[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17091-S17097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BREAUX:
  S. 1412. A bill to designate a portion of the Red River in Louisiana 
as the ``J. Bennett Johnston Waterway,'' and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


        the j. bennett johnston waterway designation act of 1995

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today, with respect and admiration 
for my colleague from Louisiana, the Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, in 
order to introduce legislation which will designate part of the Red 
River the ``J. Bennett Johnston Waterway.''
  Senator Johnston's diligence in serving the people of Louisiana for 
close to 30 years more than justifies this legislation and should be a 
reminder to those of us who have had the honor to serve in the Senate 
with him and to all who will serve here in the future what the word 
``service'' truly means.
  The work that Senator Johnston has done to rebuild and rejuvenate the 
Red River and the communities that depend on it exemplifies the 
strength of his leadership and his commitment to the economic 
development of Louisiana.
  For years, the many bends and excessive sedimentation in the Red 
River made it unnavigable to the barges and ships necessary for 
transporting local goods. The economy of the region that depended on 
the Red River became depressed.
  Senator Johnston has worked successfully for the last 22 years 
helping local communities and organizations obtain the funding 
necessary to create a modern waterway. As a result of this success, old 
and new businesses are moving back into the area, job opportunities are 
sprouting up again, and the hope that accompanied a new economic 
direction is taking root in the region.
  In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers estimates that $107 million in 
benefits will be generated annually and approximately 56,000 new jobs 
will be created in 40 years. Other benefits include cleaner water, 
improved and increased recreational use, the possibility of 
hydroelectric power in the future, and potential for greater 
agricultural utilization of the river.
  Local organizations and residents recognize the positive growth 
resulting from this project as well as the substantial role Senator 
Johnston played in making this growth a reality. In fact, it was local 
citizens who requested this naming legislation.
  The many people who have worked with Senator Johnston over the years 
know he was the key to this project's success and want to honor him for 
all that he has done to make the waterway a reality.
  Each time we navigate the river, each time we use it to recreate and 
each time we realize economic benefits from the river, we will forever 
be mindful of the man whose unyielding leadership and dedication made 
it all possible, my colleague, my friend, and my senior Senator, the 
Honorable J. Bennett Johnston.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HELMS (for himself and Mr. Faircloth):
  S. 1413. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
require that an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
for a license, license amendment, or permit for an activity that will 
result in a withdrawal by a State or political subdivision of a State 
of water from a lake that is situated in two States shall not be 
granted unless the Governor of the State in which more than 50 percent 
of the lake, reservoir, or other body of water is situated certifies 
that the withdrawal will not have an adverse effect on the environment 
in or economy of that State, and for other purposes; and the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.


                 THE LAKE GASTON PROTECTION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today Senator Faircloth and I are 
introducing the Lake Gaston Protection Act of 1995. The States of North 
Carolina and Virginia have been locked in a dispute for a decade as to 
whether the city of Virginia Beach should be able to withdraw water 
from Lake Gaston, which straddles both States.

  Our bill stops the withdrawal of water from the lake until Federal 
officials listen to the concerns of countless thousands of citizens of 
both North Carolina and Virginia.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] approved a permit 
allowing the daily withdrawal of 60 million gallons from Lake Gaston--
but the FERC officials did not look closely enough at the potential 
negative environmental effects of withdrawing 60 million gallons a day 
from the lake. In short, they failed to consider either the 
environmental problems or the adverse impact on striped bass and other 
fish species. A sharply reduced quantity of water flowing through the 
lower Roanoke River basin may very well be harmful to the estuaries of 
the Albemarle Sound in the spawning of many fish species.
  And, Mr. President besides the environmental impact, the withdrawal 
could very well pose dire consequences to the commercial and 
recreational fishing industry that depends so heavily on an adequate 
exchange of fresh water and salt water in the estuary.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have obtained 
certification from the State of North Carolina that there would be no 
degradation of water quality or the environment. Instead, FERC ran 
roughshod over the concerns of North Carolina.
  Mr. President, Senator Faircloth's and my bill would require FERC to 
obtain certification from North Carolina that this project will have 
no, and I emphasize, no adverse impact on the environment or the local 
economy.
  Mr. President, for the record, I believe a brief history of this 
dispute may be helpful.
  Virginia Electric Power Co., on behalf of Virginia Beach, applied to 
the FERC for permission to construct a water intake on Pea Hill Cove of 
Lake Gaston and a 76-mile pipeline to withdraw up to 60 million gallons 
per day.
  Both the City of Virginia Beach and the State of North Carolina have 
marched back and forth in the Federal courts over this issue. North 
Carolina raised many concerns of water quality and the adverse effects 
on the downstream ecosystems. North Carolina officials assert that FERC 
did a far too hasty job on its environmental analysis. FERC allowed 
only 2 months for the review of the reams of environmental data.
  Furthermore North Carolina asserts that FERC staff failed to conduct 
studies requested by several Federal agencies, including the EPA, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries, and independent 
biologists.
  After much litigation, a Federal mediator was appointed by the 
Federal courts within the past 18 months, to look into the possibility 
of bringing the State of North Carolina and the city of Virginia Beach 
to an agreement on the issue.
  A final settlement agreement was reached on June 26, and was 
supported by both Virginia Senators. I have a copy of a letter signed 
by both Senators to the Governors of North Carolina and Virginia in 
support of the agreement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
letter be placed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the settlement was subject to ratification 
of an Interstate compact by both State legislatures and approval by the 
Congress. According to the officials in North Carolina, this agreement 
protects the interests of the three North Carolina counties that 
surround the lake. As of now, neither State has ratified the compact.
  The communities that surround the lake in Northampton, Warren, and 
Halifax Counties in North Carolina are greatly dependent on it to 
support their economies. According to a November 2, 1993, article in 
the Lake Gaston Gazette, property owners around the lake paid over $253 
million in 1993 real estate and personal property 

