[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 139 (Friday, September 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12959-S12966]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SIMPSON:
  S. 1223. A bill to relinquish any interest that the United States may 
have in certain land that was subject to a right-of-way that was 
granted to the predecessor of the Chicago and Northwestern 
Transportation Company, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                    land title transfer legislation

 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to permit 
the transference of clear title to certain land in Douglas, WY. I 
believe that this legislation should be uncontroversial because of the 
unique history of this land, and the obvious public benefits which will 
accrue from its transfer.
  Among those benefits: The transfer will facilitate the cleanup of a 
200-foot-wide blighted area that divides the city in half. It will also 
enable a number of citizens to finally secure sound and merchantable 
title to property on which their homes are located. These actions will 
do much to continue to revitalize the city's downtown business 
district.
  The need for this legislation is based upon the particular legal 
history of this land. In the mid-19th century, the United States was 
eager to fully settle the Western territories which had been acquired 
during the Mexican War and in the Louisiana Purchase. The principle 
means of accomplishing this lay with the development of the railroads, 
which could bring not only settlers, but the rapid transportation of 
commerce.
  Laying rail over these vast expanses of the West was a most expensive 
undertaking. Realizing this, Congress passed a number of railroad acts 
allowing the immediate establishment of a series of railroad right-of-
ways. This was done through the use of special grants that were 
immediately effective once a railroad decided to locate its track over 
a specific piece of ground.
  According to a document entitled ``Railroad Lands and Rights-of-Way'' 
that was prepared by The First American Title Insurance Co., these 
grants provided railroads with a limited fee title to strips of land 
ranging from 200 to 400 feet in width wherever the track might be laid, 
as long as they adhered to the general routes established in these 
congressional acts. No patents were given on these rights-of-way
 because the congressional act was sufficient in itself to convey the 
interest to the railroad.

  The titles to the track strips granted by Congress have been 
determined by 

[[Page S 12960]]
various court interpretations to be limited fee estates. This is an 
interpretation that has grown up over time, quite apart from the 
specific mandates of statutory language.
  It is at this point that the city of Douglas, WY, enters the story. 
On March 3, 1875, one of these congressional railroad acts established 
a railroad right-of-way for the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad 
through a section of what is now central Wyoming. Almost immediately 
the city of Douglas, WY, was born and it grew up around the right-of-
way, which still runs right smack through the center of town.
  As the years passed, the railroad sold portions of land out of the 
200-foot-wide easement to the local citizens. Many of these lots now 
contain homes whose current owners now have a quite serious problem: 
because the right-of-way is a limited fee, they are unable to gain good 
and clear title to their land.
  To make matters more confounding, the railroad ceased operation and 
sought abandonment of this right-of-way on April 14, 1989, and filed 
formal notice in the Federal Register to that effect. In its wake, the 
railroad left behind this strip of land that has since become quite 
unsightly and overgrown with weeds. Additionally, this land also 
contains a number of dilapidated old buildings that blight the 
community and are dangerous attractions to young children.
  Fortunately, the city of Douglas remedied one of the most serious 
dangers by remodeling an old depot and part of the surrounding strip 
into the city's chamber of commerce and a railroad interpretive center. 
The city stands by now, ready and able to develop the remainder of this 
land into an attractive subdivision if Congress is willing to transfer 
clear title to this land.
  I trust that the Senate will approve of this legislation in order to 
transfer this land which previously was governed by the Chicago and 
Northwestern Railroad. To do so will clearly serve the public interest, 
and impinges upon no private interests. The good citizens of Douglas 
will greatly benefit from this correction of a problem rooted in long-
ago 19th century law, and I earnestly urge its passage.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Levin):
  S. 1224. A bill to amend subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 5, 
United States Code, relating to alternative means of dispute resolution 
in the administrative process, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.


           the administrative dispute resolution act of 1995

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the bill that I and Senator Levin are 
introducing today, the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1995, 
is an amendment to subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 5 of the United 
States Code, a law which I sponsored in 1989. That law, also titled the 
``Administrative Dispute Resolution Act,'' was designed to encourage 
Federal agencies to streamline dispute resolution processes through the 
use of alternative dispute resolution techniques instead of litigation. 
In other words, it would reduce our litigation process. These 
techniques--often collectively referred to as ADR--include mediation, 
arbitration, conciliation, fact-finding and minitrials, among others.
  Since the implementation of the 1989 act, both Federal agencies and 
private parties have realized significant time and cost savings by 
avoiding the litigation quagmire, while sacrificing little in fairness 
and party satisfaction. Almost all the Federal agencies now have some 
sort of ADR framework in place, and most have enjoyed significant 
degrees of success. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency 
now uses mediation and arbitration processes to resolve superfund, 
Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act disputes. 
The EPA and the private parties involved expressed great satisfaction 
with the efficiency and fairness of these techniques for the resolution 
of complex regulatory issues.
  Not only are ADR techniques more efficient, they are also far less 
costly than litigation. One agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, has estimated a savings of $13 million in legal costs in 
the last 3 years alone. Even better, the Resolution Trust Corporation 
estimated it saved $114 million over the last 4 years. Nor are these 
cost savings realized only in the Government. NRC, a private computer 
company, reduced it's pending lawsuits from 263 to 28 and cut the cost 
of outside attorneys' fees by half over a period of 10 years through 
the use of ADR techniques. Also, a contractor was able to deliver a 
completed rocket testing facility to the Air Force 3
 months ahead of schedule and $12 million under budget by using ADR. In 
fact, the contractor was so satisfied with past ADR outcomes that it 
released all further claims against the Government.

