[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 135 (Friday, August 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12370-S12410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Frist):
  S. 1181. A bill to provide cost savings in the Medicare Program 
through cost-effective coverage of positron emission tomography [PET]; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                 the medicare pet coverage act of 1995

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in our quest for a balanced budget, it is 
incumbent on Congress to mobilize every weapon at it disposal.
  This is particularly true in Federal health care programs, which are 
targeted by the budget resolution for the lion's share of spending 
reductions.
  Accordingly I am introducing today for myself and Senator Frist the 
Medicare PET Coverage Act of 1995.
  Regrettably this is one major cost reduction option that we are 
ignoring. This is the utilization of positron emission tomography [PET] 
to reduce the Nation's health care costs by avoiding unnecessary 
surgery.
  Positron emission tomography [PET] is the latest advance in 
diagnosing diseases such as breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, 
brain cancer, heart disease, and epilepsy.
  Today, PET is emerging from its 20 year research and clinical 
research phase to widespread clinical use. With respect to Medicare 
alone, this would provide a net savings of approximately $1 billion a 
year.

[[Page S 12371]]

  PET technology is the only diagnostic technology that is able 
noninvasively to measure metabolic activity in living tissue. 
Identifying tumors is one example of its diagnostic value.
  PET is able to diagnose the extent and severity of malignant tumors 
more accurately than existing clinical diagnostic techniques. 
Comparable improved diagnostic accuracy is also available for heart 
disease, epilepsy, and other neurological disorders.
  PET's diagnostic accuracy translates into hundreds of thousands of 
fewer cases of surgery annually for cancer, heart disease, and other 
illnesses.
  Recent peer research has identified over $5.3 billion in annual net 
savings to the Nation's total health care budget if PET is used 
clinically.
  Critical to these cost savings are the hundreds of thousands of 
procedures that PET renders unnecessary every year.
  Peer review scientific literature has identified that for lung cancer 
alone, over 91,000 CT scans, 10,000 surgeries, and 17,000 biopsies 
would be avoided each year.
  For breast cancer almost 74,000 women per year would be spared the 
morbidity and cost associated with axillary lymph node dissection.
  Similar cost and morbidity savings are available for other diseases.
  These savings could start today.
  PET has been performed clinically under appropriate State regulation. 
One million PET studies have been performed with no known negative 
reactions.
  Patients have avoided unneeded surgery because of PET.
  However, there will be no societal payback and no benefit to the 
average American from the use of PET under HCFA's current policy.
  Despite the fact that CHAMPUS and private insurers like Blue Cross/
Blue Shield currently reimburse for this safe, cost-effective 
procedure, Medicare and Medicaid do not.
  HCFA effectively shelved any decision on reimbursement while the FDA 
decides whether and how to regulate PET compounds--something the States 
are already doing.
  For over 7 years, the developers of PET have complied with HCFA and 
FDA procedures and requests only to have the rules changed and 
inquiries about progress met with minimal responses.
  While there has been some recent movement on the part of the FDA, the 
fact remains that we have no consistent regulatory scheme that applies 
industrywide and to all applications.
  It is time to move PET out of this needless bureaucratic quagmire.
  New, proven medical procedures should not be held back by regulatory 
inertia.
  This bill does not mandate the use of PET, but rather allow health 
care professionals to evaluate its usefulness. Easing the regulatory 
logjam has farreaching effects on reimbursement by private health plans 
and availability in the United States generally.
  Because PET is safe and is both diagnostically effective and cost 
effective and because the policies of the FDA and HCFA have prohibited 
the delivery of PET to the general public, congressional action is 
necessary.
  I am pleased to have the Senate's only surgeon join me in introducing 
this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1181

       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 ``Medicare PET Coverage Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF MEDICARE COVERAGE OF, AND PAYMENT 
                   FOR, ITEMS AND SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH 
                   POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY (PET)

       (a) In General.--Nothing in title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act, or any other provision of law, regulation, 
     policy, or interpretative statement, shall be construed to 
     prohibit under parts A and B of such title coverage of, and 
     payment for, items and services associated with the use of 
     positron emission tomography (PET) for a covered medical
      indication (as defined in subsection (b)(1) where the use 
     meets the following conditions:
       (1) The PET is used as a substitute for other diagnostic 
     procedures or to assist a physician in assessing whether 
     exploratory surgery, surgical treatment, radiation, 
     transplant, or any other diagnostic or therapeutic procedure 
     is medically necessary.
       The PET is performed at a facility that is licensed under 
     (or otherwise operating in compliance with) State law.
       (b) Covered Medical Indication Defined.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     ``covered medical indication'' means--
       (A) any medical indication described in paragraph (2), or
       (B) any other medical indication where the carrier involved 
     (or the Secretary of Health and Human Services) estimates 
     that it will be less costly to the medicare program under 
     such title (on average) to use the protocol using PET for the 
     indication than to use any alternative protocol which has 
     similar diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic outcome for that 
     indication.
       (2) Specific medical indications covered.--The following 
     are the medical indications described in this paragraph:
       (A) Localization of epileptogenic focus in patients with 
     complex partial seizure disorders.
       (B) Differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from 
     radiation necrosis in patients who have previously received 
     radiation therapy treatment.
       (C) Detection and assessment of tumors associated with 
     breast cancer, lung cancer, or colorectal cancer.
       (D) Determination of cardiac perfusion and viability in 
     patients with left-ventricular dysfunction or cardiomyopathy.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The terms ``position emission tomography'' and ``PET'' 
     mean a diagnostic imaging technology used, in a manner 
     generally accepted by the medical community and recognized in 
     the medical literature, to measure biochemical and 
     physiologic function in the human body.
       (2) The term ``protocol'' means, with respect to a specific 
     medical indication, a set of diagnostic procedures and 
     resulting therapeutic procedures used in diagnosing and 
     treating the indication.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to PET used 
     on or after 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     without regard to whether or not regulations to carry out 
     this section have been promulgated by such date.
       (e) Revision of National Coverage Determination.--The 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall revise the 
     medicare national coverage decision relating to coverage of 
     PET to be consistent with this section. Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed as preventing the Secretary from 
     expanding such coverage decision beyond the coverage required 
     under this section.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 1182. A bill entitled the ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa 
Indians Act of 1995''; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


     the burt lake band of ottawa and chippewa indians act of 1995

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to reaffirm the 
Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa 
Indians. This legislation will reestablish the government-to-government 
relations of the United States and the Burt Lake Band. This bill is 
similar to legislation introduced last Congress by my friend, Senator 
Riegle. I cosponsored the legislation last year and I am honored to 
introduce it to the 104th Congress.
  Federal recognition is vitally important for a variety of reasons. 
With this process completed the band can move on to the tasks of 
improving the economic and social welfare of its people. More 
importantly however, passage of this legislation will clarify that in 
the eyes of everyone, the Burt Lake Band is an historically independent 
tribe.
  The band is named after Burt Lake, a small inland lake about 20 miles 
south of the Straits of Mackinac. The band already had deep roots in 
the area when a surveyor named Burt inspected the area in 1840. During 
the 1800's, the Burt Lake Band was a signatory to several Federal 
treaties, including the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty 
of Detroit. These treaties were enacted for the purpose of securing 
territory for settlement and development.
  During the mid-1800's, the Federal Government turned over to the 
State of Michigan annuity moneys on the band's behalf in order to 
purchase land. This land was later lost by the band through tax sales, 
although trust land is nontaxable, and the band was evicted from their 
village. In 1911, the Federal Government brought a claim on behalf of 
Burt Lake against the State of Michigan. The autonomous existence of 
the band at this stage is clear.
  Although the band has never had its Federal status legally 
terminated, the Bureau of Indian Affairs since the 

[[Page S 12372]]
1930's has not accorded the band that status nor treated the band as a 
federally recognized tribe. The Burt Lake Band, as well as the other 
tribes located in Michigan's lower peninsula were improperly denied the 
right to reorganize under the terms of the Indian Reorganization Act of 
1934 even though they were deemed eligible to do so by the Indian 
Service at that time.
  I am aware that a bipartisan group of my colleagues in the House of 
Representatives have sponsored a similar piece of legislation. I look 
forward to the consideration of this legislation by the respective 
committees in both the Senate and the House and its enactment into law. 
I also ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                S. 1182

       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 ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and 
     Chippewa Indians Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians are 
     descendants and political successors to the Indians that 
     signed the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa 
     and Chippewa nations of Indians at Washington, D.C. on March 
     28, 1836, and the treaty between the United States and the 
     Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan at Detroit on July 
     31, 1855;
       (2) the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, 
     the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay 
     Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose members are also 
     descendants of the Indians that signed the treaties referred 
     to in paragraph (1), have been recognized by the Federal 
     Government as distinct Indian tribes;
       (3) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians 
     consists of over 600 eligible members who continue to reside 
     close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the 
     reservations of lands under the treaties referred to in 
     paragraph (1) in the area that is currently known as 
     Cheboygan County, Michigan;
       (4) the Band continues to exist and carry out political and 
     social activities with a viable tribal government;
       (5) the Band, along with other Michigan Odawa and Ottawa 
     groups, including the tribes described in paragraph (2), 
     formed the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association in 1948;
       (6) the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association subsequently 
     submitted a successful land claim with the Indian Claims 
     Commission;
       (7) during the period between 1948 and 1975, the Band 
     carried out many governmental functions through the Northern 
     Michigan Ottawa Association, and at the same time retained 
     control over local decisions;
       (8) in 1975, the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association 
     submitted a petition under the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly 
     referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 
     984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), to form a 
     government on behalf of the Band;
       (9) in spite of the eligibility of the Band to form a 
     government under the Act of June 18, 1934, the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs failed to act on the petition referred to in 
     paragraph (8); and
       (10) from 1836 to the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Federal Government, the government of the State of Michigan, 
     and political subdivisions of the State have had continuous 
     dealings with the recognized political leaders of the Band.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       (1) Band.--The term ``Band'' means the Burt Lake Band of 
     Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.
       (2) Member.--The term ``member'' means any individual 
     enrolled in the Band pursuant to section 7.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
     SEC. 4. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

       (a) Federal Recognition.--Congress hereby reaffirms the 
     Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and 
     Chippewa Indians.
       (b) Applicability of Federal Laws.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, each provision of Federal law 
     (including any regulation) of general application to Indians 
     or Indian nations, tribes, or bands, including the Act of 
     June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian 
     Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 
     U.S.C. 461 et seq.), that is inconsistent with any specific 
     provision of this Act shall not apply to the Band or any of 
     its members.
       (c) Federal Services and Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--The Band and its members shall be eligible 
     for all services and benefits provided by the Federal 
     Government to Indians because of their status as federally 
     recognized Indians. Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, those services and benefits shall be provided after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act to the Band and its members 
     without regard to--
       (A) whether or not there is an Indian reservation for the 
     Band; or
       (B) whether or not a member resides on or near an Indian 
     reservation.
       (2) Service areas.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of the delivery of Federal 
     services to the enrolled members of the Band, the area of the 
     State of Michigan within a 70-mile radius of the boundaries 
     of the reservation for the Burt Lake Band, as set forth in 
     the seventh paragraph of Article I of the treaty between the 
     United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan 
     (done at Detroit on July 31, 1855) shall be deemed to be 
     within or near an Indian reservation.
       (B) Effect of establishment of an indian reservation after 
     the date of enactment of this act.--If an Indian reservation 
     is established for the Band after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, subparagraph (A) shall continue to apply on and 
     after the date of the establishment of that reservation.
       (C) Provision of services and benefits outside the service 
     area.--Unless prohibited by Federal law, the services and 
     benefits referred to in paragraph (1) may be provided to 
     members outside the service area described in subparagraph 
     (A).

     SEC. 5. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--To the extent consistent with the 
     reaffirmation of the recognition of the Band under section 
     4(a), all rights and privileges of the Band and its members, 
     which may have been abrogated or diminished before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, are hereby reaffirmed.
       (b) Existing Rights of Tribe.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed to diminish any right or privilege of the Band or 
     its members that existed before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act. Except as otherwise specifically provided, nothing 
     in this Act may be construed as altering or affecting any 
     legal or equitable claim the Band may have to enforce any 
     right or privilege reserved by or granted to the Band that 
     was wrongfully denied to the Band or taken from the Band 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. TRIBAL LANDS.

       The tribal lands of the Band shall consist of all real 
     property held by, or in trust for, the Band. The Secretary 
     shall acquire real property for the Band. Any property 
     acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be 
     held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the 
     Band and shall become part of the reservation of the Band.

     SEC. 7. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Band shall submit to the Secretary 
     a membership roll consisting of all individuals currently 
     enrolled for membership in the Band at the time of the 
     submission of the membership roll.
       (b) Qualifications.--The Band shall, in consultation with 
     the Secretary, determine, pursuant to applicable laws 
     (including ordinances) of the Band, the qualifications for 
     including an individual on the membership roll.
       (c) Publication of Notice.--The Secretary shall publish 
     notice of receipt of the membership roll in the Federal 
     Register as soon as practicable after receiving the 
     membership roll pursuant to subsection (a).
       (d) Maintenance of Roll.--The Band shall maintain the 
     membership roll of the Band prepared pursuant to this section 
     in such manner as to ensure that the membership roll is 
     current.

     SEC. 8. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNING BODY.

       (a) Constitution.--
       (1) Adoption.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct, by secret 
     ballot, elections for the purpose of adopting a new 
     constitution for the Band. The elections shall be held 
     according to the procedures applicable to elections under 
     section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to 
     as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 987, chapter 
     576; 25 U.S.C. 476).
       (2) Interim governing documents.--Until such time as a new 
     constitution is adopted under paragraph (1), the governing 
     documents in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     shall be the interim governing documents for the Band.
       (b) Officials.--
       (1) Elections.--Not later than 180 days after the Band 
     adopts a constitution and bylaws pursuant to subsection (a), 
     the Band shall conduct elections by secret ballot for the 
     purpose of electing officials for the Band as provided in the 
     governing constitution of the Band. The elections shall be 
     conducted according to the procedures described in the 
     governing constitution and bylaws of the Band.
       (2) Interim governments.--Until such time as the Band 
     elects new officials pursuant to paragraph (1), the governing 
     bodies of the Band shall include each governing body of the 
     Band in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, or 
     any succeeding governing body selected under the election 
     procedures specified in the applicable interim governing 
     documents of the Band.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself, Mr. Packwood, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. 
        Campbell, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 1183. A bill to amend the act of March 3, 1931 (known as the 
Davis-Bacon Act), to revise the standards for 

[[Page S 12373]]
coverage under the act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources.


             the davis-bacon act reform amendments of 1995

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, for 64 years we have been working under 
the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act, and that has become a highly 
controversial issue. Many times this Senate has attempted to repeal the 
Davis-Bacon Act.
  A few years ago, the State of Oregon reached a compromise through a 
coalition of contractors, particularly in the trade unions, and for the 
last 6 months a similar coalition has been meeting in my office trying 
to come up with a reform of Davis-Bacon that would be acceptable to the 
two major parties, namely the building construction trade unions and 
the contractors' coalition.
  This morning I am pleased to say that this has been completed, and I 
am introducing this bill, which I now send to the desk and ask for its 
printing, cosponsored by Senators Packwood, D'Amato, Campbell, Specter, 
and Santorum. I invite my colleagues to join in cosponsoring it.
  Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act was passed 64 years ago to prevent 
federally funded construction projects from undermining the wages and 
working conditions of locally employed laborers and mechanics. At the 
time, lawmakers saw that large Government projects elicited destructive 
competition between the contractors who would use the local labor pool 
and those who could rely on remote, but cheaper, sources of labor. 
Congressman Bacon, for whom the act is named, introduced the 
legislation when builders in his New York district were underbid for a 
veterans' hospital project by southern contractors who brought in cheap 
southern labor. Congress, intent on sustaining a construction industry 
already ravaged by the economic instability of the Great Depression, 
reasoned that the destructive practices of the southern contractors 
would be best resolved by requiring that federally contracted labor be 
paid the locally prevailing wage, thereby halting the tendency of 
Government contractors to drive down workers' wages in order to win 
lucrative projects.
  In the years after the Depression, many States have enacted analogous 
prevailing wage standards, dubbed little Davis-Bacon laws. As Governor 
of Oregon, I signed that State's little Davis-Bacon Act, S.185, into 
law on May 26, 1959. I have supported the intelligent use of the 
prevailing wage standard in Government contracts ever since. Other 
Members of this body have made numerous attempts to repeal the Davis-
Bacon Act--despite its commendable purpose of preserving the middle-
class livelihoods of American construction workers, but the proven 
necessity for the law has thus far prevailed.
  Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act, as it now stands, indeed deserves 
some of the criticism that my distinguished associates level against 
it. Nevertheless, its purpose of protecting the jobs of our Nation's 
construction workers must persuade us to reform, rather than repeal, 
the act. A half year ago, an idea was spawned in Oregon, a compromise 
if you will, among the contractors and laborers at the local level to 
reform their relationship. This concept of Davis-Bacon reform between 
workers and laborers was brought to Washington, DC, where the idea 
advanced to the national level of contractors and laborers. I dare say 
that I was astounded by the conferees, longtime adversaries attended 
the negotiations, intent on brokering a Davis-Bacon reform package. I 
am today introducing the product of those long and arduous 
negotiations, a reform package to revise and update the Davis-Bacon Act 
of 1931. Last year, a compromise among Oregon legislators, contractors, 
and labor unions resulted in a reform bill very similar to this one. I 
am confident that reform of the Davis-Bacon Act can be successfully 
implemented at the Federal level, because it has already been so in my 
home State of Oregon.
  Currently, the act requires that federally funded construction 
contracts exceeding $2,000 in value trigger application of the 
prevailing wage and conditions standard. The prevailing wage, as my 
colleagues know, is determined county-by-county by the Labor 
Department, which uses the highest wage earned by at least half of the 
local workers in the craft. The act, as it is now implemented, also 
requires that workers, regardless of their training, be paid at least 
the prevailing wage for the craft at which they are working. Further, 
the companion to the Davis-Bacon Act, the Copeland Act of 1934, 
mandates that government contractors submit detailed wage and benefit 
schedules at weekly intervals.
  Critics of the Davis-Bacon Act rightly argue that the law impedes 
rather than facilitates fair wages and balanced competition. The low 
threshold value of contracts and the weekly reporting requirement 
hinder small, local, and minority-owned contractors in their 
competition with larger, often out-of-State contractors. Moreover, the 
application of the prevailing wage standard, since it does not 
calculate prevailing wages by level of experience, makes apprentices 
and other employees who require on-the-job training unrealistically 
expensive.
  My bill offers several reforms that would resolve many or all of the 
difficulties of these acts that advocates of repeal find objectionable. 
There are three principal amendments to the existing statutes that 
would permit the Department of Labor to pursue the goals of the Davis-
Bacon Act without the problems so often cited by critics. First, the 
threshold at which the act becomes applicable to Federal projects would 
be raised from $2,000 to $100,000. Second, the frequency with which 
contractors are required to file wage and benefit schedules would be 
changed from weekly to monthly. Third, trainees and apprentices would 
be excluded from the prevailing wage standard if they are enrolled in a 
training program that is registered with the Department of Labor.
  Mr. President, critics who seek to repeal entirely rather than 
improve the Davis-Bacon Act contend that the act's problems are beyond 
repair and that this body must allow competition to devastate the 
middle class livelihoods of America's construction workers. They argue 
that the Davis-Bacon Act is obsolete, tremendously costly, and 
impractical, regardless of whatever changes might be made to it. I 
disagree, and feel that the costs of the Davis-Bacon Act are grossly 
overestimated, whereas the benefits that we would jeopardize with its 
repeal have been dangerously neglected.
  The advocates of repealing the Davis-Bacon Act have not adequately 
demonstrated that enforcing the prevailing wage standard in federally 
funded contracts is, all things considered, untenably expensive. I feel 
that the act is relatively cost-effective now and will be all the more 
so with the changes I propose today. Critics of the Davis-Bacon Act 
frequently cite a CBO estimate of the savings that the Federal 
Government would enjoy if the act were repealed, but this estimate 
fails to consider the hidden costs of repeal. Although the Government 
might save money directly through lower construction wages, lost wages 
are likely to push an even greater number of formerly productive 
construction workers onto the rosters of the unemployed seeking 
Government assistance. Tax revenues, too, would decline, since the 
average construction worker would lose nearly $1,500 in annual income 
after the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act.
  Moreover, the evidence that the Government would save a substantial 
sum of money from cutting the wages paid to workers on Federal projects 
is dubious. Contractors' experiences repeatedly show that higher wages 
are positively correlated with higher productivity. Lower wages do not 
necessarily mean lower labor costs. Indeed, figures from a 1995 
University of Utah study indicate that it costs less to build a mile of 
road in States with higher wages than in States with lower wages; the 
study revealed that, in States that have analogs to the Davis-Bacon 
Act, it has cost an average of almost $250,000 less per mile of road 
than in States that do not observe prevailing wage standards.
  It is apparent, Mr. President, that the CBO study upon which critics 
of the Davis-Bacon Act rely overestimates the cost and impracticality 
of enforcing and complying with the act. The figures that CBO study 
uses for its estimate are 15 years old; they do not reflect the 
expansion of office technology that has occurred in the last decade. 
Advances in office technology have facilitated the periodic filing of 

[[Page S 12374]]
wage and benefit schedules by Government contractors as well as the 
processing of those schedules by the Department of Labor. Furthermore, 
the proportion of all Federal contracts that would have to comply with 
the act would drop to less than half, if the higher threshold I propose 
were promulgated.
  It is altogether unclear, therefore, whether the Federal Government 
can reasonably expect dramatic savings from an outright repeal of the 
Davis-Bacon Act. Even if the substantial savings that the CBO has 
predicted were possible with the repeal of the act, Mr. President, I 
would nevertheless urge my distinguished colleagues to consider the 
nonmonetary yet indispensable benefits of the act. A pressing concern 
of mine is the safety of America's builders. The 1995 University of 
Utah study to which I earlier referred indicates that the repeal of 
Davis-Bacon might lead to less training for construction workers and to 
more accidents and fatalities on work sites. That study examined nine 
States that repealed their own little Davis-Bacon laws. It reported 
that training declined in those States by 40 percent while occupational 
accidents rose by 15 percent. Better paid workers have fewer accidents 
and fewer fatalities--without the Davis-Bacon Act, better pay for 
workers will be the first cost that Government contractors cut. Is this 
body prepared to jeopardize the safety of American workers in pursuit 
of unproven savings? I myself am not.
  Another benefit of the prevailing wage standard is its contribution 
to the maintenance of a pool of well trained and motivated construction 
workers. This has become increasingly difficult with plummeting wages 
and unstable demand for labor in the construction industry. There are 
few incentives for young people to undertake the long-term training 
necessary to be a competent craftsman or mechanic if they can look 
forward to earning little more than the minimum wage and no benefits. 
Permitting the Federal Government, which provides between 10 and 20 
percent of the construction industry's revenues, to invite competition 
that would inevitably depress wages further than they already have been 
is to imperil this Nation's ability to maintain and expand its 
infrastructure when the need arises.
  Mr. President, I cannot abide the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, 
although I do believe that it needs to be updated and revised. I am not 
convinced that repealing the act would permit the dramatic savings that 
have been predicted by critics of the act, primarily because the fiscal 
benefits of the act have been consistently underestimated or ignored. I 
understand, however, that the act as it is currently implemented is 
problematic and sometimes counterproductive in terms of its own 
purpose. This is why I have long supported, and propose today, 
fundamental reform of this absolutely vital law. The Davis-Bacon Act, 
with the correct revisions, can once again serve its purpose of 
protecting the livelihoods of America's builders and mechanics, 
preserving the sanctity of community standards, and ensuring that local 
contractors, young apprentices, and skilled workers have a chance to 
contribute to the growth and livelihood of both this Nation and their 
own families. Let us not confront this law with shortsighted and 
uninspired aspirations of abandoning it, but with the goal of rewriting 
it so that it can serve its original and laudable purpose.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of members of the contractors-
labor coalition be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record; as follows:

               Members of the Contractors-Labor Coalition

       Irv Fletcher, Oregon AFL-CIO; Bob Shiprack, Building and 
     Trades Council; William G. Bernard, Asbestos Workers; Charles 
     W. Jones, Boilermakers; John T. Joyce, Bricklayers; Sigurd 
     Licassen, Carpenters; Dominic Martell, Cement Masons 
     (plaster); J.J. Barry, Electrical Workers; John N. Russell, 
     Elevator Constructors; Jake West, Iron Workers; Arthur Coia, 
     Laborers; Frank Hanley, Operating Engineers; A.L. Monroe, 
     Painters, Earl J. Kruse, Roofers; Arthur Moore, Sheet Metal 
     Workers; Ron Carey, Teamsters; Jarvin J. Boede, United 
     Association.
       Bill Supak, Kim Mingo, Sandy Barnes, Associated General 
     Contractors Oregon-Columbia Chapter; Terry G. Bumpers, 
     National Alliance for Fair Contracting; Stan Kolbe, Sheet 
     Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association; 
     Robert White, National Electrical Contractors Association; 
     Patricia Fink, Mechanical Contractors Association of America.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 1184. A bill to provide for the designation of distressed areas 
within qualifying cities as regulatory relief zones and for the 
selective waiver of Federal regulations within such zones, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


              THE URBAN REGULATORY RELIEF ZONE ACT OF 1995

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to rise today and 
discuss an opportunity to provide relief from many of the threats to 
the safety, security, and well-being of those individuals who populate 
our urban centers. Our cities today, especially our inner cities, have 
become areas of hopelessness and decay and despair.
  Consider these facts: America's urban areas suffer a murder every 22 
minutes, a robbery every 49 seconds, and an aggravated assault every 30 
seconds. In a survey of first and second graders in Washington, DC, 31 
percent reported having witnessed a shooting, 39 percent said they had 
seen dead bodies. In addition, 40 percent of low-income parents worried 
a lot about their children being shot, compared to 10 percent of all 
parents who worry about their children being shot; 1 out of every 24 
black males in this Nation, 1 out of every 24 black males in America, 
will have his life ended by a homicide. A report in The New England 
Journal of Medicine stated that a young black man living in Harlem is 
less likely to live until the age of 40 than a young man in Bangladesh, 
perhaps the poorest country on Earth. These are tragedies too great to 
comprehend.
  The roots of these pathologies are varied. They are partly cultural, 
partly economic, and partly social. Many people are born, live, and die 
without ever knowing what it is like to have a job, to feed a family, 
and to fulfill their dreams.
  In a number of the high schools in central cities, for example, the 
dropout rate rises as high as 80 percent. In 1990, 81 percent of young 
high school dropouts living in distressed urban areas were unemployed. 
In that same year, more than 40 percent of all adult men in the 
distressed inner cities of America did not work, while a significant 
number worked only sporadically or part time. Today, half of all 
residents of distressed neighborhoods live below the federally defined 
poverty threshold--in 1993, $14,763 for a family of four.
  Why do we have these problems in our inner cities? Well, as I have 
indicated, there are a variety of reasons. But I submit that one of the 
significant reasons for all of these facts is what I would call a 
``regulatory redlining'' of our urban centers--a series of pervasive 
regulations promulgated by a variety of agencies that have literally 
driven jobs from the center of America's urban environments. As a 
matter of fact, the older the site is, the longer there has been 
industry, the longer there has been manufacturing, and the longer there 
has been industrial activity, the less likely the site is to qualify 
with and escape from the kind of onerous regulations which drive away 
jobs in these settings.
  As well meaning as many regulations may have been, the reality is 
that they have destroyed opportunity in our inner cities.
  There is a great debate about regulation and the regulatory burden in 
America. But the people who live in our inner cities bear not only 
their portion of the $600 billion in regulatory costs that are built 
into our products, they also experience and sustain a cost of 
regulation which is substantially higher in many circumstances. It is a 
cost of lost opportunity. It is a cost of poor health. It is a cost of 
the lack of personal security and safety. It is truly a major 
challenge.
  I have spoken on the Senate floor of situations in both Kansas City 
and St. Louis MO where Federal regulations designed to protect health 
and safety actually hurt Missouri's cities by essentially prohibiting 
new jobs while simultaneously forcing existing jobs from the city. 
Every large city has countless numbers of similar stories.
  Regulations, in particular environmental regulations, have attached 
so much liability to older industrial sites 

[[Page S 12375]]
that, in many instances, these properties now have a negative market 
value--you'd have to pay someone else to take them. As a result, 
industries are headed for suburban and rural lands unspoiled by older 
industrial development. Tired of wading through open-ended regulations 
and liability laws that hold anyone even remotely responsible for 
cleanup costs, industries are moving to greener pastures.
  Perhaps Kathy Milberg, executive director of the Southwest Detroit 
Environmental Vision Project, says it best:

       You've got industries building all these nice clean plants 
     in our suburbs * * * while environmentalists are telling us 
     we can't build--in the cities--because we don't have a 
     pristine environment. We've got to stabilize this 
     neighborhood economically as well as environmentally. * * * 
     They talk about environmental justice, but where's the 
     justice when the suburbs are getting all the new
      factories and new jobs while we're stuck with a bunch of 
     fences covered with ``Do not trespass'' signs?

  The rules and regulations that she laments make sense in certain 
areas, but frankly, the statistics tell us that the inhabitants of our 
urban centers are at far greater risk of the kind of lead poisoning 
that comes from a .38 than they are from the environmental concerns 
that drive so many jobs from the inner cities.
  We have to find a way to bring jobs back into our cities. The risks 
associated with unemployment are enormous--far greater than the risks 
associated with a door that may be 36 instead of 38 inches wide, or 
that do not comply with a particular statute. The risk of being shot in 
a drive-by shooting is much more pressing and demanding and challenging 
than the risk of being contaminated by impure dirt beneath a parking 
lot.
  Under the guise of noise abatement, we have merely exchanged the 
sounds of productivity for the sounds of silent factories. The crack of 
cocaine has been the only sound of productivity in our cities' centers. 
The wail of a family in the wake of a siren, the echoing clang of a 
cell door--those are the principal sounds of our inner cities. We need 
a common sense approach to risk in our inner cities.
  We literally have a substantial group of people in this country at 
the core of our urban centers and in our cities, whose opportunities 
have been diminished, whose safety has been impaired, whose health has 
been undermined, whose security has been threatened, and whose 
longevity has been shortened because of well-meaning but misapplied 
regulations.
  Our challenge is to find a way to make our urban centers places where 
people can thrive again.
  That is why I am introducing The Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act of 
1995. The goal of the bill is this: to give the residents, government, 
and businesses of inner city areas the opportunity to restore their 
towns by reducing the often silly and senseless regulations that 
currently burden them.
  This bill will provide an opportunity for the mayor of a city, any 
city over 200,000, to appoint an Economic Development Commission which 
could assess rules and regulations which they believe impair the 
health, safety and well-being of their residents by keeping jobs out of 
the area; and to weigh whether or not waiving those regulations could 
give rise to an influx of opportunity which would provide an 
improvement in the health, an improvement in the security, an 
improvement in the education, and an improvement in the longevity of 
the individuals in that zone. These Economic Development Commissions 
will give all members of the community the opportunity to participate 
and work closely with one another to bring about real change and 
progress in the community.
  These Economic Development Commissions could then apply for 
modification or waiver of those rules. The Office of Management and 
Budget will process these requests and forward them to the appropriate 
Federal agencies. Ultimately we give the agencies the deference they 
deserve, and allow them to deny a waiver or modification request if the 
agency decides that the granting of the waiver would create a 
significant threat to human health and safety. I believe, however that 
the Economic Development Commissions will be able to readily identify 
those rules and regulations which prevent growth while achieving little 
or no benefit to the community.
  We have to give cities a chance to say to individuals:

       You can come in here, you don't have to be responsible for 
     all the past sins of industry here; you don't have to make 
     sure the dirt under your parking lot is so clean that it 
     could be eaten by an individual for his or her entire 70 
     years of existence. We want to have jobs here because we know 
     that an employed person is safer than an unemployed person; 
     that an employed person is healthier than an unemployed 
     person; that where there is economic vitality and industry, 
     there is a far greater chance that the young people will 
     persist in their education, avoiding the dropout situation; 
     and will upgrade what happens in our very inner cities.

  The isolation of the distressed urban areas I have referred to 
conflicts with our national ideals. Equality of opportunity is a 
fundamental principle of American society and a right of all Americans. 
Extreme differences in the range of life chances between persons of one 
segment of American society and another, one racial or ethnic group and 
another, or one part of an urban area and another conflict harshly with 
this ethical standard. I believe the persistence of distressed urban 
areas is dangerous to America's future.
  Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity. It is my sincere 
belief that the Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act which I introduce 
today can restore a sense of hope and real benefits in terms of 
economic opportunity and improved health and safety to our inner 
cities. I hope that we will have the good judgment to share with the 
people of the United States the opportunity to make sound decisions 
about improving the standing of those who are at peril in our inner 
cities, the core of our largest urban centers. I hope that we will give 
them the opportunity to get relief when that relief will increase their 
likelihood for safety, for health, for security, for productivity and 
for longevity. I hope that we will give them the opportunity to get 
relief when that relief will increase their likelihood for safety, for 
health, for security, for productivity, and for longevity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                S. 1184

       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 ``Urban Regulatory Relief Zone 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the likelihood that a proposed business site will 
     comply with many government regulations is inversely related 
     to the length of time over which a site has been utilized for 
     commercial or industrial purposes, thus rendering older sites 
     in urban areas most unlikely to be chosen for new development 
     and forcing new development away from the most areas most in 
     need of economic growth and job creation; and
       (2) broad Federal regulations often have unintended 
     consequences in urban areas where such regulations--
       (A) offend basic notions of common sense, particularly when 
     applied to individual sites;
       (B) adversely impact economic stability;
       (C) result in the unnecessary loss of existing businesses;
       (D) undermine new economic development, especially in 
     previously used sites;
       (E) create undue economic hardships while failing 
     significantly to protect human health, particularly in areas 
     where economic development is urgently needed to improve the 
     health and welfare of residents over a long period of time; 
     and
       (F) contribute to social deterioration to such a degree 
     that high unemployment, crime, and other economic and social 
     problems create the greatest risk to the health and well-
     being of urban residents.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) enable qualifying cities to provide for the general 
     well-being, health, safety and security for their residents 
     living in distressed areas by empowering such cities to 
     obtain selective relief from Federal regulations that 
     undermine economic stability and development in distressed 
     areas within the city; and
       (2) authorize Federal agencies to waive the application of 
     specific Federal regulations in distressed urban areas 
     designated as urban regulatory relief zones by an economic 
     development commission--
       (A) upon application through the Office of Management and 
     Budget by an economic development commission established by a 
     qualifying city under section 5; and
       (B) upon a determination by the appropriate Federal agency 
     that granting such a waiver will not substantially endanger 
     health or safety.
     
[[Page S 12376]]


     SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR WAIVERS.

       (a) Eligible Cities.--The mayor or chief executive officer 
     of a city may establish an economic development commission to 
     carry out the purposes of section 5 if the city population is 
     greater than 200,000 according to--
       (1) the United States Census Bureau's 1992 estimate for 
     city populations; or
       (2) beginning 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the United States Census Bureau's latest estimate 
     for city populations.
       (b) Distressed Area.--Any census tract within a city shall 
     qualify as a distressed area if--
       (1) 33 percent or more of the resident population in the 
     census tract is below the poverty line;
       (2) 45 percent or more of out-of-school males aged 16 and 
     over in the census tract worked less than 26 weeks in the 
     preceding year;
       (3) 36 percent or more families with children under age 18 
     in the census tract have an unmarried parent as head of the 
     household; or
       (4) 17 percent or more of the resident families in the 
     census tract received public assistance income in the 
     preceding year.

     SEC. 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS.