[[Page S17092]]
taxes. Also it is estimated that there has been $125 million in new 
home construction each year.
  Mr. President, North Carolina and Virginia have a history of 
cooperation on matters affecting both States. For example the joint 
North Carolina and Virginia efforts to stem Lake Gaston's having been 
infested by hydrilla, an aquatic weed similar to kudzu. These five 
counties and both State governments have worked together to bring this 
nuisance weed under control.
  If Virginia and the city of Virginia Beach object to this 
legislation, there is a way out; this proposed law will not apply if 
and when the June 26 settlement is resurrected and there is an 
interstate compact. So each State can urge its Governor and legislature 
to ratify the agreement and the compact. This will give everyone a 
chance to take a second look at North Carolina's environmental 
concerns.
  This legislation is narrowly drawn to apply only to this particular 
situation and would not adversely affect our western friends.
  We realize how sensitive our western friends are on the issue of 
water rights. Senator Faircloth's and my staffs have consulted with 
numerous experts in western U.S. water rights and have been assured 
that this legislation exempts western water projects.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1413

       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 ``Lake Gaston Protection Act 
     of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. WITHDRAWALS OF WATER FROM LAKES SITUATED IN 2 STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 401(a)(2) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2) Upon receipt'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Action by the administrator.--
       ``(A) In general.--On Receipt''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Lakes situated in 2 states.--
       ``(i) Certification of no adverse effect.--Except as 
     provided in clause (ii), in the case of an application to the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license, license 
     amendment, or permit for an activity that will result 
     directly or indirectly in the withdrawal by a State or 
     political subdivision of a State of water from a lake, 
     reservoir, or similar body of water that is situated in 2 
     (and not more than 2) States, the Commission shall not grant 
     the license, license amendment, or permit unless the Governor 
     of the State in which more than 50 percent of the lake, 
     reservoir, or other body of water is situated certifies that 
     the withdrawal will not adversely affect the environment in 
     or the economy of that State.
       ``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) does not apply to an 
     application for a license, license amendment, or permit for 
     an activity that will occur with or affect waters located 
     within a river basin that is subject to an interstate 
     compact, decree of the Supreme Court, or Act of Congress that 
     specifically allocates the rights to use the water that is 
     the subject of the application.''.
       ``(b) Retroactive Effect.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) shall apply to any application made on or after January 
     1, 1991, unless the application has been granted and is no 
     longer subject to judicial review.
                                                                    ____


                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, July 5, 1995.
     Hon. George F. Allen,
     Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia, State Capitol, Richmond, 
         VA.
     Hon. James B. Hunt, Jr.,
     Governor, State of North Carolina, State Capitol, Raleigh, 
         NC.
       Dear Governors: The City of Virginia Beach has advised us 
     that it hopes to finalize a settlement with the State of 
     North Carolina regarding the Lake Gaston pipeline project 
     within the next few days.
       It is our understanding that one feature of the settlement 
     contemplates that you will seek to have introduced and passed 
     in your respective General Assemblies an Interstate Compact 
     that will place limits on out of basin transfers of water 
     from the Roanoke River Basin in Virginia and North Carolina.
       We wish to assure you that we believe a settlement of the 
     issues will facilitate the construction of the Lake Gaston 
     project which we fully support. We also pledge our support to 
     the proposed Interstate Compact should it be passed by the 
     General Assemblies of Virginia and North Carolina and if the 
     settlement becomes effective and is not terminated by the 
     parties after action by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission (FERC) on VEPCO's application.
       Following enactment by both state legislatures, it is our 
     intention to promptly introduce the Compact in the United 
     States Senate and take every appropriate action to obtain the 
     expeditious consent of the Congress to the Compact.
       With kind regards,
           Sincerely,
     Charles Robb.
     John Warner.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Helms 
today in introducing a bill to help resolve a long-standing dispute 
between Virginia and North Carolina over Lake Gaston, a lake spanning 
the border between our two States. The dispute concerns Virginia's 
plans to construct a water pipeline from Lake Gaston to Virginia Beach 
for that city's municipal use--60 million gallons a day.
  I am disappointed that this disagreement has come to the point where 
we must introduce legislation. Last spring the two States came very 
close to resolving the issue and actually had a settlement ready, 
signed, and waiting for ratification by the States and the Congress. 
Unfortunately, logistical problems prevented the settlement from being 
closed by the Virginia State legislature before their adjournment. Soon 
after they adjourned, however, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
approved a permit allowing for the project to proceed. Of course, with 
approval in hand, Virginia was refused to return to the negotiating 
table. They simply have a permit. As it now stands, the citizens of 
North Carolina and the residents of Lake Gaston have lost the water 
without any agreement whatsoever between the States on how much water 
can be withdrawn from the lake, and other critical factors.
  Mr. President, it is wrong for the Federal Government to allow this 
pipeline to take millions of gallons of water from Lake Gaston and 
North Carolina without North Carolina's approval and agreement. It is 
only fair that a project with this kind of impact should proceed only 
after an agreement has been reached between the two States--especially 
when an agreement is very nearly at hand--until the Federal Government 
went ahead and issued the permit.
  Reasonable restrictions should be in place and agreed to by both 
States, such as the amount of water that can be withdrawn each day. The 
impact of withdrawing millions of gallons of water from the Roanoke 
River Basin is, frankly, unknown and in dispute.
  I am particularly concerned about the impact the new pipeline will 
have on the economy of North Carolina. Many industries and towns depend 
on water from the Roanoke River. The property owners around the lake 
paid nearly $250 million in property taxes this year alone. What 
happens, Mr. President, when all this water is diverted to Virginia 
Beach? Even if the effect right now may not be severe, it could hamper 
growth in the future. You simply will lower the lake level to a degree 
where it will be unattractive. No one can tell with any certainty what 
the effect will be on the local economy, but predictions from 
homeowners and others are that they will be severe.
  The environmental effects are equally unknown. Every day people are 
turned down for wetland permits by the Federal Government because of 
relatively minor environmental impacts. But here, with lake Gaston, 
where we are talking about an enormous and unprecedented impact on 
water flow and quality--and the agencies let the permit sail on 
through. The environmental impact study--which sometimes drag on for 
years--took only 3 months to sail it through.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is there are simply too many questions 
to allow this project to proceed over the objections of North Carolina. 
Too much is on the line here. An agreement is just around the corner if 
we give it a chance and give it time.
  Senator Helms and I are representing North Carolina as a whole, the 
State legislature, the State house, the State Senate, and the Governor. 
In North Carolina we are totally unified as to what should be done--and 
that is not build a pipeline until an agreement is reached. An 
agreement is at hand, and around the corner. With some help here today 
it can be reached.
  We look forward to working with the Senators from Virginia to 
conclude it, and to bring it to a proper conclusion.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Helms, Mr. 
        McConnell, and Mr. Gramm):
        