  Despite these gains, much work still remains in integrating ADR 
techniques into the Federal Government. Many agencies lag behind in 
adopting ADR programs into their daily routines. This lag is at least 
partially due to institutional misgivings about the new and unfamiliar. 
However, it is also due to legitimate concerns about confidentiality, 
fairness and quality assurance. It is these latter concerns that our 
new bill seeks to address. Based largely on an extensive and thorough 
analysis by the Administrative Conference of the United States, this 
bill modifies and clarifies the 1989 ADR Act, making ADR more 
attractive to both Federal agencies and private parties for solving 
regulatory disputes. At this time I would like to briefly summarize how 
the proposed act will accomplish this goal.
  First, the bill removes the term ``settlement negotiations'' from the 
group of ADR techniques listed in the 1989 act. This will not decrease 
the effectiveness of the act as ``settlement negotiations'' are not and 
have never been covered by the act as they do not use third party 
``neutrals'' in resolving conflicts. Thus, abolition of the term merely 
eliminates widespread agency confusion as to whether ``settlement 
negotiation'' is a statutorily supported ADR technique, and does not 
decrease the scope of the original act.
  Second, the bill addresses agency confidentiality concerns by 
exempting all dispute resolution communications from Freedom of 
Information Act disclosure. Although these communications have always 
been confidential by implication, this amendment to the 1989 act makes 
that confidentiality express and clear.
  Third, the bill makes it easier for agencies to acquire ``neutrals'' 
by streamlining competitive procedures for obtaining expert services 
and by allowing the acquisition of ``neutrals'' from nonprofit 
organizations.
  Fourth, the bill eliminates the requirement that the validity of all 
contract claims under $100,000 be certified by the contractor. This 
change brings the 1989 ADR Act into conformance with the certification 
levels in the Contracts Disputes Act, thus encouraging the use of ADR 
techniques in many small disputes where they may be particularly 
appropriate.
  Fifth, the bill authorizes the use of ``any alternate means of 
dispute resolution under the act or other mutually agreeable 
procedures'' for resolving claims. This greatly expands the range of 
available ADR techniques, above and beyond those listed in the statute, 
provided that both parties in the dispute agree to the method 
ultimately used.
  Sixth, the bill orders the Chairman of the Administrative Conference 
of the United States to study the benefits and problems of Federal ADR 
use and report these findings to Congress 3 years after this bill is 
enacted. This will allow Congress to reassess the value of ADR methods 
at that time and make appropriate changes.
  Finally, the bill permanently authorizes the ADR Act by striking the 
sunset provision presently in the law.
  Mr. President, there has been much progress in the implementation and 
use of ADR techniques in the Federal Government since I first 
introduced the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act in 1989. Passage 
of this amendment to the act will further this progress by eliminating 
the remaining statutory barriers to ADR use and by clarifying statutory 
language. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Levin and I 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:


[[Page S 12961]]


                                S. 1224

       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 ``Administrative Dispute 
     Resolution Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITIONS.

       Section 571 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by striking out ``settlement 
     negotiations,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (8)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B) by striking out ``decision,'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``decision.''; and
       (B) by striking out the matter following subparagraph (B).

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS.

       (a) Termination of Availability Exemption to 
     Confidentiality.--Section 574(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5) by adding ``or'' at the end thereof;
       (2) in paragraph (6) by striking out ``; or'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof a period; and
       (3) by striking out paragraph (7).
       (b) Limitation of Confidentiality Application to 
     Communication.--Section 574 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) in the matter before paragraph (1) by 
     striking out ``any information concerning''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) in the matter before paragraph (1) by 
     striking out ``any information concerning''.
       (c) Alternative Confidentiality Procedures.--Section 574(d) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(d)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) For purposes of the application of section 552(b)(3), 
     an alternative confidential procedure under this subsection 
     may not provide for less disclosure than the confidential 
     procedures otherwise provided under this section.''.
       (d) Exemption From Disclosure by Statute.--Section 574 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out 
     subsection (j) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(j)(1) A record described under paragraph (2) shall be 
     specifically exempted from disclosure under section 
     552(b)(3).
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any record that--
       ``(A) is--
       ``(i) generated by an agency in a dispute resolution 
     proceeding; or
       ``(ii) initially provided to an agency in a dispute 
     resolution proceeding; and
       ``(B) may not be disclosed under this section.''.

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       On the date occurring 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Administrative 
     Conference of the United States shall submit a report to 
     Congress concerning implementation of subchapter IV of 
     chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code (as amended by this 
     Act) relating to alternative means of dispute resolution, by 
     Federal agencies, including, to the extent available, 
     information relating to the costs and benefits of using 
     alternative means of dispute resolution.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO SUPPORT SERVICE PROVISION.

       Section 583 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``State, local, and tribal governments,'' after 
     ``other Federal agencies,''.

     SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT.

       Section 6 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
     605) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d) by striking out the second sentence 
     and inserting in lieu thereof: ``The contractor shall certify 
     the claim when required to do so as provided under subsection 
     (c)(1) or as otherwise required by law.''; and
       (2) in subsection (e) by striking out the first sentence.

     SEC. 7. AMENDMENTS ON ACQUIRING NEUTRALS.

       (a) Competitive Requirements in Defense Agency Contracts.--
     Section 2304 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(k) For the purpose of applying subsection (c)(3)(C), the 
     head of an agency may procure expert services without regard 
     to sections 8, 9, and 15 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     637, 638, and 644).''.
       (b) Competitive Requirements in Federal Contracts.--Section 
     303(c) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
     Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)), is amended by inserting at 
     the end thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(i) For the purpose of applying subsection (c)(3)(C), an 
     agency may procure expert services without regard to sections 
     8, 9, and 15 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637, 638, 
     and 644).''.

     SEC. 8. PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE 
                   RESOLUTION PROVISIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES 
                   CODE.

       The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (Public Law 101-
     552; 104 Stat. 2747; 5 U.S.C. 581 note) is amended by 
     striking out section 11.
                                 ______

      By Mr. JEFFORDS:
  S. 1225. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
an inventory of historic sites, buildings, and artifacts in the 
Champlain Valley and the upper Hudson River Valley, including the Lake 
George area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


