a shield with which to repel the legitimate efforts of State 
insurance regulators to protect consumers. As a result, unsuspecting 
employers and employees have been bilked of millions of dollars and 
hundreds of thousands of working men and women have been left with 
worthless insurance policies, unpaid medical bills and, in some 
instances, an inability to obtain future health care coverage.
  The idea behind MEWA's is a laudable one. Small employers who 
otherwise might not be able to afford health insurance coverage for 
their employees group together in an arrangement which allows them to 
leverage their purchasing power in order to obtain 

[[Page S10501]]
coverage at reasonable rates. Unfortunately, the laudable idea has been 
subverted by greed. Preying upon the legitimate desires of small 
businessmen, the promoters of fraudulent MEWA schemes have lured 
employers into enrolling their employees in what appear to be 
attractive health benefits plans at low premium rates. In reality, 
however, many of these plans are actuarially unsound, maintain little 
or no
 reserves, and are constantly subjected to exorbitant fees, 
commissions, and in some cases, outright looting.

  Much to the chagrin of Congress and the States, these promoters have 
been able to use the provisions of the ERISA statute to further their 
schemes. In the first instance, they know that ERISA effectively 
prohibits States from applying their insurance laws to employee benefit 
plans, including those plans which offer health insurance. At the same 
time, they also know that ERISA provides little, if any, substantive 
Federal regulation of these plans. For example, ERISA contains no 
standards as to minimum reserve levels, contribution levels, or the 
establishment of a guaranty fund, all of which are standard features of 
State insurance regulations. By claiming status as an employee benefit 
plan, the promoters of fraudulent MEWAs are thus able to evade the 
regulatory requirements of State law without having imposed upon them 
any comparable requirements under Federal law.
  In 1992, I introduced legislation to correct this situation. That 
legislation, the Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangement Reform Act of 
1992, sought to make clear that MEWAs may be subjected to State 
insurance regulation regardless of their status as an employee benefit 
plan under ERISA. Although my legislation was not enacted in 1992, I am 
pleased to join with Senator Jeffords today to once again attempt to 
resolve this issue.
  The legislation which we are introducing today will clarify the 
authority of the States to regulate MEWAs. Quite frankly, it is 
inconceivable to me that Congress could ever have intended that a 
product that walks like insurance, talks like insurance, and acts like 
insurance could somehow, by invoking the name of ERISA, avoid the 
safety and soundness protections of State insurance law.
  The legislation also, for the first time, provides substantive 
regulatory requirements for all ERISA health benefit plans in the areas 
of plan disclosure, notification, and termination. One of the major 
problems the permanent subcommittee found in investigating MEWA fraud 
was that employers and employees alike really had little understanding 
of the nature of the plans in which they had enrolled. In particular, 
they often had no idea that most of these plans were self-funded and 
that there was no guarantee that claims would be paid. This legislation 
will finally ensure that employees are provided with that basic 
information.
  Finally, our legislation attempts to encourage the laudable idea 
which attracted employers to MEWAs in the first instance. By providing 
for the creation of health plan purchasing coalitions, our legislation 
recognizes the difficulty many small employers have in obtaining 
affordable health care coverage for their employees. This legislation 
thus seeks to encourage employers to group together in order to 
leverage their purchasing power by providing a limited preemption of 
certain State insurance laws for such groups. At the same time, we want 
to make sure that these coalitions are not subverted by the same types 
of unscrupulous promoters who peddle fraudulent MEWA plans. The 
legislation therefore makes it clear that health plan purchasing 
coalitions may not assume any financial risk with respect to any health 
plan and may not provide anything other than fully-insured health plans 
to their members.
  I believe that these provisions will go a long way toward providing 
the millions of Americans who receive their health benefits through 
their place of employment with certain basic protections that will 
ensure that the health benefits they are promised will be there when 
they need them. I am pleased to join with Senator Jeffords in this 
effort, and I look forward to working with him and my other colleagues 
in the Senate in addressing this important issue.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROTH:
  S. 1063. A bill to permit State and local governments to transfer--by 
sale or lease--Federal-aid facilities to the private sector without 
repayment of Federal grants, provided the facility continues to be used 
for its original purpose, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