       (a) Purpose.--The mayor or chief executive officer of a 
     qualifying city under section 4 may appoint an economic 
     development commission for the purpose of--
       (1) designating urban regulatory relief zones in a city 
     composed of--
       (A) a distressed area;
       (B) a combination of distressed areas; or
       (C) one or more distressed areas with adjacent industrial 
     or commercial areas; and
       (2) making application through the Office of Management and 
     Budget to waive the application of specific Federal 
     regulations within such urban regulatory relief zones.
       (b) Composition.--To the greatest extent practicable, an 
     economic development commission shall include--
       (1) residents representing a demographic cross section of 
     the city population; and
       (2) members of the business community, private civic 
     organizations, employers, employees, elected officials, and 
     State and local regulatory authorities.
       (c) Limitation.--No more than one economic development 
     commission shall be established or designated within a 
     qualifying city.

     SEC. 6. LOCAL PARTICIPATION.

       (a) Public Hearings.--Before designating an area as an 
     urban regulatory relief zone, an economic development 
     commission established under section 5 shall hold a public 
     hearing, after giving adequate public notice, for the purpose 
     of soliciting the opinions and suggestions of those persons 
     who will be affected by such designation.
       (b) Individual Requests.--The economic development 
     commission shall establish a process by which individuals may 
     submit requests to the commission to include specific Federal 
     regulations in the commission's application to the Office of 
     Management and Budget seeking waivers of Federal regulations.
       (c) Availability of Commission Decisions.--After holding a 
     hearing under subsection (a) and before submitting any waiver 
     applications to the Office of Management and Budget under 
     section 7, the economic development commission shall make 
     publicly available--
       (1) a list of all areas within the city to be designated as 
     urban regulatory relief zones, if any;
       (2) a list of all regulations for which the economic 
     development commission will request a waiver from a Federal 
     agency; and
       (3) the basis for the city's findings that the waiver of a 
     regulation would improve the health and safety and economic 
     well-being of the city's residents and the data supporting 
     such a determination.

     SEC. 7. WAIVER OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

       (a) Selection of Regulations.--An economic development 
     commission may select for waiver, within an urban regulatory 
     relief zone, Federal regulations that--
       (1)(A) are unduly burdensome to business concerns located 
     within an area designated as an urban regulatory relief zone;
       (B) discourages economic development within the zone;
       (C) creates undue economic hardships in the zone; or
       (D) contributes to the social deterioration of the zone; 
     and
       (2) if waived, will not substantially endanger health or 
     safety.
       (b) Request for Waiver.--(1) An economic development 
     commission shall submit a request for the waiver of Federal 
     regulations to the Office of Management and Budget.
       (2) Such request shall--
       (A) identify the area designated as an urban regulatory 
     relief zone by the economic development commission;
       (B) identify all regulations for which the economic 
     development commission seeks a waiver; and
       (C) explain the reasons that waiver of the regulations 
     would economically benefit the urban regulatory relief zone 
     and the data supporting such determination.
       (c) Review of Waiver Request.--No later than 60 days after 
     receiving the request for waiver, the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall--
       (1) review the request for waiver;
       (2) determine whether the request for waiver is complete 
     and in compliance with this Act, using the most recent census 
     data available at the time each application is submitted; and
       (3) after making a determination under paragraph (2)--
       (A) submit the request for waiver to the Federal agency 
     that promulgated the regulation and notify the requesting 
     economic development commission of the date on which the 
     request was submitted to such agency; or
       (B) notify the requesting economic development commission 
     that the request is not in compliance with this Act with an 
     explanation of the basis for such determination.
       (d) Modification of Waiver Requests.--An economic 
     development commission may submit modifications to a waiver 
     request. The provisions of subsection (c) shall apply to a 
     modified waiver as of the date such modification is received 
     by the Office of Management and Budget.
       (e) Waiver Determination.--(1) No later than 120 days after 
     receiving a request for waiver under subsection (c) from the 
     Office of Management and Budget, a Federal agency shall--
       (A) make a determination of whether to waive a regulation 
     in whole or in part; and
       (B) provide written notice to the requesting economic 
     development commission of such determination.
       (2) Subject to subsection (g), a Federal agency shall deny 
     a request for a waiver only if the waiver substantially 
     endangers health or safety.
       (3) If a Federal agency grants a waiver under this 
     subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to 
     the requesting economic development commission that--
       (A) describes the extent of the waiver in whole or in part; 
     and
       (B) explains the application of the waiver, including 
     guidance for business concerns, within the urban regulatory 
     relief zone.
       (4) If a Federal agency denies a waiver under this 
     subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to 
     the requesting economic development commission that--
       (A) explains the reasons that the waiver substantially 
     endangers health or safety; and
       (B) provides a scientific basis for such determination.
       (f) Automatic Waiver.--If a Federal agency does not provide 
     the written notice required under subsection (e) within the 
     120-day period as required under such subsection, the waiver 
     shall be deemed to be granted by the Federal agency.
       (g) Limitation.--No provision of this Act shall be 
     construed to authorize any Federal agency to waive any 
     regulation or Executive order that prohibits, or the purpose 
     of which is to protect persons against, discrimination on the 
     basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.
       (h) Applicable Procedures.--A waiver of a regulation under 
     subsection (e) shall not be considered to be a rule, 
     rulemaking, or regulation under chapter 5 of title 5, United 
     States Code. The Federal agency shall publish a notice in the 
     Federal Register stating any waiver of a regulation under 
     this section.
       (i) Effect of Subsequent Amendment of Regulations.--If a 
     Federal agency amends a regulation for which a waiver under 
     this section is in effect, the agency shall not change the 
     waiver to impose additional requirements.
       (j) Expiration of Waivers.--No waiver of a regulation under 
     this section shall expire unless the Federal agency 
     determines that a continuation of the waiver substantially 
     endangers health or safety.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the term--
       (1) ``industrial or commercial area'' means any part of a 
     census tract zoned for industrial or commercial use which is 
     adjacent to a census tract which is a distressed area under 
     section 5(b);
       (2) ``poverty line'' has the same meaning as such term is 
     defined under section 673(2) of the Community Services Block 
     Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2));
       (3) ``qualifying city'' means a city which is eligible to 
     establish an economic development commission under section 4;
       (4) ``regulation''--
       (A) means--
       (i) any rule as defined under section 551(4) of title 5, 
     United States Code; or
       (ii) any rulemaking conducted on the record after 
     opportunity for an agency hearing under sections 556 and 557 
     of such title; and
       (B) shall not include--
       (i) a rule that involves the internal revenue laws of the 
     United States, or the assessment and collection of taxes, 
     duties, or other revenues or receipts;
       (ii) a rule relating to monetary policy or to the safety or 
     soundness of federally insured depository institutions or any 
     affiliate of such an institution (as defined in section 2(k) 
     of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(k))), 
     credit unions, Federal Home Loan Banks, government sponsored 
     housing enterprises, farm credit institutions, foreign banks 
     that operate in the United States and their affiliates, 
     branches, agencies, commercial lending companies, or 
     representative offices, (as those terms are defined in 
     section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 
     3101)); or
       (iii) a rule promulgated under the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); and
       (5) ``urban regulatory relief zone'' means an area 
     designated under section 5.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRESSLER:

[[Page S 12377]]

  S. 1185. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter 
into an agreement with the State of South Dakota providing for 
maintenance, operation, and administration by the State, on a trial 
basis during a period not to exceed 10 years, of three National Park 
System units in the State, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


        the south dakota national parks preservation act of 1995

  Mr. PRESSLER.
   Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow South 
Dakota's national parks to be managed by the State of South Dakota.

  Natural resources always have played a significant role in the 
heritage of my State. South Dakota is the proud home of three of our 
national treasures: Wind Cave National Park, Jewel Cave National 
Monument, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial, as well as a number of 
State parks, wildlife preserves, and recreation areas. It is not 
surprising that tourism is the second largest industry in the State. 
People travel thousands of miles to view South Dakota's natural 
wonders.
  Located just south of Custer State Park, Wind Cave National Park is 
one of the nation's oldest national parks. The park provides protection 
to hundreds of prairie wildlife, including bison, antelope, coyotes, 
elk, and prairie dogs. The cave itself is 70 miles of winding 
underground passageways. The natural formations of boxwork, flowstone, 
popcorn and frostwork combine with helictites and stalactites to amaze 
and educate visitors from around the world.
  Northwest of Wind Cave, is Jewel Cave National Monument--the fourth 
longest cave in the world. Ninety miles of underground passageways have 
been mapped to date, but many more miles are left to be discovered. The 
cave takes its name from glittering jewel-like calcite crystals which 
line the walls of many of the cave's rooms and tunnels.
  Finally, there is Mount Rushmore, set in the heart of the Black Hills 
National Forest. The Mount Rushmore National Memorial attracts more 
than 2 million visitors each year. It is truly America's Shrine of 
Democracy. The monument was designed in 1927 by Gutzon Borglum, the son 
of Danish immigrants. The Memorial is a shrine of American Presidential 
heroes: George Washington, father of the Nation; Thomas Jefferson, 
author of the Declaration of Independence; Theodore Roosevelt, 
conservationist and trustbuster; and Abraham Lincoln, the great 
emancipator and preserver of the Union. More than 65 years later, Mount 
Rushmore is still one of the most powerful symbols of America.
  This year there has been a great deal of discussion about the ever 
diminishing funds for the National Park Service. In light of possible 
budget cuts, some even erroneously questioned whether the parks would 
be able to stay open.
  Mr. President, I agree that like most Federal Government programs and 
agencies, the Park Service is due for some belt tightening. However, 
fiscal responsibility should not place at risk the effective management 
of our national parks. Our Nation has some of the most spectacular 
scenery in the world and we must carefully preserve this natural legacy 
that has been placed in our care.
  The challenge that we face should not be the threat of a park 
closing. That is not an option. Such scare talk is no substitute for 
what is truly needed during these tough times--imagination. We need to 
consider new ways to do more with less. To paraphrase an adage used at 
dinner tables across America, we must learn to stretch our Park Service 
dollars.
  That is exactly what I have done. In the past few weeks, I have 
worked closely with Bill Janklow, the distinguished Governor of South 
Dakota, to formulate a plan that would direct the National Park Service 
to enter into an agreement with the State of South Dakota to manage 
three of our four National Parks--Mount Rushmore National Memorial, 
Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument. However, Mr. 
President, I would like to emphasize that these parks would remain 
Federal property. Management of the parks would change hands, but 
ownership and title would remain with the Federal Government.
  While the National Park System has managed these areas well, Governor 
Janklow has put forward an initiative that would allow the State to 
provide the same high quality management at less cost; and I commend 
his innovative cost-cutting ideas. I ask unanimous consent that a 
letter of support from Governor Janklow be printed in the Record 
following my statement. The legislation I am introducing today would 
give the State the opportunity to prove its ability to manage its 
national parks.
  Specifically, this legislation would freeze funds for South Dakota's 
national parks at 1994 levels, and would transfer those moneys to the 
State. By combining Federal fiscal resources with the State's tested 
management of its own parks system, the State has the opportunity to 
demonstrate that it can maintain our parks responsibly and efficiently.
  My legislation is a simple ten-year pilot project. After that time, 
the success of the management transfer would be evaluated for possible 
renewal.
  This bill does not ask the State of South Dakota to perform a task it 
is unfamiliar with. The State administers its own vast park system, the 
largest unit being Custer State Park which is directly adjacent to Wind 
Cave National Park. In addition, Custer State Park headquarters are 
less than 20 miles from Mount Rushmore National Memorial and 28 miles 
from Jewel Cave National Monument. This close proximity would allow the 
State to consolidate resources, and generally streamline management 
responsibilities. The result? Overall efficient management of both 
State and National parks.
  South Dakotans have a great history of stewardship of the land. South 
Dakota's department of game, fish and parks is representative of that 
deep commitment to our State's natural resources. South Dakota has more 
State parks than any other State. Thanks in great part to the State's 
efforts, tourism in South Dakota is now the second-largest industry. 
The success of this industry can be attributed to the diversity of 
natural resources and recreational activities which South Dakota 
provides in conjunction with the effective and successful management of 
those resources by the department of game fish and parks.
  Mr. President, South Dakota is proof that Washington bureaucrats do 
not have a corner on the market of expertise to manage Federal lands. 
Washington could learn a thing or two from South Dakotans. Indeed, as 
in areas like welfare reform and law enforcement, we are seeing that 
Washington bureaucrats are too far removed to understand local problems 
and needs. The same applies to the National Park Service. Given South 
Dakota's tradition of effective stewardship, who could better manage 
South Dakota's park resources than the State itself?
  Mr. President, Americans believe the time has come for the Federal 
Government to clean up its fiscal mess. Meeting this vital goal will 
require cost-effective innovation, not just from Washington, but from 
across the Nation. The State of South Dakota is ready to step up to the 
plate. My legislation would enable the National Park Service to control 
its budget by giving South Dakota creative authority to institute its 
cost-effective management practices on three national parks.
  I have confidence this demonstration will prove to be a great 
success. It is my hope this project will set a precedent for future 
State management of our National Parks. I urge my colleagues to study 
my legislation, and I look forward to working with the members of the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to give South Dakota the 
opportunity to prove its ability to effectively and efficiently manage 
its National Parks.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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. 1185

       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 ``South Dakota National Parks 
     Preservation Act''.
     
[[Page S 12378]]


     SEC. 2. MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, AND ADMINISTRATION OF 
                   NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS IN THE STATE OF 
                   SOUTH DAKOTA.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Game, Fish and Parks of the State of South 
     Dakota.
       (2) National park system units.--The term ``National Park 
     System units'' means Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Wind 
     Cave National Park, and Jewel Cave National Monument, in the 
     State of South Dakota.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service.
       (b) Agreement.--The Secretary may enter into an appropriate 
     form of agreement with the Secretary of the Department of 
     Game, Fish and Parks of the State of South Dakota providing 
     for the maintenance, operation, and administration of the 
     National Park System units by the Department for a period not 
     to exceed 10 years.
       (c) Performance.--An agreement under subsection (b) shall--
       (1) establish performance standards to ensure that the 
     National Park System units receive appropriate maintenance 
     and provide appropriate levels of service to the public; and
       (2) provide that if the Department fails to meet those 
     standards, as determined by the Secretary, the agreement 
     shall be terminated under such terms and conditions as the 
     agreement may provide.
       (d) Report to Congress.--An agreement under subsection (b) 
     shall provide that not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the agreement, and annually thereafter, the Department shall 
     report to Congress on matters relevant to the carrying out of 
     the agreement.
       (e) Fee.--An agreement under subsection (b) may provide 
     that the Secretary will pay the Department an annual fee in 
     an amount not to exceed the amount expended by the Secretary 
     during fiscal year 1994 for maintenance, operation, and 
     administration of the National Park System units.
       (f) User Fees.--An agreement under subsection (b) may 
     provide that if, after a number of years stated in the 
     agreement, it appears that the annual cost to the Department 
     of maintaining and operating the National Park System units 
     has exceeded and will continue to exceed the amount of the 
     annual payment under subsection (e), the Department will be 
     permitted, notwithstanding any other law, to charge the 
     public entrance fees and other fees for use of the National 
     Park System units in reasonable amounts agreed to by the 
     Secretary.
                                                                    ____

                                        State of South Dakota,

                                      Pierre, SD, August 10, 1995.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pressler: Thank you for introducing 
     legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 
     enter into an agreement with the State of South Dakota for 
     the management of Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Wind Cave 
     National Park, Jewel Cave National Monument and Badlands 
     National Park. I wholeheartedly support this effort. If such 
     an agreement can be developed, both the state and the nation 
     can benefit from reduced costs of operation.
       The proposal the State of South Dakota submitted to 
     Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit on June 29, 1995, 
     originates from the sincere belief that our own Department of 
     Game, Fish and Parks has the experience, the expertise, and 
     the dedication to manage what Secretary Babbitt has called 
     ``America's secular cathedrals.'' South Dakota is committed 
     to meeting the high level of visitor expectation associated 
     with our national parks, while providing those services to 
     the taxpayer in the most efficient and effective manner 
     possible. The State of South Dakota is confident that it can 
     meet these standards. For federal bureaucrats to suggest 
     otherwise demonstrates the lunacy and arrogance of 
     Washington.
       As Abraham Lincoln once said, the time has come to think 
     anew and act anew. Regardless of what happens in Congress in 
     the weeks and months ahead, it is reasonable to anticipate 
     that the federal government's budget will probably be leaner 
     in the years ahead. We welcome the National Park Service to 
     join our state in a new partnership that will answer our 
     citizens' clarion call for a smaller federal government--a 
     government that works to empower the states to assume duties 
     traditionally run inside the Beltway.
       Once again, thank you for your efforts in introducing this 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               William J. Janklow.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 1186. A bill to provide for the transfer of operation and 
maintenance of the Flathead Irrigation and Power Project; and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                    flathead irrigation legislation

 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this bill transfers the authority to 
operate and maintain the Flathead Irrigation and Power Project to the 
irrigation districts which it serves. Initially constructed and 
operated by the predecessor of the Bureau of Reclamation, this project 
unlike almost all others in the West has remained the responsibility of 
the Federal Government for almost 70 years.
  It is located on the Flathead Indian Reservation in northwest 
Montana. In 1904, pursuant to General Allotment Act policies, Congress 
opened the reservation to nonmember entry and settlement under the 
general homestead, mining, and townsite laws of the United States. 
Congress authorized the construction of the project to provide water to 
these settlers and tribal member irrigators in 1908 and included a 
provision for the transfer of project operation and maintenance to the 
landowners served by the project. In 1926, Congress required and 
authorized the formation of irrigation districts under the laws of 
Montana to represent these landowners, both tribal members and 
nonmembers, in dealing with the Federal Government.
  As a result of Congress' actions opening the reservation to 
nonmember, according to the 1993 census about 21,259 people live within 
the reservation exterior boundaries and only 3,000 are tribal members. 
Similarly, of the 127,000 acres delivered water by the project, 113,000 
are within the irrigation districts, which, under State law, have 
taxing, lien and foreclosure authority, power to operate irrigation 
systems, and to hire employees and agents. The land subject to District 
authority and responsibility is owned by tribal members, about 10 
percent, and nonmembers. These farmers' democratically elected 
governments, the districts, can run the project more efficiently than 
the BIA.
  Early on, the Federal Government wanted to transfer responsibility 
for the project to the districts but they were not ready for the 
responsibility. In the 1960's, the districts and the Government 
negotiated a contract to transfer the operation and management 
responsibility to the districts for the project, both the irrigation 
division, including its reservoirs, dams and hundreds of miles of
 canals, and the power division, which is a power distribution network 
supplying power to reservation residents.

  At the conclusion of negotiations, however, when they thought the 
deal was done, the Federal Government backed out. For almost 30 years 
since that time the districts, which represents about 2,000 family 
farms, have been attempting to get solid answers from the Department of 
the Interior about when it will transfer the operation and management 
of the project to them. After decades of stonewalling, they deserve 
action by Congress to resolve this matter.
  This bill does that.
  There will be opposition. The Department, particularly the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, will oppose the diminishment of its authority. The 
local tribes will call it an outrage. Let's look at the facts.
  Ownership of all land and property remains in the United States.
  Transfer of operational authority will not affect water rights or the 
environment, because the districts will operate the project under the 
same legal constraints under which it now operates.
  Transfer of the O&M would remove Federal inefficiencies and enhance 
the profitability or irrigation without affecting fish and wildlife 
adversely. Simply because of economies from different personnel 
policies, the districts can operate the project at a significant 
savings without changing operating policies and practices at all.
  Almost all other similar Federal projects in the West which can, if 
operated efficiently, sustain irrigation, have been transferred to 
irrigation districts or similar water user associations.
  Local irrigators are among the most efficient in the West at making 
the paltry amount of water they receive, about 0.5 to 0.7 per acre-foot 
for $18.65 per acre, perform well for them.
  The irrigation districts have a proven record of trying to positively 
address environmental issues and water efficiency issues.
  The time has come to put the people directly served by and dependent 
on this project in charge of it. Federal inefficiencies are more than 
local farmers can continue to shoulder. A Federal study of the project 
10 years ago found that of the more than $2 million paid 

[[Page S 12379]]
each year by irrigators to the BIA to operate the project, 74 percent 
of that goes to personnel costs. In comparison, that study found other 
irrigation projects in the region typically have personnel cost of 60 
percent. This means irrigators pay about $280,000 more each year on 
personnel costs than they should have to. This is reflected in 
operation and maintenance rates, which skyrocketed from $7.38 per acre 
in 1981 to their current level of $18.45. At the same time water 
deliveries dropped, the Project has further deteriorated, and farm 
product prices have not increased to keep up with O&M rates.
  In its own study 10 years ago the Department of the Interior 
recognized that economically the only way for farmers to survive is for 
the operation and management to be transferred to the districts. It 
found that even at 1985 O&M rates, $10 per acre, irrigators ``cannot 
afford to pay the assessment rate.'' It concluded, ``the transfer of 
the operation and maintenance of the irrigation system to water users 
may, in the end, be the only long term, viable solution from an 
economic standpoint.''
  But the Department has steadfastly refused. That is why this bill is 
necessary and just.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1187. A bill to convey certain real property located in Tongass 
National Forest to Daniel J. Gross, Sr., and Douglas K. Gross, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST ACT OF 1995

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which 
would convey certain property located in the Tongass National Forest to 
Mr. Daniel J. Gross, Sr., and his brother, Mr. Douglas K. Gross. I 
introduced similar legislation in the 102d and 103d Congresses.
  Mr. President, in the early 1930's Mr. William Lee Gross and his wife 
Bessie Knickson Gross homesteaded 160.8 acres of land at Green Point on 
the Stikine River. The Gross family lived at Green Point for several 
years and have claimed titled to the land since the 1930's. 
Unfortunately, the legal documents that conveyed title of the land to 
the Gross family were destroyed when their home burned to the ground in 
Wrangell during the winter of 1935-36.
  Mr. President, the Gross family should not be punished because the 
title to their land was destroyed in a fire. No one living in the 
Stikine area doubts the claims of the Gross brothers. Dan and Doug 
Gross are old timers from Alaska who have been seeking title to their 
land for decades. Despite overwhelming support from the local 
community, and substantial evidence submitted by the Gross family, the 
Forest Service continues to refuse to convey title of the land at Green 
Point to Doug and Dan.
  For this reason, I am introducing legislation to resolve this issue. 
Doug and Dan Gross are ordinary people who have come up against a 
bureaucracy that threatens to dismiss over 50 years of their family 
history. I cannot allow this to happen.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SANTORIUM (for himself, Mr. Lugar and Mr. Brown):
  S. 1188. A bill to provide marketing quotas and a price support 
program for the 1996 through 1999 crops of quota and additional 
peanuts, to terminate marketing quotas for the 2000 through 2002 crops 
of peanuts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition and, Forestry.


                   PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM LEGISLATION

  Mr. SANTORUM.
  Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which I hope will be 
a compromise on an issue that we are going to be bringing up when the 
farm bill hits the floor, and that is the peanut program. There are 
bills introduced in the Senate to eliminate the peanut program 
immediately. I do not believe that, frankly, is going to be fair to the 
farmer.
  What we are trying to do is put in a program that is a 5-year 
phaseout that gives people plenty of notice and ability for people to 
be able to adjust to the gradual phaseout, gradually reduce the support 
price, which I will get into in a moment. Our bill provides a glidepath 
for peanut farmers in this country to get back to a market-based system 
which I think is needed. In fact, we are going to talk this morning 
about how horribly bureaucratic and inefficient the current peanut 
program is.
  For those who are not familiar with the peanut program, let me run 
through it on this chart. The top half of this chart is how the peanut 
program works. You would think that you grow peanuts and you just give 
them to somebody and they sell them.
  In fact, the next chart I have--I will come back to this one--is for 
another crop that is grown underground, a potato. There is no 
Government program for potatoes. You just grow them, sell them to 
someone who will get them to the store or make potato chips, but this 
is it. This is the entire marketing of a potato.
  However, in peanuts, we have a little different story because of this 
program created during the Great Depression. Congress created this very 
complex system of contracting for peanuts and having the Government, 
frankly, be there to support peanut growers with a fixed price for 
their peanuts irrespective of what the market price is. They will be 
paid a fixed price. Today, the price of peanuts grown in the United 
States by quota peanut holders is $678 per ton. If you are not a quota 
peanut grower--those are called additional peanuts, you can only sell 
them for export on the world market. You cannot sell them in the United 
States. You are not allowed to. You can grow them here, but you cannot 
sell them here. You have to sell them overseas at the world market 
price which is roughly half of what the quota price is.
  If you want to sell your peanuts, this is how you have to go through 
this process. You grow peanuts. In many cases, the quota peanuts are 
purchased by the Government. It is called a nonrecourse loan. What does 
that mean? That means that the peanuts are the collateral for the loan, 
and if they are not worth the $678 a ton, the Government loses money, 
not the peanut grower. So you sell them to the Government. The 
Government pays you for those, and what the Government does with them, 
if they cannot sell them for $678, which in many cases they cannot, the 
Government loses money, not the peanut farmer. Only quota holders can 
do this.
  If you grow peanuts and you do not have a quota, then you have to 
contract with somebody, whether it is a foreign interest or whatever 
the case may be, and you get the world price, but if you cannot 
contract before the peanuts are harvested, you sell them to the 
Government for noncontract additionals.
  Now, remember, quota peanuts get $678 a ton. Noncontract additionals 
get $123 a ton. They are the same peanuts. They are grown right next to 
each other, same quality, but they get a fifth of the price because 
they do not have this quota.
  Now, you may say, what is this quota? It is a poundage that has been 
passed down since 1941--that was distributed back in 1941--to 
generation after generation of people who have the rights to grow a 
certain amount of peanuts in a particular State in a particular county 
of that State. If you have a quota to grow peanuts in Carroll County, 
GA, you cannot take that quota and sell it to somebody to grow peanuts 
in Cobb County, GA. You have to grow them in Carroll County or that 
quota is not worth anything.
  That is how the system works. It is handed down. And you would say, 
``Well, that's good. We are giving people a little bit more money for 
their product.'' Well, that is not necessarily true.
  Who owns these quotas? What you will find is that most of the quotas 
are held by a very few people. In fact, 80 percent of the poundage that 
is owned in quota peanuts is owned by 6,182 quota holders. Then you 
have 20 percent of the poundage owned by 22,000 people. It is not 
surprising that there are a lot of very big interests that are 
concerned about keeping their quota poundage at a high level because 
they own a lot.
  Now, are these the farmers? That is the next question. The answer is 
no, these are not the farmers. People who live in Atlanta get $1 
million from rural peanut farmers because they own the quotas there in 
the city. They have been passed on from generation to generation. It is 
just like a stock they pass on from generation to generation, and 

[[Page S 12380]]
they get the money for people paying them rent.
  Now, what do they get for these quotas? Well, remember, the price of 
a ton of peanuts is $678 for quota peanuts. The world price is about 
$350. How much do they rent these quota rights for? Oh, roughly $250. 
So all the profit from owning the quota does not go to the people who 
farm the land. It goes to the people who own the quota, who are not 
even the farmers.
  In fact, of all the quota holders, only about 30 percent actually 
farm. The rest are owned by others who do not farm. Seventy percent of 
these quotas are owned by people who do not farm the land, but they 
just own this interest that has been passed on through generations and 
then they lease it out to folks who go out there and farm for basically 
the same income they could get growing additional peanuts. This is a 
feudal system. You have got a bunch of lords who sit in the castle who 
have these rights, who then go out and lease them out to people to go 
out and grow peanuts for them so they can make money.
  This is not a profarmer provision. This is a system that is set up to 
enrich people from all over the country. Peanuts are grown basically in 
this area of the country, right down here in the South and Southwest, 
obviously, Georgia being the biggest.
  But you can see, people from 46 States own quotas in Georgia. They do 
not even live in Georgia but they own quotas there. They get paid money 
by people who farm under their quota. In fact, if you go to the next 
chart you can see that it is not just people in the United States that 
are enriched by the quota program. There is quota rent going to foreign 
countries. You can see, Argentina, Great Britain, and Japan and Hong 
Kong and all these other countries around the world. People own these 
quotas from the United States. These are just for North Carolina, 
Georgia, Alabama, and Texas where these quota holders are from across 
the country and the world.
  You can say, well, this program is a pretty low-cost program and the 
support price is not really that out of line with other support prices. 
Well, that is not true. If you look at what has happened in the support 
programs, you see that the support price for rice, milk, corn, and 
wheat all have decreased in the last 10 years. The only price that has 
gone up is peanuts, and it has gone up by 21 percent. It has grown. The 
support price of peanuts has gone up while the world price has not, 
further enriching quota holders, again, not farmers. Because as the 
price goes up, the quota price goes up, they just charge more for their 
quota. Farmers still get pretty much the same with or without the 
quota.
  We have a peanut grower who is quoted in a farm magazine and says the 
1995 crop could have a $200 million loss to the Government. In his 
words, ``It's not a pretty picture and won't win us any friends in 
Washington.'' Well, I will assure him of that. It will not win him any 
friends in Washington to cost $200 million in a program that does not 
go predominantly to farmers; it goes to wealthy people who own these 
quotas in the big cities. You have got a lot of small farmers out there 
basically in a feudal system growing peanuts for them.
  Again, I want to show you the world price in graphic terms and what 
that means. Remember, if you want to buy peanuts in the United States, 
you have to buy them at $678 a ton. If you are a candy manufacturer and 
you want to buy peanuts for Snickers bars, you have to pay this. If you 
want to produce those Snickers bars in Canada, you pay $350 a ton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
  And so what happens? Well, not surprisingly, what is happening is we 
are losing jobs. We are enriching a very few people who own the 
majority of these quotas who do not farm the land, with Government 
dollars and higher prices. You pay about 20 cents to 30 cents more for 
a jar of peanut butter because of these high prices. And we lose jobs. 
We have a company that wrote me from Pennsylvania. They are one of many 
small candy manufacturers in Pennsylvania. I will quote. Pennsylvania 
Dutch Company is the name of it:

       Our Katherine Beecher Candies Division located in 
     Manchester, PA, is a primary manufacturer of sugar-coated 
     peanuts. The product contains approximately 60 percent 
     peanuts and 40 percent sugar by weight. We employ 40 to 50 
     workers at this location, and have struggled for years to 
     keep them employed year round. As part of this effort, we 
     established a pretty nice volume market in Canada many years 
     ago. Then a Canadian operator began to make the identical 
     product, and we were no longer competitive with the Canadian 
     folks using world price sugar--

  That is another story--

     at $.16 a pound while we are paying about $.27 a pound here 
     in the United States, because of another quota program here 
     in Washington, DC--and we were paying about $.90 a pound for 
     peanuts while the export prices were around $0.60. So, to 
     continue to serve our customers and not lose this share of 
     the market, we sold a technical know-how license to a friend 
     of ours in Canada so he could supply peanuts to our former 
     customers [in Canada] * * *. In all probability, we exported 
     about three full time equivalent jobs.

  That is going on all across the country. As peanut prices stay 
artificially high, we are losing jobs in manufacturing to other places 
around the world who can buy peanuts at almost half the price. It is no 
wonder we lose those jobs. And we are losing jobs here, too, because of 
it.
  We have just in the last few years without reform: Shelling plants 
closed since 1990--these are plants that take the peanuts and shell 
them, take the shells off of them--Greenwood, FL, Graceville, FL, 
Cordele, GA, Donalsonville, GA, Sylvania, GA, Opp, AL. All those places 
have closed. Why? Because of the peanut program is killing domestic 
demand.
  What happens? They make their peanuts into peanut butter. When peanut 
butter manufacturing shifts overseas demand for U.S. peanuts falls, and 
we lose jobs because the product is not made here. Why? Because peanut 
butter is too expensive here when you are paying $670 a ton of peanuts. 
You just cannot produce it here anymore.
  Peanut butter plants that have closed since 1990: Portsmouth, VA, 
Cairo, GA, Birmingham, AL, Albany, GA, Wyoming, MI, Chaska, MN, 
Woodbury, GA, Brooklyn, NY, and Santa Fe Springs, CA. This is a 
widespread problem of closures of shelling and peanut butter plants.
  Mr. President, we have a quota price for peanuts of $678 a ton and a 
price for nonquota peanuts of $350 a ton.
  What does that mean? I was talking about peanut butter and the influx 
of peanut butter. Here is what we have seen over the last 5 years in 
the amount of peanut butter coming into this country because it is so 
much cheaper to take world price peanuts, turn them into peanut butter, 
and send them into our country.
  Because of NAFTA, there are Canadian imports coming into this 
country. Those are jobs that used to be in the United States, now in 
Canada. Mexico is preparing to do the same thing right now as a result 
of Mexico being added.
  We imported 40 million pounds of Canadian peanut butter in 1994. As a 
result, what is happening is that--in fact, I got a letter from a small 
candy manufacturer, a very small candy manufacturer, who sent a letter 
to me and an invoice from Argentina, for Argentine peanut butter. He 
paid 67.5 cents a pound delivered for the peanut butter. Had he bought 
it in the United States, he would have paid about $1 a pound, and he 
went on to say, ``The quality of the product is excellent.''
  So we are losing jobs. This program is not helping farmers and it is 
costing jobs.
  By the year 2000, under GATT and NAFTA, we are going to have to allow 
the import of more than 10 percent of our peanuts for domestic use. Our 
borders are going to start to open. We have this artificially set price 
of peanuts and have more imports coming in. We are going to have to 
import 130,000 tons of fresh peanuts under GATT and NAFTA.
  I will tell you, there are a lot of growers out there who realize 
this is a problem coming down the road, this is a train heading right 
in the direction of growth.
  I will quote a Virginia peanut grower, who said:

       I am a grower from Southhampton County, VA. I am also a 
     holder of peanut quota poundage. The peanut program has 
     worked for many years. However, with the passage of 

[[Page S 12381]]
     GATT and NAFTA, as a result of that, our peanuts are priced too high.

  He underlined ``too high.''

       While I am vigorously in support of the peanut price 
     support program, we cannot grow or even sustain our market 
     share at the level of price support we are at today. . . I 
     realize many of my farmer friends are opposed to a cut in 
     price support, but not to do so will put many growers out of 
     business. Create a larger influx of imports, and eventually 
     put us growers out of business.

  He is absolutely right.
  This is a program that needs reform. In our bill we are gradually 
lowering the price of peanuts back down to the world marketplace over a 
5-year period. We think that is fair. We believe that the industry 
today will be doomed and, really, the program does not help the farmer.
  In fact, the next chart I want to show here is the cost of the 
program to the farmer--not to the quota holder, but the farmer. Here is 
the quota rent. About 16 percent of the cost of growing peanuts and 
selling peanuts is the quota rent they have to pay. Then they have 
another roughly 8 percent for renting the land, and the land values 
increase because of the quota. You have a quota that makes the value of 
the land that you are leasing much, much more expensive.
  Finally--and this is something I had not mentioned--if you want to 
grow peanuts in the United States, you can do it. You have to have a 
quota to sell them here. But you cannot get your seeds just from 
anywhere. The seeds for peanuts have to be quota seeds. So you have to 
buy your seeds from people who grow quota peanuts. So you have an 
additional cost that you have to buy your seeds from quota holders, 
which, of course, is twice the world price of peanuts. So you have to 
buy very expensive seeds.
  The peanut program comprises 28 percent of the cost of growers. I 
will quote from Forbes magazine of last year:

       Don't want to make profits the hard way? For as little as 5 
     times the earnings, you can buy peanut growing rights. An 
     owner who doesn't have to be a farmer can sell or rent the 
     rights.