          the champlain valley heritage corridor inventory act

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation known as 
the Champlain Valley Heritage Corridor Inventory Act. The legislation 
that I am introducing is very similar to legislation that I have 
introduced in the past, with minor alterations to reflect the many 
comments I have received on this matter.
  The corridor bill would inventory the many historically significant 
cultural resources which make up the Upper Hudson River Valley, the 
Champlain Valley, and the Lake George region. This would be 
accomplished by the Secretary of the Interior working with officials of 
State and local government, local historians and archaeologists, owners 
of historic sites, native Americans, local and regional planning 
commissions, local and regional chambers of commerce, interstate 
citizen groups, and any other interested parties. This is to be a grass 
roots coalition intended to benefit individuals and communities alike.
  Mr. President, the legislation that I offer today seeks to enhance 
something that, truly, already exists. Along Lake Champlain, Lake 
George, and the Upper Hudson River in my home State of Vermont, and in 
New York and the Province of Quebec, is a wondrous corridor of 
heritage, perhaps unrivaled for its historic richness in all of the 
Western Hemisphere.
  Americans wishing to discover the history, first hand, of the French 
and Indian wars, the decisive campaign of the American Revolution and 
of a key campaign of the War of 1812, must come to this area.
  Fort Ticonderoga, Crown Point, the Saratoga Battlefield, Mount 
Independence, Bennington Battlefield, Hubbardton Battlefield, the 
Plattsburgh battle sites are there, and nowhere else. It is a resource 
the people of the north country truly cherish, and long have shared 
with the rest of the world.
  Trouble is, it's not an easy task to guide oneself along those paths 
of history. I would like to change that. And if I can, it seems to me 
that all the people of the corridor, indeed all the people of this 
Nation, stand to benefit.
  One day in the not-too-distant future, I would hope to see the great 
historic sites of this corridor linked, made easy to discover and 
explore. Here and there we ought to have a visitors center to help the 
traveler, the historian, in their search for the storied places of the 
past. Here and there ought to be a pulloff by the roadside with 
explanations of the historic significance of the area, a map. Common 
signage would be a great help.
  A heritage corridor along these historic waterways would be a 
wonderful gift of our generation to future generations of Americans who 
would go forth to seek this Nation's fascinating past, indeed this 
continent's history. We should go forward in the spirit of those 
farsighted pioneer preservationists of this corridor, such as 
Ticonderoga's Pell family. Long ago they had the foresight to preserve 
and protect Ticonderoga, Mount Independence, Saratoga, Hubbardton, and 
dozens of other historic places.
  T.S. Eliot said that history ``is a pattern of timeless moments.'' We 
are indeed fortunate that a wealth of such moments were enacted in our 
corridor, and that many of their settings have survived. They 
constitute a valued bequest that carries a considerable responsibility. 
They constitute a heritage that should be shared with all Americans.
  Therefore, Mr. President, today I introduce this heritage corridor 
inventory bill. I do it in the name of the people of my home country 
who have long cared deeply about their history. Also, I do it in the 
name of those who wrote the history of the corridor that we seek to 
honor, preserve and make more accessible. Those names include Ethan 
Allen, Arthur St. Clair, Seth Warner, Robert Rogers, Philip Schuyler, 
George Washington, and a thousand more now forgotten, but never 
unappreciated, men and women who stood firm to make a new Nation called 
America.
  Those long-ago people, and the people who live along the storied 
waterways that are true paths of history, deserve no less.
                                 ______

                                 
[[Page S 12962]]

      By Mr. JEFFORDS:
  S. 1226. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a 
study of battlefields of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, to 
establish an American Battlefield Protection Program, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


 the revolutionary war and war of 1812 historic preservation study act 
                                of 1995

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am proud to say that there is in this 
land a great wellspring of caring for the places where freedom was won 
and defended. Millions of Americans have, in recent years, become aware 
of the hallowed ground of our Civil War battlefields, have visited 
them, read of them, many have written of them.
  The clear and eloquent message I hear is that these treasured places 
should be saved, intact, for future generations. The preservation 
message goes forth from Gettysburg, Antietam, Manassas, Cold Harbor, 
Malvern Hill, Petersburg, Stones River, and dozens more Civil War 
places. It is heard from the banks of the Mississippi to the Atlantic 
Coast, from Mobile to the Monocacy.
  When battlefields become severely threatened, such as has happened at 
Brandy Station and Manassas, there quickly develops a continuity of 
Americans that spreads nationwide. The American people care about their 
history, look on these places as national treasures, and speak 
eloquently and effectively for their preservation.
  Five years ago, Congress responded to the growing awareness of our 
Civil War heritage and the concern for the sites where that heritage 
took form, by passing legislation that created a national Civil War 
Sites Advisory Commission. Composed of distinguished historians, 
supported by a staff of National Park Service experts, the Commission 
for 2 years studied the remaining Civil War battlefields. Civil War 
sites were visited, public meetings held, and in the end a report was 
written.
  In that report, Commissioner James McPherson of Princeton University 
noted that while Americans no longer have the power to consecrate their 
historic sites, they clearly have the power to desecrate them. A plan 
of action was presented for protecting what remains of the Civil War 
battlefields. It is a plan now being discussed in the Halls of 
Congress, a plan that I strongly favor and which I hope will be acted 
upon.
  Thanks in large part to the work of Ken Burns, before he turned to 
baseball, this Nation is now highly aware of its Civil War history and 
the places where that history took place. That war, in Lincoln's words, 
brought forth a new birth of freedom. It was a freedom won initially, 
of course, four score years earlier on the battlefields of the American 
Revolution.
  Somewhat sadly, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 has not had, of 
late, a bard the equal of Mr. Burns to sing its praises, reawaken the 
awareness of its history. The people nowadays do not go forth in 
anywhere the numbers to the Revolutionary battlefields, as they do to 
our Civil War fields.
  Nonetheless, the Revolutionary and War of 1812 sites offer 
experiences full well as intriguing, meaningful, even haunting, as the 
scenes of the Civil War. Many of the key sites of the Revolutionary War 
and War of 1812 still exist, though some are in jeopardy and some are 
much in need of enhancement. A half million people do visit the 
Saratoga Battlefield each year--scene of the war's decisive battle. Yet 
the battlefield of Hubbardton in Vermont, a key prelude to Saratoga, 
and once called by National Park historian Edwin Bearss the best 
preserved of all American battlefields, is visited by only about 2,500 
people annually. It just isn't very well known.
  Fort Ticonderoga, both a French and Indian War and Revolutionary War 
site, receives more than 100,000 visitors annually. Yet just across 
Lake Champlain on the Vermont shore, Mount Independence receives only 
about 3,000 visitors. And it lacks a museum, even permanent toilet 
facilities. Yet it has been called the least disturbed major 
Revolutionary War site, a place where as many as 1,000 American 
soldiers may be buried. In the winter of 1776-77, Mount Independence 
was garrisoned against a British invasion from Canada. The troops there 
probably spent a harder winter than Washington's men at Valley Forge. 
Earthworks, a hospital site, blockhouse foundations, the abutments of a 
military bridge, all survive on the Mount. Thousands of artifacts have 
been dug and preserved, awaiting a proper facility for display. This is 
a major American historic site that needs the caring attention of this 
Nation. At the very least it would seem to qualify as a national 
cemetery.
  It is part of the American freedom story, a story that, sadly, is 
very hard to follow today. While a great chapter of that story was 
written along Lake Champlain, finding the places where the story 
happened, following the military routes, is a near-impossible job for 
anyone seeking history. That is but one example of why our 
Revolutionary War sites need attention.
  It is time to take a thorough look at our Revolutionary War places, 
to make a thorough study of what remain, even of what has been lost. 
This Nation continues to grow, the heaviest concentrations of 
population being along the east coast corridor. And this, of course, is 
where the old and fragile sites of the Revolution exist.
  There needs to be done, I believe, a thorough study of Lexington and 
Concord, Cowpens and Brandywide, Yorktown and Saratoga. We need an 
assessment of Mount Independence and Crown Point, Valley Forge, and 
Germantown. We need to know what we have and what needs doing so that 
those wondrous sites are preserved and made understandable and 
accessible to the American public.
  The American people are ever more interested in the story of their 
Nation's past--want their history protected and interpreted.
  So I say today that Congress should act now to create a Revolutionary 
War and War of 1812 Sites Commission. This Commission should go forth 
to the places where independence was won, determine what remains, and 
what is needed to make sure our founding heritage is not lost. It is a 
task that history calls upon us to make, so that our present 
generations can pass on to the Americans of the fast approaching new 
millennium a wondrous gift of history. That gift would be the landscape 
where the Nation that our Civil War President called the last best hope 
of mankind was born in fire and blood and bravery, thus establishing 
the glowing promise of freedom that yet abides across this great land.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HEFLIN:
  S. 1227. A bill to extend and revise agricultural price support and 
related programs for cotton, peanuts, and oilseeds, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                  THE SOUTHERN AGRICULTURE ACT OF 1995