[[Page S17093]]

  S. 1414. A bill to ensure that payments during fiscal year 1996 of 
compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities, of 
dependency, and indemnity compensation for survivors of such veterans, 
and of other veterans benefits are made regardless of Government 
financial shortfalls: to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                         VETERANS' LEGISLATION

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, Senator Simpson and I are 
introducing legislation today to make sure the veterans of this country 
do not worry about their pension payments being made, in case the 
Government continues to be shut down, by November 21 or November 22. 
Madam President, of course we hope this will not happen. We hope the 
President will agree to a balanced budget, and that we can do our 
responsibility to the people of this country and pass the first year of 
the 7-year march to a balanced budget.

  But the administration has chosen to tell veterans that they will not 
be paid; that they are not a priority payment. We are introducing this 
legislation to force the administration to pay veterans benefits, just 
as the administration would pay any other mandatory benefits that 
people have earned. Our veterans have earned their benefits. It is a 
mandatory payment. This legislation should not be necessary but for the 
position the administration has taken.
  I am pleased to introduce this bill with Senator Simpson and I yield 
the time I have left to Senator Simpson to talk about the importance of 
making sure that veterans are not going to have to worry, that their 
pension checks will be in the mail December 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this 
measure. I think Senator Hutchison has well described what we are 
trying to do. It seems extraordinary to me we would even be in this 
position. The President could have had every opportunity to extricate 
himself from the position. I think the reason it has come to pass is a 
very simple one, and that is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a 
Cabinet post, Secretary Jesse Brown, is acting and continues to act in 
an exceedingly and purely partisan mode.
   On November 3, I rose in this Chamber to speak to an issue of 
particular concern to me. At that time I spoke of what I feel to be the 
wholly inappropriate use by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of 
Government computers and the VA employee pay stubs to convey a 
blatantly partisan political message to his 240,000 employees.
  The consistent message Secretary Brown has been conveying has been 
one of doom and destruction. Were one to listen to the Secretary, one 
would believe that the whole system of veterans' benefits was in grave 
jeopardy--a system put in place by a grateful Nation for those who 
fought and sacrificed that she may remain free. Indeed, in his morning 
message to employees that greeted them when they booted up their 
computers on the morning of November 9, he said no less.
  That is just plain wrong. For it is simply not true. The budget 
proposed by this Congress--these evil Republicans--provides for a 
growth, that is, increase, of nearly $4 billion over the 7-year time 
period during which we seek a budget balance. That hardly smacks of the 
elimination of veterans' benefits as we know them. And during this time 
in which the budget for veterans will rise more than 10 percent, the 
number of veterans will be steadily falling from the 26.1 million 
currently living to approximately 23 million. Resources continue to 
increase. The number of beneficiaries continues to decline. How anyone 
can refer to that as the same draconian cut Secretary Brown keeps 
mentioning truly amazes and eludes me.
  I want to say I have served as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee and have been a member of it for some 17 years, since 1979. 
Since that time I have seen many good, able men at the helm of the 
Veterans Administration, now the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  When I arrived, Max Cleland, that very spirited, brave young man, who 
had lost three of his limbs in combat in Vietnam, was the Administrator 
under a Democrat President. Following him, under the Reagan 
administration, Bob Nimmo, a committed decorated bomber pilot of World 
War II, served in that position. Then West Pointer and ``Lonesome 
End,'' Harry Walters was in that position. Then steady and reliable 
Gen. Tom Turnage. With the elevation of the VA to Cabinet status my old 
friend the affable and effective Ed Derwinski took the helm, and 
following Ed, the exceedingly bright and conscientious former staff 
director, Tony Principi.
  Never, during all of those years, and they include both Democratic 
and Republican Administrators, have I ever seen the role of 
Administrator of Veterans Affairs or Secretary be used--and being used 
is the word I want to use here--for such blatant partisan political 
purposes, and being used in a way I would consider to be wholly 
embarrassing and demeaning.
  In my remarks on November 3, I stated that the budget approved by the 
Congress was substantially more advantageous to veterans than the 
President's own. In an interview with Ruth Larson of the Washington 
Times published on November 8, Secretary Brown himself acknowledged as 
much saying: ``He's (meaning me) absolutely right.'' Then he goes on, 
with an apparently straight face: ``No problem. The President said I 
can come back and ask for more next year.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of that article printed in the 
Record, if I may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, that is the way the budget process 
works. Each year, every single agency head submits his or her own 
budget request for that particular year.
  The budget process starts in the fall of the year. The agencies 
submit their budget requests to the Office of Management and Budget. 
After some considerable back and forth, the budget of the 
administration comes to us. When the Secretary says that he'll have a 
chance to ask for more next year--or that the President promises to 
treat this veteran constituency fairly in the future, I am tempted to 
say: ``So what. No big deal.'' Those are the very same rules by which 
every agency operates. And indeed, I would imagine that the President 
has committed to each of his Cabinet officers the very same thing 
saying: ``Present your best budget to me, and I'll package that for 
presentation to the Hill.'' One notes in this form of articulation that 
there are no promises made.
  And really there can't be. The budget environment in which we are 
operating, to balance the budget as I personally would hope we do by 
the year 2002, or the budget proposed by the administration which 
would, under assumptions that are at the very best questionable, 
balance the budget over a 10-year period. Either way, there are limits 
on spending programs, and those limits will, of necessity, affect every 
single agency of this Government.
  Indeed, Secretary Brown's criticism of the Congress assumes a 
straight line freeze of the VA medical care budget. While, in fact, 
both the Senate and House have approved significant increases.
  Secretary Brown tells us the President will think about an increase 
next year. Well, I remind him again. The Congress has delivered one 
this year.
  The true fact is, no country on this earth has been more generous 
with its veterans than has ours. The very fact that the budget of the 
VA goes up some $4 billion over the next 7 years, while the population 
of veterans will decline by 3 million, seems to be a pretty powerful 
indication of our continuing commitment to veterans. In this climate, 
other agencies are suffering actual cuts. Many of those agencies have 
worthy constituencies as well. But the budget of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs is not being cut. It continues to grow, and indeed 
grow at a generous rate as it has each and every year since my arrival 
here in the Senate in l979. It was $20 billion then. It is almost $40 
billion now. Not a cut in a carload.
  Madam President, would that the Secretary could simply acknowledge 
that basic fact and then work with us to assure that the funds 
appropriated for the worthy purposes pursued by his Department were 
best utilized. Unfortunately, he has taken the President's tack on 
this. He is churning out the political message of the day as it is set 
forth by the White House in anticipation of the tough 1996 election 
year. And he is doing it in various ways that I consider to be wholly 
inappropriate. 