               THE FEDERAL AID FACILITY PRIVATIZATION ACT

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, one of the great challenges facing 
governments throughout this country, at all levels, is how to find the 
funds to maintain our basic public works infrastructure. Another 
challenge is find ways to bring sound business practices to the 
management of these assets. I believe that privatization is an 
important tool that, in many instances, can help government meet both 
of these challenges.
  Privatization of governmental facilities is not always the answer, 
but it is something we ought to look at more seriously than we have in 
the past. And where it makes sense, the Federal Government should do 
what it can, not only to undertake it itself, but also to encourage it 
in State and local governments.
  Unfortunately, there are well-intended Federal policies that may 
serve unnecessarily to discourage useful privatization of certain State 
and local government facilities. I am referring to what are called 
Federal-aid facilities. These are public works facilities belonging to 
State and local governments that have been constructed with the 
assistance of Federal funds. Examples include waste water treatment 
facilities, airports, parking structures, turnpikes, and public 
utilities.
  State and local governments that privatize such facilities are 
required to make a payment to the Federal Government, based on the 
amount of Federal aid that went into the facility. They are also 
restricted in how they can use the proceeds of the privatization. These 
limitations have served to discourage such privatizations.
  These Federal-aid facilities can be quite costly to operate and 
maintain, but funds for those purposes are increasingly limited. State 
and local authorities will find decreasing assistance in that regard 
from the Federal Government, given our severe budget constraints. But 
private investment and operation holds out the promise of filling that 
financial void, and of bringing new efficiencies to these enterprises. 
I believe we would be wise to seek creative ways of inducing 
nongovernmental funds to supplement these Federal, State and local 
investments.
  Therefore, I think it is important that we remove any unnecessary or 
outmoded barriers to the creation of public-private partnerships in the 
operation of these facilities. Legislation has been introduced in the 
House by Congressmen McIntosh and Horn, H.R. 1907, to eliminate these 
barriers.
  Today, I am introducing that legislation--the Federal-Aid Facility 
Privatization Act of 1995--in the Senate. It is my intention to hold 
hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee on this bill and the 
issues it raises.
  And it does raise important issues and questions that need thorough 
exploration, before we go further with the legislation. Just as it is 
important to allow privatization where useful, it is also important to 
do so carefully and thoughtfully. Where Federal funds have been 
invested, we have a responsibility to ensure that this investment 
continues to serve the long-term public interest.
  I believe that this legislation is a very helpful starting point for 
examining the best way to use privatization as a tool to further the 
enhancement of public assets. I appreciate the effort that has been put 
into it by our colleagues in the House, and I look forward to working 
with them on this important reform.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Pell, Mr. Dole, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Mack, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Leahy, 
        and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 1064. A bill entitled The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 
1995; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


             the middle east peace facilitation act of 1995

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for myself and Senator Pell, I offer today 
the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995, which is cosponsored by 
the Senate's leaders, Mr. Dole and Mr. 