  These are traded. It is your money--taxpayers dollars going to 
support these folks who play in this peanut game.
  What Senator Lugar, and now Senator Brown, and I are proposing is a 
gradual phaseout of the program. We would eventually reduce the price 
support level. It is a market-oriented approach. It reduces the level, 
as I said, over a period of 5 years. It eliminates the minimum quota 
immediately. The present rules set a floor on quota issued of 1.35 
million tons. Domestic consumption is less than this, even without 
counting imports. That is why the farmer I quoted earlier projects the 
high cost to the Government this year. We are allowing people to grow 
peanuts we know they cannot sell to anyone but the Government. So we 
are going to just open up the market place, allow people who want to 
grow peanuts to do it. Given the market price, obviously they can be 
competitive because people grow them now at the market price. They 
would not be doing it if they cannot make a profit.
  Additionally, we get rid of this quota seed requirement, and you can 
plant whatever seeds you want for growing peanuts.
  There are other proposals under discussion for the peanut program. 
One set of changes has been put forward by the quota holders. Their 
proposal is not reform. It removes the budget impact of the program, 
but does not address the trade or price issues. If adopted, the quota 
holder's proposal would doom the industry. Consumption has declined by 
15 percent since last farm bill and imports are way up. This problem 
would only get worse if the quota holder's proposal were to be enacted.
  Senators Brown and Bradley introduced a bill that would eliminate the 
program immediately. Given how bad this program is, immediate 
elimination is probably justified. However, immediate elimination would 
create some transition problems.
  In recognition of this, Senator Lugar and I propose a compromise, 
which Senator Brown has agreed to cosponsor. Under our bill, quota is 
gradually eliminated by a reduction of the price support level each 
year, until in the fifth year it is at the world price. In the fifth 
year, the quota system is eliminated. The transfer of quotas across 
county and State lines is allowed under our bill. The minimum level on 
the total of the quotas is eliminated. The artificially high prices 
from the program decreased domestic demand so sharply that the minimums 
that were viewed in 1990 just as a precaution by 1994 became a 
guarantee of overproduction and Government purchases.
  Our bill will immediately remove some of the worst inequities of the 
present program. Under our bill additional peanuts may be used as seed. 
Under our bill, the Government may buy additional peanuts for nutrition 
programs, defense, prison meals, and other uses, saving the taxpayers 
millions. We would change the rules for the loan programs, so that 
additional growers would not have to offset losses of quota program.
  After 2000, the quota system is ended. Farmers will not be left 
defenseless in a terrible year, because a recourse loan will be 
available with the loan level at 70 percent of the estimated market 
price. This provides a safety net, without the market distortions of 
the present program.
  Our bill is real reform. It is also market oriented. It gets the 
Government out of the market place and lets the farmers farm.
  Opponents of reform will contend that reform will destroy local 
economies in peanut areas. But with over half of the benefits going to 
quota owners who rent to others, the program mainly helps the wealthy--
at the expense of farmers, consumers, and taxpayers. Most of the 
economic benefits of the system leave the local area and often the 
State. As I mentioned earlier, for farmers who rent, quota rent is 
biggest single cost--16 percent--and program increases the cost of seed 
and land--another 12 percent. In all, 28 percent of a renter's 
production costs are attributable to quota. The quota is mainly held by 
big farmers. The small farmers receive few of the benefits. In fact, 23 
percent of farmers do not use quota. Either they have no access or they 
do not find renting quota worth the trouble.
  This bill is strong medicine for an ailing program, but it will have 
benefits compared with current law. USDA analysis of a phase-down 
versus an extension of the status quo shows that by 2005/2006 under the 
status quo imports will be 124 million pounds but under a phase-down 
they will be 25 million pounds. Their analysis further shows that with 
the status quo, the effective price, that is the price that a quota 
renter would get after subtracting the quota rent would be 22.13 cents 
per pound, while with a phase-down it would be 26.35 cents per pound. 
These numbers do not include changes in seed or land costs, which make 
a phase-down look even more attractive. The bottom line is that phasing 
down quota and price supports will increase farmers income by $164 
million over the next 5 years. Wealthy investors, the quota holders, 
are the only losers. They lose $310 million in quota rent.
  Mr. President, the peanut program is Government gone wrong. The main 
support for program is by quota owners--most of whom are not peanut 
farmers. For them the program creates a lucrative return on their 
investment. This lucrative return comes directly from the farmers, who 
the program was supposed to help. This program treats farmers unfairly. 
Some farmers own quota, and get all the benefits of the artificially 
high price. Most must rent quota and must pay someone else to get 
access to the high price. Finally, some farmers have no access to quota 
and are excluded from the program. Instead they must sell their peanuts 
for export or to be crushed. In either case, the price is much lower 
than the quota price.
  The existing program penalizes consumers. Unreformed, it would 
increase prices to first buyers by at least $1.5 billion over next five 
years. The program costs U.S. jobs and wastes Government money. In the 
absence of serious reform, the program may kill the goose that laid the 
golden egg by undermining the economics of domestic peanuts until the 
demand for domestic peanuts is too low to support handlers.
  Mr. President, the evidence is clear that the peanut program no 
longer benefits farmers or rural communities in the way that was 
originally intended. 

[[Page S 12382]]
In fact, continuing the program without substantial changes will hurt 
farmers and poor, rural communities by making American peanuts 
uncompetitive in an increasingly global economy. If our products cannot 
compete, then real Americans lose jobs.
  If we do not change this program now, there will be no peanut 
industry left to save by the next farm bill. It is time to reform this 
terrible program. This is the bill to do it.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 1189. A bill to provide procedures for claims for compassionate 
payments with regard to individuals with blood-clotting disorders, such 
as hemophilia, who contracted human immunodeficiency virus due to 
contaminated blood products; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            the ricky ray hemophilia relief fund act of 1995

  Mr. DeWINE.
   Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my 
distinguished colleague Senator Graham of Florida, the Ricky Ray 
Hemophilia Act of 1995. This legislation will serve as the counterpart 
to similar legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by 
Representative Goss of Florida.

  Mr. President, the purpose of this legislation is to offer some 
measure of relief to families that have suffered serious medical and 
financial setbacks because of their reliance on the Federal 
Government's protection of the blood supply.
  Last month, the Institute of Medicine released the findings of a 
major investigation into how America's hemophilia community came to be 
decimated by the HIV virus.
  In the early 1980's, America's blood supply was contaminated with 
HIV. Many Americans have become HIV-positive by transfusions of the 
HIV-tainted blood.
  One particular group of Americans has been extremely hard-hit by this 
public health disaster. There are approximately 16,000 Americans who 
require lifelong treatment for hemophilia, a genetic condition that 
impairs the ability of blood to clot effectively.
  In the early 1980's, more than 90 percent of the Americans suffering 
from Severe hemophilia were infected by the HIV virus.
  More than 90 percent.
  That is a major human tragedy. And the IOM report has alarming things 
to say about the level of Federal Government culpability for this 
disaster.
  Point One. The Federal agencies responsible for blood safety did not 
show the appropriate level of diligence in screening the blood supply.
  In January 1983, scientists from the Center for Disease Control 
recommended that blood banks use donor screening and deferral to 
protect the blood supply. According to the IOM report, and I quote, 
``it was reasonable''--based on the scientific evidence available in 
January 1983--``to require blood banks to implement these two screening 
procedures.''
  The report says--and I quote--that ``Federal authorities consistently 
chose the least aggressive option that was justifiable'' on donor 
screening and deferral.
  The report's conclusion is--and I quote:

       The FDA's failure to require this is evidence that the 
     agency did not adequately use its regulatory authority and 
     therefore missed opportunities to protect the public health.

  End of quote.
  By January 1983, epidemiological studies by the Center for Disease 
Control strongly suggested that blood products transmitted HIV. First 
of all, it was becoming clear that blood recipients were getting AIDS--
even though the recipients were not members of a known high-risk group. 
Second, the epidemiological pattern of AIDS was similar to that of 
another blood-borne disease (hepatitis).
  According to the report, these two facts should have been enough of a 
tip-off to the public health authorities. As early as December 1982, 
the report says,

       [p]lasma collection agencies had begun screening potential 
     donors and excluding those in any of the known risk groups.

  The report says that Federal authorities should have required blood 
banks to do the same.
  Point Two. The Federal agencies did not move as quickly as they 
should have to approve blood products that were potentially safer.
  The IOM report says that certain heat treatment processes--processes 
that could have prevented many cases of AIDS in the hemophilia 
community--could have been developed earlier than 1980. I quote:

       In the interval between the decisions of early 1983 and the 
     availability of a blood test for HIV in 1985, public health 
     and blood industry officials became more certain that AIDS 
     among hemophiliacs and transfused patients grew. As their 
     knowledge grew, these officials had to decide about recall of 
     contaminated blood products and possible implementation of a 
     surrogate test for HIV. Meetings of the FDA's Blood Product 
     Advisory Committee in January, February, July and December 
     1983 offered major opportunities to discuss, consider, and 
     reconsider the limited tenor of the policies.

  I say again, Mr. President: Major opportunities.
  Major opportunities to change the course of the Government's blood-
protection policies.
  The report continues, and I quote:

       For a variety of reasons, neither physicians . . . nor the 
     Public Health Service agencies actively encouraged the plasma 
     fractionation companies to develop heat treatment measures 
     earlier.
       Despite these opportunities and others to review new 
     evidence and to reconsider earlier decisions, blood safety 
     policies changed very little during 1983.

  Mr. President, I cannot avoid agreeing with the conclusion of this 
report: ``[T]he unwillingness of the regulatory agencies to take a lead 
role in the crisis'' was one of the key factors that ``resulted in a 
delay of more than one year in implementing strategies to screen donors 
for risk factors associated with AIDS.''
  Point Three. The Federal Government did not warn the hemophilia 
community, when the Government knew--or should have known--that there 
were legitimate concerns that the blood supply might not be safe.
  According to the report, ``a failure of [government] leadership may 
have delayed effective action during the period from 1982 to 1984. This 
failure led to less than effective donor screening, weak regulatory 
actions, and''--this is the key, Mr. President--``insufficient 
communication to patients about the risks of AIDS.''
  As a result, Mr. President, and I am again quoting from the report: 
``individuals with hemophilia and transfusion recipients had little 
information about risks, benefits, and clinical options for their use 
of blood and blood products.'' The response of ``policymakers'' was 
``very cautious and exposed the decision makers and their organizations 
to a minimum of criticism.''
  In effect, Mr. President, the inertial reflex of bureaucratic caution 
led to a serious failure to protect the public health.
  The Americans suffering from hemophilia were relying on their 
Government to exercise due care about the safety of the blood supply. 
It is my view, in light of the very important report released by the 
IOM, that the Government failed to meet its responsibilities to the 
hemophilia community.
  The Government's failure caused serious harm to real people--people 
who were counting on the Government to meet its responsibilities.
  A woman in Grove City, OH, lost her husband to AIDS and hemophilia 
two years ago. She writes--and I would like to quote this: ``[He] was a 
young man who died of AIDS from bad factor''--
  Factor, Mr. President, is a product that helps blood to clot--a 
crucially important medical product for people who suffer from 
hemophilia.
  She writes: He ``died of AIDS from bad factor, something . . . which 
we thought was saving his life, only to find that it would be a death 
sentence.''
  This woman is speaking for every person in the hemophilia community 
who has lost a loved one because of the tainted blood supply.
  A young woman from Jackson County, OH, tells a similar story. Her 
father was a farmer who had hemophilia. She writes:

       When a blood product (Factor IV) to help stop his bleeding 
     came along, it opened up so many doors for him. He could now 
     do his work not in pain . . . it would now be easier to just 
     walk around. This medicine was thought to be a miracle. But 
     things began to unravel, when I was 18, I found out my father 
     was HIV positive, he had been infected from contaminated 
     factor IV. He died approx. 1\1/2\ 

[[Page S 12383]]
     years later but not before he was stripped of self esteem, dignity, and 
     the ability to do anything that made him who he was. . . .
       He lost his ability to trust.

  Trust, Mr. President. That is what this legislation is all about. A 
substantial number of citizens trusted the Government to exercise due 
vigilance, and the Government let them down. It is only right that the 
Government try to offer them some measure of relief.
  Let me say a few words about the actual legislation I am introducing 
today. Mr. President, I recognize the budgetary realities we have to 
confront. As we move through the process, we will have to address the 
issue of compensation. I think it is absolutely essential that we begin 
this process--now.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                S. 1189
       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 ``Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief 
     Fund Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal Government through the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services has the authority to protect the safety of 
     the blood supply and blood products sold in this country;
       (2) according to the 1995 Institute of Medicine Study 
     entitled ``HIV and the Blood Supply'', the failure of the 
     Federal Government to use its authority with regard to the 
     safety of the blood supply and the blood products led to 
     missed opportunities to prevent the spread of the human 
     immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through blood and blood 
     products;
       (3) blood-clotting agents, called antihemophilic factor, 
     that are used in the treatment of hemophilia are manufactured 
     from the blood plasma of 10,000 to 20,000 or more donors, 
     placing persons with hemophilia at particularly high risk for 
     HIV during the period of 1980 to 1987;
       (4) the failure of the Federal Government and the blood 
     products industry to develop and implement known viral 
     hepatitis inactivation processes prior to 1983 resulted in 
     the exposure of the blood supply and blood products to HIV;
       (5) although heat treatment of blood-clotting products 
     became available in 1983, the Federal Government did not 
     require the recall of nonheat treated products until 1989;
       (6) as evidence became available concerning the 
     transmission of HIV through the blood supply and blood 
     products, the Federal Government did not take necessary and 
     prompt action; failing to either require the blood industry 
     to implement donor screening and deferral practices or to 
     require the automatic recall of products linked to donors 
     with or suspected of having AIDS;
       (7) the Federal Government did not require the blood 
     products industry to communicate directly with individuals 
     with blood-clotting disorders regarding treatment options and 
     the risks associated with contaminated blood products, nor 
     did the Federal Government attempt to communicate fully to 
     such individuals regarding these risks and possible treatment 
     options;
       (8) although a blood test for HIV became available in 1985, 
     the Federal Government did not appropriately propose 
     recommendations for a ``lookback'', the process of tracing 
     recipients of possibly infected blood products, until 1991;
       (9) individuals with blood-clotting disorders, such as 
     hemophilia, who have HIV infections incur annual medical 
     costs that often exceed $150,000, due to the expense of the 
     necessary medications and the complications caused by the 
     combination of the 2 illnesses;
       (10) Ricky Ray was born with hemophilia and, like his 2 
     younger brothers and thousands of others, became infected 
     with the deadly HIV through use of contaminated blood-
     clotting products;
       (11) Ricky Ray and his family have brought national 
     attention to the suffering of individuals with blood-clotting 
     disorders, such as hemophilia, and their families, who have 
     been devastated by HIV; and
       (12) Ricky Ray died at the age of 15 on December 13, 1992, 
     of hemophilia-associated AIDS, and this Act should bear his 
     name.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to establish a 
     procedure to make partial restitution to individuals who were 
     infected with HIV after treatment, during the period 
     beginning in 1980 and ending in 1987, with contaminated blood 
     products.

     SEC. 3. TRUST FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a trust fund to be known as the ``Ricky Ray 
     Hemophilia Relief Fund'', which shall be administered by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury.
       (b) Investment of Amounts in Fund.--Amounts in the Fund 
     shall be invested in accordance with section 9702 of title 
     31, United States Code, and any interest on and proceeds from 
     any such investment shall be credited to and become part of 
     the Fund.
       (c) Availability of Fund.--Amounts in the Fund shall be 
     available only for disbursement by the Attorney General under 
     section 5.
       (d) Termination.--The Fund shall terminate upon the 
     expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. If all of the amounts in the Fund have 
     not been expended by the end of the 5-year period, 
     investments of amounts in the Fund shall be liquidated, the 
     receipts of such liquidation shall be deposited in the Fund, 
     and all funds remaining in the Fund shall be deposited in the 
     miscellaneous receipts account in the Treasury of the United 
     States.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Fund to carry out this Act 
     $1,000,000,000.
     SEC. 4. CLAIMS RELATING TO BLOOD-CLOTTING DISORDERS AND HIV.

       Any individual who submits to the Attorney General written 
     medical documentation that the individual has an HIV 
     infection shall receive $125,000, from amounts available in 
     the Fund, if each of the following conditions is met:
       (1) Characteristics of individual.--The individual is 
     described in 1 of the following subparagraphs:
       (A) The individual has any form of blood-clotting disorder, 
     such as hemophilia, and was treated with blood-clotting 
     agents (in the form of blood components or blood products) at 
     any time during the period beginning on January 1, 1980, and 
     ending on December 31, 1987.
       (B) The individual--
       (i) is the lawful spouse of an individual described in 
     subparagraph (A); or
       (ii) is the former lawful spouse of an individual described 
     in subparagraph (A) and was the lawful spouse of the 
     individual at any time after a date, within the period 
     described in such subparagraph, on which the individual was 
     treated as described in such subparagraph.
       (C) The individual acquired the HIV infection through 
     perinatal transmission from a parent who is an individual 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
       (2) Claim.--A claim for the payment is filed with the 
     Attorney General by or on behalf of the individual.
       (3) Determination.--The Attorney General determines, in 
     accordance with section 5(b), that the claim meets the 
     requirements of this Act.

     SEC. 5. DETERMINATION AND PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.

       (a) Establishment of Filing Procedures.--The Attorney 
     General shall establish procedures under which individuals 
     may submit claims for payment under this Act. The procedures 
     shall include a requirement that each claim filed under this 
     Act include written medical documentation that the relevant 
     individual described in section 4(1)(A) has a blood-clotting 
     disorder, such as hemophilia, and was treated as described in 
     such section.
       (b) Determination of Claims.--For each claim filed under 
     this Act, the Attorney General shall determine whether the 
     claim meets the requirements of this Act.
       (c) Payment of Claims.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall pay, from 
     amounts available in the Fund, each claim that the Attorney 
     General determines meets the requirements of this Act.
       (2) Payments in case of deceased individuals.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of an individual referred to 
     in section 4 who is deceased at the time that payment is made 
     under this section on a claim filed by or on behalf of the 
     individual, the payment shall be made to the estate of the 
     individual, if such an estate exists. If no such estate 
     exists, the payment may be made only as follows:
       (i) If the individual is survived by a spouse who is living 
     at the time of payment, the payment shall be made to such 
     surviving spouse.
       (ii) If the individual is not survived by a spouse 
     described in clause (i), the payment shall be made in equal 
     shares to all children of the individual who are living at 
     the time of the payment.
       (iii) If the individual is not survived by a person 
     described in clause (i) or (ii), the payment shall be made in 
     equal shares to the parents of the individual who are living 
     at the time of payment.
       (B) Filing of claim by estate or survivor.--If an 
     individual eligible for payment under section 4 dies before 
     filing a claim under this Act--
       (i) the estate of the individual, if such an estate exists, 
     may file a claim for payment under this Act on behalf of the 
     individual; or
       (ii) if no such estate exists, a survivor of the individual 
     may file a claim for payment under this Act on behalf of the 
     individual if the survivor may receive payment under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (C) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph:
       (i) The term ``spouse'' means an individual who was 
     lawfully married to the relevant individual.
       (ii) The term ``child'' includes a recognized natural 
     child, a stepchild who lived with the relevant individual in 
     a regular parent-child relationship, and an adopted child.
       (iii) The term ``parent'' includes fathers and mothers 
     through adoption.
       (3) Timing of payment.--The Attorney General may not make a 
     payment on a claim under this Act before the expiration of 
     the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act or after the expiration of the 5-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page S 12384]]

       (4) Choice of payment methods.--An individual whom the 
     Attorney General determines to be entitled to a payment under 
     subsection (c)(1) may choose to receive the payment in the 
     form of--
       (A) a lump sum of $125,000, which shall be paid not later 
     than 90 days after the Attorney General determines that the 
     individual is entitled to receive payment under subsection 
     (c)(1); or
       (B) 4 subpayments, of which--
       (i) the 1st subpayment shall consist of $50,000 and shall 
     be paid not later than 90 days after the Attorney General 
     determines that the individual is entitled to receive payment 
     under subsection (c)(1); and
       (ii) the 2d, 3d, and 4th subpayments shall
      each consist of $25,000 and shall each be paid upon the 
     expiration of the 6-month period beginning on the date of 
     the preceding subpayment.
       (d) Action on Claims.--The Attorney General shall complete 
     the determination required by subsection (b) regarding a 
     claim not later than 90 days after the claim is filed under 
     this Act.
       (e) Payment in Full Settlement of Claims Against United 
     States.--Payment under this Act, when accepted by an 
     individual described in section 4 or by the estate of or a 
     survivor of such an individual on behalf of the individual, 
     shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of or on behalf 
     of the individual against the United States (but not against 
     any other person or entity) that arise out of both an HIV 
     infection and treatment, at any time during the period 
     beginning on January 1, 1980, and ending on December 31, 
     1987, with blood-clotting agents (in the form of blood 
     components or blood products).
       (f) Administrative Costs Not Paid From Fund.--No costs 
     incurred by the Attorney General in carrying out this Act may 
     be paid from the Fund or set off against, or otherwise 
     deducted from, any payment made under subsection (c)(1).
       (g) Termination of Duties of Attorney General.--The duties 
     of the Attorney General under this section shall cease when 
     the Fund terminates.
       (h) Treatment of Payments Under Other Laws.--A payment 
     under subsection (c)(1) to an individual or an estate--
       (1) shall be treated for purposes of the internal revenue 
     laws of the United States as damages received on account of 
     personal injuries or sickness; and
       (2) shall not be included as income or resources for 
     purposes of determining the eligibility of the individual to 
     receive benefits described in section 3803(c)(2)(C) of title 
     31, United States Code, or the amount of such benefits.
       (i) Use of Existing Resources.--The Attorney General should 
     use funds and resources available to the Attorney General to 
     carry out the functions of the Attorney General under this 
     Act.
       (j) Regulatory Authority.--The Attorney General may issue 
     regulations necessary to carry out this Act.
       (k) Time of Issuance of Regulations, Guidelines, and 
     Procedures.--The initial regulations, guidelines, and 
     procedures to carry out this Act shall be issued not later 
     than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (l) Judicial Review.--An individual whose claim for 
     compensation under this Act is denied may seek judicial 
     review solely in a district court of the United States. The 
     court shall review the denial on the administrative record 
     and shall hold unlawful and set aside the denial if the 
     denial is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with law.

     SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON TRANSFER AND NUMBER OF CLAIMS.

       (a) Claims Not Assignable or Transferable.--A claim under 
     this Act shall not be assignable or transferable.
       (b) 1 Claim With Respect to Each Victim.--With respect to 
     each individual described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of 
     section 4(1), the Attorney General may not pay more than 1 
     claim filed to receive compensation under this Act for the 
     harm suffered by the individual.

     SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS ON CLAIMS.

       The Attorney General may not pay any claim filed under this 
     Act unless the claim is filed within 3 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. CERTAIN CLAIMS NOT AFFECTED BY PAYMENT.

       A payment made under section 5(c)(1) shall not be 
     considered as any form of compensation, or reimbursement for 
     a loss, for purposes of imposing liability on the individual 
     receiving the payment, on the basis of such receipt, to repay 
     any insurance carrier for insurance payments or to repay any 
     person on account of worker's compensation payments. A 
     payment under this Act shall not affect any claim against an 
     insurance carrier with respect to insurance or against any 
     person with respect to worker's compensation.

     SEC. 9. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

       Notwithstanding any contract, the representative of an 
     individual may not receive, for services rendered in 
     connection with the claim of an individual under this Act, 
     more than 5 percent of a payment made under this Act on the 
     claim. Any such representative who violates this section 
     shall be fined not more than $50,000.

     SEC. 10. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) The term ``AIDS'' means acquired immune deficiency 
     syndrome.
       (2) The term ``Fund'' means the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief 
     Fund.
       (3) The term ``HIV'' means human immunodeficiency virus.

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to be announcing the 
introduction of the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1995 with 
Senator DeWine in the U.S. Senate. This legislation is a companion to 
H.R. 1023, which was introduced by Florida Congressman Porter Goss and 
now has 115 cosponsors.
  The introduction of this bill comes less than a month after the 
release of a report by the National Academy of Sciences's Institute of 
Medicine [IOM] entitled ``HIV and the Blood Supply: An Analysis of 
Crisis Decisionmaking.''
  The report, issued on July 13, 1995, came about as a result of a 
request in April 1993 from Senator Kennedy, Congressman Goss and me to 
Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala to open an 
investigation into the events leading to the transmission of HIV to 
persons with hemophilia from the use of contaminated blood products 
regulated by the U.S. Government.
  Secretary Shalala commissioned the study by the IOM. The report was 
the final product of an 18-month extensive review by an independent, 
scientific panel of experts of the events between 1982 and 1986 that 
lead to the infection of over 8,000 persons with hemophilia with HIV 
through the use of blood products.
  The IOM report is critical in understanding how this tragedy came to 
be and what actions need to be taken to change the system and better 
protect the blood supply in the future from other unforeseen viruses. 
The report's chronology of events tells a tragic story when the first 
case of immune deficiency linked to blood products was reported in a 
Floridian with hemophilia in January 1982.
  As also documented in Randy Shilt's book ``And the Band Played On: 
Politics. People and the AIDS Epidemic,'' evidence grew over the year 
that others with hemophilia were being infected and at least two 
transfusion-related AIDS cases were also reported. In June 1982, the 
first warning was issued by the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] to 
clotting-concentrate manufacturers, other Federal health agencies and 
the National Hemophilia Foundation.
  According to Harvey M. Sapolsky and Stephen L. Boswell in ``The 
History of Transfusion AIDS: Practice and Policy Alternatives,'' 
``Weighing this evidence, the CDC epidemiologists began warning 
representatives of the several blood-banking organizations that the 
blood supply was possibly being contaminated with AIDS. These 
discussions culminated in a meeting in Atlanta in early January 1983, 
at which proposals were presented to screen out from the blood donor 
pool members of high-risk groups.''
  Sapolsky and Boswell add, ``The opposition of the whole-blood 
collectors delayed governmental action intended to reduce the risks of 
AIDS transmission through transfusions. It was not until March 1983 
that the Centers for Disease Control made public the recommendations 
for widespread screening.'' Moreover, it was not until even February 
1984 that manufacturers included warnings about AIDS on their blood 
products--over 18 months after CDC's original warning.
  Calls for blood testing for evidence of hepatitis B with a core 
antibody test were also being made during the period. According to 
Sapolsky and Boswell, ``The Food and Drug Administration's Blood 
Products Advisory Committee studied the issues pertaining to screening 
the blood supply in early 1984, concluding that surrogate testing, and 
most specifically the hepatitis B core antibody test, was not 
appropriate as a means of identifying those at high risk for developing 
AIDS because it screened out too much of the blood supply.'' While some 
testing did occur like that at Stanford University Blood Bank, it was 
far from pervasive.
  In March 1985, the FDA licensed and put into place the first blood 
test for HIV antibodies. Meanwhile, due to the fact that clotting 
factors are made from pooled plasma lots composed of thousands of 
donors, approximately one-half of the estimated 20,000 Americans with 
hemophilia contracted AIDS. The result was, as Michael McLeod reports 
in his article``Bad Blood'' which 

[[Page S 12385]]
was printed in the Orlando Sentinel on December 19, 1993, ``a quiet 
death march, caused by one of the worst medically induced calamities in 
history--one that has claimed more than 1,600 Americans already, with 
at least 8,000 more sure to follow.''
  With respect to some of the clear steps that could have been taken in 
the early 1980's to protect the blood supply, the IOM writes:

       ``* * * preference for the status quo under the prevailing 
     conditions of uncertainty and danger led decision makers to 
     underestimate the threat of AIDS for blood recipients. The 
     Committee concluded that when confronted with a range of 
     options for using donor screening and deferral to reduce the 
     probability of spreading HIV through the blood supply, blood 
     bank officials and federal authorities consistently chose the 
     least aggressive option * * * The FDA's failure to require 
     [the implementation of screening procedures] is evidence that 
     the agency did not adequately use its regulatory authority 
     and therefore missed opportunities to protect the public 
     health.

  A passage from Michael Crichton's book ``The Andromeda Strain'' is 
particularly relevant to this report. It reads:

       * * * I think it is important that the story be told. This 
     country supports the largest scientific establishment in the 
     history of
      mankind. New discoveries are constantly being made, and many 
     of these discoveries have important political and social 
     overtones. In the near future, we can expect more crises 
     on the pattern of Andromeda. Thus I believe it is useful 
     for the public to be made aware of the way in which 
     scientific crises arise, are dealt with.

  As a result, I urge the Government Affairs Committee and Labor and 
Human Resources Committee to closely review this report, to learn from 
past mistakes, and to move quickly to enact the 14 recommendations made 
by the IOM to improve the safety of our Nation's blood supply.
  In recommendation No. 3, the IOM panel proposes a no-fault 
compensation program prospectively for future victims who suffer 
adverse consequences from the use of blood and blood products. Although 
the IOM panel felt that the question of what to do about past victims 
were outside its purview, the IOM suggests that its protective 
recommendation ``might serve to guide policymakers as they consider 
whether to implement a compensation system for those infected in the 
1980's.''
  As a result, I urge my colleagues to review the Ricky Ray Hemophilia 
Relief Fund Act, which establishes a compensation program for the 
victims of HIV infection from blood products in the 1980's. It is based 
on the premise that the Federal Government shares responsibility for 
what happened. As the IOM writes, ``* * * public concern about the 
inherent risks of blood and blood products has led the federal 
government through the agencies of the U.S. Public Health Service to 
take the lead in ensuring blood safety.''
  Unfortunately for the hemophilia community, the Federal Government 
through the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] failed to adequately 
protect the blood supply in the early 1980's because it ``did not 
adequately use its regulatory authority,'' did not heed the warnings 
made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] about the 
danger to the blood supply, ``consistently chose the least aggressive 
option that was justifiable'' and overly relied on the blood industry 
``for analysis of data and modeling of decision making.''
  The IOM concludes in its executive summary that:

       The National Blood Policy of 1973 charges the Public Health 
     Service (including the CDC, the FDA, and the NIH) with 
     responsibility for protecting the nation's blood supply. The 
     Committee has come to believe that a failure of leadership 
     may have delayed effective action during the period from 1982 
     to 1984. This failure led to less than effective donor 
     screening, weak regulatory actions, and insufficient 
     communication to patients about the risks of AIDS.

  As for the title of this bill, it is named after a victim from the 
State of Florida. On December 13, 1992, Ricky Ray, a teenage boy in 
east Orange County, FL, died at home after his 6-year battle against 
AIDS and 15-year or lifelong battle with hemophilia. I attended Ricky's 
funeral later that week and read a letter from then President-elect 
Bill Clinton who, like I, was profoundly affected by this incredible 
human being and his family.
  In remembering Ricky, words such as perseverance and wisdom come to 
mind. Ricky and his family have, since that revelation in 1986, lived 
with the pain and questions caused by this horrible virus called AIDS. 
If that is not enough, there was also the pain of being banned from 
school in 1987, having their home burned down by an arsonist shortly 
thereafter, and spending a tremendous amount of time in court fighting 
with the DeSoto County School District and the pharmaceutical companies 
that sold the Ray family the contaminated blood products.
  Despite it all, Ricky was committed to teach others about his 
disease. His mother, Louise Ray, said of Ricky in an article written by 
Monica Davey at the St. Petersburg Times, ``He believed that his track 
in life was to educate people about a disease that nobody knew about. 
He believed that was his purpose.'' His father Clifford added, ``Ricky 
was a very old soul. He had a wisdom about him.''
  Like others with hemophilia and AIDS, Ricky was interested in answers 
to the questions of why. Why did this happen and why was not more done 
to prevent this tragedy? As a result, it is in his name that the 
request for the IOM report was made and that this bill is named.
  As Harold L. Dalton, an editor of ``AIDS Law Today: A New Guide for 
the Public,'' writes:

       . . . we should remember that just as the law frames 
     society's response to the AIDS epidemic, the society as a 
     whole shapes the law. Like it or not, we must decide what 
     kind of society we will be: mean-spirited, shortsighted, and 
     judgmental or compassionate, clearheaded, and accepting. In 
     the end, society will determine where the burden of AIDS--
     social, financial, and emotional--will fall. We can make the 
     choice consciously and purposely, or we can make it by 
     indirection or default, but make it we will.

  When Ricky saw the headline that ``Ryan White loses battle with 
AIDS,'' he was very upset. As quoted by McLeod, he said to his mother, 
``If I die, don't let them write that about me. Don't let them say that 
I lost. Just because you die, that doesn't mean you gave up. That 
doesn't mean you lost.'' Ricky is right because his call for answers, 
help for those with AIDS and fight for the safety of the blood supply 
lives on.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Glenn):
  S. 1190. A bill to establish the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage 
Corridor in the State of Ohio, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


                     northeast corridor legislation

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will establish an 87-mile section of the Ohio and Erie Canal between 
Cleveland and Zoar, OH, as a National Heritage Corridor.
  Mr. President, the people of northeast Ohio are committed to 
preserving the rich historical heritage of this part of our State.
  I think the kind of Federal protection envisioned by this legislation 
is long overdue.
  In 1991, Congress funded a study by the National Park Service to 
explore the proposed corridor area--and to examine various suggestions 
on how to make the best possible use of this terrific resource.
  The Park Service's research concluded that this area was suitable for 
inclusion in the National Park System as an affiliated area.
  The bill I am introducing would act on that recommendation.
  This bill would establish funding for the project through a cost-
shared public-private partnership with the Department of the Interior. 
It requires that every Federal dollar be matched--one-for-one--by money 
from local investors.
  Mr. President, knowing the great enthusiasm that exists for this 
project in the numerous affected communities in northeast Ohio, I am 
extremely confident about the response we can expect to this system of 
matching funds.
  The bill provides for up to $250,000 per year for 3 years in funding 
for the management entity of this historic corridor.
  In addition, it provides for development grants of $1.5 million per 
year for up to 6 years. These grants would require a 70-percent non-
Federal match.
  Mr. President, Ohio is ready to grant one of its most beautiful and 
historic areas the measure of respect and protection it truly deserves. 
I agree with 

[[Page S 12386]]
the National park Service--and with the people of Ohio--on this issue. 
And that's why I am proposing this legislation today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                S. 1190

       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 ``Ohio & Erie Canal National 
     Heritage Corridor Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Ohio & Erie Canal, which opened for commercial 
     navigation in 1832, was the first inland waterway to connect 
     the Great Lakes at Lake Erie with the Gulf of Mexico via the 
     Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and a part of a canal network in 
     Ohio that was one of America's most extensive and successful 
     systems during a period in history when canals were essential 
     to the Nation's growth;
       (2) the Ohio & Erie Canal spurred economic growth in the 
     State of Ohio that took the State from near bankruptcy to the 
     third most economically prosperous State in the Union in just 
     20 years;
       (3) a 4-mile section of the Ohio & Erie Canal was 
     designated a National Historic Landmark in 1966 and other 
     portions of the Ohio & Erie Canal and many associated 
     structures were placed on the National Register of Historic 
     Places;
       (4) in 1974, 19 miles of the Ohio & Erie Canal were 
     declared nationally significant under National Park Service 
     new area criteria with the designation of Cuyahoga Valley 
     National Recreation Area;
       (5) the National Park Service found the Ohio & Erie Canal 
     nationally significant in a 1975 study entitled 
     ``Suitability/Feasibility Study, Proposed Ohio & Erie 
     Canal'';
       (6) a 1993 Special Resources Study of the Ohio & Erie Canal 
     Corridor conducted by the National Park Service entitled ``A 
     Route to Prosperity'' has concluded that the corridor is 
     eligible as a National Heritage Corridor; and
       (7) local governments, the State of Ohio and private sector 
     interests have embraced the heritage corridor concept and 
     desire to enter into partnership with the Federal Government 
     to preserve, protect, and develop the corridor for public 
     benefit.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to preserve and interpret for the educational and 
     inspirational benefit of present and future generations the 
     unique and significant contributions to our national heritage 
     of certain historic and cultural lands, waterways, and 
     structures within the 87-mile Ohio & Erie Canal Corridor 
     between Cleveland and Zoar;
       (2) to encourage within the corridor a broad range of 
     economic opportunities enhancing the quality of life for 
     present and future generations;
       (3) to provide a management framework to assist the State 
     of Ohio, political subdivisions of the State, and nonprofit 
     organizations, or combinations thereof, in preparing and 
     implementing an integrated Corridor Management Plan and in 
     developing policies and programs that will preserve, enhance, 
     and interpret the cultural, historical, natural, recreation, 
     and scenic resources of the corridor; and
       (4) to authorize the Secretary to provide financial and 
     technical assistance to the State of Ohio, political 
     subdivisions of the State, and nonprofit organizations, or 
     combinations thereof, in preparing and implementing a 
     Corridor Management Plan.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Advisory commission.--The term ``Advisory Commission'' 
     means the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor 
     Advisory Commission established under section 5.
       (2) Corridor.--The term ``corridor'' means the Ohio & Erie 
     Canal National Heritage Corridor established under section 4.
       (3) Corridor management plan.--The term ``Corridor 
     Management Plan'' means the management plan developed under 
     section 9.
       (4) Financial assistance.--The term ``financial 
     assistance'' means funds made available by Congress, and made 
     available to the management entity, for the purposes of 
     preparing and implementing a Corridor Management Plan.
       (5) Management entity.--The term ``management entity'' 
     means the State of Ohio, political subdivisions of the State, 
     and private nonprofit organizations, or any combination 
     thereof, as designated by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     7(a) to receive, distribute, and account for Federal funds 
     made available for the purposes of this Act.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (7) Technical assistance.--The term ``technical 
     assistance'' means any guidance, advice, help, or aid, other 
     than financial assistance, provided by the Secretary.