[[Page S17094]]

  It has recently come to my attention that part of this political 
caper is done through the use of dedicated career civil service 
employees of the Department who are directed by the Secretary's 
political underlings and henchmen to craft his message. Does one really 
believe that those messages flickering on the VA computer screen every 
morning are the work of the Secretary himself? I do not think so. They 
are cranked in his Office of Public Affairs, as are the drafts of the 
myriad political stump speeches he and his underlings deliver around 
the country. I'm learning fast on that too--by having my fellow veteran 
friends out there listening to those speeches. Those are often 
outrageous.
  One VA employee has raised a concern with me regarding the fact that 
he has been asked to further the White House political message line--
although it has nothing whatsoever to do with veterans. Instructions to 
just send the political appointees out in the land--at Government 
expense--with a canned speech in tow that could have been written by 
the White House itself. And do always attack the Republican Congress 
and any budget it proposes. Do whatever you will--as long as it is 
consistent with the White House media message of the week.
  I too am a taxpayer, and I am offended. Indeed, this Nation's 
veterans are taxpayers as well, and they should be similarly offended 
that their tax dollars are being used in this way.
  I have nothing whatsoever against a Secretary extolling the splendid 
virtues of America's veterans, exhorting his fine professional staff to 
ever higher levels of service to those who fought for this country, or 
generally informing both segments of society of information they need 
to effectively participate in this political process. What grievously 
appalls me is the blatant partisanship here exhibited. Doesn't seem to 
bother Jesse though.
  Mr. President, Secretary Brown has referred to my criticism of him 
and of his message as outrageous.
  Jim Holley, his media spin-master spokesman, has called it ironic as 
it would appear to be a criticism of the Secretary based on his 
advocacy for veterans. Mr. Holley, surely misses the entire point. 
There is a difference between advocating for our veterans, and pouring 
out rank political partisanship. What we see here is the latter.
  Mr. President, I have no intention of holding back in my criticism of 
the Secretary on this matter. As I have said before, I believe what he 
is doing is plain wrong. I do not condone that, nor should veterans.
  It is unacceptable for political agencies to lobby. We have statutes 
that prohibit that. It is equally inappropriate for an agency such as 
this to encourage its employees and its constituency, albeit by 
implication, to do that which they cannot legally do directly. And I 
shall keep expressing that message loud and clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I will continue to observe this process 
very clearly and express my objections at every possible occasion.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Times, Nov. 8, 1995]

      VA Chief Terms ``Outrageous'' GOP ``Cheap Politics'' Charge

                            (By Ruth Larson)

       Veterans Affairs Secretary Jesse Brown said he will 
     continue telling his employees about the effect of 
     congressional budget proposals, despite congressional 
     Republicans' objections that he was engaging in ``cheap 
     politics.''
       ``It's outrageous to suggest that the VA shouldn't tell its 
     240,000 employees that as many as 61,000 jobs are at risk, or 
     that 41 veterans hospitals may close,'' Mr. Brown said in a 
     telephone interview yesterday.
       Sen. Alan K. Simpson, Wyoming Republican and chairman of 
     the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, on Friday blasted Mr. 
     Brown's use of VA computers and employee pay stubs to 
     criticize congressional budget proposals and warn of massive 
     layoffs at the department. He accused Mr. Brown of using 
     government resources to send out partisan misinformation.
       Mr. Brown countered: ``I hope someone tells me that it's 
     not going to happen--that they're not going to lock in our 
     funding at 1995 levels for the next seven years. If somebody 
     would tell me that, I'd apologize--sure, I would,'' Mr. Brown 
     said.
       Asked about Mr. Simpson's assertions that veterans would 
     suffer more under the Clinton administration's proposed 
     budget than under congressional plans, Mr. Brown said, ``He's 
     absolutely right.''
       But he was quick to explain that statement. He said that 
     during the budget process, he'd gone to Mr. Clinton three 
     times to tell him that the administration's government-wide 
     cutbacks ``would have the same effect as what the Republicans 
     are proposing.''
       Mr. Clinton assured him that he would be able to negotiate 
     the budget every year. ``I'll be sure the veterans are 
     treated fairly,'' he quoted Mr. Clinton as saying.
       ``We aren't getting the same commitment from Congress. 
     There is no flexibility,'' Mr. Brown said.
       Rep. Bob Stump, Arizona Republican and chairman of the 
     House Veterans' Affairs Committee, criticized Mr. Brown for 
     ``intentionally misrepresenting and needlessly scaring 
     vulnerable veterans'' about Republican budget proposals.
       He said in a statement: ``The real hypocrisy lies with the 
     Clinton 10-year budget plan which takes nearly three times as 
     much from veterans' programs without balancing the budget.''
       The Washington Times reported yesterday that some VA field 
     employees had complained that Mr. Brown's messages 
     represented ``political propaganda.''
       Mr. Brown said he had sent out hundreds of daily messages 
     on a variety of subjects to his 240,000 employees. ``Out of 
     those hundreds of messages, [Mr. Simpson] chose three.''
       Mr. Brown said he routinely runs the messages by his 
     general counsel ``to make sure they don't violate any laws or 
     ethics requirements, and they've all passed,'' he said. ``We 
     wouldn't do it if it weren't legal.''
       Administration officials often defend the legality of their 
     actions by saying they stop short of urging employees to 
     contact members of Congress. For example, in one of his 
     messages, Mr. Brown cautioned, ``I am not calling on you to 
     act.''
       ``No, not much,'' Mr. Simpson chided him on Friday. ``It 
     does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that many 
     employees might take that as a pretty good hint to take some 
     action.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I understand the Senator from Texas 
simply wants to add some cosponsors to her bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Helms and 
McConnell as original cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
                                 ______