[[Page S10502]]
Daschle, along with Senators Mack, Lieberman, Feinstein, McConnell, 
Leahy, and Lautenberg.
  It is for me a difficult undertaking to participate in any proposal 
that permits assistance to go to the Palestine Liberation Organization. 
I can never forget the deaths of hundreds of innocent men, women, and 
children at the hands of PLO terrorists, and their memory weighs 
heavily on me.
  We have Biblical instructions to ``guide our feet into the way of 
peace,'' and I have undertaken to follow that dictum. I believe that 
this legislation demonstrates our commitment to peace--and to the terms 
of that peace as well.
   Mr. President, I have never tried to tell Israel what to do. It was 
the choice of the sovereign, democratically elected government of 
Israel to negotiate peace with the PLO. That would not have been my 
decision. The United States cannot dictate the terms of Middle East 
peace. It can, however, dictate the terms of our assistance to the 
parties to the peace.
  In retrospect, previous versions of this legislation have lacked 
needed strength. My aim in crafting this bill, along with my 
colleagues, was to tighten and strengthen the standards under which the 
President may waive existing restrictions on assistance to the 
Palestinians.
  Within the realm of possibility, I believe we have succeeded in that 
aim, and now provide for a cutoff of assistance should the PLO not meet 
the strict requirements of this law. The Middle East Peace Facilitation 
Act of 1995 contains a cutoff of assistance to the PLO, if, after 6 
months, certain vital conditions are not met.
   Mr. President, this legislation requires that the PLO, among many 
other things: Eschew and condemn violence, and bar those who commit 
such acts from participating in Palestinian institutions; keep to 
commitments, and annul those portions of the Palestine National 
Covenant which call for the destruction of the State of Israel; observe 
international norms of human rights and democracy; disarm gun-toting 
thugs throughout territories controlled by the PLO and fight alongside 
Israel to arrest, prosecute and imprison terrorists and would-be 
terrorists.
  If, 6 months from the date of enactment of this act, the President 
cannot certify that the PLO has met these most stringent and specific 
conditions, no money will be provided pursuant to the exercise of this 
act. Period.
   Mr. President, it is never easy to agree on how to proceed on an 
emotional issue such as the Israeli-Arab peace process. I walked the 
beautiful hills of Judea and Samaria and it breaks my heart to see 
Israel relinquish its rights in those territories. It is doing so in 
return for what it believes will be a lasting peace. We in the United 
States must do everything in our power to ensure that it is a real 
peace. I hope this legislation contributes to that effort.
  This is not a perfect work, but it is the product of many hours of 
labor and, yes, with some reluctant compromise. I thank Senator Pell 
and his staff for their cooperation in this effort.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms in 
introducing the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995.
  This legislation is the follow-on to legislation that Senator Helms 
and I authored last year, which provides the President with the 
authority to waive certain legislative restrictions against the 
Palestine Liberation Organization.
  In September 1993, when Yasir Arafat shook Israeli Prime Minister 
Yitzhak Rabin's hand on the White House lawn under President Clinton's 
approving gaze, the PLO and Israel began a historic process toward 
peaceful coexistence. In order for the United States to facilitate that 
process, the administration requested Congress to provide the President 
with a certain amount of flexibility to deal with the PLO. The Congress 
agreed, in the form of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994, 
to provide the President with waiver authority to enable the provision 
of U.S. assistance to the Palestinians and the opening of a PLO office 
in the United States. That authority was provided subject to the 
President's certification that the PLO was abiding by its commitments 
with Israel and with the United States--in other words, that the PLO 
was behaving responsibly and was true to its word with regard to 
Israel.
  As many of my colleagues know, the authorities under the Middle East 
Peace Facilitation Act of 1994 expired at the beginning of this month, 
and the Congress enacted a short-term extension to gain additional time 
to pass new legislation. I am pleased to be joining Senator Helms and 
my other colleagues in introducing that new legislation today.
  The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 is a bipartisan 
effort, and the product of many hours of negotiations between 
Republican and Democratic Senate offices, as well as representatives of 
the administration. The legislation, in my view, represents a good 
consensus view on how to continue U.S. support of the Israel-PLO peace 
accords. I cannot say that I am 100 percent supportive of every word in 
the legislation, but I am convinced that it is a reasonable approach to 
a difficult and complex issue. I wish in particular to express my 
appreciation to Chairman Helms and his staff for their flexibility and 
their good faith efforts in the negotiation of the text of the bill.
  Mr. President, the Middle East peace process has always enjoyed 
bipartisan support, and it serves vital U.S. interests in the region. I 
hope that the Senate will join us in supporting and enacting this 
critical legislation.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I have decided to join my colleagues in 
support of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act. I do so with some 
mixed feelings.
  With Senator Lieberman, I was an author of the concept of PLO 
compliance and of the legislation that makes that concept the law of 
the United States. The concept of PLO compliance is at the heart of the 
entire peace process. We often say that the peace process strikes a 
delicate balance between strict demands on the PLO and understanding 
the difficulties they face in making peace with Israel. Frankly, there 
are times when it is difficult to accept that balance. What 
difficulties can there be to renouncing terror, and to abandoning vows 
to destroy Israel?
  Here I would like to draw attention to what this legislation 
contains, because there must be no mistake: The Congress is disturbed 
by the PLO's record since its decision to make peace with Israel. I 
would like, here, to thank my colleagues, Senators Helms and Pell, who 
worked extremely hard together to draft this legislation.
  This legislation moves us closer to a cut-off of aid, which is the 
inescapable result of the PLO's failure to fulfill its promises. This 
legislation is very critical of the PLO. It incorporates all the 
promises of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement dealing with prevention of 
terrorism, abstention and prevention of incitement and hostile 
propaganda, the operation of armed forces other than the Palestinian 
Authority, weapons offenses, extradition of criminal suspects and other 
law enforcement and rule-of-law issues.
  This legislation also addresses the issue of accountability. The 
President must certify that aid is being used for the purposes Congress 
intends. This is a standard that cannot be evaded. We will be watching 
the PLO closely. We are helping the Palestinian Authority financially 
because it helps Israel and it helps ordinary Palestinians who 
desperately need health care, education, and other assistance. We are 
not providing aid to be wasted or siphoned away by Palestinian 
Authority officials, or to help them, in any way, evade their 
commitments.
  This legislation also lets the administration know that its approach 
to PLO compliance needs improvement, and expressly requires 
congressional notification of the President's determinations regarding 
compliance. Here I would note that to the extent that the State 
Department accepts and minimizes PLO violations, the Department permits 
the PLO to imagine that its commitments may be obviated. We do not 
believe that this is the administration's intent. However, we are 
equally sure that it is the inevitable outcome of the failure of U.S. 
policy to clearly address PLO compliance.
  The current situation cannot go on indefinitely. The Palestinian 
Authority 