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southern 
Agriculture Act of 1995. This legislation will extend and revise 
agricultural loan and related programs for cotton, peanuts, and 
oilseeds.
  Some farm programs, as currently structured, have served rural 
America well, and in the case of southern crops, farm programs have 
served the rural South extremely well. Therefore, it is my intention to 
introduce legislation that fine tunes these programs, rather than 
radically restructuring them, as some as proposing.
  In 1994, the cotton industry experienced a record year. Cotton 
production in the United States totaled a record 19.7 million bales. 
Production in the Southeast totaled 3.7 million bales, an increase of 
89 percent over the previous year. U.S. exports and domestic mill 
consumption together totaled in excess of 21 million bales in 1994, the 
largest total offtake on record. During calendar 1994, U.S. cotton 
textile exports increase 15 percent above 1993 to surpass 1 billion 
pounds, a new record.
  Much of this success is due to the structure of the cotton program. 
Through the use of the marketing loan, that I put in, in the 1985 farm 
bill, the cotton industry has been able to take advantage of favorable 
world prices resulting from poor planting decisions and harvest 
conditions experienced by some of our foreign competitors. The 
marketing loan has been an enormously valuable tool for this industry 
and is responsible for drastically reducing the cost of the cotton 
program by allowing producers to effectively market their crop. 

[[Page S 12963]]

  The cotton program stands as a shining example of a farm program that 
works as it should. For instance, there will be no idled acres, or set-
asides, for this year's crop, further reducing the cost of the program. 
Despite the perception that commodity programs pay farmer not to plant 
a portion of their crops, cotton producers only get paid for the cotton 
that they produce.
  Due to the success in the manner in which the industry is operating, 
I see no reason to change a policy just for the sake of change. 
Therefore, this legislation proposes to extend the cotton program as 
written.
  I would like to take this opportunity to recognize that while cotton 
has just had a record year and expectations are high for 1995, cotton 
producers in Alabama, and throughout the Southeast, are having to deal 
with a severe drought and have been plagued by an extraordinary 
outbreak of insect and worm infestations.
  Roughly two-thirds of Alabama's cotton crop has had some degree of 
significant yield damage, and nearly one quarter of the State's cotton 
crop will not be harvested this year. As work progresses on the 1995 
farm bill, I will be mindful of this situation as our deliberations 
continue.
  Mr. President, there is a crop that is unique to a handful of States 
in the South that has represented more than just an economic endeavor, 
rather it has been responsible for a way of life and the preservation 
of a rural culture. The peanut program which is essential to Alabama, 
has lately been the target of those who would have us believe that 
ending this program or radically altering its structure would be in the 
best interest of all American consumers.
  While it is acknowledged that the American farmer receives a higher 
amount for his peanuts, it should also be pointed out that the world 
price against which they are measured represents an entirely different 
grade and quality of peanuts. Peanuts of foreign origin are not subject 
to similar requirements for minimum wage, environmental protection, 
restricted chemical use, rigorous post harvest treatment, or 
inspection.
  Detractors tell us that by radically changing the peanut program that 
consumers will realize savings at the check-out stand as a result. The 
GAO in 1993 interviewed both small and large manufacturers of peanuts 
products and were told that they ``may not pass the savings directly on 
to the final consumer of peanut products, but they could develop some 
new product lines''. What this peanut product manufacturer, anti-peanut 
movement sounds like to me is an effort to increase the manufacturer's 
bottom line, at the expense of peanut producers with absolutely no 
guarantee whatsoever that any savings realized by manufacturers will be 
passed along to consumers.
  Auburn University recently released a study that indicates that the 
peanut industry in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida has an economic impact 
in the tri-State area exceeding $1.3 billion, and employment associated 
with economic activity related to the peanut
 industry exceeds 16,000 jobs in the three States. This record of 
success has been accomplished through one of the USDA's most cost 
effective commodity programs. The peanut program has a 10-year average 
cost of about $13 million annually.