     SEC. 4. OHIO & ERIE CANAL NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the State of 
     Ohio the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor.
       (b) Boundaries.--
       (1) In general.--The boundaries of the corridor shall be 
     composed of the lands that area generally follow the route of 
     the Ohio & Erie Canal from Cleveland to Zoar, Ohio, as 
     depicted in the 1993 National Park Service Special Resources 
     Study, ``A Route to Prosperity'', subject to paragraph (2). 
     The specific boundaries shall be the boundaries specified in 
     the management plan submitted under section 9. The Secretary 
     shall prepare a map of the area which shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the office of the Director 
     of the National Park Service.
       (2) Consent of local governments.--No privately owned 
     property shall be included within the boundaries of the 
     corridor unless the municipality in which the property is 
     located agrees to be so included and submits notification of 
     the agreement to the Secretary.
       (c) Administration.--The corridor shall be administered in 
     accordance with this Act.

     SEC. 5. OHIO & ERIE CANAL NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR ADVISORY 
                   COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor 
     Advisory Commission whose purpose shall be to assist Federal, 
     State, and local authorities and the private sector in the 
     preparation and implementation of an integrated Corridor 
     Management Plan.
       (b) Membership.--The Advisory Commission shall be comprised 
     of 21 members, as follows:
       (1) 4 individuals appointed by the Secretary, after 
     consideration of recommendations submitted by the Greater 
     Cleveland Growth Association, the Akron Regional Development 
     Board, the Stark Development Board, and the Tuscarawas County 
     Chamber of Commerce, who shall include 1 representative of 
     business and industry from each of the Ohio counties of 
     Cuyahoga, Summit, Stark, and Tuscarawas.
       (2) 1 individual appointed by the Secretary, after 
     consideration of recommendations submitted by the Director of 
     the Ohio Department of Travel and Tourism, who is a director 
     of a convention and tourism bureau within the corridor.
       (3) 1 individual appointed by the Secretary, after 
     consideration of recommendations submitted by the Ohio 
     Historic Preservation Officer, with knowledge and experience 
     in the field of historic preservation.
       (4) 1 individual appointed by the Secretary, after 
     consideration of recommendations submitted by the Director of 
     the National Park Service, with knowledge and experience in 
     the field of historic preservation.
       (5) 3 individuals appointed by the Secretary, after 
     consideration of recommendations submitted by the county or 
     metropolitan park boards in the Ohio counties of Cuyahoga, 
     Summit, and Stark.
       (6) 8 individuals appointed by the Secretary, after 
     consideration of recommendations submitted by the county 
     commissioners or county chief executive of the Ohio counties 
     of Cuyahoga, Summit, Stark and Tuscarawas, including from 
     each county--
       (A) 1 representative of the planning offices of the county; 
     and
       (B) 1 representative of a municipality in the county.
       (7) 2 individuals appointed by the Secretary, after 
     consideration of recommendations submitted by the Governor of 
     Ohio, who shall be representatives of the Directors of the 
     Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the Ohio Department 
     of Transportation.
       (8) The Superintendent of the Cuyahoga Valley National 
     Recreation Area, as an ex officio member.
       (c) Appointments.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     members of the Advisory Commission shall be appointed for 
     terms of 3 years and may be reappointed.
       (2) Initial appointments.--The Secretary shall appoint the 
     initial members of the Advisory Commission not later than 30 
     days after the date on which the Secretary has received all 
     recommendations pursuant to subsection (b). Of the members 
     first appointed--
       (A) the members appointed pursuant to subsection (b)(6)(B) 
     shall be appointed to a term of 2 years and may not be 
     reappointed to a consecutive term; and
       (B) the member appointed pursuant to subsection (b)(2) 
     shall be appointed to a term of 2 years and may not be 
     reappointed to a consecutive term.
       (d) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The chairperson and 
     vice chairperson of the Advisory Commission shall be elected 
     by the members of the Advisory Commission. The terms of the 
     chairperson and vice chairperson shall be 2 years.
       (e) Vacancy.--A vacancy in the Advisory Commission shall be 
     filled in the manner in which the original appointment was 
     made. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before 
     the expiration of the term for which the predecessor of the 
     member was appointed shall be appointed only for the 
     remainder of the term. Any member of the Advisory Commission 
     appointed for a definite term may serve after the expiration 
     of the term of the member until the successor of the member 
     has taken office.
       (f) Compensation and Expenses.--A member of the Advisory 
     Commission shall serve without compensation for the service 
     of the member on the Advisory Commission.
       (g) Quorum.--Eleven members of the Advisory Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum.
       (h) Meetings.--The Advisory Commission shall meet at least 
     quarterly at the call of the chairperson or at least 11 
     members of the 

[[Page S 12387]]
     Advisory Commission. Meetings of the Advisory Commission shall be 
     subject to section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
       (i) Termination of Advisory Commission.--The Advisory 
     Commission shall terminate on the date occurring 6 years 
     after the Commission is established by the Secretary.

     SEC. 6. POWERS OF ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Advisory Commission may, for the purpose 
     of carrying out this Act, hold such hearings, sit and act at 
     such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such 
     evidence, as the Advisory Commission considers appropriate. 
     The Advisory Commission may not issue subpoenas or exercise 
     any subpoena authority.
       (b) Bylaws.--The Advisory Commission may make such bylaws 
     and rules, consistent with this Act, as the Commission 
     considers necessary to carry out this Act.
       (c) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of 
     the Advisory Commission, if so authorized by the Advisory 
     Commission, may take any action that the Advisory Commission 
     is authorized to take under this Act.

     SEC. 7. DUTIES OF ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Management Entity.--On public solicitation of proposals 
     from entities representing the State of Ohio, political 
     subdivisions of the State, and nonprofit organizations, or 
     combination thereof, the Advisory Commission shall, not later 
     than 90 days after the first meeting of the Commission, 
     submit a recommendation to the Secretary for designation of a 
     management entity for the corridor pursuant to section 8.
       (b) Corridor Management Plan.--On submission of a draft 
     Corridor Management Plan to the Advisory Commission from the 
     management entity, the Advisory Commission shall, not later 
     than 60 days after submission, review the plan for 
     consistency with the purposes of this Act and endorse the 
     plan or return the plan to the management entity for 
     revision. On endorsement of the Corridor Management Plan, the 
     Advisory Commission shall submit the plan to the Secretary 
     for approval pursuant to section 9.
       (c) Review of Budget.--The Advisory Commission shall review 
     on an annual basis the proposed expenditures of Federal funds 
     by the management entity for consistency with the purpose of 
     this Act and the Corridor Management Plan.
     SEC. 8. MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

       (a) Designation.--Not later than 30 days after the date on 
     which the recommendation of the Advisory Commission is 
     received pursuant to section 7(a), the Secretary shall 
     designate the management entity.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible for designation as the 
     management entity of the corridor, an entity must possess the 
     legal ability to--
       (1) receive Federal funds for use in preparing and 
     implementing the management plan for the corridor;
       (2) disburse Federal funds to other units of government or 
     other organizations for use in preparing and implementing the 
     management plan for the corridor;
       (3) account for all Federal funds received or disbursed; 
     and
       (4) sign agreements with the Federal Government.
       (c) Federal Funding.--
       (1) Authorization to receive.--The management entity is 
     authorized to receive Federal funds made available to carry 
     out this Act.
       (2) Disqualification.--If a management plan for the 
     corridor is not submitted to the Secretary as required under 
     section 9 within the time specified, the management entity 
     shall cease to be eligible to receive Federal funding under 
     this Act until such a plan regarding the corridor is 
     submitted to the Secretary.
       (d) Authorities of Management Entity.--The management 
     entity of the corridor may, for purposes of preparing and 
     implementing the management plan for the area, use Federal 
     funds made available under this Act--
       (1) to make grants and loans to the State of Ohio, 
     political subdivisions of the State, nonprofit organizations, 
     and other persons;
       (2) to enter into cooperative agreements with, or provide 
     technical assistance to Federal agencies, the State of Ohio, 
     political subdivisions of the State, nonprofit organizations, 
     and other persons;
       (3) to hire and compensate staff;
       (4) to obtain funds from any source under any program or 
     law requiring the recipient of the funds to make a 
     contribution to receive the funds; and
       (5) to contract for goods and services.
       (e) Duration of Eligibility for Financial Assistance.--The 
     management entity for the corridor shall be eligible to 
     receive funds made available to carry out this Act for the 
     following periods:
       (1) Operations.--In the case of operating costs described 
     in section 15(a)(1), for a period of 3 years beginning on the 
     date the Secretary has designated the management entity 
     pursuant to subsection (c).
       (2) Development.--In the case of development costs 
     described in section 15(a)(2), for a period of 6 years 
     beginning on the date the Secretary has designated the 
     management entity pursuant to subsection (c).
       (f) Prohibition of Acquisition of Real Property.--The 
     management entity for the corridor may not use Federal funds 
     received under this Act to acquire real property or any 
     interest in real property.

     SEC. 9. DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

       (a) Corridor Management Plan.--
       (1) Submission for review by advisory commission.--Not 
     later than 18 months after the date on which the Secretary 
     has designated a management entity for the corridor, the 
     management entity shall develop and submit for review to the 
     Advisory Commission a management plan for the corridor.
       (2) Plan requirements.--A management plan submitted under 
     this Act shall--
       (A) present comprehensive recommendations for the 
     conservation, funding, management, and development of the 
     corridor;
       (B) be prepared with public participation;
       (C) take into consideration existing Federal, State, 
     county, and local plans and involve residents, public 
     agencies, and private organizations in the corridor;
       (D) include a description of actions that units of 
     government and private organizations are recommended to take 
     to protect the resources of the corridor;
       (E) specify existing and potential sources of funding for 
     the conservation, management, and development of the area; 
     and
       (F) include, as appropriate--
       (i) an inventory of the resources contained in the 
     corridor, including a list of property in the corridor that 
     should be conserved, restored, managed, developed, or 
     maintained because of the natural, cultural, or historic 
     significance of the property as the property relates to the 
     themes of the corridor;
       (ii) a recommendation of policies for resource management 
     that consider and detail the application of appropriate land 
     and water management techniques, including the development of 
     intergovernmental cooperative agreements to manage the 
     historical, cultural, and natural resources and recreational 
     opportunities of the corridor in a manner consistent with the 
     support of appropriate and compatible economic viability;
       (iii) a program, including plans for restoration and 
     construction, for implementation of the management plan by 
     the management entity and specific commitments, for the first 
     6 years of operation of the plan by the partners identified 
     in the plan;
       (iv) an analysis of means by which Federal, State, and 
     local programs may best be coordinated to promote the 
     purposes of this Act; and
       (v) an interpretive plan for the corridor.
       (3) Approval and disapproval of the corridor management 
     plan.--
       (A) In general.--On submission of the Corridor Management 
     Plan from the Advisory Commission, the Secretary shall 
     approve or disapprove the plan not later than 60 days after 
     receipt. If the Secretary has taken no action 60 days after 
     receipt, the plan shall be considered approved.
       (B) Disapproval and revisions.--If the Secretary 
     disapproves the Corridor Management Plan, the Secretary shall 
     advise the Advisory Commission, in writing, of the reasons 
     for the disapproval and shall make recommendations for 
     revisions of the plan. The Secretary shall approve or 
     disapprove the proposed revisions to the plan not later than 
     60 days after receipt. If the Secretary has taken no action 
     60 days after receipt, the plan shall be considered approved.
       (b) Priorities.--The management entity shall give priority 
     to the implementation of actions, goals, and policies set 
     forth in the management plan for the corridor, including--
       (1) assisting units of government, regional planning 
     organizations, and nonprofit organizations in--
       (A) conserving the corridor;
       (B) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in 
     the corridor;
       (C) developing recreational opportunities in the area;
       (D) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for, 
     the natural, historical, and cultural resources of the 
     corridor;
       (E) the restoration of historic buildings that are located 
     within the boundaries of the corridor that relate to the 
     themes of the corridor; and
       (F) ensuring that clear, consistent, and environmentally 
     appropriate signs identifying access points and sites of 
     interest are installed throughout the corridor; and
       (2) consistent with the goals of the management plan, 
     encouraging economic viability in the affected communities by 
     appropriate means.
       (c) Consideration of Interests of Local Groups.--The 
     management entity shall, in preparing and implementing the 
     management plan for the corridor, consider the interests of 
     diverse units of government, businesses, private property 
     owners, and nonprofit groups within the geographic area.
       (d) Public Meetings.--The management entity shall conduct 
     public meetings at least quarterly regarding the 
     implementation of the Corridor Management Plan.
       (e) Annual Reports.--For any fiscal year in which the 
     management entity receives Federal funds under this Act or in 
     which a loan made by the entity with Federal funds under 
     section 8(d)(1) is outstanding, the entity shall submit an 
     annual report to the Secretary setting forth the 
     accomplishments of the entity, the expenses and income of the 
     entity, and the entities to which the entity made any loans 
     and grants during the year for which the report is made.
       (f) Cooperation With Audits.--For any fiscal year in which 
     the management entity receives Federal funds under this Act 
     or in which a loan made by the entity with Federal funds 
     under section 8(d)(1) is outstanding, the entity shall--
       (1) make available for audit by Congress, the Secretary, 
     and appropriate units of government all records and other 
     information 

[[Page S 12388]]
     pertaining to the expenditure of the funds and any matching funds; and
       (2) require, for all agreements authorizing expenditure of 
     Federal funds by other organizations, that the receiving 
     organizations make available for the audit all records and 
     other information pertaining to the expenditure of the funds.

     SEC. 10. WITHDRAWAL OF DESIGNATION.

       (a) In General.--The National Heritage Corridor designation 
     shall continue unless--
       (1) the Secretary determines that--
       (A) the use, condition, or development of the corridor is 
     incompatible with the purpose of this Act; or
       (B) the management entity of the corridor has not made 
     reasonable and appropriate progress in preparing or 
     implementing the management plan for the corridor; and
       (2) after making a determination referred to in paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary submits to the Congress notification that 
     the corridor designation should be withdrawn.
       (b) Public Hearing.--Before the Secretary makes a 
     determination referred to in subsection (a)(1) regarding the 
     corridor, the Secretary shall hold a public hearing within 
     the area.
       (c) Time of Withdrawal of Designation.--
       (1) In general.--The withdrawal of the corridor designation 
     of the corridor shall become final 90 legislative days after 
     the Secretary submits to Congress any notification referred 
     to in subsection (a)(2) regarding the corridor.
       (2) Legislative day.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term ``legislative day'' means any calendar day on which both 
     Houses of the Congress are in session.

     SEC. 11. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Duties and Authorities of the Secretary.--
       (1) Technical assistance.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may provide technical 
     assistance to units of government, nonprofit organizations, 
     and other persons, on request of the management entity of the 
     corridor, regarding the management plan and the 
     implementation of the plan.
       (B) Prohibition of certain requirements.--The Secretary may 
     not, as a condition of the award of technical assistance 
     under this section, require any recipient of the technical 
     assistance to enact or modify land use restrictions.
       (C) Determinations regarding assistance.--The Secretary 
     shall decide if the corridor shall be awarded technical 
     assistance and the amount of the assistance. The decision 
     shall be based on the relative degree to which the corridor 
     effectively fulfills the objectives contained in the Corridor 
     Management Plan and achieves the purposes of this Act. The 
     decision shall give consideration to projects that provide a 
     greater leverage of Federal funds.
       (2) Provision of information.--In cooperation with other 
     Federal agencies, the Secretary shall provide the general 
     public with information regarding the location and character 
     of the corridor.
       (3) Other assistance.--On request, the Superintendent of 
     Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area may provide to 
     public and private organizations within the corridor 
     (including the management entity for the corridor) such 
     operational assistance as appropriate to support the 
     implementation of the Corridor Management Plan, subject to 
     the availability of appropriated funds. The Secretary is 
     authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with public 
     and private organizations for the purposes of implementing 
     this paragraph.
       (b) Duties of Other Federal Agencies.--Any Federal entity 
     conducting any activity directly affecting the corridor shall 
     consider the potential effect of the activity on the Corridor 
     Management Plan and shall consult with the management entity 
     of the corridor with respect to the activity to minimize the 
     adverse effects of the activity on the corridor.

     SEC. 12. LACK OF EFFECT ON LAND USE REGULATION AND PRIVATE 
                   PROPERTY.

       (a) Lack of Effect on Authority of Governments.--Nothing in 
     this Act modifies, enlarges, or diminishes any authority of 
     Federal, State, or local governments to regulate any use of 
     land as provided for by law (including regulations).
       (b) Lack of Zoning or Land Use Powers.--Nothing in this Act 
     grants powers of zoning or land use control to the Advisory 
     Commission or management entity of the corridor.
       (c) Local Authority and Private Property Not Affected.--
     Nothing in this Act affects or authorizes the Advisory 
     Commission to interfere with--
       (1) the rights of any person with respect to private 
     property; or
       (2) any local zoning ordinance or land use plan of the 
     State of Ohio or a political subdivision of the State.

     SEC. 13. FISHING, TRAPPING, AND HUNTING SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       (a) No Diminishment of State Authority.--The designation of 
     the corridor shall not diminish the authority of the State to 
     manage fish and wildlife, including the regulation of fishing 
     and hunting and trapping within the corridor.
       (b) No Conditioning of Approval and Assistance.--The 
     Secretary may not make limitations on fishing, hunting, or 
     trapping a condition of the determination of eligibility for 
     assistance under this Act. The Secretary and any other 
     Federal agency may not make the limitations a condition for 
     the receipt, in connection with the corridor, of any other 
     form of assistance from the Secretary or the agencies.

     SEC. 14. COST SHARE.

       (a) Operating Costs.--The Federal contribution under this 
     Act to the management entity for operations expenditures 
     shall not exceed 50 percent of the annual operating costs of 
     the entity attributed to preparation and implementation of 
     the Corridor Management Plan. The non-Federal share of the 
     support may be in the form of cash, services, or in-kind 
     contributions, fairly valued.
       (b) Development Costs.--The Federal contribution under this 
     Act to the management entity to implement the Corridor 
     Management Plan shall not exceed 30 percent of the annual 
     development costs attributable to the implementation of the 
     Corridor Management Plan. The non-Federal share of the 
     support may be in the form of cash, services, or in-kind 
     contributions, fairly valued.

     SEC. 15. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the management entity--
       (1) $250,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 1998 for 
     the operating costs of the management entity to carry out 
     duties pursuant to section 9; and
       (2) $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2001 
     for planning, design, construction, grants, and loans to 
     implement the approved Corridor Management Plan;
     to remain available until expended.
       (b) Availability of Funds Prior to Secretarial Approval of 
     Management Plan.--Funds may be spent prior to Secretarial 
     approval of the Corridor Management Plan for early actions 
     that are important to the themes of the area and that protect 
     resources that would be in imminent danger of irreversible 
     damage without the early actions.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRYOR:
  S. 1191. A bill to provide for the availability of certain generic 
human and animal drugs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources.


             THE CONSUMER ACCESS TO PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ACT

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, 2 months ago, I came to the floor to alert 
my colleagues to a two-pronged problem. This problem poses an 
unexpected threat to our implementation of the GATT treaty, as well as 
to our efforts to contain health care costs in the United States.
  It has a complicated history, but it boils down to this: unless the 
Congress acts soon, the GATT treaty will be improperly implemented and 
consumers will foot a multibillion dollar windfall to a handful of 
underserving companies.
  When the Congress passed the GATT treaty last year, we knew we were 
improving our country's standing in international trade. We knew the 
benefits would come in more exports and more jobs. We had no idea we 
were unintentionally forcing American consumers, HMO's, hospitals, and 
even the government to pay higher prices for a small number of 
prescription drugs.
  We included ``transition provisions'' in the GATT treaty to 
accomplish two things. First, the treaty gives current patent holders a 
patent extension. Second, those generic competitors which had been 
planning and investing to go to market on the original date of patent 
expiry may do so as long as they paid compensation to the patent 
holders. We saw this as an elegant compromise which satisfied all of 
the commercial interests at stake.
  But despite the intent of both the Congress and the U.S. Trade 
Representative [USTR] to apply these provisions to all industries in an 
equitable fashion, the prescription drug industry was inadvertently 
excluded from their scope. This came about due to a simple mistake. We 
failed to change the language of an obscure but vitally important law 
regulating prescription drugs, known as the Hatch-Waxman amendments. 
The mistake has had some costly and unnecessary consequences.
  Our unintentional error forced the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] 
to rule that they could not allow equivalent but lower-cost generic 
drugs onto the market until the patent extension ended. In other words, 
a small number of drug manufacturers receive a patent extension but 
avoid facing generic competition during that time. This is 
unprecedented and unparalleled among the dozens of other industries and 
thousands of other companies affected by the GATT treaty. This is 
simply unfair.
  The Consumer Access to Prescription Drugs Act restores the universal 
scope of the GATT treaty in the United States. It does so without 
altering the treaty or amending the treaty's implementing legislation. 
It does not alter the new patents granted by the GATT 

[[Page S 12389]]
treaty. It simply ensures that the prescription drug industry is 
subject to the GATT transitional provisions in the same manner as all 
other American industries.
  Let me make clear that Congress also did not intend the current, 
disastrous state of affairs to occur. In fact, when the FDA was asked 
to look into the situation, they looked for direction from Congress. At 
the time of its passage, we had spent a tremendous amount of time 
discussing GATT. It was an issue of great importance. But when the FDA 
looked at the entirely of the record of our proceedings--our hearings, 
our report language and all of the floor debate in the House and the 
Sente--what did they find?

       There were neither hearings nor a single word of debate on 
     the floor of the House or Senate on the impact of the URAA on 
     the 1984 Waxman-Hatch Amendments. Nor do the committee 
     reports indicate that Congress understood that the URAA would 
     both grant a patent term extension for certain pioneer 
     products and block FDA from approving generic versions of 
     those drugs until the extended patent terms have expired. 
     Nonetheless, the language of the URAA directs that result.

  In sum, the FDA concluded that the language of the URAA does not 
reflect the legislative intent which Congress desired.
  Nor did the U.S. Trade Representative desire this abused outcome. On 
May 19, Ambassador Mickey Kantor wrote to emphasize that the 
``intention of the URAA language'' was to encompass all industries and 
to permit generic pharmaceutical producers to market their products who 
had made substantial investments in anticipation of the expiration of 
the unextended patent terms. In other words, the current state of 
affairs was neither intended
 nor desired by our trade negotiators.

  Nevertheless, current patent holders in the prescription drug 
industry are the only ones in the country which will benefit from the 
new URAA patent term but also be exempted from generic competition. It 
is clear that no one desired or anticipated this situation. We in 
Congress sought the GATT provisions applied universally. But now, 
according to the FDA and the U.S. Trade Representative, we have 
inadvertently jeopardized the true intention of GATT and upset the 
balancing of commercial interests in the free market.
  What do I mean by the balance of commercial interests? The FDA found 
that the law as it stands threatens to upset the balance between the 
commercial interests of brandname companies and generic companies 
manifested in the Hatch-Waxman amendments. In response, the patent and 
Trademark Office [PTO] has taken a position on this issue. The PTO 
ruled on June 7 that those drugs which had previously received a patent 
extension under the Hatch-Waxman amendments could not receive the GATT 
patent extension. In spite of the PTO ruling, a small handful of 
manufacturers--including those of the blockbuster drugs 
Zantac and Capoten--are still poised to receive an 
unwarranted multibillion dollar windfall.
  This is why I urge my colleagues to support the Consumer Access to 
Prescription Drugs Act. Not only is it the solution to an absurd and 
unwarranted problem, it will save large health care purchasers and 
individual consumers alike valuable resources. By some estimates, the 
Consumer Access to Prescription Drugs Act would save more than $1.8 
billion in health care dollars. The elderly would save $517 million out 
of their pockets. The Federal Government would save $117 million while 
the States would save $88 million.
  The act will also ensure that a simple mistake in legislative 
drafting does not disrupt the multimillion dollar investments, business 
plans and employment of generic drug companies who have planned all 
along to comply with the GATT treaty--but have been needlessly delayed 
from providing over-cost products to consumers by a legal loophole.
  Most importantly, if we do not act, American consumers will pay 
unnecessarily high drug prices. At the same time, the Federal 
Government and the States will pay more for prescription drugs for 
older Americans, veterans, low-income families and children, and the 
active-duty military. Out of an annual $940 million prescription drug 
budget, the Department of Veterans Affairs has estimated that they will 
pay $211 million too much in the next 3 years alone.
  That will come out of our taxes. We will be paying more taxes so that 
a few brandname drug companies can make more profits and block 
competition in the marketplace. Most important, I think, will be the 
effect on older Americans, Americans on fixed incomes and Americans 
without adequate health insurance. They will feel the hurt even more.
  Mr. President, as I have said elsewhere, this is a textbook case of a 
loophole resulting in an unwarranted windfall. No single industry 
deserves special treatment under GATT, especially at the expense of 
consumers. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, a summary 
of the act's provisions and letters from the FDA, the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Trade Representative and the Generic Drug 
Equity Coalition be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1191

       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 Consumer Access to 
     Prescription Drugs Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. APPROVAL AND MARKETING OF GENERIC DRUGS.

       (a) Approval and Applications.--For purposes of acceptance 
     and consideration by the Secretary of an application under 
     subsections (b), (c), and (j) of section 505, and subsections 
     (b), (c), and (n) of section 512, of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355 (b), (c), and (j), and 360b 
     (b), (c), and (n)), the expiration date of a patent that is 
     the subject of a certification under section 505(b)(2)(A) 
     (ii), (iii), or (iv), section 505(j)(2)(A)(vii) (II), (III), 
     or (IV), or section 512(n)(1)(H) (ii), (iii), or (iv), 
     respectively, made in an application submitted prior to June 
     8, 1995, or in an application submitted on or after that date 
     in which the applicant certifies that substantial investment 
     was made prior to June 8, 1995, shall be deemed to be the 
     date on which such patent would have expired under the law in 
     effect on the day preceding December 8, 1994.
       (b) Right to Market.--The remedies of section 271(e)(4) of 
     title 35, United States Code, shall not apply to acts which--
       (1) were commenced or for which a substantial investment 
     was made prior to June 8, 1995; and
       (2) became infringing by reason of section 154(c)(1) of 
     such title, as amended by section 532 of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465; 108 Stat. 4983).
       (c) Equitable Remuneration.--For acts described in 
     subsection (b), equitable remuneration of the type described 
     in section 154(c)(3) of title 35, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 532 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
     (Public Law 103-465; 108 Stat.
      4983) may be awarded to a patentee only if there has been--
       (1) the commercial manufacture, use, offer to sell, or 
     sale, within the United States of an approved drug that is 
     the subject of an application described in subsection (a); or
       (2) the importation into the United States of an approved 
     drug that is the subject of an application described in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Acts Which Were Commenced.--The submission of an 
     application for approval of a drug under section 505(b)(2), 
     505(j), 507, or 512(n), of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2) and (j), 357, and 360(n)) 
     prior to June 8, 1995, or the subsequent making, using, 
     offering to sell, selling, or importing of the drug which is 
     the subject of the application, shall constitute acts which 
     were commenced prior to June 8, 1995, as that term is used in 
     this Act and in section 154(c)(2) of title 35, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 532 of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465; 108 Stat. 4983). A person 
     who submits such application, and a person who supplied any 
     active ingredient used by such person in such drug, shall be 
     deemed to have performed acts which were commenced prior to 
     June 8, 1995.
       (b) Substantial Investment.--The development of a product 
     formulation and the manufacture of an experimental batch of a 
     drug that becomes the subject of an application, or the 
     initiation of stability or bioequivalency studies, by an 
     applicant referred to in section 505(b)(2), 505(j), or 
     512(n), or by a manufacturer of a drug referred to in section 
     507, of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     355(b)(2) and (j), 360b(n), and 357) shall constitute 
     substantial investment, as that term is used in this Act and 
     in section 154(c)(2)(A) of title 35, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 532 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
     (Public Law 103-465; 108 Stat. 4983). A person who supplied 
     any active ingredient used by such applicant in such drug or 
     by such manufacturer in such drug shall be deemed to have 
     made substantial investment by having supplied the active 
     ingredient to such applicant or such manufacturer.
     
[[Page S 12390]]


     SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) Applicability to Approval of Applications.--The 
     provisions of this Act shall govern--
       (1) the approval or the effective date of approval of 
     applications under section 505(b)(2), 505(j), 507, or 512(n), 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355 
     (b)(2) and (j), 357, and 360b(n)) submitted on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) the approval or effective date of approval of all 
     pending applications that have not received final approval as 
     of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Applicability in Judicial Proceedings.--The provisions 
     of this Act shall apply in any action that--
       (1) relates to the approval or marketing of a drug or the 
     infringement of a patent; and
       (2)(A) is brought in a Federal or State court on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) is brought in a Federal or State court prior to the 
     date of enactment of this Act and pending on such date.
                                                                    ____

   The Consumer Access to Prescription Drugs Act of 1995--Summary of 
                               Provisions

       The Consumer Access to Prescription Drugs Act restores the 
     universal scope of the General Agreements on Trade and 
     Tariffs (GATT) in the United States. It neither amends the 
     GATT implementing legislation, known as the Uruguay Round 
     Agreement Act (URAA), nor alters the GATT treaty in any way. 
     Instead, it ensures that the prescription drug industry is 
     subject to the URAA transitional ``grandfather'' provisions 
     in the same manner as all other American industries.
       Despite the intent of both the Congress and the U.S. Trade 
     Representative to apply the URAA transition provisions to all 
     industries, the prescription drug industry was inadvertently 
     excluded from their scope. The unintentional error led the 
     FDA to rule that the agency is prevented from allowing 
     generic drug manufacturers who made a ``substantial 
     investment'' prior to June 8, 1995 from bringing their 
     products onto the market on the pre-GATT dates of patent 
     expiry, as was intended in the URAA.
       To correct this problem, this Act explicitly applies the 
     URAA transition provisions to the prescription drug industry. 
     (The URAA transition provisions relate to ``. . . acts which 
     were commenced or for which substantial investment was made 
     before'' June 8, 1995.)


                         section 1--short title

       Short title of the Act is the ``Consumer Access to 
     Prescription Drugs Act of 1995.''


           section 2--approval and marketing of generic drugs

       2(a) Approval of Application:
       Section 2(a) fulfills the original intent of the URAA by 
     permitting the use of pre-GATT dates of patent expiry in 
     premarket applications to the FDA from the generic drug 
     manufacturers qualifying under the URAA transition 
     provisions.
       This provision in no way alters the FDA's authority to 
     review generic drug submissions. Generic manufacturers 
     seeking to market during the period of GATT patent extension 
     must meet the same standards of safety and effectiveness of 
     any other generic company seeking FDA approval.
       2(b) Right to Market:
       Under the URAA transition provisions, generic manufacturers 
     in all industries meeting the ``substantial investment'' test 
     were protected from the traditional remedies against patent 
     infringement authorized by sections 283, 284 and 285 of the 
     patent code. In passing the URAA, however, Congress neglected 
     to amend section 271(e)(4), which duplicates and provides for 
     these traditional remedies solely in relation to prescription 
     drugs.
       Section 2(b) restores the intent of the URAA by withholding 
     the remedies under section 271(e)(4) solely in the case of 
     qualifying generic manufacturers.
       2(c) Equitable Remuneration:
       The URAA transition provisions require the payment of 
     ``equitable remuneration'' to patent holders by generic 
     manufacturers who have made a ``substantial investment'' and 
     proceed to market on the pre-GATT date of patent expiry.
       Prescription drug manufacturers are not permitted to market 
     their products until FDA approval has been granted. Section 
     2(c) clarifies that ``equitable remuneration'' must be paid 
     upon the marketing of qualifying generic drugs.


                         section 3--definitions

       3(a) Acts Which Were Commenced Defined:
       Section 3(a) includes the pre-June 8 submission of a 
     generic drug premarket application to the FDA, as well as the 
     subsequent manufacture and sale of the approved generic drug, 
     within the scope of the URAA transition provisions.
       3(b) Substantial Investment Defined:
       Section 3(b) applies the URAA transition term ``substantial 
     investment'' to the penultimate steps necessary for 
     submissions of a generic drug premarket application to the 
     FDA.


                       SECTION 4--EFFECTIVE DATE

       4(a) Applicability in Proceedings on Applications:
       Section 4(a) applies the provisions of this Act to all FDA 
     actions relating to relevant, qualifying generic drug 
     premarket applications.
       4(b) Applicability in Judicial Proceedings:
       Section 4(b) applies the provisions of this Act to any 
     legal actions which, although unsubstantiated, would negate 
     the intent of the URAA by needlessly delaying the marketing 
     of qualifying generic drugs.
                                                                    ____

                                    The U.S. Trade Representative,


                            Executive Office of the President,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 1995.
     Hon. David Kessler,
     Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD.
       Dear Dr. Kessler: I am writing with respect to a decision 
     that I understand you are about to make with respect to 
     permitting generic pharmaceutical products to be marketed in 
     a timely manner.
       As you know, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) 
     provides that the term of patents in the United States will 
     be switched from a 17-years from grant system to a 20-years 
     from filing system. For those patents that have not expired 
     on June 8, 1995, and those applications that are submitted by 
     then and subsequently issued, the applicant will have the 
     option of choosing the longer of 17-years from grant or 20-
     years from filing. As a result, some existing patents will be 
     extended for up to approximately 20 months.
       The URAA also provides that if a person has made 
     substantial investment before June 8, 1995, in preparation of 
     exploiting the technology once the old patent term expires, 
     they will be able to use the patented technology during the 
     extension period but must pay a reasonable royalty to the 
     patent owner for doing so. The URAA exempts them from 
     liability for injunctions, damages and attorney's fees.
       However, it appears that the ability of manufacturers of 
     generic pharmaceutical products to take advantage of this 
     system (i.e., get the generic version of a patented drug on 
     the market during the extension period but pay a royalty) is 
     in question given provisions in the Federal Food, Drug and 
     Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The FFDCA apparently prevents the FDA 
     from granting marketing approval to generic products until 
     the patent on the underlying product expires. Without 
     marketing approval, the generic manufacturer cannot bring its 
     product on the market.
       Resolving this difficult conflict has apparently fallen 
     upon your shoulders. As you come to a decision on this 
     matter, I ask that you give full consideration to the 
     intention of the URAA language to permit generic 
     pharmaceutical producers to market their products who had 
     made substantial investments in anticipation the expiration 
     of the unextended patent term.
           Sincerely,
     Michael Kantor.
                                                                    ____

         Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 
           Administration,
                                       Rockville MD, May 25, 1995.