      By Mr. D'AMATO:
  S. 1415. A bill entitled ``Thrift Charter Conversion Act of 1995''; 
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                   the thrift charter conversion act

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Thrift 
Charter Conversion Act. I am introducing the bill exactly as it was 
reported out by the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Consumer 
Credit of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. I am 
doing this in the spirit of cooperation exhibited during the House and 
Senate collaboration during the reconciliation process, particularly in 
recapitalizing the Savings Association Insurance Fund--an action which 
will increase public confidence in our Federal deposit insurance system 
and avoid any further costs to the taxpayers.
  This bill would eliminate the specialized Federal thrift charter, 
merge the Federal thrift industry into the banking industry, and 
consolidate the federal thrift and bank regulatory agencies. It would 
create a safer and sounder and more rational framework for depository 
institutions. While I do not endorse all of the provisions of the House 
bill, I am committed to its basic goal of merging the thrift and bank 
charters. The Senate Banking Committee will commence its consideration 
of this bill immediately, and I am committed to completing this 
legislative task as quickly as possible consistent with the other 
obligations of the Banking Committee.
  Mr. President, I am committed to the goal of minimizing--and 
eliminating to the extent possible--the risks to the taxpayer that will 
inevitably result from the continued existence of the thrift industry. 
Earlier this year, I took the first step toward this goal by 
introducing legislation to merge the separate federal deposit insurance 
funds for banks and thrifts. The introduction of the Thrift Charter 
Conversion Act is an important final step toward that goal.
  I want to commend my colleagues in the House for their leadership on 
this essential next step of merging the thrift and bank charters. The 
House 

[[Page S17095]]
and Senate Banking Committees considered including charter merger 
provisions in the budget reconciliation legislation, but Senate 
procedural rules prohibited us from including such provisions. The 
House reconciliation bill contained the text of the measure that I am 
introducing today. I want to commend Representative Marge Roukema, 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer 
Credit, and full committee Chairman Leach for their work on this bill.
  Mr. President, our Nation's thrift industry has helped Americans 
finance their homes for over 160 years--with remarkable success. As we 
have witnessed during the past two decades, however, it has also 
experienced serious financial difficulties. These difficulties 
eventually led to the industry's collapse during the 1980's--a collapse 
that has cost the American taxpayers more than $150 billion.
  Despite the massive bailout and the numerous laws enacted to 
stabilize the thrift industry, serious problems continue to plague our 
Nation's thrift industry. Congress cannot ignore these problems. 
Congress must act now before our Nation's taxpayers are asked to pay 
for another bailout of the thrift industry.
  I am pleased that under the leadership of the House and Senate 
Banking Committees, Congress is already taking action to protect the 
American taxpayer and to avoid another thrift industry crisis. Last 
week, the House and Senate Banking Committees agreed to a proposal to 
recapitalize the ailing Federal deposit insurance fund for thrifts--
called the Savings Association Insurance Fund [SAIF]. The SAIF is now 
so undercapitalized that the failure of one large thrift could bankrupt 
it. The proposal agreed to last week will recapitalize the fund-using 
industry--not taxpayer--money. Because the proposal saves the American 
taxpayers some $900 million, it has been included in Congress' budget 
reconciliation package--a package designed to eliminate the budget 
deficit in 7 years.
  Mr. President, despite the recapitalization of SAIF, the thrift 
industry continues to pose serious and chronic safety and soundness 
risks to our Nation's Federal deposit insurance system. In an October 
31, 1995 letter to me, Ricki Helfer, Chairman of the FDIC, explained 
why thrifts pose a greater safety and soundness risk of the Federal 
deposit insurance system than do banks, even with a recapitalized 
insurance fund:

       Relative to the Bank Insurance Fund [BIF], the SAIF faces 
     risks related to the size of its membership, geographic and 
     product concentrations, and inherent structural problems in 
     the industry. The SAIF has fewer members than the BIF and 
     faces greater risks with the failure of any one member. The 
     SAIF also has a geographic concentration on the West coast. 
     The eight largest SAIF-insured thrifts operate predominantly 
     in California, and they hold 18.5 percent of SAIF-insured 
     deposits. By contrast, the eight largest holders of BIF-
     insured deposits are located in five different states and 
     hold 10 percent of BIF-insured deposits. SAIF members' 
     assets are concentrated in residential real estate . . . 
     to realize certain tax benefits. While traditional 
     residential real estate lending can be managed in such a 
     way as to present relatively little credit risk, 
     substantial concentrations in the area make SAIF members 
     susceptible to interest-rate fluctuations.