  The Auburn study goes further to indicate, using the very same 
economic impact model used by the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission, that changes in the order of those being proposed by the 
antipeanut forces would cost 4,510 jobs in Alabama, Georgia, and 
Florida and have a negative economic impact exceeding $320 million.
  However, in an effort to further limit the already minimal cost 
exposure of the program, this legislation will freeze the support price 
paid to producers at the 1995 crop level. Additionally, the Southern 
Agricultural Act of 1995 will eliminate other production control 
provisions, thereby even further reducing the cost of the program by 
limiting the amount of peanuts that a producer may carry over to the 
following year's crop.
  According to the USDA, this peanut proposal will save an estimated 
$173 million over 7 years from the cost of the program. Furthermore, 
other peanut State Senators and I are working on ways to eliminate all 
cost to the Federal Government from the peanut program to achieve a no-
net-cost program. The peanut program is vital to Alabama and I strongly 
support its continuation.
  Soybeans are another crop of great importance to Alabama. However, 
due to the lack of profitability, acres planted to soybeans in Alabama 
have declined by 90 percent over the last 10 to 15 years.
  Soybeans and other oilseeds do not receive income support under the 
farm program. Lacking income protection, soybean producers in Alabama 
and other States are vulnerable to sharp increases in production and 
reductions in prices. This vulnerability has resulted in a lost of over 
10 million acres of soybean production in the United States since 1981, 
with most of this loss occurring in Southern States. Soybean production 
peaked in Alabama in 1979 with 2.2 million acres planted. Data on the 
1995 crop indicates only 230,000 acres are planted to soybeans in 
Alabama.
  In an effort to correct his situation, this legislation addresses 
this issue by increasing marketing loan rates for soybeans to $5.25 per 
bushel from the current level of $4.92 per bushel. While not high 
enough to incur outlays except during years when soybean prices fall 
well below historical levels, this increased loan rate will provide a 
minimal amount of support for our soybean producers, encouraging 
greater planting of soybeans in years when prices warrant it.
  Every year the farming community takes risks that most Americans take 
for granted each time they go to the grocery store and purchase a 
gallon of milk or loaf of bread or jar of peanut butter. Each time they 
walk down the grocery aisles, there is that same consistency in quality 
and price that consumers now rarely, if ever, stop to appreciate. 
However, it is the farmer who each spring puts his family on the line 
by planting his crops. Every farming family is no more than a natural 
disaster away from losing his farm and home. Regardless, each year he 
again takes that risk that provides us all with the highest quality, 
most abundant, and most affordable food and fiber in world. For that, I 
strongly believe that we should, at the very least, provide some 
measure of a safety net for the unavoidable natural disasters and the 
heavily subsidized competition that our farmers must face from our 
foreign trading partners.
  I realize that we are faced with budget realities that dictate that 
we must make some difficult and painful choices. We must keep in mind, 
though, that Commodity Credit Corporation outlays for farm programs 
have declined from a high of $26 billion in fiscal year 1986 to less 
than $9 billion in fiscal year 1995, a 65-percent reduction. According 
to the Congressional Budget Office, farm program outlays are projected 
to remain below this level for fiscal year 1996-2002, even if no 
changes are made in current law for existing farm programs. If all 
other sectors of the Federal Government had experienced the same 
proportion of cuts as agriculture has, the Federal budget would now be 
balanced. However, the upcoming reconciliation bill appears to be the 
place for those decisions to be debated.
  The Southern Agricultural Act of 1995 is a statement of support for 
the continuation and improvement of the cotton, peanut, and soybean 
farm programs, programs that have worked well and do not warrant 
drastic overhaul. This bill is designed to allow these farm programs 
continue to build upon their many successes which include benefits to 
taxpayers, consumers, and producers alike.
                                 ______

      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Pressler, Mr. 
        Faircloth, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 1228. A bill to impose sanctions on foreign persons exporting 
petroleum products, natural gas, or related technology to Iran; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


               THE IRAN FOREIGN OIL SANCTIONS ACT OF 1995

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my distinguished 
colleagues, Senators Inouye, Pressler, Faircloth, and Kohl to introduce 
the Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions Act of 1995. The purpose of this 
legislation is simple. It will place sanctions on any foreign company 
that supplies 

[[Page S 12964]]
Iran with equipment to extract petroleum, natural gas, or other 
activities that would enable Iran to obtain hard currency with which to 
fund the acquisition of a nuclear bomb and to continue its funding of 
international terrorism. Any increase in Iranian oil revenues should be 
viewed as a threat to the national security and foreign policy 
interests of the United States.
  Several months ago, I commended President Clinton for his wisdom in 
implementing a total United States trade ban against Iran. I had been 
pushing for this ban for 2 years, because I felt that it was wrong for 
us to be subsidizing Iranian terrorism. Thankfully, the United States 
no longer is doing so. I wish, however, I could say the same for the 
rest of the world. While Iran is racing to obtain weapons of mass 
destruction, most of the other countries of the world are subsidizing 
them through their development of the Iranian oil fields. What they are 
forgetting is that by providing Iran with hard currency, they are 
providing Iran with the means with which to fulfill their dreams of 
obtaining nuclear weapons. This cannot be allowed to happen.
  While I know that this administration has tried to convince our 
allies of their mistake in subsidizing Iranian aggression, I feel that 
they can do more. I feel that they must have the proper tools with 
which to deal with the allies regarding Iran and this bill provides 
those tools. Our allies must understand that oil is Iran's lifeline. If 
we are going to persuade the Iranian regime that its efforts to achieve 
nuclear status, its support for international terrorism, and its 
horrendous human rights abuses against the Iranian people should all 
end, we must end the funding with which they are paying for it all. The 
rest of the world now must stop providing that funding.
  Our legislation provides a series of mandatory sanctions and 
discretionary sanctions that the President may place upon any foreign 
company, foreign person, successor entity to that company or person, 
parent, and subsidiary who engages in either trade with Iran in the 
above-mentioned sectors or has requisite knowledge thereof.
  Among the mandatory sanctions that the President can place upon the 
offending foreign company are the following:
  Procurement sanctions which state that the U.S. Government shall not 
procure, or enter into any contract for the procurement of, any goods 
or services from such sanctioned foreign persons or any parent, 
subsidiary, affiliate, or successor entity thereof.
  Export sanctions which state that the U.S. Government shall not issue 
any license or grant any other permission or authority to export any 
goods or technology to a sanctioned foreign person or company.
  Inclusion onto the table of denial orders stating that sanctioned 
foreign persons shall be included within the table of denial orders for 
general and validated export licenses for a period of not less than 
three years.
  Denial of entry of persons into the United States meaning that senior 
executives of sanctioned companies, as well as sanctioned persons are 
ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into 
the United States.
  Additional to the mandatory sanctions, there is a menu of 
discretionary sanctions that the President can choose from to impose 
upon the offending foreign company. They include the following choices:
  Review of certain mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers, stating that 
the President may exercise his statutory authority to prohibit mergers, 
acquisitions, takeovers, and other similar investments in the United 
States by sanctioned companies and persons.
  Import sanctions, stating that the President may ban the importation 
into the United States of products produced by any sanctioned foreign 
person, including any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or successor 
entity.
  Prohibition against export-import bank assistance for exports to 
foreign persons, stating that there shall be no export-import 
guarantees, credit, or insurance for goods or services to sanctioned 
companies or persons.
  Loans from U.S. financial institutions, stating that the U.S. 
Government may prohibit U.S. financial institutions from making any 
loan or providing any credit to any sanctioned foreign person or 
company.
  Prohibitions on foreign financial institutions, stating that a 
sanctioned foreign financial institution will lose its designation as a 
primary dealer in the United States, a sanctioned foreign financial 
institution shall not serve as an agent of the U.S. Government or serve 
as a repository of U.S. Government funds and a sanctioned foreign 
financial institution shall not engage in any line of business or 
conduct any business from any location that it did not conduct before 
the determination by the President of becoming a sanctioned company or 
person.
  Mr. President, I want to make it clear that we are providing the 
President with a wide variety of options to deal with foreign companies 
that provide Iran with oil fields and affiliated equipment. We have 
provided ample waiver authority for the President, and in no way mean 
to tie his hands in his conduct of foreign affairs. We are, however, 
putting the countries of the world on notice that Iran is a dangerous 
country, with intentions inimical to our own, possessing aspirations 
that provide a real and sustained threat to the region and the world. 
Continued coddling and trading with Iran will only serve to build up a 
monster that we will have to deal with at some future time. It is 
better to deal with Iran now, in this manner, than a nuclear-armed Iran 
in the more dangerous future.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important 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. 1228