[[Page S10503]]
must make a choice. Either it recognizes that its commitments to Israel 
form the basis of a permanent peace, or it continues the charade of 
compliance until the peace process is irreparably damaged. The sooner 
the Palestinian Authority realizes that these commitments are 
inescapable and will not be overlooked by the international community, 
the sooner the peace process will become simply peace.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original 
cosponsor of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act [MEPFA] of 1995 
joining the majority and minority leaders, Senators Dole and Daschle, 
the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, 
Senators Helms and Pell, my coauthor of the 1989 PLO Commitments 
Compliance Act, Senator Mack, and Senator Feinstein. This act supports 
continued progress in the important process of achieving a stable, 
lasting peace for Israel and the Middle East. This act alone will not 
bring peace to this troubled region, but without it the task becomes 
exceedingly difficult if not impossible. America's support for the 
peace process has been long, steady and essential. The Middle East 
Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 enables the United States to continue 
the important role we have played and must continue to pay.
  Much of the road to a secure peace remains ahead of us. Yet we must 
not forget how much progress has already been made. Prime Minister 
Rabin and Chairman Arafat have taken considerable risks--both personal 
and for their people--to reach the point we are at today. The United 
States, and most especially President Clinton and Secretary 
Christopher, has remained by the side of the negotiators every step of 
the way--facilitating the process, prodding where necessary, and, 
always, supporting the negotiating parties. It is critical that the 
provisions which MEPFA allows--waiver of certain restrictions and 
authorities--remain in force if we are all to remain on the path to 
peace.
  I continue to believe that PLO compliance with its commitments 
remains an essential element in the quest for peace. There is little 
doubt that the Palestinian Authority has not yet fulfilled all the 
commitments Chairman Arafat made in the declaration of principles 
signed at Oslo and other agreements reached between Israel and the PLO.
  The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 maintains conditions 
and reporting requirements critical to ensure that the PLO commitments 
are carried out. This act strengthens the requirements which the 
Palestinian Authority must meet in order for United States aid and 
waiver authorities to continue. It takes into account many of the 
criticisms which have, correctly, been made of existing legislation. 
The act makes far clearer the linkage between United States assistance 
and the firm obligation of the Palestinian Authority to comply with all 
the commitments it has freely made. There should be no confusion that 
the United States--and the cosponsors of this bill--is intent on seeing 
this process through to a real peace brought about by both sides 
negotiating in good faith and fulfilling their obligations.
  The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act has been a vital component of 
the Middle East peace process, and has served as an effective and 
powerful tool in monitoring and compelling PLO compliance with its 
commitment to peace and fighting terror and extremism. This bill 
strengthens MEPFA. The peace process and this bill deserve our full 
support.
                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 327

  At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Indiana 
[Mr. Coats] was added as a cosponsor of S. 327, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide clarification for the 
deductibility of expenses incurred by a taxpayer in connection with the 
business use of the home.


                                 S. 641

  At the request of Mrs. Kassebaum, the name of the Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Brown] was added as a cosponsor of S. 641, a bill to 
reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act of 1990, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 724

  At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. 
Kassebaum] was added as a cosponsor of S. 724, a bill to authorize the 
Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Programs to make grants to States and units of local 
government to assist in providing secure facilities for violent and 
chronic juvenile offenders, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 837

  At the request of Mr. Warner, the names of the Senator from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], the 
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from Kansas [Mr. 
Dole], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from 
Indiana [Mr. Lugar], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], the Senator 
from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Pell] were added as cosponsors of S. 837, a bill to require the 
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 250th 
anniversary of the birth of James Madison.


                                 S. 890

  At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from Florida [Mr. 
Graham] was added as a cosponsor of S. 890, a bill to amend title 18, 
United States Code, with respect to gun free schools, and for other 
purposes.


                                 S. 907

  At the request of Mr. Murkowski, the names of the Senator from South 
Dakota [Mr. Pressler] and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] were 
added as cosponsors of S. 907, a bill to amend the National Forest Ski 
Area Permit Act of 1986 to clarify the authorities and duties of the 
Secretary of Agriculture in issuing ski area permits on National Forest 
System lands and to withdraw lands within ski area permit boundaries 
from the operation of the mining and mineral leasing laws.


                                 S. 940

  At the request of Mr. Gorton, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 
940, a bill to support proposals to implement the United States goal of 
eventually eliminating antipersonnel landmines; to impose a moratorium 
on use of antipersonnel landmines except in limited circumstances; to 
provide for sanctions against foreign governments that export 
antipersonnel landmines, and for other purposes.


                                  969

  At the request of Mr. Bradley, the names of the Senator from Ohio 
[Mr. DeWine] and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] were added as 
cosponsors of S. 969, a bill to require that health plans provide 
coverage for a minimum hospital stay for a mother and child following 
the birth of a child, and for other purposes.


                         SENATE RESOLUTION 146

  At the request of Mr. Johnston, the name of the Senator from 
Washington [Mr. Gorton] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 
146, a resolution designating the week beginning November 19, 1995, and 
the week beginning on November 24, 1996, as ``National Family Week,'' 
and for other purposes.


                          ____________________