                            III. CONCLUSION

       The 1984 Waxman-Hatch Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act represent a careful balance between the 
     policies of fostering the availability of generic drugs and 
     of providing sufficient incentives for research on 
     breakthrough drugs. This landmark compromise between the 
     interests of the generic drug companies and the pioneer 
     companies was intended to grant a one-time patent term 
     extension in exchange for the prompt availability of generic 
     drug products. There is certainly a strong argument to be 
     made that such a compromise should not be upset without 
     hearings and careful deliberation as to the impact on the 
     twin interests served by the Waxman-Hatch Amendments.
       Here there were neither hearings nor a single word of 
     debate on the floor of the House or Senate on the impact of 
     the URAA on the 1984 Waxman-Hatch Amendments. Nor do the 
     committee reports indicate that Congress understood that the 
     URAA would both grant a patent term extension for certain 
     pioneer products and block FDA from approving generic 
     versions of those drugs until the extended patent terms have 
     expired. Nonetheless, the language of the URAA directs that 
     result.
       Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, FDA grants your 
     citizen petition in part and denies your citizen petition in 
     part. FDA has determined that the URAA-extended patent term 
     expiration dates will be the governing patent expiration 
     dates with respect to NDA submissions and FDA publication of 
     patent information on listed drugs and their uses; however, 
     FDA will not publish the URAA-extended patent expiration 
     dates until after they become effective on June 8, 1995. 
     ANDA's and 505(b)(2) applications pending before the agency 
     on June 8, 1995, must be amended to respond to the URAA-
     extended patent expiration dates, if information on the new 
     expiration dates is submitted to the agency in a timely 
     manner. ANDA's and 505(b)(2) applications submitted after 
     June 8, 1995, similarly must provide patent certifications 
     with respect to the URAA-extended patent expiration dates. 
     After June 8, 1995, FDA will not approve any application that 
     does not contain a correct certification with respect to a 
     URAA-extended patent expiration date that was submitted in a 
     timely manner to the agency. Finally, FDA cannot require that 
     an applicant submit a paragraph IV certification as to a 
     certain patent. The agency expects that an ANDA or 505(b)(2) 
     applicant that wishes to market a generic version of a drug 
     prior to the expiration of a URAA-extended patent, for which 
     information was timely submitted to FDA, will file 

[[Page S 12391]]
     a paragraph IV certification with respect to that patent.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               William B. Schultz,
     Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
                                                                    ____

                            The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, August 8, 1995.
     Hon. David Pryor,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pryor: I am writing in response to your 
     inquiry regarding the potential effect of the Global 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) treaty and the 
     resulting Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) on the cost of 
     prescription drugs purchased by the Veterans Health 
     Administration (VHA).
       VHA shares your concern about the cost impact of the 
     agreement. As you know, VHA expends $940 million on 
     pharmaceuticals annually. VHA now anticipates that the cost 
     of drugs affected by URAA will remain high in light of the 
     lack of generic competition. The total cost impact of the 
     URAA provisions in terms of increased expenditures for VHA 
     has been estimated to be $3.4 million in FY 95, $89.7 million 
     in FY 96, and $117.9 million in FY 97.
       For estimating purposes, VHA calculations were based on a 
     three-year extension of the prior patent expiration date. A 
     copy of VHA's analysis is enclosed for your information. New 
     patent expiration dates will be published by FDA in the 
     monthly supplements to ``Approved Drug Products with 
     Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations'' (the Orange Book). As 
     that information becomes available, we will update our 
     estimates.
       Thank you for your interest in the health care provided to 
     veterans.
           Sincerely yours,
     Jesse Brown.
                                                                    ____

                                Generic Drug Equity Coalition,

                                   Washington, DC, August 8, 1995.
     Hon. David Pryor,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pryor: Consumers will pay higher prices for 
     the popular high blood pressure medicine Capoten/Capozide 
     beginning today because of a special interest loophole in the 
     GATT legislation.
       The empty pill bottle we are delivering to your office 
     today symbolizes the problem facing consumers because of the 
     absence of lower-priced generic drugs.
       Capoten/Capozide is the first of a dozen drugs that will be 
     affected by the special interest loophole in the GATT 
     legislation. Generic substitutes for these drugs will be kept 
     off the market for as long as 20 months. In 1994, almost 15 
     million prescriptions were written for Capoten/Capozide at an 
     average wholesale price of $56.29.
       The Generic Drug Equity Coalition (GDEC) estimates that the 
     delay will cost consumers hundreds of thousands of dollars 
     each and every day that the generic substitutes for Capoten/
     Capozide and other drugs are kept off the market and almost 
     $2 billion overall for the twelve affected drugs.
       The GATT legislation extends patents on U.S. products from 
     17 to 20 years. The legislation also includes transition 
     rules for generic products that were ready to go to market 
     under the old 17-year patent term. However, the Food and Drug 
     Administration can not apply the transition rules to generic 
     drugs.
       GDEC is a coalition of consumer, senior, health care and 
     industry groups. We urge you to pass legislation that would 
     grant FDA the authority to allow generic drugs to go to 
     market as had been intended in the GATT transition rules.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Jim Firman

                                                President and CEO,
     National Council on the Aging.
                                                                    ____


              Members of the Generic Drug Equity Coalition

       National Council on the Aging.
       Gray Panthers.
       National Consumers League.
       United Seniors Health Cooperative.
       U.S. PIRG.
       American College of Nurse Midwives.
       Paraquad.
       National Pharmaceutical Alliance, Manufacturers Division.
       Consumers for Quality Care.
       Novopharm.
       Geneva Pharmaceuticals.
       MOVA Laboratories.
       People's Medical Society.
       National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers.
       AIDS Action Council.
       Royce Laboratories.
       Public Citizen.
       National Women's Health Network.
       Citizen Advocacy Center.
       United Homeowners Association.
       Center For Health Care Rights.
       Mylan.
       National Council of Senior Citizens.
       National Black Women's Health Project.
       Center for Health Care Rights.
       National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
     Medicare.
       Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Association.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Pell, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1192. A bill to promote marine aquaculture research and 
development and the development of an environmentally sound marine 
aquaculture industry; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                   the marine aquaculture act of 1995

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, with Senators Pell and 
Inouye, I introduce the Marine Aquaculture Act of 1995, a bill of great 
interest to me both in my role as ranking member of the Commerce 
Committee's Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, and as a Senator from a 
State with a significant interest in the development of an 
environmentally sound marine aquaculture industry. The primary purpose 
of this bill is to promote marine aquaculture research and the 
development of an environmentally sound marine aquaculture industry in 
the United States.
  The development of a marine aquaculture industry is also of great 
interest to my colleagues from Rhode Island and Hawaii, and I thank 
them for their cosponsorship. Indeed, most coastal States should have 
an interest in the growth of an economically and environmentally sound 
marine aquaculture industry for a number of reasons. First, in a time 
when many domestic fisheries are increasingly overexploited and 
management measures become ever more restrictive, marine aquaculture 
can provide alternative or additional employment opportunities for 
displaced fishermen and other entrepreneurs. Second, marine aquaculture 
could play a critical role in enhancing and restoring depleted fish 
stocks. Third, investment in marine aquaculture research and 
development activities can stimulate local and regional economies 
providing benefits reaching far beyond the original investment. Fourth, 
by providing high quality fish and seafood products for domestic 
consumption and export, a strong marine aquaculture industry can help 
reduce the multibillion dollar U.S. fisheries trade deficit.
  The United States stands poised to tap into an ever-expanding global 
market for marine aquaculture products. The United Nations estimates 
that in the year 2010 an additional 19 million tons of fish protein 
will be needed annually to maintain consumption at current levels, 
assuming present population growth. Global harvests of fish continue to 
decline from their 1989 peak of 100 million tons. About 70 percent of 
the world's marine fish stocks are classified as fully exploited, over-
exploited, or recovering. Clearly, harvesting of wild fish and 
shellfish stocks will not be able to meet this shortfall. Therefore, 
more and more people are looking to aquaculture to make up this 
deficit.
  In response, the marine aquaculture industry in many countries has 
grown rapidly, often heavily subsidized by foreign governments. In 
1992, China was the leading aquaculture producer with 8.6 million 
metric tons, nearly 50 percent of the total world aquaculture 
production. The United States was a distant fifth, with only 400,000 
metric tons, less than 4 percent of the world's acquaculture 
production. Worldwide, coastal, and marine acquaculture comprise 
approximately 40 percent of total aquaculture production. Many of these 
fish and seafood products are aggressively marketed in the United 
States. We have a significant opportunity to develop a globally 
competitive domestic marine aquaculture industry to meet future fish 
and seafood demand. The Marine Aquaculture Act provides the support 
necessary to make the best of this opportunity.
  There is also a need for a bill that addresses the unique 
requirements of aquaculture development in the marine and coastal 
environment. Much of the private aquaculture industry has invested in 
and developed land-based aquaculture facilities on privately owned 
land. The coastal zone and marine waters of the United States, however, 
are not subject to private ownership and support a variety of public 
trust uses, including navigation, fishing, recreation, and national 
defense. Private investment in marine aquaculture is imperative, but 
must proceed without posing unreasonable constraints or other public 
trust uses of marine and coastal waters.
  A recent National Research Council study concludes that constraints 
on the economic success of the marine acquaculture industry include: 
First, public concerns about a broad range of 

[[Page S 12392]]
environmental, ecological, and aesthetic issues; and, second, conflicts 
with other uses of coastal and marine areas. The report also concludes 
that the current confusing system of Federal and State laws are 
regulations impedes growth of the marine aquaculture industry, and that 
additional scientific, technological and engineering research is 
necessary to ensure more cost-effective and environmentally sound 
operations. The Marine Aquaculture Act clarifies the patchwork of 
regulatory authorities and makes funding more readily available for 
research and development.
  The Department of Commerce, which has primary management authority 
for marine resource conservation and protection of the marine 
environment, and which through the National Marine Fisheries Service 
[NMFS] and Sea Grant has long been engaged in aquaculture research and 
development, is best equipped to coordinate and manage the development 
of an environmentally sound aquaculture industry in marine and coast 
waters.
  Utilizing Department of Commerce expertise, the bill would, first, 
clear up the regulatory maze by making the Department of Commerce the 
one-stop-shop for permits to own, construct, or operate an offshore 
marine aquaculture facility in Federal waters; second create a coastal 
and marine
 aquaculture research and development program under the National Sea 
Grant College Program Act; third, increase financial assistance for 
marine aquaculture ventures by making existing financial assistance 
programs for fishermen available for the first time to marine 
aquaculture development; fourth, ensure protection of the marine 
environment by requiring the Secretary of Commerce to establish 
environmental standards for offshore marine aquaculture facilities and, 
in consultation with other appropriate Federal and State agencies, to 
establish model environmental guidelines for marine aquaculture 
facilities within State waters.
  In developing a marine aquaculture industry, we must also realize 
that the environmental problems facing marine aquaculture facilities 
are unique and potentially more difficult than those of land-based 
facilities. This bill addresses the need for environmental safeguards 
and would provide for the establishment of standards to minimize 
adverse impacts on the marine environment of offshore marine 
aquaculture facilities. These standards would include safeguards to, 
first, protect wild fish stocks from genetic contamination; second, 
prevent or minimize ecological or economic harm to marine ecosystems 
from introduction of nonindigenous marine species; third, prevent or 
minimize transmission of disease to wild stocks; fourth, maintain 
applicable Federal water quality standards; and fifth, ensure that 
efforts to control predation on cultivated stocks are environmentally 
and ecologically sound. Addressing environmental concerns associated 
with marine aquaculture activities is necessary to enhance the 
prospects of developing an economically--and environmen- tally--
sustainable industry.
  As an additional barrier to developing this industry, many of the 
traditional forms of financial assistance to fishermen through 
Department of Commerce programs have not been as widely available for 
the development of marine aquaculture facilities because of funding 
limitations and restrictions in authorizing legislation. To address 
that problem, The Marine Aquaculture Act restructurers existing 
financial assistance programs available to fishermen, and promotes 
research and development in marine aquaculture and other disciplines 
related to the success of such ventures.
  I am aware that my colleague, Senator Akaka, has introduced a general 
aquaculture bill. I want to emphasize that the Marine Aquaculture Act 
deals solely with marine aquaculture and is intended to complement 
rather than compete with or displace Senator Akaka's bill. I look 
forward to working with Senator Akaka and all other Senators who have 
interest in this subject to develop a comprehensive program to promote 
aquaculture research and development on both private and public lands. 
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in full in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                S. 1192

       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 ``Marine Aquaculture Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The annual demand for seafood products is expected to 
     increase by 350 million pounds by the year 2000 as a result 
     of population growth alone. This demand will be satisfied by 
     a combination of United States harvests, fresh water and 
     marine aquaculture, and imports.
       (2) The marine fishery resources of the United States 
     coastal zone, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone 
     are renewable, but finite. Sound fishery management programs 
     cannot guarantee that the amount of marine fishery products 
     available to the Nation from United States waters will meet 
     consumer demand without supplementation from marine 
     aquaculture.
       (3) Worldwide there has been a major increase in marine 
     aquaculture and many of these products have been aggressively 
     marketed in the United States. Many of these programs are 
     also heavily subsidized by foreign governments.
       (4) In some foreign nations marine aquaculture has not been 
     adequately controlled and, as a result, there have been 
     undesirable changes to the marine ecosystem which have 
     contributed to production failures from both artificial and 
     natural stocks of fish.
       (5) Within the United States private industry has primarily 
     invested in and developed land-based aquaculture facilities, 
     in part because these facilities are located on privately 
     owned land, and in part because the potential environmental 
     problems associated with these facilities are generally 
     easier to control than those associated with marine 
     facilities. Land-based facilities have also benefited from 
     some of the traditional forms of economic assistance provided 
     to farmers under programs administered by the Department of 
     Agriculture.
       (6) Private industry has not taken an equivalent initiative 
     to invest in and develop marine aquaculture facilities within 
     the United States, in part, because our marine waters are not 
     susceptible to private ownership and because our marine 
     waters also support other public trust uses, including 
     navigation, fishing, recreation, and national defense. 
     Additionally, marine aquaculture facilities present several 
     environmental challenges requiring specialized scientific 
     research and regulatory programs. Moreover, the traditional 
     forms of economic assistance provided to fishermen under 
     programs administered by the Department of Commerce have not 
     been as widely available to marine aquaculture facilities 
     because of restrictions in authorizing legislation and 
     funding limitations.
       (7) Further, incorporating environmental concerns in the 
     development of marine aquaculture will enhance the prospects 
     of an economically and environmentally sustainable industry.
       (8) There exist within the Department of Commerce a number 
     of agencies and programs essential to stimulate the private 
     development of marine aquaculture facilities, rebuild 
     depleted fishery resources and protect the marine ecosystem. 
     Among these are programs of the National Marine Fisheries 
     Service, the National Sea Grant College Program, the National 
     Ocean Service, the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, the Economic Development Administration, the 
     Minority Business Development Administration, and the 
     International Trade Administration.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States--
       (1) to encourage private enterprise to invest in and to 
     develop new employment opportunities in marine aquaculture 
     facilities by restructuring existing financial assistance 
     programs and by safeguarding investments in marine 
     aquaculture facilities;
       (2) to promote research and development in marine 
     aquaculture technology, marine biology, marine ecology, ocean 
     engineering, economics, law, public policy and other 
     disciplines that will contribute to the commercial success of 
     new marine aquaculture facilities while safeguarding the 
     marine ecosystem; and
       (3) to ensure that the placement and operation of any new 
     marine aquaculture facility within a State coastal zone, the 
     territorial sea, or the United States exclusive economic 
     zone, is economically and environmentally sound and does not 
     pose unreasonable contraints on other public trust uses of 
     marine waters, such as navigation, fishing, recreation, and 
     national defense.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.--

       For the purposes of this Act--
       (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the National Sea Grant College Program.
       (2) Offshore Marine Aquaculture Facility.--
       (A) The term ``offshore marine aquaculture facility'' means 
     any facility which is located in whole or in part in the 
     United States exclusive economic zone, the purpose of which 
     is to raise, breed, grow, or hold in a living state any 
     marine or estuarine organism. 

[[Page S 12393]]

       (B) Any vessel or other floating craft that forms all or 
     part of an offshore marine aquaculture facility, or any 
     vessel or other floating craft that discharges any material 
     into an offshore marine aquaculture facility, shall not be 
     deemed to be a ``vessel or other floating craft'' under 
     section 502(12)(B) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1362 et 
     al.). Any discharge of material directly into the waters of 
     the facility or from the facility into the surrounding waters 
     shall be considered a point source subject to that Act.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce, acting through the Under Secretary of Commerce 
     for Oceans and Atmosphere.

     SEC. 4. MARINE AQUACULTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       The National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1121 
     et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 206 the 
     following:


         ``MARINE AQUACULTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

       ``Sec. 206A. (a) Coastal and Marine Aquaculture Research 
     and Development Program.--The National Sea Grant College 
     Program provided for under section 204 shall include a 
     national marine aquaculture research and development program 
     under which the Secretary, acting through the Director, shall 
     make grants and enter into contracts in accordance with this 
     section, and engage in other activities authorized under this 
     Act, to further research, development, education and 
     technology transfer in coastal and marine aquaculture and 
     accelerate the development and growth of a sustainable marine 
     aquaculture industry.
       ``(b) Program Scope.--The marine aquaculture research and 
     development program shall include research, development, 
     education and technology transfer programs that address, but 
     are not limited to, the following:
       ``(1) Fundamental biological knowledge needed for 
     domesticating candidate species;
       ``(2) Environmentally safe technologies, methods and 
     systems for culturing marine species in the coastal 
     environment, encouraging sustainable aquaculture practices, 
     and remediating environmental problems;
       ``(3) Aquaculture technologies that are compatible with 
     other uses of the sea;
       ``(4) Application of marine biotechnology to marine 
     aquaculture;
       ``(5) Methods for addressing and resolving conflicts 
     between marine aquaculture and other competing users of the 
     marine environment;
       ``(6) Comparative studies of State practices regarding the 
     regulation and promotion of marine aquaculture so as to 
     identify and resolve interstate conflicts and issues;
       ``(7) Education programs to foster understanding and 
     awareness of the environmental and policy implications of 
     aquaculture and marine aquaculture development, including the 
     role of aquaculture in meeting consumer demand for seafood, 
     and the role of aquaculture in rebuilding depleted fish 
     stocks; and
       ``(8) Development of pilot projects for offshore 
     aquaculture facilities.
       ``(c) Sea Grant Marine Advisory Services.--The National Sea 
     Grant College Program shall maintain, with the Marine 
     Advisory Service, the capability to transfer relevant 
     technologies and information to the marine aquaculture 
     industry. Particularly emphasis shall be given to the matters 
     referred to in subsection (b)(1) through (8).
       ``(d) Administration.--In carrying out the marine 
     aquaculture research and development program, the Director 
     shall--
       ``(1) coordinate and administer the relevant activities of 
     the Sea Grant College and any advisory committee and review 
     panel established under subsection (f);
       ``(2) consult with the directors of State Sea Grant 
     programs and other organizations with interests in 
     aquaculture to identify program priorities and needs and, to 
     the extent possible, undertake collaborative efforts, and use 
     this information to identify priorities for marine 
     aquaculture research and planning;
       ``(3) provide general oversight to ensure that the marine 
     aquaculture research and development program produces the 
     highest quality research, education and technology transfer 
     and leads to opportunities for business development and jobs 
     creation.
       ``(e) Grants and Contracts.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, shall award grants and 
     contracts in accordance with procedures, requirements, and 
     restrictions under Section 205 (c) and (d) for aquaculture 
     research, education, technology transfer, and advisory 
     proposals based on a competitive review of--
       ``(A) their respective scientific, technical, and 
     educational merits; and
       ``(B) their likelihood of producing information and 
     technology which lead to the growth and development of a 
     sustainable marine aquaculture industry.
       ``(2) Funding.--Grants made and contracts entered into 
     under this section shall be funded with amounts available 
     from appropriations made pursuant to the authorization 
     provided for under section 212(c), except that if the project 
     under a grant or contract was considered and approved, in 
     whole or in part, under grant or contract authority provided 
     for under section 205(a) or (b) or Section 3 of the Sea Grant 
     Program Improvement Act of 1976, the grant or contract shall 
     be funded from amounts available to carry out that section.
       ``(f) Marine Aquaculture Advisory and Review Panels.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Director may establish such 
     advisory committees and review panels as necessary to carry 
     out this section, (or utilize any such existing committee 
     that satisfies the requirements of this subsection).
       ``(2) Membership.--Members of advisory committees and 
     review panels should be selected to have the professional 
     expertise necessary to review grants received, and in 
     general, should include representatives of relevant 
     disciplines and professions such as fisheries scientists, 
     environmental scientists, and representatives of the marine 
     aquaculture and capture fishing industries.
       ``(3) Access to Evaluations of Grants and Contracts.--The 
     Director shall provide to each advisory committee and review 
     panel established under this subsection copies of appropriate 
     grant and contract application evaluations prepared by 
     directors of Sea Grant Colleges under Section (e)(2)(A).
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) Grants and Contracts.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section (other than for 
     administration)--
       ``(A) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996; 
     and
       ``(B) $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
       ``(2) Administration.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated for the administration of this section--
       ``(A) $100,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996; and
       ``(B) $120,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 and 1998.''.

     SEC. 5. AQUACULTURE IN THE COASTAL ZONE.

       The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of section 306A(b) (16 U.S.C. 
     1455a(b)) the following:
       ``(4) The development of a coordinated process among State 
     agencies and between the State and Federal Government, to 
     regulate and issue permits for aquaculture and marine 
     aquaculture facilities in the coastal zone.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of section 309(a) 16 U.S.C. 
     1456b(a)) the following:
       ``(9) Adoption of procedures and policies to facilitate and 
     evaluate the siting of public and private marine aquaculture 
     facilities in the coastal zone which will assist States in 
     formulating, administering, and implementing strategic plans 
     for marine aquaculture.''.

     SEC. 6. OFFSHORE MARINE AQUACULTURE PERMITTING.

       (a) Ownership, Construction, and Operation of Offshore 
     Marine Aquaculture Facilities.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (n) of this section, no person may own, construct, or operate 
     an offshore marine aquaculture facility except as authorized 
     by a permit issued under this section.
       (b) Permit Issuance and Term.--
       (1) In General.--The Secretary may issue, amend, renew, or 
     transfer in accordance with this section permits which 
     authorize the ownership, construction, or operation of an 
     offshore marine aquaculture facility.
       (2) Term.--The term for a permit under this section shall 
     not exceed 10 years and may be renewed after such time.
       (3) Ownership.--Whereas a facility's physical structure, 
     the organisms stocked therein, and any business interests in 
     an offshore marine aquaculture facility can be privately 
     owned by the permittee, the area of ocean used by a marine 
     aquaculture facility remains in public ownership, with only a 
     revocable use permit being granted to the permittee.
       (c) Permit Prerequisites.--The Secretary may not issue, 
     amend, renew, or transfer a permit to a person under this 
     section unless--
       (1)(A) each of the officials referred to in subsection 
     (e)(1) has certified to the Secretary that the activities to 
     be conducted under the permit would comply with laws 
     administered by the official; or
       (B) the permit establishes the conditions transmitted under 
     subsection (e)(3)(A) by each of those officials that does not 
     make that certification and each of the remainder of those 
     officials makes that certification;
       (2) The Secretary determines that--
       (A) construction and operation of a facility under the 
     permit will comply with the environmental standards 
     established by the Secretary under subsection (k) and will 
     not significantly interfere with other public trust uses of 
     the ocean, including recreational and commercial fishing, 
     navigation, conservation, and aesthetic enjoyment;
       (B) the site for the facility will not interfere with 
     facilities previously permitted under this section or any 
     other Federal law; and
       (C) the person, upon revocation or surrender of the permit, 
     will properly dispose of or remove the facility as directed 
     by the Secretary; and
       (3) the person provides the Secretary with a bond or other 
     assurances to pay for all costs associated with removal of 
     the facility.
       (d) Public Notice and Comment Period.--
       (1) Notice.--The Secretary shall publish in the Federal 
     Register--
       (A) notice of receipt of each application for a permit 
     under this section; and
       (B) notice of issuance of each permit issued, amended, 
     renewed, or transferred under this section.
       (2) Public comment.--The Secretary shall provide a 60 day 
     comment period regarding each application received by the 
     Secretary for the issuance, amendment, renewal, or transfer 
     of a permit under this section.
       (e) Agency Notice and Comment.--
       (1) Transmission of copies of applications.--Not later than 
     30 days after receiving 

[[Page S 12394]]
     an application for a permit under this section, the Secretary shall 
     forward a copy of this application to--
       (A) the Secretary of the agency in which the Coast Guard is 
     located;
       (B) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (C) the Secretary of the Interior;
       (D) the Chairman of the Regional Fishery Management Council 
     under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) having authority over waters in 
     which would occur the activities for which the permit is 
     sought, or having authority over fish stocks which could be 
     ecologically effected by construction or operation of such 
     facility;
       (E) the Secretary of Defense; and
       (F) the Governor of each State--
       (i) adjacent to the location specified by the permit or 
     which would be ecologically affected by permit activities; 
     and
       (ii) which has an approved coastal zone management program 
     under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 
     et seq.).
       (2) Certification of compliance.--Subject to paragraph (4), 
     not later than 90 days after receiving a copy of a permit 
     application transmitted under paragraph (1), the official 
     shall certify to the Secretary whether or not the activities 
     to be conducted under the permit would comply with the laws 
     administered by the official.
       (3) Transmittal of reasons for noncompliance and permit 
     conditions.--If an official certifies under paragraph (1) 
     that activities to be conducted under a permit is sought 
     would not comply with a law--
       (A) the official shall transmit to the Secretary the 
     reasons for that noncompliance and any permit conditions that 
     would ensure compliance; and
       (B) the Secretary shall establish those conditions in any 
     permit for the activity issued under this subsection.
       (4) Extension of time for certification.--An official may 
     request, in writing, that the Secretary extend by not more 
     than 30 days the period for making certifications under 
     paragraph (2). The Secretary may grant the extension for good 
     cause shown.
       (f) Permit Revocation or Surrender.--
       (1) Revocation.--The Secretary may revoke any permit issued 
     under this section if the permittee is found to be in 
     substantial violation of any term of the permit, this 
     section, or any regulation promulgated pursuant to this 
     section.
       (2) Surrender.--A permittee may surrender a permit under 
     this section to the Secretary at any time, subject to any 
     safeguards or conditions established by the Secretary.
       (g) Permit Renewal and Transfer.--A permit under this 
     section may be renewed or transferred in accordance with the 
     procedures and requirements applicable to the issuance of a 
     new permit. The term of a permit, upon renewal, shall not 
     exceed 10 years.
       (h) Fees.--The Secretary may assess permit fees not to 
     exceed the cost of administering the program authorized by 
     this section.
       (i) Civil Penalty.--The Secretary may assess a civil 
     penalty of not more than $100,000 for each violation of a 
     permit under this section.
       (j) Promulgation of Regulations.--The Secretary shall 
     promulgate regulations as necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       (k) Environmental Standards.--
       (1) Establishment.--Within 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue regulations 
     which establish minimum environmental standards with respect 
     to offshore marine aquaculture facilities. Such standards 
     shall be designed to minimize the potential for adverse 
     impacts on the marine environment from such facilities and 
     shall include--
       (A) safeguards to conserve genetic resources, including 
     methods to minimize genetic mixing of cultured stocks with 
     natural marine stocks;
       (B) safeguards to prevent or minimize ecological or 
     economic harm to marine ecosystems by intentional or 
     unintentional introductions of nonindigenous marine 
     aquaculture species;
       (C) safeguards to prevent or minimize transmission of 
     disease to wild stocks;
       (D) safeguards to maintain applicable Federal water quality 
     standards;
       (E) safeguards to ensure that any efforts to control 
     predation on cultivated stocks are environmentally and 
     ecologically sound; and
       (F) other applicable measures to protect the marine 
     environment.
       (2) Inclusion of permit terms.--The standards established 
     under paragraph (1) shall be treated as part of the terms of 
     each permit issued under this section.
       (3) Review.--The Secretary shall periodically review the 
     standards established under paragraph (1) and revise the 
     standards based on significant new information including 
     results of the pilot project.
       (l) Cumulative Effects.--The Secretary shall report to 
     Congress 5 years after the enactment of this Act on all 
     permits issued under this Act, including the cumulative 
     effects of all permitted facilities on public trust uses of 
     the ocean.
       (m) Offshore Marine Aquaculture Pilot Programs.--
       (1) In General.--The Secretary in cooperation with other 
     Federal and State agencies, acting through the National Sea 
     Grant College Program, is authorized to conduct, to make 
     grants for, or to contract for, projects to demonstrate 
     sustainable approaches to development, installation, or 
     operation of offshore marine aquaculture facilities. Such 
     projects shall take into consideration any environmental 
     guidelines developed by the Secretary, and shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, meet the requirements of permits 
     issued under this section.
       (2) Term.--Any pilot project authorized pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be for a term not to exceed two years, and 
     may be renewed after such time.
       (3) Purpose.--Such projects shall demonstrate the 
     technological and economic feasibility of various marine 
     aquaculture technologies which will contribute substantially 
     to the development of a sustainable marine aquaculture 
     industry.
       (4) Ecosystem safeguards.--The Secretary, in selecting 
     projects under this subsection, shall be satisfied that any 
     project authorized will not adversely affect the marine 
     environment, and shall be designed to prevent or minimize 
     ecological or economic harm to marine ecosystems by 
     intentional or unintentional introductions of nonindigenous 
     marine aquaculture species.
       (5) Contents of public announcements.--The Secretary shall 
     make a public announcement concerning--
       (A) the title, purpose, intended completion date, identity 
     of the grantee or contractor, and proposed cost of any grant 
     or contract with a private or non-Federal agency for any 
     research, demonstration, pilot project, study, or report 
     under this subsection; and
       (B) the results, findings, data, or recommendations made or 
     reported as a result of such activities.
       (6) Time.--A public announcement required by paragraph 
     (5)(A) shall be made within 30 days after making a grant or 
     contract, and a public announcement required by paragraph 
     (5)(B) shall be made within 90 days after the receipt of such 
     results.
       (7) Publication of summaries of results; submission to 
     appropriate Congressional committees.--The Secretary shall 
     publish summaries of the results of activities carried out 
     pursuant to this subsection not later than 90 days after the 
     completion thereof. The Secretary shall submit to the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation copies of 
     all such summaries.

     SEC. 7. MODEL ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES.

       (a) Model Environmental Guidelines.--
       (1) Within two years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary in consultation with other appropriate 
     Federal and State agencies, shall develop and establish model 
     environmental guidelines with respect to marine aquaculture 
     facilities located within State waters.
       (2) In order to carry out this section, the Secretary shall 
     seek advice from representatives of relevant disciplines and 
     professions such as fisheries scientists, environmental 
     scientists, and representatives of the marine aquaculture and 
     capture fishing industries, and may utilize any Marine 
     Aquaculture Advisory and Review Panels established under 
     section 206A(f) of the National Sea Grant College Program 
     Act.
       (3) The Secretary shall provide public notice in the 
     Federal Register and allow for a 90 day comment period before 
     finalizing its model guidelines.
       (4) The guidelines should include best management practices 
     to minimize the potential for damage to the marine ecosystem 
     from marine aquaculture facilities, including, but not 
     limited to--
       (A) conserving genetic resources, including methods to 
     minimize genetic mixing of cultured stocks with natural 
     marine stocks;
       (B) preventing or minimizing ecological or economic harm to 
     marine ecosystems by intentional or unintentional 
     introductions of nonindigenous marine aquaculture species;
       (C) maintaining applicable Federal and State water quality 
     standards by marine aquaculture facilities;
       (D) minimizing ``visual pollution'' and other interference 
     with public trust uses of the ocean from marine aquaculture 
     facilities; and
       (E) ensuring that any efforts to control predation on 
     cultivated stocks are environmentally and ecologically sound.
       (5) The Secretary shall also develop a program to promote 
     voluntary compliance by the marine aquaculture industry with 
     the guidelines.
       (b) State Aquaculture Management.--Upon completion of 
     environmental guidelines, the Secretary shall submit the 
     environmental guidelines to State coastal zone management 
     agencies, and other Federal and State agencies with a role in 
     aquaculture, marine aquaculture or other coastal and marine 
     resources. These State agencies shall review the 
     environmental guidelines for marine aquaculture operations 
     and consider incorporating processes where applicable.