       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 ``Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The efforts of the Government of Iran to acquire 
     weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them 
     endanger potentially the national security and foreign policy 
     interests of the United States and those countries with which 
     it shares common strategic and foreign policy objectives.
       (2) The objective of preventing the proliferation of 
     weapons of mass destruction through existing multilateral and 
     bilateral initiatives requires additional efforts to deny 
     Iran the financial means to sustain its nuclear, chemical, 
     biological, and missile weapons programs.

     SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

       The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United 
     States to deny Iran the ability to fund the development and 
     acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the means to 
     deliver them by preventing Iran from acquiring equipment that 
     would enhance Iran's ability to extract, refine, process, 
     store, or transport petroleum, petroleum products, or natural 
     gas.

     SEC. 4. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON FOREIGN PERSONS EXPORTING 
                   PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, NATURAL GAS, OR RELATED 
                   TECHNOLOGY TO IRAN.

       (a) In General.--The President shall impose the mandatory 
     sanctions in section 5(1) and may impose one or more of the 
     discretionary sanctions described in section 5(2), if the 
     President determines that a foreign person subject to this 
     section has, with requisite knowledge, on or after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, exported, transferred, or released 
     to Iran, its nationals, or entities controlled by Iran or its 
     nationals any goods or technology identified on the List of 
     Petroleum and Natural Gas-Related Goods and Technology 
     established by section 9 (hereafter in this Act referred to 
     as the ``List'')--
       (1) through the export from the United States of any goods 
     or technology identified in the List that is subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the United States, or
       (2) through the export from any other country or territory 
     of any goods or technology identified in the List that would 
     be, if they were United States goods or technology, subject 
     to the jurisdiction of the United States and subject to the 
     restrictions set forth in this section.
       (b) Persons Against Which the Sanctions Are To Be 
     Imposed.--The sanctions described in subsection (a) shall be 
     imposed on--
       (1) the foreign person with respect to whom the President 
     makes the determination described in that subsection;
       (2) any successor entity to that foreign person;
       (3) any foreign person that is a parent or subsidiary of 
     that person if that parent or subsidiary with requisite 
     knowledge engaged in the activities which were the basis of 
     that determination; and
       (4) any foreign person that is an affiliate of that person 
     if that affiliate with requisite knowledge engaged in the 
     activities which were the basis of that determination and if 

[[Page S 12965]]
     that affiliate is controlled in fact by that person.

     SEC. 5. DESCRIPTION OF SANCTIONS.

       The sanctions to be imposed on a foreign person under 
     section 4(a) are as follows:
       (1) Mandatory sanctions.--
       (A) Procurement sanction.--The United States Government 
     shall not procure, or enter into any contract for the 
     procurement of, any goods or services from such sanctioned 
     foreign person or any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or 
     successor entity thereof, as described in section 4(b).
       (B) Export sanction.--(i) The United States Government 
     shall not issue any license or grant any other permission or 
     authority to export any goods or technology to a sanctioned 
     foreign person under--
       (I) the Export Administration Act of 1979;
       (II) the Arms Export Control Act;
       (III) the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; or
       (IV) any other statute that requires the prior review and 
     approval of the United States Government as a condition for 
     the exportation of goods and services, or their re-export, to 
     any foreign person designated by the President as violating 
     this section.
       (ii) Sanctioned foreign persons shall be included within 
     the Table of Denial Orders for general and validated export 
     licenses for a period of not less than three years.
       (C) Denial of entry of persons into the united states.--
     Sanctioned natural persons, and senior executive officers of 
     sanctioned foreign persons that are corporations or 
     partnerships, shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall 
     be excluded from admission into the United States.
       (2) Discretionary sanctions.--
       (A) Investment in the united states authority to review 
     certain mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers.--The President 
     may exercise his authority under section 721(d) of the 
     Defense Production Act of 1950 to investigate and prohibit 
     mergers, acquisitions, takeovers, and other similar 
     investments in the United States by persons engaged in 
     interstate commerce--
       (i) if such actions involve foreign persons sanctioned 
     under section 4(a); and
       (ii) if the President finds, in addition to the 
     requirements of section 721(e) of such Act, that the 
     participation of foreign persons, sanctioned by the President 
     under section 4(a), in activities to assist, directly or 
     indirectly, Iran to increase the revenue available to that 
     government by extracting petroleum, natural gas, or other 
     activities related to these product sectors threatens to 
     impair the national security and foreign policy interests of 
     the United States.
       (B) Import sanction.--(i) The importation into the United 
     States of products produced by any sanctioned foreign person, 
     including any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or successor 
     entity thereof, may be prohibited.
       (ii) Clause (i) includes application to--
       (I) the entry of any ``finished product'' or ``component 
     part'', whether shipped directly by the manufacturer, or by 
     another entity; and
       (II) the contracting for the provision of services in the 
     United States or abroad by United States persons and by 
     foreign persons in the United States.
       (C) Prohibition against export-import bank assistance for 
     exports to foreign persons.--The Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States may not guarantee, insure, extend credit, or 
     participate in the extension of credit in connection with the 
     export of any goods or services to any foreign person that 
     has been made subject to the sanctions pursuant to section 
     4(a).
       (D) Loans from united states financial institutions.--The 
     United States Government may prohibit any United States 
     financial institution from making any loan or providing any 
     credit to any foreign person sanctioned under section 4(a) 
     unless such foreign person is engaged in activities to 
     relieve human suffering, within the meaning of section 
     203(b)(2) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
       (E) Prohibitions on foreign financial institutions.--The 
     following prohibitions may be imposed against foreign 
     financial institutions sanctioned under section 4(a):
       (i) Designation as primary dealer.--Neither the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System nor the Federal 
     Reserve Bank of New York may designate, or permit the 
     continuation of any prior designation of, such financial 
     institution as a primary dealer in United States Government 
     debt instruments.
       (ii) Government funds.--Such financial institution shall 
     not serve as agent of the United States Government or serve 
     as repository for United States Government funds.
       (iii) Restrictions on operations.--Such financial 
     institutions shall not, directly or indirectly--

