[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).
____________________