     SEC. 8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Comprehensive Report.--The Secretary shall review all 
     programs administered by the Department of Commerce through 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Economic 
     Development Administration, the Minority Business Development 
     Administration, and the Intenational Trade Administration 
     that pertain to the seafood industry. Within two years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report 
     to Congress how the Department of Commerce programs have been 
     employed to stimulate the development of commercial marine 
     aquaculture facilities within the United States or the 
     exclusive economic zone. The report shall include 
     recommendations for changes in any Federal law or 
     administrative procedure that, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary, 

[[Page S 12395]]
     constitutes an unreasonable impediment to the growth of a commercially 
     and environmentally sound marine aquaculture facility.
       (b) Economic Assistance.--The Secretary shall make the 
     financial assistance programs of the Department of Commerce 
     fully available to qualified applicants seeking to construct 
     marine aquaculture facilities in a State coastal zone or the 
     U.S. exclusive economic zone. The programs shall include, but 
     not be limited to, the Capital Construction Fund Program, the 
     Fisheries Obligation Guarantee Program, the Saltonstall-
     Kennedy Grant Program, the Marine Fisheries Initiative Grant 
     Program, and the programs of the Economic Development 
     Administration. To the extent such projects are economically 
     sound, the Secretary shall grant priority to applicants from 
     those regions of the United States where marine fishery 
     conservation requirements have led to reduced employment in 
     the commercial or recreational fishing industry.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 1193. A bill to reduce waste and abuse in the Medicare Program; to 
the Committee on Finance.


               the medicare waste and abuse reduction act

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today an important 
piece of legislation regarding Medicare. The Medicare Waste and Abuse 
Reduction Act of 1995 is the third in a series of bills I have 
introduced this year to save taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries 
billions of dollars lost to waste and abuse in Medicare. All of these 
measures are the result of extensive hearings I have chaired in the 
Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee over the 
past several years and on recommendations of the General Accounting 
Office, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human 
Service and other private sector medical experts.
  The two bills I introduced earlier this year would reduce waste and 
abuse in Medicare by providing for a greater investment in payment 
safeguards and requiring Medicare to use state-of-the-art private 
sector computer equipment to catch abusive and unnecessary Medicare 
billings. The General Accounting Office has endorsed both approaches in 
these measures as effective in reducing losses to the Medicare Program. 
In their May 5, 1995, report to me and to the Budget Committee, the GAO 
found that taxpayers are losing $2 million a day because of its inept 
system for detecting billing abuse. They said that we could 
conservatively save $600 million a year by utilizing the same computer 
software that most major private insurers already use to detect billing 
abuse.
  The Medicare Waste and Abuse Reduction Act I am introducing today 
would take a number of additional steps to stop the pillaging of 
Medicare. First, it would put an end to completely unnecessary and 
often abusive Medicare payments for a range of items unrelated to 
providing quality health care to the elderly and disabled. These 
include: tickets to sporting and other entertainment events, gifts and 
donations, costs related to team sports, personal use of automobiles, 
fines and penalties resulting from violations of Federal, State and 
local laws or regulations, and tuition and fees for spouses and other 
dependents of medicare providers.
  All of these items were identified as being subject to abuse by the 
HHS inspector general. Some of the bills by providers for these items 
were completely outrageous and only serve to undermine public 
confidence not only in Medicare, but in Government in general.
  Second, this legislation would require a cost-saving step that I have 
been advocating for years--competitive bidding for durable medical 
equipment, medical supplies, oxygen, and other related services. I 
believe this will significantly lower excessive Medicare payments for 
many of these items and services. The Veterans Administration and many 
private businesses already employ competitive bidding and their costs 
are significantly lower.
  Third, it provides the Secretary the ability to target several 
specific items identified as subjects of abuse in our hearings--
scooters, orthotic body jackets, and incontinence supplies. Again, we 
can significantly reduce the payment amounts and unnecessary 
utilization of these items.
  Finally, this legislation would give the Medicare carriers authority 
they used to have to reduce payment levels for items they identify as 
subject to grossly excessive payments.
  Mr. President, the budget resolution adopted by the new majority in 
the Congress calls for unprecedented cuts in Medicare. These cuts go 
far beyond that necessary to forestall problems with the hospital 
insurance trust fund. Much of these reductions will go to give huge new 
tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans. That is just not fair.
  For the savings that do need to be made to shore up the Medicare 
trust fund, we should first look to eliminating the massive amounts of 
fraud, waste, and abuse. Accordingly, I would urge the Finance 
Committee to include in its reconciliation recommendations the 
provisions of the three bills I have introduced and several others I 
will introduce shortly after we return in September. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on this critically important issue. I will 
have a good deal more to say about Medicare and opportunities to reduce 
waste and abuse in the coming days.
                                 ______

      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Lott):
  S. 1194. A bill to amend the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 to 
promote the research, identification, assessment, and exploration of 
marine mineral resources, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


          the mining and mineral policy amendments act of 1995

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, every American schoolchild can recite 
President Kennedy's famous challenge to reach the Moon before the 
decade of the 1960's ended. The success of our country's space program 
has become a source of great national pride. Far less attention has 
been given to the speech President Kennedy gave that same year in which 
he challenged Americans to explore the ocean depths.
  Well, we have reached the Moon and our spacecraft have explored the 
solar system. Today, we know more about the surface of planets located 
millions of miles from Earth than we know about much of the ocean 
floor, which is the Earth's own basement. We have maps of Venus that 
are better than the map of our own exclusive economic zone [EEZ].
  A recent Time magazine cover story on the mysteries of the deep 
raised similar concerns about how little we know about the last great 
unconquered place on Earth. As the article points out:

       More than 100 expeditions have reached Everest, the 29,028-
     foot pinnacle of the Himalayas; manned voyages to space have 
     become commonplace; and robot probes have ventured to the 
     outer reaches of the solar system. But only now are the 
     deepest parts of the ocean coming within reach.

  The U.S. exclusive economic zone covers more than 2.5 billion acres, 
an area slightly greater than that of the United States. Our EEZ is the 
largest under any nation's jurisdiction and contains a resource base 
estimated in the trillions of dollars. It is a vast, new ocean 
frontier.
  Because 85 percent of these waters are in the Pacific, Hawaii will 
play a central role in EEZ research and development. Unfortunately, our 
new frontier remains largely unexplored. After 10 years, the United 
States has performed a detailed reconnaissance of less than 5 percent 
of our EEZ.
  Today Senator Lott and I have introduced legislation to encourage the 
investigation of the world's oceans, stimulate our country's scientific 
and economic growth, and further our Nation's industrial 
competitiveness.
  Our bill would accelerate exploration, research, and assessment of 
the Nation's marine resources. Under this legislation, the Secretary of 
the Interior would foster partnerships among industry, government, and 
academia to explore our exclusive economic zone. These partnerships 
would act as incubators for the commercialization of the advanced 
technologies necessary to explore and develop responsibly our marine 
resources.
  The bill responds to a 1992 report by the National Research Council 
which noted that the systematic exploration of the EEZ will require 
technologies that are fundamentally different from those used in the 
initial phase of EEZ reconnaissance. The National Research Council 
identified a need for new ships, advanced instrumentation, and remotely 
operated underwater vehicles that can be equipped with multiple 

[[Page S 12396]]
data collecting sensors capable of mapping our EEZ resources with 
unprecedented speed.
  Knowledge of our ocean and its resources has always grown in direct 
proportion to the tools available for marine exploration. As these 
tools have evolved and improved, our ability to explore, evaluate, and 
capitalize on our ocean resources has also advanced. If we want to 
comprehend fully the potential of our EEZ, the technology of ocean 
exploration must take another leap forward. The deployment of a new 
generation of undersea research vehicles with advanced data gathering 
equipment will be necessary to permit reconnaissance on a scale that 
begins to match the vastness of the ocean and its seafloor. The 
potential payoffs associated with the development of these ocean 
technologies will be very great.
  In addition to improving our research capabilities, technology 
associated with ocean exploration can spawn new opportunities for 
economic development. We have seen major advances in our ability to 
survey, map, probe, sample, and monitor the ocean floor during the past 
decade. With the end of the cold war, the market for these systems is 
rapidly changing from military to civilian uses.
  Advances in unmanned underwater vehicles and imaging systems are 
being employed to perform environmental monitoring of sewage outfalls, 
underwater pipelines, ocean dumping, and industrial and non-point 
source pollution. The ability of these technologies to facilitate 
environmental remediation and cleanup may soon follow. These 
technologies will also have broad application for deploying and 
repairing communications and electric power cables, or in other areas 
of scientific research and technology commercialization.
  The opportunities for economic development from ocean resources and 
technologies cannot be taken for granted, however. The United States 
seriously risks being left behind other nations that are aggressively 
investing in the commercialization of ocean technologies. According to 
the Office of Technology Assessment, Japan, the United Kingdom, and 
France have major institutions devoted to developing ocean 
technologies. They have extensive private industry support and have 
government planning mechanisms to clearly define national ocean 
policies.
  In an increasingly competitive world, countries which lead in the 
rapid development, commercialization, and application of new 
technologies will enjoy greater economic growth, higher employment, and 
better living standards. Nowhere will this principle have greater 
significance than in the field of ocean resources. Given the magnitude 
of potential economic opportunity, the United States must strengthen 
its commitment to ocean R&D.
  We need only look to the space program for an appreciation of the 
economic opportunities generated from technology development. In the 
past 30 years, the U.S. space program has been the basis for more than 
30,000 secondary products--better known as spinoffs, in health and 
medicine, food and agriculture, energy, the environment, recreation, 
and construction.
  Some of the research has been adapted for use in monitoring and 
diagnosing illnesses. Devices such as electroencephalographs [EEGs], 
electrocardiograms [EKGs], rechargeable pacemakers, and medical 
scanners were developed from equipment built for the space program.
  Solar energy, which was pioneered for the space program, has found 
wide use in heating, cooling, and the generation of electricity. The 
heat shield developed for the Apollo mission is now providing energy 
savings as insulation for homes and office buildings.
  Remote sensing imagery developed for satellite surveys of the Earth 
is used by land managers today for long-term management and 
conservation of our natural resources.
  Although estimates vary, applications in industry were found to 
contribute $22 billion toward the sale of new or improved products and 
nearly $316 million in savings. Rewards even greater than that derived 
from the space program may be realized from ocean research.
  A commitment to ocean research and assessment embodied in this 
legislation can create new job opportunities, strengthen our scientific 
and industrial competitiveness, and produce economic benefits that far 
exceed the dollars invested.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Time article be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                  [From Time magazine, Aug. 14, 1995]

                Mysteries of the Deep--The Last Frontier

                        (By Michael D. Lemonick)

       Sometime this fall, if all goes well, a revolutionary new 
     undersea vessel will be lowered gently into the waters of 
     Monterey Bay for its maiden voyage. Named Deep Flight I, the 
     14-ft-long, 2,900-lb vehicle is shaped like a chubby, winged 
     torpedo but flies like an underwater bird. Compared with the 
     hard-to-maneuver submersibles that now haul deep-sea 
     explorers sluggishly around the oceans, Deep Flight is an 
     aquatic F-16 fighter. It can perform barrel rolls, race a 
     fast-moving pod of whales or leap vertically right out of the 
     sea. With a touch on the controls, a skilled pilot--who lies 
     prone in a body harness, his or her head protruding into the 
     craft's hemispherical glass nose--can skim just below the 
     ocean's surface or plunge thousands of feet below.
       But Deep Flight I is just a pale prototype of what's to 
     come. Back in their Point Richmond, California, workshop, the 
     craft's designers have already drawn blueprints for its 
     successor. Deep Flight II, an industrial strength submersible 
     capable of diving not just a few thousand feet but as far as 
     seven miles straight down, to the Mariana Trench--the aquatic 
     equivalent of Mount Everest or the South Pole or the moon.
       More than 35 years after the bathyscaphe Trieste took two 
     men, for the first and last time, 35,800 ft. down to the 
     deepest spot in the world--the Mariana Trench's Challenger 
     Deep just off Guam in the western Pacific--undersea 
     adventurers are preparing to go back. Last March a Japanese 
     robot scouted a tiny section of the bottom of the 1.584-mile-
     long crevasse and sent back the first real-time video images 
     of deepest-sea life. And in laboratories around the world, 
     engineers are hard at work on an armada of sophisticated 
     craft designed to explore--and in some cases exploit--the one 
     great unconquered place on earth: the bottom of the sea.
       The irony of 20th century scientists venturing out to 
     explore waters that have been navigated for thousands of 
     years is not lost on oceanographers. More than 100 
     expeditions have reached Everest, the 29,028-ft. pinnacle of 
     the Himalayas; manned voyages to space have become 
     commonplace; and robot probes have ventured to the outer 
     reaches of the solar system. But only now are the deepest 
     parts of the ocean coming within reach. ``I think there's a 
     perception that we have already explored the sea,'' says 
     marine biologist Sylvia Earle, a former chief scientist at 
     the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and 
     a co-founder of Deep Ocean Engineering, the San Leandro, 
     California, company where construction of Deep Flight I 
     began: ``The reality is we know more about Mars than we know 
     about the oceans.''
       That goes not only for the sea's utter-most depths but also 
     for the still mysterious middle waters three or four miles 
     down, and even for the ``shallows'' a few hundred feet deep. 
     For while the push to reach the very bottom of the sea has 
     fired the imagination of some of the world's most daring 
     explorers, it is just the most visible part of a broad 
     international effort to probe the oceans' depths. It's a 
     high-sea adventure fraught with danger, and--because of the 
     expense--with controversy as well.
       But the rewards could be enormous: oil and mineral wealth 
     to rival Alaska's North Slope and California's Gold Rush; 
     scientific discoveries that could change our view of how the 
     planet--and the life-forms on it--evolved; natural substances 
     that could yield new medicines and whole new classes of 
     industrial chemicals. Beyond those practical benefits there 
     is the intangible but real satisfaction that comes from 
     exploring earth's last great frontier.
       There's a lot to explore. Oceans cover nearly three-
     quarters of the planet's surface--336 million cu. mi. of 
     water that reaches an average depth of 2.3 miles. The sea's 
     intricate food webs support more life by weight and a greater 
     diversity of animals than any other ecosystem, from sulfur-
     eating bacteria clustered around deep-sea vents to fish that 
     light up like Times Square billboards to lure their prey. 
     Somewhere below there even lurks the last certified sea 
     monster left from pre-scientific times: the 64-ft.-long 
     squid.
       The sea's economic potential is equally enormous. 
     Majestically swirling ocean currents influence much of the 
     world's weather patterns, figuring out how they operate could 
     save trillions of dollars in weather-related disasters. The 
     oceans also have vast reserves of commercially valuable 
     minerals, including nickel, iron, manganese, copper and 
     cobalt. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are 
     already analyzing deep-sea bacteria, fish and marine plants 
     looking for substances that they might someday turn into 
     miracle drugs. Says Bruce Robison of the Monterey Bay 
     Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) in California: ``I can 
     guarantee you that the discoveries beneficial to mankind will 
     far outweigh those of the space program over the next couple 
     of decades. If we can get to the abyss regularly, there will 
     be immediate payoffs.'' 

[[Page S 12397]]

       Getting there, though, will force explorers to cope with an 
     environment just as perilous as outer space. Unaided, humans 
     can't dive much more than 10 ft. down--less than one three-
     thousandth of the way to the very bottom--before increasing 
     pressure starts to build up painfully on the inner ear, 
     sinuses and lungs. Frigid sub-surface water rapidly sucks 
     away body heat. And even the most leathery of lungs can't 
     hold a breath for more than two or three minutes.
       For these reasons the modern age of deep-sea exploration 
     had to wait for for two key technological developments: 
     engineer Otis Barton's 1930 invention of the bathysphere--
     essentially a deep-diving tethered steel ball--and the 
     invention of scuba (short for ``self-contained underwater 
     breathing apparatus'') by Jacques--Yves Cousteau and Emile 
     Gagnan in 1943. Swimmers had been trying to figure out how to 
     get oxygen underwater for thousands of years. Sponge divers 
     in ancient Greece breathed from air-filled kettles; bulky-
     helmeted diving suits linked by hose to the surface first 
     appeared in the 1800s. But it wasn't until scuba came along 
     that humans, breathing compressed air, were able to move 
     about freely underwater at depths of more than 100 ft.
       Even the most experienced scuba divers rarely venture below 
     150 ft., however, owing to increasingly crushing pressure and 
     the laborious decompression process required to purge the 
     blood of nitrogen (which can form bubbles as a diver returns 
     to the surface and case the excruciating and sometimes fatal 
     condition known as the bends). And pressurized diving suits 
     make it possible for humans to descend only to 1,400 ft.--far 
     short of the deepest reaches of the oceans.
       Underwater vehicles date back at least to 1620. But it 
     wasn't until Barton's bathysphere came along that scientists 
     could descend to any respectable depth. The Bathysphere 
     eventaully took Barton and zoologist William Beebe to a 
     record 3,028 ft. off Bermuda. But it wasn't at all 
     maneuverable: it could only go straight down and straight 
     back up again. Swiss engineer Auguste Piccard solved the 
     mobility problem with the first true submersible, a 
     dirigible-like vessel called a bathyscaphe, which consisted 
     of a spherical watertight cabin suspended below a buoyant 
     gasoline-filled pontoon. (A submersible is simply a small, 
     mobile undersea vessel used for science.)
       The Trieste, which took U.S. Navy Lieut. Don Walsh and 
     Piccard's son Jacques into the Challenger Deep, was only the 
     third bathyscaphe ever built, and unlike modern 
     submersibles--which bristle with advanced underwater cameras, 
     grabbers, collection baskets and manipulator arms--it carried 
     nothing but its passengers. Its mission was to test whether 
     humans could reach the abyss, the first step toward 
     developing a fleet of manned submersibles. ``At the time, 
     people were still flying across the atlantic in prop 
     planes,'' recalls Walsh, now a consultant on underwater 
     technology. ``criticizing the Trieste mission for not 
     carrying cameras and other instruments is like chastising the 
     Wright brothers for not carrying passengers.''
       In the wake of Trieste's successful dive, the number of 
     submersibles expanded dramatically. The Woods Hole 
     oceanographic Institution's workhorse, the three-person Alvin 
     (still in operation), was launched in 1964. And the first 
     robots-on-a-tether--the so-called remotely operated vehicles, 
     or ROVS--were developed several years later. The Soviet 
     Union, France and Japan began building their own 
     submersibles, either for military or scientific reasons, and 
     for the first time scientists could systematically collect 
     animals, plants, rocks and water samples rather than study 
     whatever they could dredge up in collection baskets lowered 
     from the surface.
       Thus began a remarkable period of undersea discovery that 
     transformed biology, geology and oceanography. Scientists 
     have started to understand, for example, how year-to-year 
     changes in wind patterns and ocean currents that lead to 
     phenomena like the Pacific's El Nino can not only devastate 
     populations of commercially valuable fish but also trigger 
     dramatic shifts in weather patterns. Oceanic fluctuations 
     over much longer time scales, combined with major currents 
     like the Gulf Stream, may start (and bring to an end) planet-
     wide climatic changes like the Ice Ages.
       Scientists have also learned that far from being a flat, 
     featureless plain, the sea floor is rent and wrinkled with a 
     topography that puts dry land to shame. Not only do the seas 
     hold canyons deep enough to hide the Himalayas, but they are 
     also the setting for what is by far the largest geologic 
     feature on the planet: a single, globe-circling 31,000-mile-
     long mountain range that snakes its way continuously through 
     the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Arctic oceans.
       When geologists first visited the mid-ocean range in the 
     late 1970s, they were convinced that it supported the then 
     new theory of plate tectonics. According to this theory, the 
     surface of the earth is not a single, rocky shell but a 
     series of hard ``plates.'' perhaps 50 miles thick and up to 
     thousands of miles across, floating on a bed of partly molten 
     rock. The mid-ocean ridges, geologists argued, were likely 
     locations for planetary crust to be created: the new plate 
     material would be pushed upward by forces from below before 
     it settled back down to form the sea floor.
       Rock samples from the Atlantic section of the range--which, 
     when examined closely, proved to be newly formed--provided 
     striking evidence that the theory is correct. But an even 
     more dramatic confirmation came from the Pacific, where black 
     clouds of superheated, mineral-rich water were discovered 
     spewing from chimney-like mounds on the sea bottom--evidence 
     that the rocks below still carried tremendous heat from their 
     relatively recent formation.
       These hot gushers, now known as hydrothermal vents, have 
     since been found in many parts of the world, and because they 
     occur at average depths of about 7,300 ft., oceanographers 
     have been able to visit and study a dozen of them. The vents 
     are essentially underwater geysers that work much the same 
     way Old Faithful does. Seawater percolates down through 
     cracks in the crust, getting progressively hotter. It doesn't 
     boil, despite temperatures reaching up 750 deg. F, because it 
     is under terrific pressure. Finally, the hot water gushes 
     back up in murky clouds that cool rapidly, dumping dissolved 
     minerals, including zinc, copper, iron, sulfur compounds and 
     silica, onto the ocean floor. The material hardens into 
     chimneys, known as ``black smokers'' (one, nicknamed 
     Godzilla, towers 148 ft. above the bottom).
       The chemistry of the vents has provided answers to 
     questions that have perplexed scientists for years. For 
     example, marine geochemists could never understand why the 
     amount of magnesium in seawater remained relatively constant, 
     even though the element is continually eroding into the 
     oceans from dry land. Now they know that magnesium is 
     completely stripped from seawater as it passes through the 
     hot rock--something all the water in the oceans will do every 
     10 million years.
       While academics think of the vents as fascinating natural 
     chemistry labs, capitalists view them as mini-refineries, 
     bringing valuable metals up from the planet's interior and 
     concentrating them in convenient locations. Oceanographers 
     have long known that parts of the Pacific sea floor at depths 
     between 14,000 ft. and 17,000 ft. are carpeted with so-called 
     manganese nodules, potato-size chunks of manganese mixed with 
     iron, nickel, cobalt and other useful metals. In the 1970s, 
     Howard Hughes used the search for nodules as a cover for 
     building the ship Glomar Explorer, which was used to salvage 
     a sunken Soviet sub. Now several mining companies are drawing 
     up plans to do with more up-to-date equipment what Hughes 
     only pretended to do.
       If the discovery of the vents was a major surprise, 
     scientists were astronished to learn that at least some of 
     these submerged geysers--whose hot, sulfurous environs bear 
     more than a passing resemblance to hell--are actually 
     bursting with life. Nobody had invited biologists along to 
     study the vents because nobody imagined there would be 
     anything to interest them. But on a dive off the Galapagos in 
     1977, researchers found the water around a vent teeming with 
     bacteria and surrounded for dozens of feet in all directions 
     with peculiar, 8-in.-long tube-shaped worms, clams the size 
     of dinner plates, mussels and at least one specimen of a 
     strange pink-skinned, blue-eyed fish.
       Recalls biologist Holger Jannasch, at Woods Hole in 
     Massachusetts: ``I got a call through the radio operator at 
     Woods Hole from the chief scientist . . . who said he had 
     discovered big clams and tube worms, and I simply didn't 
     believe it. He was a geologist, after all.'' Disbelief was 
     quickly replaced by intense curiosity. What were these 
     animals feeding on in the absence of any detectable food 
     supply? How were they surviving without light? The answer, 
     surprisingly, had been found by a Russian scientist more than 
     100 years earlier. He had shown that an underwater bacterium, 
     Beggiatoa, lived on hydrogen sulfide, a substance that is 
     highly toxic to most forms of life. The bacterium was 
     chemosynthetic--as opposed to photosynthetic--getting its 
     energy from chemicals rather than from the sun.
       The bacteria around the vents, in turn, were living inside 
     the mollusks and worms, breaking down other chemicals into 
     usable food--an ecological niche nobody had suspected they 
     could fill. Many biologists now believe that the very first 
     organisms on earth were chemosynthetic as well, suggesting 
     that the vents may well be the best laboratory available for 
     studying how life on the planet actually began.
       Do scientists expect even more surprises as they venture 
     farther below the surface? The question is a crucial one, as 
     both scientists and policymakers debate the finances of deep-
     sea exploration. Most everyone acknowledges that there is 
     some value in studying the oceans. It's expensive, though, 
     and because of generally tight budgets, even the few existing 
     manned submersibles (which in any case are rated only for 
     depths above 20,000 ft.) often have to sit idle. Building 
     more strikes some as a waste of money.
       That includes some scientists. Although he has never been 
     to the very deepest trenches, ocean explorer Robert Ballard 
     of Woods Hole, who is best known for discovering the wreck of 
     the Titanic in 1985, is convinced that the action lies in the 
     relative shallows. ``I believe that the deep sea has very 
     little to offer,'' he says. ``I've been there. I've spent a 
     career there. I don't see the future there.'' The French have 
     decided not even to bother trying to break the 20.000-ft. 
     barrier- the range of their deepest-diving submersible, the 
     three-person Nautile. Says Jean Jarry, director of the 
     Toulon-sur-Mer research center of ifremer, France's national 
     oceanographic institute: ``We think that's a good depth 
     because it covers 97% of the ocean. To 

[[Page S 12398]]
     go beyond that is not very interesting and is very expensive.
       But that attitude is far from universal. Biologist Greg 
     Stone, of the New England Aquarium in Boston, compares 
     reaching the deepest abyss with Christopher Columbus' search 
     for the New World. ``Why should we care about the deepest 3% 
     of the oceans, and why do we need to reach it?'' he asks 
     rhetorically. ``For one, we won't know what it holds until 
     we've been there. There will certainly be new creatures. 
     We'll be able to learn where gases from the atmosphere go in 
     the ocean. We'll be able to get closest to where the 
     geological action is. We know very little about the details 
     of these processes. And once we're there, I'm sure studies 
     will open up whole sets of new questions.''
       Only the richest countries can afford to explore these 
     questions, of course, and while most expeditions are made up 
     of scientists from many lands, the world's deep-sea powers--
     the U.S., France, Japan and, until economic troubles all but 
     ended its program, Russia--are always aware of who's ahead in 
     the quest for the bottom. At the moment, it's probably Japan, 
     not least because of the triumphant touchdown in the 
     Challenge Deep last March of its 10.5-ton, $41.5 million ROV 
     called Kaiko. The Japanese got into ocean research well after 
     the French, Americans and Russians. But the country has made 
     up for lost time. Says Brian Taylor, a marine geologist at 
     the University of Hawaii and a sometime visiting scientist at 
     the Japan Marine Science and Technology Center (JAMSTEC): 
     ``The Japanese are on the leading edge.''
       The Japanese, to be sure, are always interested in a new 
     market opportunities. But they have a more compelling need to 
     understand the ocean floor: the southern part of the island 
     nation has the bad luck to sit on the meeting place of three 
     tectonic plates. As these plates grind against each other, 
     they generate about one-tenth of the world's annual allotment 
     of earthquakes, including plenty of lethal quakes like the 
     one that killed 5,500 people in Kobe in January and the 
     famous 1923 Tokyo temblor in which more than 142.000 
     perished.
       The desperate need to anticipate future quakes is one 
     reason JAMSTEC built the Shinkai 6500 submersible, which can 
     go deeper than any other piloted craft in the world. On its 
     very first series of missions in 1991, Shinkai found 
     unsuspected deep fissures on the edge of the Pacific plate, 
     which presses in on the island nation from the east. The 
     vessel has also discovered the world's deepest known colony 
     of clams (at a depth of more than 20,000 ft.) and a series of 
     thickly populated hydrothermal vents.
       Unlike the French and some Americans, though, the Japanese 
     feel a need to go all the way to the deepest reaches of the 
     ocean. A case in point was Kaiko dive to the bottom of the 
     Challenger Deep. Jamstec engineers watched anxiously on a 
     video screen, the robotic craft spent 35 min. at a depth of 
     35,798 ft.--2 ft. shy of Trieste's 1960 record. But during 
     that brief visit, Kaiko saw a sea slug, a worm and a shrimp, 
     proof that even the most inhospitable place on earth is home 
     to a variety of creatures. Next winter Kaiko will return to 
     the deep to look for more signs of life.
       Japan's latest success adds fuel to yet another debate 
     about deep-sea exploration. Some scientists insist that 
     remote-controlled, robotic craft are no substitute for having 
     humans on the scene. Says Mlari's Robison: ``Whether you're a 
     geologist or a biologist, being able to see with your own 
     eyes is vital. That's a squiffy-sounding rationalization, but 
     it's true.'' There are other advantages too, he notes. ``The 
     human eyes are connected to the best portable computer there 
     is [the brain]. ANd when things go wrong, a person can often 
     fix them faster, more easily and more efficiently than a 
     robot can. Look at the Hubble Space Telescope repair 
     mission.''
       But others argue that robots--whether tethered, like Kaiko 
     or untethered, like the new generation of autonomous 
     underwater vehicles known as AUVS--can do the job just as 
     well. Not only are they much cheaper to build and run than 
     human-operated submersibles, but they can also work for long 
     periods under the most hazardous of conditions. Moreover, 
     remotely operated vehicles such as Kaiko put scientists on 
     the scene, at least in a virtual sense, through video images 
     piped in real time through the fiber-optic cable. Researchers 
     can gather around a monitor and discuss what they are seeing 
     without distractions. ``You're focused,'' says Ballard. 
     ``You're not thinking, `Is there enough oxygen in here? I've 
     got a headache. I just hit my head. I've got to go to the 
     bathroom.' ''
       The cheapest way to explore the ocean floor, however, may 
     be with the free-floating AUVS, which can roam the depths 
     without human intervention for months on end. Although they 
     cannot yet provide real-time pictures, they can stay on the 
     bottom as long as a year, patiently accumulating data. Two 
     American AUVS--a government- and university-funded craft 
     called Odyssey and Woods Hole's Autonomous Benthic Explorer--
     have just completed tests off the coast of Washington and 
     Oregon. Eventually, fleets of these robots could communicate 
     among themselves to provide information in the most efficient 
     way, periodically surfacing to beam their data to researchers 
     on shore.
       Most scientists think the ideal solution would be to use a 
     mix of all three types of vehicles. There is no shortage of 
     designs--but many may never be built. Even Japan's Jamstec, 
     whose constantly growing research budget is reasonably secure 
     for now, has its limitations. In the event of a severe 
     economic slump, says Takeo Tanaka, a planning official for 
     the agency, ``we may not be able to get funding for new deep-
     sea probes.'' France has no plans to build more manned 
     submersibles--and in fact may ask support from other European 
     Union countries to help subsidize its own program, turning a 
     national effort into a consortium much like the European 
     Space Agency.
       And in the U.S., once the leader in deep-sea research, the 
     future looks bleak. The Federal Government is giving less and 
     less money to civilian scientists, while the military 
     considers mines in shallow waters a much greater threat than 
     Russian submarines. Laments Trieste veteran Walsh: ``If I had 
     seen a Russian footprint instead of a fish on the bottom, the 
     program might have gotten more support.''
       Even without further budget cuts, oceanographers are being 
     forced to look for private funding to bolster their programs. 
     A fifth of France's present oceanography budget comes from 
     renting out the country's expertise. The Nautile, for 
     example, was hired to retrieve artifacts from the Titanic in 
     1987, and last year the Rodederer Champagne company paid 
     ifremer for an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to find the 
     sunken airplane of French author and aviator Antoine de 
     Saint-Exupery.
       In the U.S., the most innovative new designs in underwater 
     craft are coming from such private companies as Deep Ocean 
     Engineering. Founded by Marine biologist Earle and British 
     engineer Graham Hawkes in 1981 (they married in 1986 but have 
     since divorced), the firm designs and builds undersea-
     exploration vehicles on commission, mostly for the oil and 
     gas industry, various navies, universities and even film 
     crews. The two Deep Flight I vehicles, which Hawkes began 
     with the company but completed independently, were financed 
     by several film and television firms and Scientific Search 
     Project, a marine-archaeology company.
       Paradoxically, forcing submersible design into the 
     competitive marketplace may prove to be a boon to underwater 
     research. A new version of Shinkai 6500 would cost perhaps 
     $100 million and require a new surface ship as well. Says 
     Hawkes, who designed Deep Flight and will put it through its 
     initial paces: ``That's so expensive that they'll only build 
     one, which means it could only be in one place at a time. 
     Deep Flight, he says, could cut through this impasse. ``If 
     we're successful, it will show that we can access the bottom 
     of the ocean in vehicles costing $5 million. They're so small 
     and light, you can send them anywhere.''
       Hawkes' eventual goal is to give away the plans for Deep 
     Flight I free to anyone who wants them. When Deep Flight II 
     is finished, he hopes, trips to the deepest abyss could 
     become almost routine. Today, the larger craft is still 
     looking for a patron, but Hawkes is undaunted. ``We'll get 
     the funding,'' he says confidently. ``After all, one Deep 
     Flight costs less than what you need for an America's Cup 
     campaign--and the payoff is 10 times as rewarding.''
       He is probably right. Despite the budget cuts, despite the 
     inhospitable environment, despite the pressing danger, there 
     is little doubt that humans, one way or the other, are headed 
     back to the bottom of the sea. The rewards of exploring the 
     coldest, darkest waters--scientific, economic and 
     psychological--are just too great to pass up. Ultimately, 
     people will go to the abyss for the same reason Sir Edmund 
     Hillary climbed Everest; because it's there.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I am joining Senator Akaka in 
introducing legislation which will continue a valuable marine minerals 
research program started less than a decade ago. With a relatively 
small input of Federal seed money, this unique program directs an 
aggressive and successful applied research effort at two universities. 
Already, it has delivered concrete accomplishments, as well as produced 
a cadre of enthusiastic and talented students, who are now trained with 
practical hands-on experience.
  To date, achievements include low-cost, highly effective geophysical, 
geochemical, and geotechnical systems to survey America's Exclusive 
Economic Zone. These systems can remotely determine physical and 
chemical properties on and beneath the sea floor. This information is 
used by universities, offshore industries, and the government.
  I want to mention just three ongoing research projects to illustrate 
how this academic approach is actually developing new technologies to 
meet our future economic needs:
  First, an acoustical filter system to control dredging turbidity and 
to process industrial waste;
  Second, a geophysical system to identify mineral deposits--even 
unexploded ordnance or sand for coastline stabilization; and
  Third, a geochemical system to use sea floor chemistry for locating 
important minerals and assessing sediment pollutants. 

[[Page S 12399]]

  It goes without saying that these efforts are of great value 
environmentally, economically, and strategically. Let me translate 
these efforts into a tangible example--beach replenishment. By making 
it more cost effective through a system which locates the right type of 
sand, the Government can fix more coastal communities with less 
financial resources, thus protecting this delicate environment that 
millions of Americans enjoy.
  Another example is the Navy's ability to find unexploded ordnance in 
offshore ranges so the ordnance can be removed and the ranges 
decommissioned, thus making our coastal waters safer. These examples 
clearly make the point that this unique university-based approach 
should be continued.
  These systems will enable America to access and harvest its vast 
mineral resources which are hidden at the bottom of the ocean.
  These systems will offer solutions for major environmental problems, 
and not just those associated with the oceans.
  These systems, at the same time they expand the technological 
envelope, will provide new jobs and new prosperity--all within a 
framework of environmental stewardship and responsibility.
  I ask my colleagues to examine the merits of this research and 
support this exceptional cooperative program which involves 
universities dealing with applied problems in both marine resources and 
marine environments.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 1195. A bill to provide for the transfer of certain Department of 
the Interior land located in Grant County, NM, to St. Vincent DePaul 
Parish in Silver City, NM, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


               the father aull site transfer act of 1995

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I introduce the Father Aull Site 
Transfer Act of 1995, which will transfer a parcel of land from the 
Bureau of Land Management [BLM] to the St. Vincent DePaul Parish in 
Silver City, NM. This transfer is necessary to allow the parish to 
rehabilitate the historic structures at the site, and to provide for 
their future use and protection from destructive vandalism that is 
currently occurring.
  Mr. President, Father Roger Aull was a German Jesuit priest, probably 
born about 1895. He served as a Catholic chaplain during the First 
World War, but due to ill health, he moved to the Southwest to take 
advantage of the dry climate. He first settled in San Lorenzo, near 
Silver City, where he built a beautiful stone house and chapel, before 
being asked to leave the property which did not belong to him. The 
structures at San Lorenzo are now listed on the New Mexico Register of 
Historic Sites.
  After leaving San Lorenzo, he settled on a parcel of land near 
Central, believing that he had received clear title to the tract. Again 
he set out to establish a local parish, and built another beautiful 
monastery out of stone collected from the nearby hillsides. This 
monastery included a house for machines he invented for treating lung 
problems, the Halox Therapeutic Generator, along with a beautiful 
chapel, barns for the animals, and many exquisite grottos and gardens. 
Unfortunately, it was later discovered that this site was actually on 
public domain land, and Father Aull's assumption of clear title was 
again incorrect. The site has become historically significant to the 
Silver City community, and I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
Record, an article by local historian, Audrey H. Hartshorne, describing 
in greater detail the history of this man and his contributions to the 
Silver City area.
  In March, 1993, the U.S. Forest Service Office in Silver City 
contacted Membres Resource Area personnel to report a trespass on BLM 
land. Apparently, a local man had moved his double-wide mobile home and 
installed improvements on public land adjacent to the Father Aull 
monastery. Because this is an isolated tract of the three million acres 
managed by the Membres Resource Area, no one in the Resource Area was 
aware of the monastery's existence until the trespass was investigated. 
The trespass case and the site drew national attention when the man 
refused to remove his mobile home from public land.
  Vandalism, which has been a problem at the site for some time, has 
increased dramatically over the last few years. The beautiful structure 
is now being vandalized almost daily. A fire, set by vandals, destroyed 
the wooden roof, and the rock walls are being dismantled and the rocks 
carried away. The site has become a party place
 for local teens and cult worshipers, and new graffiti appears on the 
structures almost daily. Recently, a suicide was committed on the 
property. The local sheriff's department has informed the BLM that the 
calls to respond to disturbances at the site are becoming too frequent, 
and has asked for the BLM's assistance in this matter.