  In an August 29, 1995, report, entitled ``The Thrift Charter: Should 
It Be Eliminated?'' the Congressional Research Service also noted that 
their specialization in housing finance makes thrifts more vulnerable 
than banks to an economic downturn:

       Support for a more flexible [thrift] charter stems from 
     interest in protecting the Federal deposit insurance system. 
     . . . Lending and deposit options for thrifts have been 
     broadened over the past several years, nonetheless, thrifts' 
     deposit and lending base is still less diversified than banks 
     because of their specialization in housing finance. There is 
     concern that this lack of diversification could cause 
     institutional weaknesses in an unfavorable economic climate.

  Thus, an important goal of charter merger legislation is to decrease 
the significant safety and soundness risks posed by thrifts to the 
Federal deposit insurance system.
  In addition, fundamental changes in the marketplace have called into 
question the need for a specialized thrift industry. The role played by 
thrifts in the housing finance market has declined significantly. 
Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and 
Consumer Credit on August 2, 1995, Alan Greenspan, chairman of the 
Federal Reserve Board, summarized this development as follows:

       So far this decade, savings and loans and savings banks 
     have originated 25 percent of residential mortgages--as 
     compared to 50 percent over the previous 20 years--and hold, 
     on average, only 28 percent of outstanding residential 
     mortgage debt, compared to two-thirds during the earlier 
     period. Currently only 2 thrifts are among the top 15 
     mortgage services and none are among the top 10 originators. 
     Over the last decade, when thrifts' participation in the 
     residential mortgage market receded, the aggregate supply of 
     housing finance was unimpaired and mortgage rates apparently 
     unaffected.

  The decreased dependence on a specialized thrift industry to 
originate and fund mortgages is primarily due to the development of 
mortgage-backed securities and a secondary mortgage market.
  Mr. President, while the role of thrifts in housing finance is 
receding, thrifts do continue to provide niche financing that is 
important to the housing market, including adjustable rate mortgages 
and mortgages that do not conform to secondary market underwriting 
criteria. Thrifts could still specialize in this type of financing 
under current charter merger proposals, however. In this regard, I 
believe that, as a business matter, many institutions will want to 
focus on housing finance, despite any charter changes mandated by 
Congress.
  To summarize, the continued safety and soundness risks posed by the 
thrift industry and the receding role of the thrift industry have 
resulted in proposals to eliminate the thrift charter. Federal banking 
and thrift regulators have expressed support for these proposals. At a 
September 21, 1995, hearing held by the House Subcommittee on Financial 
Institutions and Consumer Credit, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan 
noted:

       Two conclusions are clear. First, the nexus between thrifts 
     and housing largely has been broken without any evident 
     detriment to housing finance availability. Second, a public 
     policy that induces--let alone requires--thirfts to 
     specialize in mortgage finance threatens the continued 
     viability of many of these entities--particularly those 
     without wide and deep deposit franchises, tight cost 
     controls, and the ability, when necessary, effectively to 
     originate and sell standard mortgages that cannot profitably 
     be held long-term. A broader charter for thrifts--such as a 
     commercial bank charter that lets them hold a wider range of 
     assets--thus would seem to be good public policy. . . .

  At that same hearing, FDIC Chairman Helfer also expressed support for 
the elimination of the current thrift charter:

       The FDIC is not opposed to eliminating the distinctions 
     between bank and thrift charters--far from it. The FDIC 
     believes that the current charter distinctions no longer 
     match economic reality. Moreover, forcibly concentrating a 
     class of institutions--thrifts in this instance--into a 
     limited range of activities with low profit margins is a 
     prescription for trouble, as the savings and loan crisis of 
     the 1980's and early 1990's amply demonstrated.

  These statements from our Nation's top bank and thrift regulators 
cannot be ignored by Congress.
  Mr. President, industry representatives have also recognized the 
inherent problems of the thrift charter and expressed support for 
eliminating or reforming their current charter. In a September 12, 
1995, Wall Street Journal article, entitled ``Time to Kill the Thrifts 
for Good,'' a leading thrift industry executive stated:

       The thrift industry charter is inherently flawed, and the 
     resulting vulnerability of the industry has been demonstrated 
     repeatedly over the past 25 years. . . . These numbers are 
     trying to tell us something--namely the thrift charter is 
     obsolete. Today, a separate thrift industry cannot be 
     justified either by standards of the market or public policy. 
     . . . In formulating public policy, we should not seek to 
     maintain an industry charter that impairs the viability of 
     its institutions, strains the banking system and threatens 
     the American taxpayer. We need to integrate thrifts into the 
     banking industry.

  It is difficult to imagine a stronger statement in favor of 
eliminating the thrift charter, and the statement is even more forceful 
coming from a thrift industry executive. In a September 20, 1995, 
letter to me, America's Community Bankers, the national trade 
association for thrifts, also noted that it ``is fully prepared to work 
. . . toward--thrift--charter reform and modernization.''

       Finally, one of the strongest statements in support of 
     eliminating the thrift charter has 

[[Page S17096]]
     come from the editorial board of a leading national newspaper. In a 
     September 20, 1995 editorial, the Washington Post stated that 
     ``S&Ls have lost their special purpose--all kinds of 
     institutions now make mortgage loans--and in some respects 
     have become a danger.'' The editorial concluded: ``S&Ls were 
     work horses in their day. The day is gone, and so--as a 
     separate kind of entity--should they be.''