       (I) commence any line of business in the United States in 
     which it was not engaged as of the date of the determination 
     by the President under section 4(a); or
       (II) conduct business from any location in the United 
     States at which it did not conduct business as of the date of 
     the determination by the President under section 4(a).

     SEC. 6. WAIVER AUTHORITY REGARDING SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN.

       The sanctions of section 5 shall not apply if the President 
     determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that Iran--
       (1) has substantially improved its adherence to 
     internationally recognized standards of human rights;
       (2) has ceased its efforts to design, develop, manufacture, 
     or acquire--
       (A) a nuclear explosive device or related materials and 
     technology;
       (B) chemical and biological weapons;
       (C) missiles and missile launch technology; or
       (D) any missile or other delivery system capable of 
     reaching the territory of a country the government of which 
     shares strategic interests with the United States and is 
     engaged in defense cooperation, including the acquisition of 
     items identified in the United States Munitions List, with 
     the United States; and
       (3) has ceased all forms of support for international 
     terrorism.

     SEC. 7. WAIVER OF SANCTIONS AGAINST FOREIGN PERSONS.

       (a) Consultations.--If the President makes a determination 
     described in section 4(a) with respect foreign persons, the 
     Congress urges the President, to initiate consultations 
     immediately with the foreign government with primary 
     jurisdiction over that foreign person with respect to the 
     imposition of the sanctions pursuant to this section.
       (1) Actions by government of jurisdiction.--In order to 
     pursue such consultations with that government, the President 
     may delay imposition of the sanctions pursuant to this 
     section within 90 days. Following such consultations, the 
     President shall immediately impose sanctions unless the 
     President determines and certifies to the Congress that the 
     government has taken specific and effective actions, 
     including the imposition of appropriate penalties, to 
     terminate the involvement of the foreign person in the 
     activities that resulted in the imposition of sanctions 
     against the foreign person.
       (2) Additional delay in imposition of sanctions.--The 
     President may delay the imposition of sanctions for up to an 
     additional 45 days if the President determines and certifies 
     to the Congress that the government with primary jurisdiction 
     over the foreign person is in the process of taking the 
     actions described in paragraph (1).
       (3) Report to congress.--Not later than 45 days after 
     making a determination under section 4(a), the President 
     shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     status of consultations with the appropriate foreign 
     government under this subsection, and the basis for any 
     determination under paragraph (2) that such government has 
     taken specific corrective actions.
       (b) Assurances From Foreign Persons.--The President may 
     terminate the sanctions against a foreign person, subject to 
     a determination under section 4(a), if the foreign person 
     provides assurances to the Secretary that the actions that 
     resulted in the determination to impose sanctions have been 
     terminated and have provided specific assurances that it will 
     neither directly nor indirectly, or through any other person, 
     including subsidiaries and affiliates, direct or participate 
     in any activity to provide to Iran goods or technology on the 
     List.
       (c) Exceptions.--The President shall not be required to 
     apply or maintain the sanctions under section 4(a)--
       (1) in the case of procurement of defense articles or 
     defense services--
       (A) under existing contracts or subcontracts, including the 
     exercise of options for production quantities to satisfy 
     requirements essential to the national security of the United 
     States;
       (B) if the President determines in writing that the person 
     or other entity to which the sanction would otherwise be 
     applied is a sole source supplier of the defense articles or 
     services, that the defense articles or services are 
     essential, and that alternative sources are not readily or 
     reasonably available; or
       (C) if the President determines in writing that such 
     articles or services are essential to the national security 
     under defense coproduction agreements;
       (2) to products or services provided under contracts 
     entered into before the date on which the President publishes 
     his intention to impose the sanction;
       (3) to--
       (A) spare parts which are essential to United States 
     products or production;
       (B) component parts, but not finished products, essential 
     to United States products or production; or
       (C) routine servicing and maintenance of products, to the 
     extent that alternative sources are not readily or reasonably 
     available;
       (4) to information and technology essential to United 
     States products or production; or
       (5) to medicines, medical supplies, or other humanitarian 
     items.
       (d) Presidential National Security Waiver.--(1) The 
     President may waive the requirement in section 4(a) to impose 
     a sanction or sanctions on a foreign person in section 4(b), 
     for goods and technology that are not subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the United States, 15 days after the 
     President determines and so reports to the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives that it is essential to the national interest 
     of the United States to exercise such waiver authority.
       (2) Any such report shall provide a specific and detailed 
     rationale for such determination, including--

[[Page S 12966]]

       (A) a description of the conduct, including the 
     identification of the goods and technology involved in the 
     violation, that resulted in the determination of a violation 
     or violations;
       (B) an explanation of the efforts to secure the cooperation 
     of the government with primary jurisdiction of the foreign 
     person to terminate or penalize the activities that resulted 
     in the determination of a violation;
       (C) an estimate as to the significance of the goods and 
     technology exported to Iran on that country's ability to 
     extract, refine, process, store, or transport petroleum, 
     petroleum products, or natural gas; and
       (D) a statement as to the response of the United States in 
     the event that such foreign person engages in other 
     activities that under this section would constitute an 
     additional violation.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.