  Unfortunately, there are several circumstances that limit the 
Bureau's ability to remedy the situation. A locked gate cannot be 
placed on the road leading into the property because the road is used 
by an elderly couple in ill health access their private property. 
Additionally, the site is some 50 miles from the nearest BLM office in 
Deming, and due to its isolation from other resources managed through 
this office, cannot receive the needed attention to prevent further 
problems at the site.
  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today will provide for a 
solution to this problem, and has been suggested to me by local BLM 
officials. A local church, the St. Vincent DePaul Parish in Silver 
City, has also raised concerns with the BLM, but in addition, have 
offered to provide a solution to the problems occurring at the site. 
This local church has offered to buy the property, but due to a limited 
budget, this would not allow them to begin restoring the buildings on 
the site for some time.
  If, however, the property could be obtained by the church without a 
substantial expenditure, they would be able to begin to restore the 
buildings almost immediately. Under the proposal that the parish has 
presented, the area would be cleaned up, the chapel and other 
structures restored and used as a spiritual retreat and health center. 
The facilities would not be intended for providing for the homeless; 
however, no one would be turned away. It would not be a residence for 
the users, and no medical treatments would be conducted on the site, 
but would provide people suffering from various debilitating maladies a 
quiet retreat for reflection and renewal. Finally, the church would 
provide for a caretaker to live on-site, and it would work with the 
State Historical Society to restore the structures.
  I believe this to be the best way to protect and use this small 
isolated tract of BLM land. The parish has the resources and people 
necessary to restore the site and protect the property from further 
destruction. The community would be involved in the protection of the 
site that has become so important to many local residents, but that is 
currently at great risk of continued vandalism.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                S. 1195

       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 ``Father Aull Site Transfer 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the buildings and grounds developed by Father Roger 
     Aull located on public domain land near Silver City, New 
     Mexico, are historically significant to the citizens of the 
     community;
       (2) vandalism at the site has become increasingly 
     destructive and frequent in recent years;
       (3) because of the isolated location and the distance from 
     other significant resources and agency facilities, the Bureau 
     of Land Management has been unable to devote sufficient 
     resources to restore and protect the site from further 
     damage; and
       (4) St. Vincent DePaul Parish in Silver City, New Mexico, 
     has indicated an interest in, and developed a sound proposal 
     for the restoration of, the site, such that the site could be 
     permanently occupied and used by the community.

     SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.

       As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and subject to valid existing rights, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall convey by patent to St. Vincent 

[[Page S 12400]]
     DePaul Parish in Silver City, New Mexico, without consideration, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     land (including improvements on the land) consisting of 
     approximately 43.06 acres, located approximately 10 miles 
     east of Silver City, New Mexico, and described as follows: T. 
     17 S., R. 12 W., Section 30: Lot 13, and Section 31: Lot 27 
     (as generally depicted on the map dated July 1995).

     SEC. 4. RELEASES.

       (a) In General.--Upon the conveyance of any land or 
     interest in land identified in section 3 to St. Vincent 
     DePaul Parish, St. Vincent DePaul Parish shall assume any 
     liability for any claim relating to the land or interest in 
     the land arising after the date of the conveyance.
       (b) NEPA.--The conveyance described in section 3--
       (1) is deemed to have no significant impact on the 
     environment; and
       (2) shall not be subject to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

     SEC. 5. MAP.

       The map referred to in this Act shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in--
       (1) the State of New Mexico Office of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico; and
       (2) the Las Cruces District Office of the Bureau of Land 
     Management, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
            Father Roger Aull--Saint, Sinner, or Scientist?

                       (By Audrey H. Hartshorne)


                            in the beginning

       There was a German Jesuit Priest, named Roger Aull. 
     (Probably born about 1895.) He had received a good education 
     for those days. He had college courses in medicine, 
     chemistry, iridology, and dietetics. He had lectured at Notre 
     Dame and St. Josephs. He served as a Catholic Chaplain in 
     World War One. While in France he was gassed, which caused 
     him to have abcessed lungs.
       After the war he came to New York, trying to get doctors to 
     help him with his respiratory problems. He was told he was a 
     dying man and the best they could suggest was that he go to 
     the Southwest where the climate would, at least, give him 
     some relief during his final days.
       He gave away or sold all of his belongings and headed, hobo 
     style, for the southwest. He ended up in San Lorenzo in the 
     1930's. He had been a large man and was strong enough to work 
     in spite of his breathing problems. He was skilled in trades 
     such as masonry and carpentry. While in the San Lorenzo area 
     he was befriended by a Mexican family named Morales. He built 
     himself a beautiful stone house and a chapel. Some say it was 
     on the property owned by Morales, others say it was actually 
     owned by a Mr. Charles Giraud. He soon added to it with a 
     place for chickens and a pig.
       Among the people who helped him haul stones for these 
     buildings were Joe and Francisco Dominguez. They say he was 
     fussy about the stone. He always said they had to be from one 
     certain area, and be a certain size, and be flat on two sides 
     with an oval shape.


                             on the mimbres

       In 1935 he met a mining engineer named Alex Raymond 
     Morrison, who operated a gold and silver mine some distance 
     to the north. Mr. Morrison for many years had been curious as 
     to why his mining men never suffered from the common cold or 
     other respiratory infections. He felt that the salts 
     prevalent in his mine, which gave off a very peculiar 
     smelling gas, were probably responsible. He finally decided, 
     according to Mr. Caporaso in his book about Father Aull, 
     ``that static electricity in the ground separated or 
     dissolved the components formed by the union of the salt 
     concentrates and the mineral-laden water, automatically 
     generating this gas.'' He dreamt of generating it for 
     medicinal purposes.
       Morrison invited Father Aull to visit the mine. The more 
     often he visited, the better Roger's abcessed lungs became. 
     In return Father Aull said Mass for the miners every morning 
     and even helped carry out ore.
       During this period (late 1930's) Father Aull visited his 
     mother in Illinois and an acquaintance there showed him a gas 
     generator which the friend was working on to be used for 
     therapeutic inhalation. When Aull returned to Grant County, 
     he and Mr. Morrison began working on and improving the 
     generator and combining it with their theory about how the 
     chlorine gas was formed in the mine. They tested the 
     resulting machine on animals. (Some say it was on dogs with 
     colds, others say the dogs actually had distemper and it 
     cured them.) Then, although Roger's lungs were almost cured, 
     he tested it on himself. It seemed very successful. They 
     christened the machine the ``Halox Therapeutic Generator''. 
     People began coming for treatments. No charge was made, but 
     donations were accepted.
       In 1940 Mr. Morrison passed away. At about the same time, 
     the owner of the land he had built on (Morales, or Giraud?) 
     said they objected to all the traffic (and maybe secretly 
     coveted Aull's neat little farm) and ordered him off the land 
     (some say at gun point). Since the land had never actually 
     been transferred into Aull's name, he had no choice but to 
     pack up his machine and his Bible and head off, hobo style, 
     once again.


                        on a hillside in central

       Friends came to his rescue. Albert Garrett (also a mining 
     engineer) and his wife Lennie transferred to him official 
     title to a portion of what they thought was their land in 
     Central, New Mexico. This time title to the land was secured 
     in his name, at the Silver City Courthouse.
       Roger once again began building, stone-upon-stone to create 
     a beautiful sanctuary for everyone who came to try his 
     machine. He had a large room to house the machines for the 
     treatments, a beautiful church, barns for the animals he 
     loved so much, and many beautiful grottos and gardens, as 
     well as some of the most beautiful scenery anyone could ask 
     for. He still only accepted donations, but if you didn't have 
     any money to donate, you could help with the building to pay 
     your way. He never turned anyone away.
       In 1940, a professional golfer named Anthony Caporaso, who 
     had been sent to the southwest with an incurable lung problem 
     came to try the cure. It worked! He became an avid backer of 
     the program. He stayed on and worked on the rock walls and 
     gardens to pay for his cure. In later years he wrote a book 
     about Father Aull.
       During this period, with many people coming for the cure, a 
     woman who also had severe arthritis came and was cured of 
     both her breathing problem and the arthritis. Word spread, 
     and suddenly hundreds of people were searching him out to be 
     cured. A company was formed to manufacture the Halox and 
     Father Aull opened clinics in Carlsbad, Del Rio, El Paso, 
     Denver, San Francisco and Tombstone, Arizona. Many doctors 
     began using or recommending his Halox Generator, However, the 
     A.M.A. never would accept it and endorse it. (They refused 
     either because it was dangerous to mess with Chlorine gas or 
     because they didn't stand to make any profit from it . . . . 
     take your choice.)


                              In Tombstone

       On August 4, 1948 while on a trip to his Clinic in 
     Tombstone, Father Roger Aull suffered a heart attack and 
     died. Most of the clinics closed and the group that had 
     helped with the manufacture of his machines just folded up. 
     Subsequently, Bob Stepp, a trader in Silver City, bought up 
     many of the machines. One machine has been donated to the 
     Silver City Museum.
       People who came and were cured, called him a Saint. Some of 
     this was possibly due to his skill in iridology. They were 
     more impressed by his skill of looking into their eyes and 
     telling them what their troubles were, than they were with 
     the machine.
       The IRS discovered $25,000 in his estate after his death. 
     They called him a Sinner and confiscated the money.
       Since many of the people who came were legitimately cured, 
     perhaps he was a Scientist.


                       its not over `til its over

       When Reverend Roger Aull died, so did people's faith in the 
     Halox Therapeutic Generator. The Clinics closed. (The 
     Tombstone Clinic stayed open for a while under the direction 
     of a Doctor Paul Zinn.) So strong had been the belief that 
     the Reverend Aull had been personally responsible for the 
     seemingly miraculous cures, that the machines never seemed as 
     effective with him gone.
       The Garretts took care of settling most of the property and 
     the business. A Mr. Mrachek had been building the machines in 
     his shop in Central and began to try to get rid of them. Some 
     of the equipment seems to have ended up at the old T and M 
     Dairy in Hanover. Many of the items from the Chapel were 
     given to or taken by some of the local Catholic Churches.
       After the Garretts passed away, an investigation of the 
     property deeds revealed that the land Aull built on had 
     actually been BLM property. The Three Brothers Mining Company 
     did patent a claim on it, but this does not give them the 
     surface rights to the buildings. For years the buildings had 
     just sat there deteriorating, hurried along by intermittent 
     vandalism. The roof of the medical room was burned, one wall 
     was torn down to steal the rocks on it, and, in general 
     garbage, etc. has been strewn around. A Mr. Wilguess moved a 
     trailor home on the property and has tried to clean it up and 
     to protect it, but the BLM says that is illegal and he had 
     had to move off.
       There seems to have been a renaissance of interest in 
     Father Aull and his beautiful rock buildings and grottos. 
     Perhaps the BLM will be able to restore, and protect the 
     beautiful site. Who knows what another fifty years might 
     bring.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 1196. A bill to transfer certain National Forest System lands 
adjacent to the townsite of Cuprum, ID; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources


                     the cuprum townsite relief act

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce the Cuprum Townsite 
Relief Act of 1995.
  In 1909, President William Taft accepted payment and granted a tract 
of land contained within the townsite of Cuprum, ID, to the occupants. 
Cuprum was a mining community and remains a community to this day. The 
quarter corner locating the community was established in 1891. A 
private survey of the town was done in 1899 for the purpose of 
providing a basis for a townsite 

[[Page S 12401]]
patent. A townsite patent was issued in 1909 that was based on the 
private survey. A recent Federal survey of the area has discovered 
inconsistencies between the description contained in the patent and the 
updated survey. This has called into question the boundaries of several 
lots within the townsite that now are surveyed as extending into the 
National Forest System lands adjacent to the townsite.
  This legislation will resolve the problem brought on by the incorrect 
description of the original boundaries granting the land. This 
legislation will allow the correction of the boundary of the Cuprum 
Townsite and place the boundary at the location that has been relied 
upon since the turn of the century. The citizens of Cuprum deserve to 
have this error corrected by speedy action of the Congress.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
        Abraham, Mr. Santorum, Mr. DeWine,  and Mr. Faircloth):
  S. 1197. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
facilitate the dissemination to physicians of scientific information 
about prescription drug therapies and devices, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                   health care community legislation

 Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation 
to ensure that physicians and their patients have the best and most 
current information at their disposal when making medical treatment 
decisions. I am pleased Senator Frist has agreed to join me in this 
effort. His firsthand experience as a distinguished surgeon has been 
invaluable as we worked to craft this legislation. Also joining us as 
cosponsors are Senators D'Amato, Shelby, Abraham, Santorum, DeWine,  
and Faircloth.
  When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approves a new 
prescription drug or medical device, it does so for specified uses. 
Frequently, however, scientist discover the drug or device is also 
beneficial in treating other medical conditions. Physicians are free to 
prescribe prescription drugs and use medical devices for these new, 
off-label, uses.
  However, since 1991, the FDA has prohibited the industry from 
distributing scientific articles about these important new uses. I have 
been told that as many as 40 percent of all prescriptions are for an 
off-label use. Accordingly, one has to question the wisdom of 
withholding such vital information about new uses.
  Our legislation would permit the dissemination of certain information 
about off-label uses of FDA-approved prescription drugs and medical 
devices to physicians. It is important to emphasize that our 
legislation applies only to the dissemination of peer-reviewed articles 
from medical and scientific journals, textbooks, and similar 
publications. In so doing, it ensures the objectivity of the 
information. Furthermore, it would permit the distribution of 
information which is the subject of a scientific or educational program 
which is approved by an independent continuing medical education 
accrediting entity. Finally, the legislation would include peer-
reviewed data on a pharmaceutical or device which is recognized under 
Federal law for purposes of third party coverage or reimbursement, such 
as Medicare.
  Several other safeguards are built in to the legislation. First, our 
bill requires disclosure that the information being disseminated has 
not been approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and 
also that the information is being disseminated at the expense of the 
drug's sponsor. Second, it requires disclosure of my financial 
arrangement between the authors of the data and the manufacturer of the 
subject drug or device.
  The FDA's gag rule on the distribution of information about new uses 
of prescription drugs and medical devices inhibits the ability of a 
physician and his or her patient to make informed decisions about the 
patient's course of treatment. No physician, no matter how dedicated he 
or she might be, can possibly read every scientific journal or attend 
every medical seminar. This bill will maximize the ability of 
physicians to gain insight about new uses of approved therapies to 
treat a patient's illnesses or improve their quality of life.
  The American Medical Association, in a letter to the FDA on the 
subject, stated, ``the dissemination of accurate and unbiased 
information about off-label uses of approved drugs and medical devices 
to practicing physicians is essential to the provision of high quality 
medical care.''
  The current policy prohibiting the exchange of scientific data is 
another example of the Federal Government taking medical decisions out 
of the hands of physicians and patients and putting them in the hands 
of Government bureaucrats. In addition, the policy may be a violation 
of the first amendment to the Constitution.
  Mr. President, five members of my family and I have each battled 
cancer. All but my brother, Michael, survived thanks in part to 
advances in medical science. I know from personal experience how 
important it is for physicians to have the data and information they 
need to make informed choices about a patient's course of treatment. I 
would hate to think that something more could be done for people like 
Michael but for the Government's unwarranted limitation on what a 
physician may be told about new treatments. The Congress of the United 
States must act now to ensure that physicians have access to the most 
current medical literature.
  We look forward to working with Senator Kassebaum and members of the 
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources to ensure swift passage 
of this commonsense FDA reform legislation. We encourage our Senate 
colleagues to join us in this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                S. 1197
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) fostering and protecting the highest possible standards 
     of health care for the American people require--
       (A) creative scientific inquiry and information exchanges 
     in the medical sciences and the industries that serve the 
     American people;
       (B) dissemination and debate of the results of such inquiry 
     within the medical community; and
       (C) rapid development, testing, marketing approval, and 
     accessibility of state-of-the-art health care products, such 
     as drugs, biologics, and medical devices;
       (2) traditionally, free-flowing information exchanges 
     between health professionals and the producers of health care 
     products, with respect to potentially beneficial new uses of 
     existing products, have been a means to achieve scientific 
     advances and medical breakthroughs;
       (3) such information exchanges have been protected by law, 
     but erroneous interpretation, application, and enforcement of 
     existing law have inhibited and even foreclosed such 
     information exchanges in recent years; and
       (4) it is imperative to the health of the American people 
     to enact legislation to clarify the intent of Congress and 
     the existing state of the law to stimulate and encourage such 
     educational and scientific information exchanges among 
     industry and health care practitioners.

     SEC. 2. INFORMATION EXCHANGE AMENDMENTS.

       Chapter III of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 355 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following new sections:

     ``SEC. 311. DISSEMINATION OF TREATMENT INFORMATION ON DRUGS 
                   AND BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS.

       ``(a) Dissemination of Treatment Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding sections 301(d), 502(f), 
     505, and 507 and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 262), and subject to the requirements of paragraph 
     (2) and subsection (b), a person may disseminate to any 
     person that is a health care practitioner or other provider 
     of health care goods or services, a pharmacy benefit manager, 
     a health maintenance organization or other managed health 
     care organization, or a health care insurer or governmental 
     agency, written information, or an oral or written summary of 
     the written information, concerning--
       ``(A) a treatment use for an investigational new drug or an 
     investigational biological product approved by the Secretary 
     for such treatment use; or
       ``(B) a use (whether or not such use is contained in the 
     official labeling) of a new drug (including any antibiotic 
     drug) or a biological product for which an approval of an 
     application filed under section 505(b), 505(j), or 507, or a 
     product license issued under the Public Health Service Act, 
     is in effect.

[[Page S 12402]]

       ``(2) Requirements.--A person may disseminate information 
     under paragraph (1)(B) only if--
       ``(A) the information is an unabridged--
       ``(i) reprint or copy of a peer-reviewed article from a 
     scientific or medical journal that is published by an 
     organization that is independent of the pharmaceutical 
     industry; or
       ``(ii) chapter, authored by an expert or experts in the 
     disease to which the use relates, from a recognized reference 
     textbook that is published by an organization that is 
     independent of the pharmaceutical industry;
       ``(B) the text of the information has been approved by a 
     continuing medical education accrediting agency that is 
     independent of the pharmaceutical industry as part of a 
     scientific or medical educational program approved by such 
     agency;
       ``(C) the information relates to a use that is recognized 
     under Federal law for purposes of third-party coverage or 
     reimbursement, and--
       ``(i) the text of the information has been approved by an 
     organization referred to in such Federal law; or
       ``(ii) the information is part of a disease management 
     program or treatment guideline with respect to such use; or
       ``(D) the information is an accurate and truthful summary 
     of the information described in subparagraph (A), (B), or 
     (C).
       ``(b) Disclosure Statement.--In order to afford a full and 
     fair evaluation of the information described in subsection 
     (a), a person disseminating the information shall include a 
     statement that discloses--
       ``(1) if applicable, that the use of a new drug or 
     biological product described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     subsection (a)(1) and the information with respect to the use 
     have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration;
       ``(2) if applicable, that the information is being 
     disseminated at the expense of the sponsor of the drug or 
     biological product;
       ``(3) if applicable, that one or more authors of the 
     information being disseminated are employees of or 
     consultants to the sponsor of the drug or biological product; 
     and
       ``(4) the official labeling for the drug and biological 
     product, or in the case of a treatment use of an 
     investigational drug or biological product, the investigator 
     brochure and all updates thereof.
       ``(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `expense' includes financial, in-kind, and other 
     contributions provided for the purpose of disseminating the 
     information described in subsection (a).
       ``(d) Special Rule.--In the case of a professional 
     disagreement between the Secretary and other qualified 
     experts with respect to the application of section 502(a), 
     the Secretary may not use section 502 to prohibit the 
     dissemination of information in the types of circumstances 
     and under the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and 
     (b).

     ``SEC. 312. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON DEVICES.

       ``(a) Dissemination of Information.--Notwithstanding 
     sections 301, 501(f), 501(i), 502(a), 502(f), and 502(o), or 
     any other provision of law, and subject to subsections (b) 
     and (c), a person may disseminate to any person that is a 
     health care practitioner or other provider of health care 
     goods or services, a pharmacy benefit manager, a health 
     maintenance organization or other managed health care 
     organization, or a health care insurer or governmental 
     agency, written or oral information (including information 
     exchanged at scientific and educational meetings, workshops, 
     or demonstrations) relating to a use, whether or not the use 
     is described in the official labeling, of a device produced 
     by a manufacturer registered pursuant to section 510.
       ``(b) Disclosure Statements and Requirements.--
       ``(1) Disclosure statements.--To the extent practicable, 
     the requirement with respect to a statement of disclosure 
     under subsection (b) of section 311 shall apply to the 
     dissemination of written and oral information under this 
     section, except that this paragraph shall not apply to the 
     dissemination of written or oral information with respect to 
     the intended use described in the labeling of a device.
       ``(2) Additional requirements.--A person may disseminate 
     information under subsection (a) only if--
       ``(A) the information is an unabridged--
       ``(i) reprint or copy of a peer-reviewed article from a 
     scientific or medical journal that is published by an 
     organization that is independent of the medical device 
     industry; or
       ``(ii) chapter, authored by an expert or experts in the 
     medical specialty to which the use relates, from a recognized 
     reference textbook that is published by an organization that 
     is independent of the medical device industry;
       ``(B) the information has been approved by a continuing 
     medical education accrediting agency that is independent of 
     the medical device industry as part of a scientific or 
     medical educational program approved by such agency;
       ``(C) the information relates to a use that is recognized 
     under Federal law for purposes of third-party reimbursement, 
     and--
       ``(i) the text of the information has been approved by an 
     organization referred to in such Federal law; or
       ``(ii) the information is part of a disease management 
     program or treatment guideline with respect to such use; or
       ``(D) the oral or written information is--
       ``(i) part of an exchange of information solely among 
     health care practitioners, health care reimbursement 
     officials, and the industry;
       ``(ii) exchanged for educational or scientific purposes; 
     and
       ``(iii) presented at continuing medical education programs, 
     seminars, workshops, or demonstrations.
       ``(3) Applicability.--The requirements under subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) and (B) of section 311 shall not apply with respect 
     to devices.
       ``(c) Information Dissemination Not Evidence of Intended 
     Use.--Notwithstanding section 502(a), 502(f), 502(o), or any 
     other provision of law, the written or oral dissemination of 
     information relating to a new use of a device, in accordance 
     with this section, shall not be construed by the Secretary as 
     evidence of a new intended use of the device that is 
     different from the intended use of the device set forth on 
     the official labeling of the device. Such dissemination shall 
     not be considered by the Secretary as labeling, adulteration, 
     or misbranding of the device.''.

     SEC. 3. PRESERVATION OF CURRENT POLICY.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendment made by this Act shall 
     affect the ability of manufacturers to respond fully to 
     unsolicited questions from health care practitioners and 
     other persons about drugs, biological products, or 
     devices.

 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague 
from Florida, Mr. Mack, in introducing legislation that will further 
liberate the American people, and specifically the health care 
community, from excessive, and destructive Government interference. Mr. 
President, before coming to this body as a citizen legislator, I worked 
as a heart and lung transplant surgeon, and experienced firsthand the 
way the Food and Drug Administration prohibits physicians from sharing 
information that could save their patients' lives. Mr. President, the 
bill that I'm introducing today will allow the free flow of information 
in the scientific and medical community about new uses for FDA-approved 
prescription drugs and devices.
  Mr. President, this bill is vitally important for patients and their 
doctors. As a physician, I can only keep up to date on all treatment 
options available to my patients, if I have access to information about 
new research breakthroughs. Time is often of the essence, especially 
for my patients with terminal or life-threatening illnesses.
  But today, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] prohibits doctors 
and scientists from working together in this way. Let me explain, Mr. 
President, how the process is currently working. After the FDA finally 
approves a new prescription drug or medical device for certain uses, 
the drug or device is labeled to reflect that it has been found to be 
safe and efficacious for that use.
  I should note, Mr. President, that many times this process takes so 
long that American citizens and companies are going abroad for safe and 
lifesaving drugs and devices. But after the drug or device has been 
approved in the United States, there are many times physicians and 
scientists discover that this drug or device is also beneficial in 
treating other medical conditions.
  As a physician, I may legally prescribe FDA-approved products for 
these off-label uses. Yet, even in cases where the patient experiences 
spectacular results, the FDA prohibits the manufacturer from 
disseminating medical data about such discoveries.
  That is exactly why I am introducing this legislation. To improve the 
free-flow information to benefit my patients and others. Today, the 
Federal Government intrudes on the practice of medicine by limiting the 
dissemination of information on breakthrough treatments for off-label 
uses of medications.
  This sounds very technical, complex, and removed from the basic 
doctor-patient relationship. However, this has real-life, everyday 
applications.
  I recall a complicated case, where the normal treatment practices did 
not do the job for one of my patients. He was experiencing recurrent 
episodes of organ rejection with increasing frequency. My treatment was 
already unconventional--using repeated treatments with a new 
immunosuppressive drug [OKT3]. However, the drug company had not 
approved it for that type of use. Instead, it was used only for 
treating single episodes of severe rejection. Therefore, my use of the 
drug was considered off-label.
  But that radical drug protocol kept my patient alive until I found 
something that worked for him. My patient was fully reliant on my 
knowledge as a physician--on how up to date I was with the latest 
information. But, today, if I share my findings with the 

[[Page S 12403]]
pharmaceutical company, they are then restricted by the FDA in sharing 
my success with other physicians.
  When Congress returns from the August recess, the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources will focus on needed reforms to the Food and Drug 
Administration. As a member of that committee, I hope to work with 
Chairman Kassebaum to incorporate these provisions to allow the flow of 
information about off-label uses of FDA-approved products to health 
care providers. I anticipate that we will be able to address this 
problem, and make yet another step in freeing the American people from 
the shackles of an arrogant and dysfunctional Government 
bureaucracy.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COATS (for himself and Mr. Gregg):
  S. 1198. A bill to amend the Federal Credit Reform Act to improve the 
budget accuracy of accounting for Federal costs associated with student 
loans, to phase out the Federal Direct Student Loan Program, to make 
improvements in the Federal Family Education Loan Program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                   the student loan privatization act

 Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Student 
Loan Privatization Act to ensure that Americans will continue to enjoy 
unfettered access to higher education student aid. For the past 2 
years, the Clinton administration has tried to turn the Department of 
Education into the biggest consumer bank in the country. If the 
administration succeeds, Americans will have nowhere else to turn but 
to the largess of the Department of Education when it comes time to 
finance their college education.
  Under the Clinton plan, every single student loan would be approved, 
disbursed, serviced, and collected by the Department of Education. The 
administration has even considered calling in the IRS to do the 
collecting--as if we want the IRS collecting student loans, as well as 
taxes. The Federal Direct Student Loan Program--which provides college 
loans to students directly from Uncle Sam, rather than through private 
sector lenders as in the traditional guaranteed loan program--ranks 
among the largest Government expansion drives of the Clinton 
administration. This Grow the Government program would add 500 new 
bureaucrats to the Department of Education and is a complete 
contradiction to the will expressed by voters last November. The direct 
loan program ignores the fact that the private lending industry has 
improved service to families, improved efficiency, and substantially 
lowered default rates--all of which saves the taxpayers $1 billion per 
year.
  Mr. President, when the administration asked the last Congress to 
authorize the direct loan program, we were told it would save $12 
billion when compared to the traditional guaranteed loan program. 
Unfortunately, that savings estimate was produced by ignoring 
administrative costs and by applying budget loopholes. The fact is, Mr. 
President, that the Congressional Budget Office reported last month 
that when the two programs are scored on the same basis, the 7-year 
savings of the guaranteed loan program amounts to almost 10 times the 
Direct Loan savings.
  The Student Loan Privatization Act will put an end to this expensive 
nonsense by phasing out the direct loan program, while at the same time 
enacting improvements to the guaranteed student loan program. It 
establishes a 4-year timetable to begin decreasing direct loan volume 
by requiring the Secretary to modify existing participation agreements 
with institutions that are currently participating in the program.
  Mr. President, at a time when Congress is looking for savings to 
balance the budget, it makes no sense to continue funding a Federal 
program that costs more money than a better alternative in the private 
sector. In closing, Mr. President, I would say to my colleagues that if 
you believe that the Federal Government always acts more efficiently 
than private business, then you should continue to support the 
administrations efforts to nationalize student lending. On the other 
hand, I urge my colleagues who support limited Government and prudent 
fiscal restraint to cosponsor the Student Loan Privatization Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                S. 1198

       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 ``Student Loan Privatization 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Federal Direct Student Loan Program will result in 
     an increase of at least 500 full-time equivalent employees at 
     the Department of Education and in the hiring of over 15,000 
     Federal contract employees, assuming full implementation of 
     the program.
       (2) The involvement of private sector financial 
     institutions and not-for-profit corporations chartered for 
     purpose of providing or supporting Federal student assistance 
     results in increased efficiency, maintenance of quality of 
     service to students and institutions, and innovation in and 
     the use of modern data processing technology.
       (3) The Federal Family Education Loan Program is subject to 
     excessive regulation resulting in burdensome administrative 
     requirements for students, schools, and other program 
     participants, the reduction of which would ease 
     administrative burdens and improve program management.
       (4) The program costs of the Federal Direct Student Loan 
     Program are inaccurately reflected under the provisions of 
     the Federal Credit Reform Act as in effect prior to the date 
     of enactment of this Act due to the exclusion of accounting 
     for certain administrative costs associated with the Act.
       (5) The budget scoring of Federal student loans under the 
     Federal Credit Reform Act as in effect prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act led to projections of savings which are 
     highly unlikely to occur in reality for the Federal Direct 
     Student Loan Program.
 TITLE I--REFORMS TO IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF THE FEDERAL CREDIT REFORM 
                                  ACT

     SEC. 101. AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL CREDIT REFORM ACT.

       Subparagraph (B) of section 502(5) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) The cost of a direct loan shall be the net present 
     value, at the time when the direct loan is disbursed, of the 
     following cash flows for the estimated life of the loan:
       ``(i) Loan disbursements.
       ``(ii) Repayments of principal.
       ``(iii) Payments of interest and other payments by or to 
     the Government over the life of the loan after adjusting for 
     estimated defaults, prepayments, fees, penalties, and other 
     recoveries.
       ``(iv) Direct expenses, including--
       ``(I) activities related to credit extension, loan 
     origination, loan servicing, management of contractors, other 
     government entities, and program participants;
       ``(II) collection of delinquent loans; and
       ``(III) writeoff and closeout of loans.''.

     SEC. 102. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendment made by section 101 shall apply to all fiscal 
     years beginning on or after October 1, 1995, and to statutory 
     changes made on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
     TITLE II--PHASE-OUT OF THE FEDERAL DIRECT STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM

     SEC. 201. PHASE-OUT OF PROGRAM.

       Section 453 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1087c) (hereafter referred to in this title and in title III 
     as the ``Act'') is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(f) Phase-out of Program.--
       ``(1) General authority.--The Secretary shall modify or 
     phase-out agreements entered into with institutions of higher 
     education pursuant to section 454(a) in accordance with 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Modification or phase-out of agreements.--In order to 
     ensure an expeditious and orderly phase-out of the programs 
     authorized under this part, the Secretary shall modify or 
     phase-out agreements entered into pursuant to section 454 
     with institutions of higher education to achieve the 
     following results:
       ``(A) For academic year 1995-1996, loans made under this 
     part shall represent not more than 40 percent of new student 
     loan volume for such year.
       ``(B) For academic year 1996-1997 and all subsequent 
     academic years, no loans shall be made pursuant to this part.
       ``(3) New student loan volume.--For the purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `new student loan volume' has the same 
     meaning given such term under subsection (a)(4).
       ``(4) Modification of software and systems for phase-out of 
     direct loans.--The Secretary shall not make system 
     modifications or upgrades to software used in support of the 
     program under this part after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.
       ``(5) Regulations governing phase-out of direct loans.--Not 
     later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations 
     governing the phase-out of the Federal Direct Student Loan 
     Program as provided for in this subsection. Such regulation 
     shall not be 

[[Page S 12404]]
     subject to the provisions of the Master Calendar as specified under 
     section 482. The provisions of this subsection shall be 
     implemented notwithstanding the nonpublication of regulations 
     required under this subsection by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 202. DIRECT LOAN VOLUME LIMITS.

       Section 453(a) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 1087c(a)) is amended 
     by striking paragraphs (2) and (3).

     SEC. 203. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       Subsection (a) of section 458 of the Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1087h(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--Each fiscal year, there shall be 
     available, from funds not otherwise appropriated, funds to be 
     obligated for administrative costs under this part, and for 
     certain expenditures in support of the program authorized 
     under part B, not to exceed (from such funds not otherwise 
     appropriated) $50,000,000 in fiscal year 1996, and 
     $45,000,000 in fiscal year 1997. Beginning in fiscal year 
     1998, no funds shall be made available under this subsection 
     unless carried over from a prior fiscal year. The total 
     expenditures by the Secretary (from such funds not otherwise 
     appropriated) under this subsection shall not exceed 
     $700,000,000 for fiscal years 1994 through 1998. The 
     Secretary may carry over funds available under this section 
     for a subsequent fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 204. REPEAL.

       Effective October 1, 1997, part D of title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act, as amended by this title, is repealed.
  TITLE III--IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FEDERAL FAMILY EDUCATION LOAN PROGRAM

     SEC. 301. RECOVERY OF GUARANTY AGENCY RESERVES.

       The last sentence of section 422(a)(2) of the Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1072(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``Except as 
     provided in section 428(c)(10)(E) or (F), such'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``Such''.

     SEC. 302. RESERVE FUNDS.

       Section 422(g) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 1072(g)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(g) Disposition of Funds Returned or Recovered by the 
     Secretary.--Any funds that are returned or otherwise 
     recovered by the Secretary pursuant to this subsection shall 
     be returned to the United States Treasury for purposes of 
     reducing the Federal debt.''.

     SEC. 303. TERMINATION OF FDSL CONSOLIDATION LOAN AUTHORITY.

       (a) Part B Authority.--Section 428C(b) of the Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1078-3(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (5).
       (b) Part D Authority.--Section 455 of the Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1087e) is amended by striking subsection (g).

     SEC. 304. CONSOLIDATION UNDER FFELP OF LOANS MADE PURSUANT TO 
                   PART D.

       Section 428C(a)(4)(B) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 1087-
     3(a)(4)(B)) is amended by inserting ``part D or'' before 
     ``part E''.

     SEC. 305. ACCOUNTABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DIRECT LOAN 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       Section 458 of the Act (20 U.S.C. 1087h) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c), the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Prohibition on Certain Expenditures.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, funds available under this 
     section shall not be used to support public relation 
     activities (by Department of Education employees or pursuant 
     to contracts with the Department) or marketing of 
     institutions to encourage participation in the program 
     authorized under this part.''.

     SEC. 306. SALE OF FDSL LOAN PORTFOLIOS.

       Part D of title IV of the Act is amended by inserting after 
     section 458 (20 U.S.C. 1087h) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 459. SALE OF FEDERAL DIRECT STUDENT LOAN PORTFOLIOS.