  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today would eliminate the 
specialized Federal thrift charter, and would force all federally 
chartered thrifts to convert to banks. It also would require that all 
State-chartered thrifts be regulated like State-chartered banks. It 
would also allow some converted institutions and qualified thrift 
holding companies to engage in certain activities not permitted for 
banks. These grandfathered activities would be permitted only under 
strict constraints. Finally, it would create a new Federal charter, 
called a national mutual bank.
  This bill also would rationalize the Federal regulation of banks and 
thrifts. It would merge the Federal banking and thrift regulators, 
saving taxpayer money, and reducing bureaucratic redtape. There is a 
broad consensus in favor of this initiative. As Under Secretary of the 
Treasury for Domestic Finance John Hawke stated, in an October 27, 
1995, letter to House Banking Chairman Leach, there is ``broad 
agreement on the logic of merging the Federal regulation of banks and 
thrifts.''
  Mr. President, resolving the thrift industry's remaining problems 
will not be an easy task. This is not a project that can be completed 
overnight. There are numerous, complex legal and public policy issues 
that must be addressed in a careful, thoughtful way. Congress will need 
to collaborate with industry representatives, Federal thrift and bank 
regulators, and the administration. Decisions made today on these 
issues will have lasting consequences on the shape of our Nation's 
financial services industry well into the next millennium.
  I ask unanimous consent that a brief description of the complex legal 
and public policy issues that must be addressed as we move forward with 
consideration of this bill be printed in the Record. Some of these 
issues are addressed by the House bill. Others are not.
  Mr. President, every process needs a beginning. I believe this bill 
is an appropriate place for the Senate to start its consideration. I 
look forward to working with my Senate and House colleagues to address 
the very important issues raised by this bill. Working together, I 
believe we can create a safer and sounder and more rational framework 
for depository institutions.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Issues Raised by the Thrift Charter Conversion Act

       Transition Period: The House bill may not provide an 
     adequate transition period. The bill requires federal savings 
     associations to convert to banks or liquidate in two years. 
     In other cases where entire classes of financial institutions 
     have been subject to major statutory change, a longer 
     transition period was provided. For example, when one-bank 
     holding companies became subject to Federal Reserve 
     Regulation by the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 
     1970, a transition period of 10 years accompanied such change 
     to allow for proper corporate planning.
       Continued Existence of State Thrifts: The House bill 
     eliminates federal thrifts, but not state thrifts. If the 
     reasoning of the House bill is that the thrift charter is 
     inherently risky, it is unclear why federal deposit insurance 
     should continue to be made available to state thrifts. Many, 
     perhaps even most, federal thrifts may elect to become state 
     thrifts under the House legislation, thereby frustrating 
     whatever purpose underlies the House bill.
       Grandfather Period for Savings Institutions Powers: Under 
     the House bill, thrifts that become banks would have two 
     years in which to terminate any activities or investments not 
     permissible for banks. Regulators could grant two one-year 
     extensions of that deadline, on a case-by-case basis. This 
     two-year period may be too short and may create needless 
     uncertainty for institutions. The case-by-case extension 
     procedure could create needless administrative costs for 
     institutions and their regulators.
       Branching: All thrift branches established after September 
     13, 1995, would be subject to federal and state laws 
     applicable to banks under the House bill. Tying 
     grandfathering to this date could unnecessarily disrupt the 
     operations of thrifts pending enactment of legislation. 
     Moreover, the public policy rationale underlying the House 
     provision prohibiting former thrifts from branching within a 
     state in which the thrift had already established a branch 
     should be carefully reviewed. Limiting branching by an 
     institution in a state where it already has a presence could 
     harm institutions heavily invested in existing branch 
     networks.
       New Rules for Thrift Holding Companies: The House bill 
     completely changes the rules that apply to companies that own 
     savings institutions. But there has been no evidence that the 
     current thrift holding company framework has been a source of 
     strength to their thrift subsidiaries. Obviously, the public 
     policy rationale and consequences of these changes must be 
     carefully reviewed.
       Grandfather for Thrift Holding Companies: the House bill's 
     requirements for maintaining grandfathered holding company 
     status may be too rigid and need adjustment. Even a minor 
     infraction of an investment limitation could trigger 
     forfeiture of grandfather rights. These provisions must be 
     carefully reviewed.
       Regulation by Federal Reserve: The financial impact and 
     uncertainty of regulation of grandfathered thrift holding 
     companies by the Federal Reserve has not been thoroughly 
     analyzed and considered.
       Elimination of Commonly Used Indices: Certain indices 
     commonly used for adjustable rate mortgages (e.g., cost of 
     funds indices (COFI) likely will be lost under the House 
     bill. While the bill recognizes the need to address this 
     loss, the uncertainty surrounding their replacement could 
     have a significant impact on the mortgage market and COFI-
     based mortgage related securities.
       Federal Home Loan Bank Membership: The House bill would 
     permanently prohibit federal savings associations from 
     withdrawing voluntarily from the Federal Home Loan Bank 
     System. It is unclear why national banks that once were 
     thrifts should be singled out for mandatory membership.
       Prohibition on New Federal Savings Association Charters: 
     The House bill would prohibit the OTS from issuing any new 
     federal thrift charters. A prohibition against issuing new 
     thrift charters between the date of enactment and the date on 
     which the federal thrift charter expires may not allow for 
     exceptions needed to facilitate conversions and mergers 
     (including resolution of troubled thrifts) that will not 
     result in the creation of a new federal thrift.
       Loans-to-One Borrower (``LTOB'') Rules: The House bill 
     would grandfather for 3 years after the date of enactment any 
     loans or legally binding commitments made by a thrift that 
     converts to a national bank on or before January 1, 1998. 
     Thus, thrifts with significant investments in housing loans 
     authorized pursuant to the special real estate exception 
     available to thrifts under the LTOB rule would be forced to 
     liquidate existing loans made under this exception. It is 
     unclear what purpose is served by requiring liquidation of 
     loans that were lawful when made. It is also unclear what 
     impact revocation of the exemption would have on a going 
     forward basis on funding for housing.
       Elimination of the OTS: The House bill provides for a 
     complicated three-way merger of the Office of Thrift 
     Supervision (OTS) into the other federal banking agencies. 
     The bill omits the ``standard'' FIRREA employee protections. 
     Treasury, OTS, and the Office of the Comptroller of the 
     Currency have discussed agency merger transition provisions, 
     but have yet to produce a comprehensive proposal for 
     disposition of OTS. Adequate transfer rules for OTS employees 
     are essential to ensure the retention of skilled and 
     experienced personnel to supervise institutions during a 
     period of significant economic strain on the thrift industry. 
     They are also necessary for the smooth transition of 
     oversight functions, and the fair treatment of existing OTS 
     personnel.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself and Mr. Mack):
  S. 1416. A bill to establish limitation with respect to the 
disclosure and use of genetic information, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                    the genetic privacy act of 1995

 Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, recent breakthroughs in science 
have brought great hopes in the area of genetics. The human genome 
project is proceeding with the goal of mapping and sequencing every 
gene in the human body. The potential of identifying disease 
characteristics through their genetic makeup brings great hope to those 
suffering from an array of diseases such as Huntington disease, 
Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, and breast cancer. Unfortunately, 
these advances also raise profound ethical, legal, and social questions 
relating to access to genetic testing, insurability, employability, and 
confidentiality.
  While many doctors are offering genetic testing to patients with a 
history of a genetic-related disease to identify their own risk, many 
patients and physicians are not capable of dealing with the 
consequences of this information. For example, is the patient required 
to share this information with the health insurance company? How about 
their employer? Does the physician have an obligation to share this 
information? 

[[Page S17097]]
There have already been cases of discrimination as a result of an 
employer learning of an employee's genetic risk. In addition, cases 
have arisen where health insurance access was denied as a result of a 
genetic predisposition.
  This is problematic because we are only in the first stages of 
understanding the human genome. Genetic testing has proven effective in 
some cases but it can be argued that the presence of a gene or certain 
genetic characteristics will not always result in the onset of the 
particular illness. The potential for discrimination is great. Although 
several States, including my own State of Oregon, have begun to address 
the issue of genetic information and health insurance, there are 
currently no Federal laws governing the use of genetic information.
  The legislation that I am introducing today with my colleague, 
Senator Mack, is modeled on the Genetic Privacy Act recently passed by 
the Oregon Legislature. It also draws on recommendations made by the 
NIH-sponsored ELSI Working Group and the National Action Plan on Breast 
Cancer.
  The purpose of the Genetic Privacy Act of 1995 is to establish some 
initial limitations with respect to the disclosure and use of genetic 
information with the goal of balancing the need to protect the rights 
of the individual against society's interests. The bill is intended as 
a first step--to ensure that there are some Federal standards in place 
in the most critical areas of concern. I see it as a working draft to 
be refined as the science progresses. The bill would define the rights 
of individuals whose genetic information is disclosed. In addition, it 
would protect against discrimination by an insurer or employer based 
upon an individual's genetic characteristics.
  First, the bill prohibits the disclosure of genetic information by 
anyone without the specific written authorization of the individual. 
This disclosure provision could apply to health care professionals, 
health care institutions, laboratories, researchers, employers 
insurance companies, and law enforcement officials. The written 
authorization must include a description of the information being 
disclosed, the name of the individual or entity to whom the disclosure 
is being made, and the purpose of the disclosure. This provision 
preserves the individual's ability to control the disclosure of his or 
her genetic information. There are several exceptions for the purposes 
of criminal or death investigations, specific orders of Federal or 
State courts for civil actions, paternity establishment, specific 
authorization by the individual, genetic information relating to a 
decedent for the medical diagnosis of blood relatives of the decedent, 
or identifying bodies.
  Second, the legislation prohibits employers from seeking to obtain or 
use genetic information of an employee or prospective employee in order 
to discriminate against that person. In March 1995, the U.S. Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] released official guidance on 
the definition of the term ``disability''. The EEOC's guidance 
clarifies that protection under the Americans With Disabilities Act 
extends to individuals who are discriminated against in employment 
decisions based solely on genetic information. Issuance of the EEOC's 
guidance is precedent setting--it is the first Federal protection 
against the unfair use of genetic information. The provision included 
in the bill is intended to reiterate the ruling of the EEOC and make it 
clear that this practice would be prohibited under Federal law.

  Third, the legislation prohibits health insurers from using genetic 
information to reject, deny, limit, cancel, refuse to renew, increase 
rates, or otherwise affect health insurance. This is in line with 
changes that are currently under consideration with regard to health 
insurance and preexisting condition exclusions.
  A study of genetic discrimination prepared by Paul R. Billings, M.D. 
and cited by the NIH-DOE ELSI Working Group in their report entitled 
``Genetic Information and Health Insurance,'' indicates that there have 
been a number of cases of discrimination already as the result of an 
insurer learning of an individual's genetic predisposition. One woman 
who was found to carry the gene that causes cystic fibrosis was told 
she and her children were not insurable unless her husband was 
determined not to carry the cystic fibrosis gene. She went without 
health insurance for several months while this was determined. In 
another case, a man diagnosed with Huntington disease was denied health 
insurance on the basis that it was a preexisting condition, even though 
no previous diagnosis of Huntington had been made.
  As the prevalence of genetic testing spreads, so does the risks of 
discrimination. Women found to carry the gene that indicates breast 
cancer susceptibility, BRCA1, fear they will lose health coverage if 
their insurer finds out. However, having this information may provide 
early treatment and prevention options for the woman. The provision 
relating to health insurance in the bill will provide much needed 
assurance to individuals with genetic predispositions. This will ensure 
that they will not risk losing their health coverage when they need it 
the most.
  Finally, the bill requires the recently established National 
Bioethics Advisory Commission to submit to Congress their 
recommendations on further protections for the collection, storage, and 
use of DNA samples and genetic information obtained from those samples, 
and appropriate standards for the acquisition and retention of genetic 
information in all settings. This provision is intended to ensure that 
the social consequences of genome research are considered as the 
technology develops and not after the fact.
  Madam President, as I said previously, this is a first step. This 
bill addresses the most pressing concerns surrounding genetic testing 
and the disclosure of genetic information as they relate to health 
insurer and employer discrimination. I believe this is a good beginning 
and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important 
legislation.

                          ____________________