       (a) Duration of Sanctions.--The sanctions imposed pursuant 
     to this section shall apply for a period of not less than 12 
     months following the determination by the President under 
     section 4(a) and shall cease to apply thereafter only if the 
     President determines and certifies to the Congress that 
     reliable information indicates that the foreign person with 
     respect to which the determination was made under section 
     4(a) has ceased to aid or abet Iran, or any individual, 
     group, or entity owned or controlled by Iran, to acquire 
     goods and technology on the List.
       (b) Waiver.--
       (1) Criterion for waiver.--the President may waive the 
     continued application of any sanction imposed on any foreign 
     person pursuant to this section, after the end of the 12-
     month period beginning on the date on which that sanction was 
     imposed on that person, if the President determines and 
     certifies to the Congress that the continued imposition of 
     the sanction would have a serious adverse effect on United 
     States national security.
       (2) Notification of and report to congress.--If the 
     President decides to exercise the waiver authority provided 
     in paragraph (1), the President shall so notify the Congress 
     not less than 30 days before the waiver takes effect. Such 
     notification shall include a report fully articulating the 
     rationale and circumstances which led the President to 
     exercise the waiver authority.

     SEC. 9. GOODS AND TECHNOLOGY SUBJECT TO EXPORT CONTROL 
                   RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Control List.--(1) For purposes of the determinations 
     to be made pursuant to section 4(a), the President, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     Energy, and the heads of other appropriate departments and 
     agencies, shall establish and maintain the List of Petroleum 
     and Natural Gas-Related Goods and Technology, consisting of 
     goods or technology (including software and technical data) 
     that the President determines materially contribute to the 
     extraction, refining, production, storage, or transportation 
     of petroleum, petroleum products, or natural gas and the 
     products thereof in or by Iran, including goods and 
     technology that are required for the development, production, 
     or use (including the repair, maintenance, or operation of 
     equipment) for the petroleum and natural gas activities 
     described in this subsection.
       (2) The President within 60 days of the date of enactment 
     of this Act shall cause the List to be published in the 
     Federal Register, together with any regulations necessary 
     thereto. Thereafter, any revisions to the List or amendments 
     to the regulations shall be published in the same manner.
       (3) Not less than 30 days in advance of the publication of 
     the List, it shall be provided to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and to the Committee 
     on International Relations of the House of Representatives. 
     The President shall consult with such Committees regarding 
     the content of the List and shall respond to questions 
     regarding the basis for the inclusion on, or exclusion from, 
     the List of specified goods and technologies.
       (4) The President may delegate the functions of this 
     subsection to the Secretary of Commerce.
       (b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section 
     prevents the inclusion on the List of any goods or technology 
     that may be produced in and traded internationally by 
     companies in countries with which the United States 
     cooperates in controlling the export of goods and technology 
     to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
     and the means to deliver them, or in any other country.

     SEC. 10. REPORT REQUIRED.

       Beginning 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall transmit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report 
     describing--
       (1) the nuclear and other military capabilities of Iran; 
     and
       (2) the support, if any, provided by Iran for acts of 
     international terrorism.

     SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Act of international terrorism.--The term ``act of 
     international terrorism'' means an act--
       (A) which is violent or dangerous to human life and that is 
     a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of 
     any State or that would be a criminal violation if committed 
     within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State; 
     and
       (B) which appears to be intended--
       (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
       (ii) to influence the policy of a government by 
     intimidation or coercion; or
       (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by 
     assassination or kidnapping.
       (2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committees 
     on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and Foreign Relations 
     of the Senate and the Committees on Banking and Financial 
     Services and International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (3) Component parts.--The term ``component parts'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 11A(e)(1) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2410a(e)(1)).
       (4) Financial institution.--The term ``financial 
     institution'' includes--
       (A) a depository institution (as defined in section 3(c)(1) 
     of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act), including a branch or 
     agency of a foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b)(7) of 
     the International Banking Act of 1978);
       (B) a credit union;
       (C) a securities firm, including a broker or dealer;
       (D) an insurance company, including an agency or 
     underwriter;
       (E) any other company that provides financial services; or
       (F) any subsidiary of such financial institution.
       (5) Finished products.--The term ``finished products'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 11A(e)(2) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2410a(e)(2)).
       (6) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' means--
       (A) an individual who is not a United States national or an 
     alien admitted for permanent residence to the United States; 
     or
       (B) a corporation, partnership, or other nongovernment 
     entity which is not a United States national.
       (7) Iran.--The term ``Iran'' includes any agency or 
     instrumentality of Iran.
       (8) Nuclear explosive device.--The term ``nuclear explosive 
     device'' means any device, whether assembled or disassembled, 
     that is designed to produce an instantaneous release of an 
     amount of nuclear energy from special nuclear material that 
     is greater than the amount of energy that would be released 
     from the detonation of one pound of trinitrotoluene (TNT).
       (9) Person.--The term ``person'' means a natural person as 
     well as a corporation, business association, partnership, 
     society, trust, any other nongovernmental entity, 
     organization, or group, and any governmental entity, 
     operating as a business enterprise, and any successor of any 
     such entity in the case of countries where it may be 
     impossible to identify a specific government entity referred 
     to in paragraph (2), the term ``person'' means--
       (A) all activities of that government relating to the 
     development or production of any missile equipment or 
     technology; and
       (B) all activities of that government affecting the 
     development or production of aircraft, electronics, and space 
     systems or equipment.
       (10) Petroleum products.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``petroleum products'' means crude oil, residual fuel oil, or 
     any refined petroleum product.
       (11) Requisite knowledge.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term ``requisite knowledge'' means situations in which a 
     person ``knows'', as ``knowing'' is defined in section 104 of 
     the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (15 U.S.C. 78dd-2).
       (12) Senior executive officers.--The term ``senior 
     executive officers'' includes officers of sanctioned foreign 
     persons, or their designees, who are in a position to direct 
     the conduct or implement the policies that resulted in the 
     determination by the President to impose sanctions against 
     the foreign person.
       (13) United states or state.--The term ``United States'' or 
     ``State'' means the several States, the District of Columbia, 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the United 
     States Virgin Islands, and any other territory or possession 
     of the United States.
       (14) United states national.--The term ``United States 
     national'' means--
       (A) a natural person who is a citizen of the United States 
     or who owes permanent allegiance to the United States;
       (B) a corporation or other legal entity which is organized 
     under the laws of the United States, any State or territory 
     thereof, or the District of Columbia, if natural persons who 
     are nationals of the United States own, directly or 
     indirectly, more than 50 percent of the outstanding capital 
     stock or other beneficial interest in such legal entity; and
       (C) any foreign subsidiary of a corporation or other legal 
     entity described in subparagraph (B).
     

                          ____________________