       ``(a) Auction Sales of Loan Portfolios.--The Secretary 
     shall conduct auctions to sell the outstanding portfolios of 
     loans made pursuant to this part. Such auctions shall consist 
     of the sale of portfolios representative of the overall 
     characteristics of the direct loans held by the Secretary. 
     Auctions shall be held for portfolios of not less than 
     $40,000,000 worth of loans per sale. The first sale of loans 
     shall take place not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, and shall not include Federal 
     guarantees or reinsurance against the contingency of borrower 
     default, death, or disability.
       ``(b) Loan Terms Subject to Promissory Note.--Loans 
     described in subsection (a) shall be subject to the terms and 
     conditions as specified in the borrower promissory note, and 
     shall not be subject to further Federal regulations pursuant 
     to this Act.
       ``(c) Assessment of Auction.--The Secretary, subsequent to 
     holding of the auctions under subsection (a), shall prepare a 
     report on the results of such actions. Such report shall 
     include the following:
       ``(1) The opinion of the Secretary as to whether the 
     results of the auction represent a true reflection of the 
     Federal subsidy costs associated with federally supported 
     student loans.
       ``(2) An estimate of the reductions in Federal 
     administrative costs achieved through the elimination of 
     future Federal oversight and administrative responsibilities 
     of affected loans as a result of sale to the private sector.
       ``(d) Transmittal of Results to Congressional Budget Office 
     and Office of Management and Budget.--The Secretary shall 
     provide a copy of all reports and analyses prepared in 
     connection with implementation of this section to the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(e) Disposition of Proceeds.--All proceeds received as a 
     result of the auctions conducted under to this section shall 
     be returned to the Department of the Treasury after deduction 
     of expenses incurred by the Department of Education in 
     connection with the auctions required pursuant to this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 307. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise specified herein, the amendments made 
     by this title shall be effective 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 1199. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 
tax-exempt financing of certain transportation facilities; to the 
Committee on Finance.


      the alameda transportation corridor tax-exempt financing act

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today my colleague, Senator 
Feinstein, and I are introducing legislation critical to helping the 
largest port complex in the United States expand its trade with the 
countries of the Pacific Rim.
  Our bill would help provide more efficient cargo transportation by 
granting tax exempt financing for the Alameda transportation corridor 
improvement project. These improvements will speed the transport of 
international cargo between the San Pedro Bay Ports of Los Angeles and 
Long Beach to the Interstate Highway System and the national railroad 
network.
  Today, more than 25 percent of all U.S. waterborne, international 
trade depends on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to reach its 
market. Approximately 25 percent of the total U.S. Customs duty is 
generated through the San Pedro Bay Ports, with the accompanying 
economic impacts from the ports of $12.5 billion in Federal customs 
revenue and Federal income tax. But this trade reaches the port along 
more than 90 miles of rail and 200 rail-highway crossings. The Alameda 
corridor project consolidates three rail lines into a single 20-mile 
high capacity corridor separated from surface streets. The project also 
improves truck access and traffic flow paralleling the railroad tracks.
  The estimated total cost of the project is $1.8 billion. The ports 
have already contributed $400 million through the purchase of all 
rights of way for the corridor. The balance will be available from a 
mix of public--the State of California and the Los Angeles County 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority--and private financing. Fees paid 
by shippers using the corridor will be used to retire the bonds issued 
to finance construction.
  Our bill clarifies the scope of the current tax exemption for docks 
and wharves by specifically including related transportation facilities 
to ensure that State and local governments will be permitted to tax-
exempt finance those transportation facilities which are reasonably 
required for the efficient use of publicly owned port infrastructure.
  The bill provides that transportation facilities, including trackage 
and rail facilities, but not rolling stock, shall be treated as ``docks 
and wharves'' for purposes of the exempt facility bond rules if at 
least 80 percent of the annual use of such transportation facilities is 
to be in connection with the transport of cargo to or from docks or 
wharves. For example, rail facilities for transporting cargo from a 
port area to the major rail yard some miles away would qualify as an 
exempt port facility provided that 80 percent of the cargo transported 
on the facilities is bound for or arriving from the port. It is 
intended that use, for purposes of the 80-percent test, be computed in 
any reasonable fashion including, for example, on the basis of ton-
miles or car-miles.
  The bill provides that for purposes of the governmental ownership 
requirement for docks and wharves, related transportation facilities 
that are leased by a Government agency shall be treated as owned by 
such agency if the lessee makes an irrevocable election not to claim 
depreciation or an investment credit with respect to such facilities 
and the lessee has no option 

[[Page S 12405]]
to purchase the facilities other than at fair market value.
  This bill is a critical step needed to help provide the most 
efficient transportation network possible to these vital ports. The 
Alameda transportation corridor project will create a transportation 
system of truly national significance, bringing billions of dollars 
value in cargo and hundreds of millions of dollars of State and local 
tax benefits throughout the Nation.
  This bill provides a significant element in the multifaceted approach 
to financing this project. The introduction of this legislation today 
also marks another major step in a tremendous amount of progress on the 
project in the past 10 months. I would like to take this opportunity to 
explain the progress to date on this project.
  Beginning in 1983, Congress approved specific funding for right-of-
way acquisition and improvements to separate the rail lines from the 
surface streets. Similar projects were also authorized in the 1987 and 
1991 highway bills. In June 1990, California voters approved 
proposition 116 to provide $80 million in State bond financing for the 
project.
  The complex project has involved negotiations with three railroads 
and 16 Government agencies. Agreements began falling into place late 
last year. On December 1, 1994, the California Transportation 
Commission approved the bond sale for $80 million in the proposition 
116 funds. On December 29, 1994, the ports and three railroads signed 
the memorandum of understanding for the joint operating agreement and 
right-of-way purchase by the ports.
  Because much of the previously authorized funding for the project was 
still not obligated, the Senate Appropriations Committee moved to 
rescind these funds from the 1983 and 1987 acts. Fortunately, that 
provision was dropped in the final supplemental appropriations and 
rescissions bill. In the meantime, at my urging, the
 local authorities were able to fully obligate those funds. I 
understand that additional funds authorized in the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA] will be obligated by 
the end of fiscal year 1996.

  In June, the Senate accepted my provision in the National Highway 
System Designation Act to include the route as a high priority 
corridor, making the project eligible for the Secretary of 
Transportation's revolving loan fund authorized under ISTEA.
  In a colloquy with me in the Senate after passage of the highway bill 
on June 21, Senator John Chafee, the distinguished committee chairman, 
said:

       The designation of the Alameda Transportation Corridor as a 
     ``high-priority corridor'' reflects the committee's 
     determination that the project merits an ongoing Federal role 
     based upon the long-term potential benefits to interstate and 
     international commerce. The Alameda corridor is, indeed, a 
     project of national significance.

  The Senate Appropriations Committee chose not to fund section 1105 in 
the transportation appropriations bill, H.R. 2002, passed by the Senate 
on Thursday. However, I am hopeful that the Clinton administration will 
request funding for the Federal revolving loan fund in its fiscal year 
1997 budget request.
  Nevertheless, the committee did adopt the plan developed by the 
Clinton administration to permit State and regional infrastructure 
banks to develop various innovative financing plans to leverage State 
and Federal dollars in the private financial sector. And, the committee 
cited the Alameda corridor in its committee report regarding the 
proposed State infrastructure banks. According to the report, ``the 
Committee considers the Alameda transportation corridor in Los Angeles 
County, CA, as an example of a project that would greatly benefit from 
the innovative financing option as provided in this bill.''
  California will receive $21 million in Federal seed money under the 
Senate appropriations bill, and the State of California may contribute 
up to 10 percent of its Federal highway funds.
  Funds deposited in these banks will capitalize a revolving loan 
program and enable the States to obtain a substantial line of credit. 
The infrastructure banks will assist a variety of projects, including 
freight rail and highway projects. This assistance would be in the form 
of financing for construction loans, pooling bond issues, refinancing 
outstanding debt and other forms of credit enhancement. Most important, 
enactment of our tax-exempt financing bill will provide the Alameda 
Transportation Corridor Authority even greater financial advantages to 
finance the project through the infrastructure bank.
  I am pleased that the Senate unanimously accepted my amendment to 
ensure that California, and other States which already have authorized 
State infrastructure banks, could participate and not be required to 
form multistate compacts as provided in the bill. This will help the 
State move quickly on a financing program.
  The combined financial firepower of these two acts--the tax-exempt 
bonds and the infrastructure bank--should enable this project to be 
completed without further direct Federal construction funding.
  This corridor will provide a vital link, connecting the largest port 
complex in the United States with key production centers throughout the 
country. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach currently handle more 
than 100 million metric tons of cargo valued at $116 billion. Major 
transportation efficiencies are critical to the port's ability to 
capture the growing Pacific Rim trade which could increase tonnage to 
nearly 200 million tons by the year 2020.
  The project is expected to generate 10,500 direct construction jobs. 
Of these, 1,500 are professional and technical jobs and the rest 
construction trade jobs. In addition, about 3,500 manufacturing, 
service, and transportation industry jobs will be generated in the Los 
Angeles region to supply materials and equipment. The construction work 
will stimulate, directly and indirectly, the creation of about 50,000 
jobs in the regional economy.
  Mr. President, what will the other States and our Nation as a whole 
receive in return for this help?
  Nationwide, even if only 5 percent of the full projected impact of 
building the Alameda corridor is realized, by the end of the next 
decade the United States will gain 70,000 new jobs and $2.5 billion in 
additional Federal revenue. The actual impact could be as much as 20 
times greater.
  I would like to insert into the Record information that was provided 
to the ports in a study by BST Associates of Seattle, WA. This 1994 
data shows the strong U.S. trade growth through the ports and a State-
by-State break down on exports, imports, and tax revenue. The corridor 
project will accelerate this growth.
  Mr. President, I believe this project is the premier trade-related 
public works project in the United States. Benefits to our national 
economy through more efficient shipping--high volume and fast--is key 
to tapping the emerging markets in the Pacific Rim.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                S. 1199

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

     SECTION 1. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 142 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exempt facility 
     bonds) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3), and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Related transportation facilities.--
       ``(A) In general.--Transportation facilities (including 
     trackage and related rail facilities, but not rolling stock) 
     shall be treated as facilities described in paragraph (2) of 
     subsection (a) if at least 80 percent of the use of the 
     facilities (determined on an annual basis) is to be in 
     connection with the transport of cargo to or from a facility 
     described in such paragraph (without regard to this 
     paragraph).
       ``(B) Governmental ownership requirement.--In the case of 
     transportation facilities described in subparagraph (A), 
     subsection (b)(1) shall apply without regard to subparagraph 
     (B)(ii) thereof.''
       (b) Change in Use.--Section 150(b) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to change in use of facilities 
     financed with tax-exempt private activity bonds) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Certain transportation facilities.--In the case of 
     any transportation facility--

[[Page S 12406]]

       ``(A) with respect to which financing is provided from the 
     proceeds of any private activity bond which, when issued, 
     purported to be a tax-exempt bond described in paragraph (2) 
     of section 142(a) by reason of section 142(c)(2), and
       ``(B) with respect to which the requirements of section 
     142(c)(2) are not met,
     no deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for interest 
     on such financing which accrues during the period beginning 
     on the 1st day of the taxable year in which such facility 
     fails to meet such requirements and ending on the date such 
     facility meets such requirements.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                                                    ____

                       national economic impacts

       Several trends underscore the efficiency and effectiveness 
     of transportation facilities provided by the San Pedro Bay 
     ports for firms located throughout the US. Most notably, the 
     San Pedro ports have a stable or growing market share of 
     dollar value and tonnage of both waterborne imports and 
     exports. In addition, customs duty and shipping charges as 
     measured by the Department of Commerce are also substantial 
     and increasing through the Ports. San Pedro Bay ports are the 
     primary window on the Pacific Rim for most U.S. importers and 
     exporters. The Alameda Corridor project is a very important 
     means to assure that the San Pedro Bay ports maintain the 
     efficiencies so critical to US importers and exporters.
       The following section summarizes several key findings of 
     BST Associates evaluation of econmic impacts:
       Customs revenue assessed for cargo imported through the 
     Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach was estimated to be $4.9 
     billion in 1994.
       State and local taxes (consisting of sales taxes, 
     individual income taxes, corporate income taxes and other 
     local taxes) were estimated to be $5.8 billion in 1994.
       Federal income taxes were estimated to be $7.6 billion in 
     1994.
       Direct employment was estimated to be 611,200 full time 
     equivalent jobs in 1994.
       Total employment was estimated to be 1.1 million full time 
     equivalent jobs in 1994.

                     TABLE 1.--SUMMARY OF US IMPACTS                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                    Imports  Exports   Total 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Associated Economic Impacts                                    
In billions of dollars:                                                 
  Customs Revenue............................     $4.9  .......     $4.9
  State and Local Taxes......................      4.3     $1.5      5.8
  Federal Income Tax.........................      5.2      2.4      7.6
                                              ==========================
In thousands:                                                           
  Direct Employment..........................    473.9    137.4    611.2
  Total Employment...........................    744.0    326.9  1,070.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BST Associates                                                  

      value of international waterborne cargo imports and exports

       The value of international waterborne cargo (i.e., imports 
     and exports) moving through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 
     Beach accounts for more than 27% of the total value of 
     international US waterborne trade. The value through the San 
     Pedro Bay ports has grown from $86 billion in 1988 to $144 
     billion in 1994, faster than any other port region in the 
     United States. San Pedro Bay ports have increased their 
     market share of both exports and imports. (Graphs have been 
     omitted.)
       International waterborne cargo tonnage through the Ports of 
     Los Angeles and Long Beach has grown consistently from 44 
     million tons in 1988 to 58.5 million tons in 1994. The San 
     Pedro Bay ports jointly account for 5.7% of total 
     international waterborne commerce, up from 4.8% in 1988. 
     However, most of the cargo moving through these ports is very 
     high valued and requires quick transit.


      customs duty on international waterborne cargo imports only

       The customs duty imposed on cargo moving through the San 
     Pedro Bay ports has grown from 3.0 billion in 1989 to $4.1 
     billion in 1994. Customs duty through these ports has 
     consistently averaged between 24% and 25% of the total 
     customs duty collected from all sources (i.e., ports, 
     airports and overland crossings).

                                 PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH--1994 DATA                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       State and local     Direct       Total   
      Impacts at the State level:        Metric tons   Value of cargo       taxes        employment   employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exports--Alabama.......................       90,642     $121,990,256       $5,365,863          792        1,874
Imports--Alabama.......................       47,579      352,584,384       21,058,102        3,428        5,013
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      138,221      474,574,640       26,423,966        4,220        6,887
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Alaska........................          457          709,470           23,176           30           47
Imports--Alaska........................           36          134,525            4,394            1            1
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................          492          843,995           27,570           31           48
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Arizona.......................      111,180      361,160,859       23,288,013        2,421        5,261
Imports--Arizona.......................       31,027      110,050,803       10,485,200        1,080        1,657
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      142,207      471,211,662       33,773,214        3,502        6,918
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Arkansas......................       21,667       54,887,914        2,618,812          344          733
Imports--Arkansas......................       58,146      453,086,382       33,604,058        4,325        6,437
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       79,813      507,974,296       36,222,870        4,669        7,169
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--California....................   10,198,471    9,943,153,117      629,073,468       60,119      143,032
Imports--California....................    5,478,501   26,754,481,992    2,224,608,423      244,275      395,702
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................   15,676,972   36,697,635,109    2,853,681,891      304,395      538,733
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Colorado......................      608,691      243,432,078       17,665,622        1,464        3,395
Imports--Colorado......................       21,117      111,814,045        9,532,818        1,111        1,737
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      629,808      355,246,123       27,198,441        2,575        5,132
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Connecticut...................    1,292,205      237,140,467       16,123,180        2,063        4,802
Imports--Connecticut...................      131,023      272,685,998       24,560,555        2,367        3,548
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................    1,423,229      509,826,464       40,683,735        4,430        8,350
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Delaware......................      199,896      365,012,063       16,677,766        1,888        3,853
Imports--Delaware......................        1,334        3,811,761          174,163           35           50
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      201,230      368,823,824       16,851,929        1,923        3,903
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--District of Columbia..........        7,578      176,864,910       15,190,043        1,139        1,321
Imports--District of Columbia..........        1,055       12,705,892        1,244,085          166          189
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................        8,633      189,570,802       16,434,127        1,305        1,509
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Florida.......................      109,692      234,852,824       11,497,925        1,722        3,289
Imports--Florida.......................      133,410      706,667,671       58,457,670        6,560        9,885
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      243,101      941,520,495       69,955,594        8,282       13,173
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Georgia.......................      144,062      300,047,132       18,615,524        1,818        4,306
Imports--Georgia.......................      106,622      700,828,760       57,130,159        7,147       11,104
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      250,684    1,000,875,892       75,745,683        8,965       15,411
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Hawaii........................        6,856       15,145,934          869,589           82          120
Imports--Hawaii........................        8,793       16,122,295        1,648,618          158          233
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                                

[[Page S 12407]]
                            PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH--1994 DATA--Continued                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       State and local     Direct       Total   
      Impacts at the State level:        Metric tons   Value of cargo       taxes        employment   employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       15,649       31,268,229        2,518,206          240          353
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Idaho.........................       27,564       19,333,700        1,136,029          117          212
Imports--Idaho.........................        1,621        5,905,119          485,584           56           83
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       29,185       25,238,818        1,621,613          173          295
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Illinois......................      435,194    1,549,062,807       99,925,394        9,152       24,639
Imports--Illinois......................      432,072    2,713,615,940      216,999,726       26,771       42,489
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      867,266    4,262,678,747      316,925,120       35,924       67,127
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Indiana.......................       47,694      206,186,568       11,373,045        1,216        3,175
Imports--Indiana.......................       25,370      335,070,145       26,741,278        3,496        5,227
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       73,064      541,256,712       38,114,323        4,713        8,402
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Iowa..........................       21,655       66,031,325        4,316,996          318          765
Imports--Iowa..........................        2,725       25,000,847        2,081,046          283          413
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       24,379       91,032,172        6,398,041          601        1,178
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Kansas........................    2,218,525      301,385,563       18,549,679        1,574        3,810
Imports--Kansas........................       21,480       90,137,909        7,223,832          953        1,438
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................    2,240,005      391,523,472       25,773,511        2,528        5,248
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Kentucky......................      359,121      355,918,293       18,090,971        1,648        4,003
Imports--Kentucky......................       35,820      223,432,312       18,846,490        2,310        3,416
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      394,940      579,350,605      $33,937,461        3,957        7,419
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Louisiana.....................       36,883       90,178,038        3,863,670          266          548
Imports--Louisiana.....................       36,223       74,475,334        4,222,520          774        1,123
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       73,106      164,653,372        8,086,206        1,040        1,671
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Maine.........................        5,825       39,595,977        2,795,832          310          561
Imports--Maine.........................        4,762       36,197,818        3,440,277          317          465
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       10,586       75,793,795        6,236,109          627        1,025
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Maryland......................       27,941       62,849,303        4,645,443          391          741
Imports--Maryland......................       15,338       94,358,770        8,336,692          919        1,409
                                        ========================================================================
    Total..............................       43,279      157,208,072       12,982,135        1,310        2,150
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Massachusetts.................       80,178      145,095,028       10,754,008        1,062        2,474
Imports--Massachusetts.................      177,357    1,224,863,024      106,406,301       12,066       18,275
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      257,535    1,369,958,052      117,160,309       13,127       20,749
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Michigan......................      114,360      546,191,038       39,448,648        3,101        7,309
Imports--Michigan......................      121,333      733,146,533       67,131,295        7,245       10,447
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      235,693    1,279,337,571      106,579,943       10,347       17,756
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Minnesota.....................       67,255      225,633,399       15,786,892        1,522        3,549
Imports--Minnesota.....................       23,020      108,585,929        9,957,547        1,134        1,727
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       90,275      334,219,328       25,744,439        2,656        5,276
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Mississippi...................        9,203       22,226,477          857,720          155          377
Imports--Mississippi...................        6,113       23,030,734        1,566,965          235          342
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       15,316       45,257,212        2,424,685          390          719
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Missouri......................      120,231      382,977,778       20,482,418        2,104        4,650
Imports--Missouri......................       70,051      590,502,820       42,412,865        6,097        9,412
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      190,282      973,480,598       62,895,283        8,201       14,063
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Montana.......................          127          244,269           17,105            1            2
Imports--Montana.......................          110          399,304           27,962            4            6
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................          236          643,573           45,067            5            8
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Nebraska......................       66,108      231,318,838       14,453,032        1,060        2,056
Imports--Nebraska......................       18,750      143,570,567       11,800,579        1,647        2,394
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       84,859      374,897,406       26,253,611        2,707        4,450
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Nevada........................        8,774       17,594,765          504,653          145          307
Imports--Nevada........................       17,658       19,047,749        1,095,112          164          233
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       26,431       36,642,514        1,599,765          309          540
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--New Hampshire.................        1,306        2,748,292          187,321           22           45
Imports--New Hampshire.................        1,211        7,791,755          531,078           68          104
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................        2,517       10,540,046          718,399           90          149
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--New Jersey....................      429,166      985,210,107       70,473,064        6,588       16,848
Imports--New Jersey....................      540,842    4,464,960,252      405,436,251       36,957       57,749
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      970,007    5,450,170,359      475,909,315       43,545       74,597
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--New Mexico....................        3,436        5,847,507          241,069           17           36
Imports--New Mexico....................        1,456        6,613,086          514,287           66           97
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................        4,893       12,460,594          755,356           83          133
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--New York......................    1,440,379    1,176,164,909      128,253,726        7,639       15,200
Imports--New York......................      579,591    4,210,171,022      512,828,302       38,545       54,372
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................    2,019,971    5,386,335,930      641,082,028       46,184       69,571
                                        ========================================================================

[[Page S 12408]]
                                                                                                                
Exports--North Carolina................       59,713      242,144,777       12,958,378        1,158        2,522
Imports--North Carolina................       40,647      575,457,083       39,576,485        5,895        8,749
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      100,359      817,601,860       52,534,863        7,053       11,271
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--North Dakota..................        2,389       14,539,883          621,754           67          132
Imports--North Dakota..................            8           32,666            2,086            0            1
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................        2,397       14,572,550          632,840           67          132
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Ohio..........................      170,227      566,154,786       36,085,008        3,207        8,202
Imports--Ohio..........................      155,833      949,215,187       76,407,076       10,063       15,187
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      326,060    1,515,369,972      112,492,004       13,270       23,389
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Oklahoma......................       18,425      $67,219,915       $3,383,178          345          822
Imports--Oklahoma......................        7,900       45,936,951        3,101,939          459          667
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       26,324      113,156,867        6,485,117          802        1,489
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Oregon........................       89,236       58,768,286        5,563,417          337          698
Imports--Oregon........................       39,088      140,024,718       13,255,720        1,313        2,012
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      128,325      198,793,004       18,819,137        1,650        2,710
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Pennsylvania..................      289,096      382,635,058       25,309,779        2,614        9.075
Imports--Pennsylvania..................       74,125      440,668,357       37,190,206        4,325        6,629
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      363,222      823,303,415       62,499,985        6,938       15,704
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Rhode Island..................        2,490        7,897,301          547,133           77          166
Imports--Rhode Island..................       14,689       50,992,237        4,470,846          509          759
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       17,179       58,889,538        5,017,979          587          925
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--South Carolina................       26,582      109,283,212        5,652,346          770        1,693
Imports--South Carolina................       27,253      196,515,720       14,604,262        2,096        3,049
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................       53,835      305,798,933       20,256,609        2,866        4,742
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--South Dakota..................          190        1,994,777           87,463           12           21
Imports--South Dakota..................          107          682,444           44,883            8           11
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................          297        2,677,220          132,346           19           33
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Tennessee.....................      397,132      566,254,146       19,163,173        2,998        6,672
Imports--Tennessee.....................      212,251      866,130,367       51,953,578        8,498       12,953
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      609,383    1,432,392,514       71,116,750       11,496       19,624
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Texas.........................    1,083,095    1,764,979,567       74,409,774        7,616       20,477
Imports--Texas.........................      392,621    2,604,377,397      169,362,662       24,520       39,070
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................    1,475,716    4,369,356,964      243,772,436       32,136       59,547
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Utah..........................    1,032,075      167,568,747       10,592,691          982        2,244
Imports--Utah..........................        2,646        9,205,594          821,249           94          143
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................    1,034,721      176,774,341       11,413,940        1,076        2,387
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Vermont.......................          178          793,201           59,011            6           11
Imports--Vermont.......................          422        2,837,081          250,423           28           40
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................          600        3,630,282          309,434           33           51
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Virginia......................      169,253      344,514,894       22,324,910        2,207        4,828
Imports--Virginia......................       46,494      235,339,342       17,839,428        2,325        3,526
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      215,747      579,854,237       40,164,338        4,532        8,354
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Washington....................      397,406      228,715,614        7,193,106        1,177        2,472
Imports--Washington....................       48,229      168,993,059       13,029,027        1,575        2,421
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      445,635      397,708,673       20,222,133        2,752        4,893
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--West Virginia.................        7,148       29,241,380        1,481,602          173          319
Imports--West Virginia.................        1,849       25,196,135        1,980,315          252          338
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................        8,997       54,437,515        3,461,910          426          657
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Wisconsin.....................       79,142      219,630,630       16,890,913        1,350        3,231
Imports--Wisconsin.....................       24,924      106,837,813       10,457,071        1,128        1,658
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................      104,066      326,468,443       27,347,985        2,479        4,890
                                        ========================================================================
Exports--Wyoming.......................           25           89,896            3,116            0            0
Imports--Wyoming.......................            1            7,094              348            0            0
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................           26           96,990            3,464            0            1
                                        ========================================================================
    Exports--Total.....................   22,136,121   23,258,617,076    1,465,492,457      137,386      326,921
    Imports--Total.....................    9,240,632   51,044,316,721    4,341,941,847      473,850      743,989
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Boxer and I are 
introducing legislation that will allow for the Alameda Corridor 
Transportation Authority to issue tax-free bonds to help construct the 
Alameda corridor, probably the most important transportation project 
currently under consideration anywhere in the United States.
  The Alameda corridor is a $1.8 billion project that will allow the 
San Pedro Bay ports--Los Angeles and Long Beach--to expand and grow 
well into the 21st century. The project, in the years ahead, will 
require a Federal authorization of $700 million, the necessary Federal 
commitment. The ports have committed well over $400 million to purchase 
railroad rights-of-way.
  But, initial construction will be funded by the issuance of bonds, 
and that is why this bill is so vital. Tax-free bonds can currently be 
issued for construction of harbor and port facilities, but under 
current law, the corridor would not apply since the major distribution 

[[Page S 12409]]
center is 20 miles inland from the port. This legislation would extend 
the ability to issue tax-free bonds for transportation facilities, 
which would include trackage and rail facilities, if 80 percent of the 
cargo transported on the tracks is to and from the port, which is 
otherwise eligible for the issuance of tax-free bonds. Additionally, 
the facility must be publicly owned. This bill will reduce the cost of 
the corridor's construction by approximately $200 million.
  Currently, to handle the cargo going in and out of the ports, 
according to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, the San 
Pedro Bay ports now generate approximately 20,000 truck trips and 29 
train movements per day. By the year 2020, truck traffic is projected 
to increase to 49,000 daily trips and 97 daily train movements.
  Today, three railroads on three separate tracks serve the San Pedro 
Bay ports, with 90 miles of track and over 200 grade crossings between 
the ports and inland cargo dispersal sites. Santa Fe's railroad alone 
has 92 crossings within a 20 mile span. Trucks carrying goods from the 
ports to dispersal sites farther inland face numerous stops and 
traffic.
  With the projected increase in trade and cargo transport needs, the 
current transportation system will simply be inadequate to handle 
future demands.
  The Alameda corridor project would consolidate the existing railways 
into a single corridor that would be depressed, and all crossing 
streets would bridge over the top. This would avoid the terrible delays 
as a result of the grade crossings. The corridor would also accommodate 
truck traffic. Make no mistake, the Alameda corridor is a project of 
national significance.
  The benefits of constructing the corridor will go far beyond the Los 
Angeles region, and well beyond the California borders. Every State in 
this Nation is impacted by the trade along the Pacific rim, and thus by 
the activities of Pacific ports. Trucks and trains must move the goods 
out of the ports. Workers must unload the goods from ships, put them on 
trains or trucks, and then once they arrive at a destination, more 
workers must unload these goods, before they are delivered to their 
final stop. Trade creates jobs in every sector of the economy.
  Put simply, trade means jobs.
  All of the Nation's coastal States understand the importance of 
trade, seagoing trade in particular. In 1992, the last year for which 
statistics are available, this Nation exported $158.4 billion worth of 
goods through its seaports, and imported $293.1 billion of goods 
through the same ports of entry.
  The San Pedro Bay ports are the busiest containerport facility in the 
world. Combined, $109 billion worth of cargo moved through the Los 
Angeles and Long Beach Ports. Trade on the Pacific rim is only expected 
to grow.
  We must be able to support the projected growth in international 
commerce, and the development of the Alameda corridor will help us 
insure that we do so.
                                 ______

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 1200. A bill to establish and implement efforts to eliminate 
restrictions on the enclaved people of Cyprus; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.


   the freedom and human rights for the enclaved people of cyprus act

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
address the severe human rights violations that are occurring today 
against a small, remnant minority in an occupied region of their own 
country. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my 
distinguished colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski.
  The human rights abuses addressed in this bill are little known 
outside the country in which they are occurring. The country is the 
island nation of Cyprus, which for 21 years has seen much of its 
territory under the illegal military occupation of neighboring Turkey.
  Mr. President, two decades ago, Turkey's brutal invasion drove more 
than 200,000 Cypriots from their homes and reduced them to the status 
of refugees in their own land. More than 2,000 people are still 
missing, including 5 American citizens. The Turkish Army seized 40 
percent of the land of Cyprus, representing 70 percent of the island's 
economic wealth. Today, Turkey continues to maintain 35,000 troops on 
the island, which forms the bedrock of the continuing political 
impasse.
  During Turkey's invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974, the areas now 
under Turkish control suffered from a near-complete ethnic cleansing of 
the over 200,000 Greek-Cypriot majority population. There remains in 
northern Cyprus, however, a remnant population of 497 enclaved Greek-
Cypriots. These Cypriot citizens are often simply referred to as the 
enclaved of Cyprus, because during 1974 they mostly resided in remote 
enclaves and thus were not able to flee the fighting and were not 
immediately expelled.
  According to reports, this small population suffers from a series of 
severe human rights restrictions. These include:
  Restrictions on the freedom to worship, including restrictions on 
times and places for such worship;
  Restrictions on communication with individuals living outside of the 
area in which the enclaved reside, including a requirement that 
representative of the controlling power be present during any such 
communication;
  Prohibition on the possession of telephones in homes;
  A requirement that an enclaved individual receive permission from the 
controlling power before leaving the enclaved area;
  Censorship of mail sent to and out from the enclaved area;
  A requirement that enclaved males aged 18 to 50 report once a week to 
those in control;
  Education restrictions such as a lack of educational opportunities 
beyond the elementary level, travel restrictions on those who must 
leave the region for middle and high school, and a prohibition on 
returning to those who leave for higher education;
  Violation of property rights, including confiscation of property 
without compensation; and
  Inadequate protection from physical abuse, including beatings, rape 
and murder.
  Mr. President, the enclaved in northern Cyprus are forced to live 
under the kinds of extreme restrictions that were once the hallmarks of 
totalitarian states. Clearly, these severe human rights abuses are 
intended to achieve the complete ethnic cleansing of northern Cyprus 
through means just short of physical expulsion.
  This bill does more than just raise awareness of the shocking human 
rights violations occurring today in Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus. 
It also calls on the President to use the influence of the United 
States to work to bring these abuses to an end. Among the means to be 
used are bringing the issue before the U.N. Human Rights Commission and 
the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, addressing the issue in the 
State Department's annual human rights report, and creating a 
humanitarian assistance program out of existing foreign assistance 
funds to directly assist the enclaved in northern Cyprus.
  Mr. President, the measures called for in this bill are, frankly, the 
least we can do. While we work to address the human rights abuses 
against the enclaved, we must also be working separately to bring the 
long-standing dispute on Cyprus to an end in a manner that will entail 
the total withdrawal of Turkish troops--and possibly even the entire 
demilitarization of the island, as has been proposed by Cypriot 
President Glafcos Clerides--and a restoration of Cyprus' sovereignty 
over its entire territory with the full respect of the rights of all 
Cypriots.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                S. 1200

       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 ``Freedom and Human Rights for 
     the Enclaved People of Cyprus Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The respect for fundamental freedom and human rights, 
     especially in those countries that are allies of the United 
     States, is a cornerstone of United States foreign policy.
       (2) Among the purposes of United States foreign assistance 
     is to promote human rights.

[[Page S 12410]]

       (3) United States foreign assistance should be utilized to 
     end the imposition of restrictions on the freedoms and human 
     rights of the enclaved people of Cyprus.
       (4) Among the restrictions of freedom and human rights to 
     which the enclaved people of Cyprus are subjected are the 
     following:
       (A) Restrictions on the freedom to worship, including 
     restrictions on times and places for such worship.
       (B) Restrictions on communication with individuals living 
     outside the area of the enclaved, including a requirement 
     that an individual from among those in control be present 
     during any such communication.
       (C) Prohibition on the possession of telephones in homes.
       (D) A requirement that an enclaved individual receive 
     permission from an individual from among those in control 
     before leaving the enclaved area.
       (E) Censorship of mail sent to and from the enclaved area.
       (F) A requirement that enclaved males aged 18 to 50 report 
     once a week to those in control.
       (G) Restrictions on the provision of educational services, 
     including--
       (i) lack of replacement elementary school teachers and lack 
     of educational facilities beyond elementary school;
       (ii) a requirement that an enclaved individual who chooses 
     to leave home for education beyond elementary school may 
     return home not more than three times a year; and
       (iii) a requirement that enclaved males 16 years of age or 
     older and enclaved females 18 years of age or older who 
     choose to leave home for education beyond elementary school 
     may not return home at all.
       (H) Violation of property rights, including confiscation of 
     property without compensation.
       (I) Lack of compensation for work performed.
       (J) Harassment, beating, rape, and murder without adequate 
     protection or investigation.

     SEC. 3. UNITED STATES EFFORTS TO ALLEVIATE AND ELIMINATE THE 
                   RESTRICTIONS ON THE ENCLAVED PEOPLE IN CYPRUS.

       (a) In General.--The President shall take steps--
       (1) to inform the United Nations, foreign governments, and 
     the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States 
     Government of the restrictions on the enclaved people of 
     Cyprus,
       (2) to enlist the United Nations and foreign governments in 
     efforts to end restrictions on the freedom and human rights 
     of the enclaved people of Cyprus, and
       (3) to establish United States Government programs of 
     assistance to the enclaved people of Cyprus, consistent with 
     subsection (b), and to undertake efforts for the alleviation 
     and elimination of restrictions on the enclaved.
       (b) Establishment of Assistance Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The President--
       (A) shall, to the extent practicable, use funds allocated 
     for a fiscal year to the government or ethnic community 
     participating directly or indirectly in imposition of 
     restrictions on the freedom and human rights of the enclaved 
     people of Cyprus to assist such people, or
       (B) in the absence of such funds, shall establish a foreign 
     assistance program for the enclaved people of Cyprus.
       (2) Use of funds.--Assistance for the enclaved people of 
     Cyprus under paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) programs to eliminate specific aspects of the 
     restrictions of freedom and human rights on the enclaved 
     people of Cyprus; and
       (B) programs to return ancestral homes and lands to the 
     enclaved people, including United States citizens, who have 
     been forcibly expelled, or those individuals who have fled 
     the enclaved areas or other areas of Cyprus in fear of severe 
     restrictions of freedom, human rights abuses, or violation of 
     property rights.
       (c) Notification of Opposition to Restrictions of Freedom 
     and Human Rights Abuses.--The President--
       (1) shall notify in writing each fiscal year the head of 
     government of any foreign country that is participating, 
     directly or indirectly, in the restrictions on freedom and 
     human rights of the enclaved people of Cyprus of the 
     opposition by the United States to that government's 
     participation in such restrictions; and
       (2) shall urge the head of such government to cease 
     participation in such restrictions and to work to eliminate 
     such restrictions.
       (d) Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.--The Secretary 
     of State shall include a report on the enclaved people of 
     Cyprus as part of the annual Department of State's Country 
     Reports on Human Rights Practices.

     SEC. 4. UNITED NATIONS EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE RESTRICTIONS ON 
                   THE ENCLAVED PEOPLE IN CYPRUS.

       The President shall direct the United States representative 
     to the United Nations--
       (1) to urge the United Nations High Commissioner for 
     Refugees to address and solve the plight of those enclaved on 
     Cyprus; and
       (2) to call upon the United Nations Human Rights 
     Commissioner to investigate the plight of the enclaved on 
     Cyprus and to implement appropriate and effective corrective 
     action.
     

                          ____________________