[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 206 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S19110-S19121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 1493. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
certain interstate conduct relating to exotic animals; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


            THE CAPTIVE EXOTIC ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Capitive 
Exotic Animal Protection Act of 1995, a bill to stop what are known as 
canned hunts--the cruel and inhumane business in which a customer pays 
to shoot a tame, captive exotic animal in a fenced-in enclosure for 
entertainment, or to collect a trophy.
  Mr. President, canned hunts do not involve hunting, tracking, or 
shooting skills. In such an operation, the client merely hands over a 
check, walks to within yards of his prize, aims carefully to avoid the 
head, and shoots, killing the unsuspecting exotic animal. This is not 
sport--it is easy slaughter for a price. Sportsmen do not support this, 
and neither should we.
  Mr. President, imagine this: A black leopard, raised in captivity, is 
released from a crate in the presence of a paying hunter and is 
immediately surrounded by a pack of hounds. The cat, virtually 
defenseless because it has been declared and is greatly outnumbered by 
the hounds, tries to escape by running under a truck. The hounds follow 
the leopard who then darts from under the truck slightly ahead of the 
pack. The customer gets his shot--and his trophy.
  Mr. President, in the United States today, there are estimated to be 
more than 1,000 private hunting ranches where exotic mammals are shot 
for a fee. Many of these hunting ranches have a land area of 1,000 
acres or less--some are less than 100 acres. The animals are tame 
targets for hunters and the proprietors of these operations 

[[Page S19111]]
offer a guaranteed kill opportunity for their clients. It is called no 
kill, no pay. The animals are shot at point blank range--with bow or 
firearm--and have no chance of eluding a hunter.
  These hunting operations provide a laundry list of potential trophies 
for hunters. For a fee, a hunter can kill whatever animal he or she 
wishes. Gazelles typically sell for $800 to $3,500; Cape buffaloes, 
$5,000; angora goats, $325; Corsican sheep, $500; red deer, $1,500 to 
$6,000. The rarer the animal--lions and tigers, for instance, the 
higher the price.

  I want to emphasize, Mr. President, that most sportsmen decry these 
despicable practices as unsporting. They say that canned hunts make a 
mockery of hunting. The Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization 
founded by former President Teddy Roosevelt that maintains records of 
North America's big game, takes the position that ``hunting game 
confined in artificial barriers, including escape-proof fenced 
enclosures or hunting game transplanted solely for the purpose of 
commercial shooting'' is ``unfair chase and unsportsmanlike.'' In 1994, 
in the publication Outdoor America, the magazine of the pro-hunting 
Izaak Walton League, Maitland Sharpe, the organization's executive 
director at the time, stated that this practice ``tarnishes all 
hunting, all hunting. . . .''
  The American Zoo and Aquarium Association [AZA] forbids its 
membership organizations from selling, trading, or transfering zoo 
animals to hunting ranches, though the prohibition too often is 
ignored. The AZA opposes canned hunts, and has written to Members of 
Congress that it ``(a) deplores and is opposed to canned hunts of 
exotic animals and (b) supports the prohibition of interstate practices 
which allow exotic animals to be killed in such hunts.''
  Mr. President, exotic hunting ranches threaten native wildlife 
populations with the spread of disease. If these ranch animals escape, 
they can transmit diseases to native wildlife. John Talbott, acting 
director of the Wyoming Department of Fish and Game, stated in January 
of this year, ``Tuberculosis and other diseases documented among game 
ranch animals in surrounding states'' pose ``an extremely serious 
threat to Wyoming's native big game.'' This is one reason why Wyoming 
bans canned hunts. Other States also ban these hunts, including 
California, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. 
However, States that permit these operations import exotic mammals from 
other States--including those that prohibit canned hunts--and victimize 
these animals in unsporting canned hunts. Federal legislation is needed 
to ban the interstate trade in exotic mammals for the purpose of 
shooting them for a fee to collect a trophy.
  Federal legislation is also needed because exotic mammals are not 
carefully regulated by the States. Exotic mammals often fall outside 
the traditional range of responsibility for State fish and game 
agencies. They fall outside the purview of State agriculture 
departments. Exotic mammals--not being native wildlife or livestock--
are in a sense, caught in regulatory limbo. This lack of oversight by 
State agencies allows canned hunt operators to exploit these animals 
for profit.
  My legislation is identical to a similar bill that has been 
introduced in the House, H.R. 1202. The bill would ban only those 
operations of 1,000 acres or less in which tame animals are shot for a 
fee for the purposes of collecting a trophy. Larger hunting ranches, 
where the animals are provided with some room to maneuver, are exempt. 
The hunting of native wildlife would not be affected in any way. The 
House bill has attracted strong bipartisan support, with over 100 
cosponsors to date.
  Mr. President, this legislation is needed to put a stop to this 
amoral, cruel business. I urge my colleagues to support me in this 
effort, and ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 1493

       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 ``Captive Exotic Animal 
     Protection Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR 
                   PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING THEM.

       (A) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 48. Exotic animals

       ``(a) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign 
     commerce, knowingly transfers, transports, or possesses a 
     confined exotic animal, for the purposes of allowing the 
     killing or injuring of that animal for entertainment or the 
     collection of a trophy, shall be fined under this title or 
     imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
       ``(b) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `confined exotic animal' means a mammal of a 
     species not historically indigenous to the United States that 
     in fact has been held in captivity for the shorter of--
       ``(A) the greater part of the animal's life; or
       ``(B) a period of one year; whether or not the defendant 
     knew the length of the captivity; and
       ``(2) the term `captivity' does not include any period 
     during which the animal--
       ``(A) lives as it would in the wild, surviving primarily by 
     foraging for naturally occurring food, roaming at will over 
     an open area of at least 1,000 acres; and
       ``(B) has the opportunity to avoid hunters.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the beginning the following new item:
``48. Exotic animals.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. Bond, Mr. Domenici, 
        Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 1494. A bill to provide an extension for fiscal year 1996 for 
certain programs administered by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development and the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


         the housing opportunity program extension act of 1995

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Housing 
Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1995. I wish to thank Senators 
Mack, Bond, Shelby, Bennett, and Domenici for their cosponsorship of 
this much needed legislation.
  This important measure would provide short-term extensions of housing 
programs which have expired. This bill does not create new housing 
policy, but is a stopgap measure which would allow existing programs to 
continue until October 1, 1996. Next year, the Banking Committee and 
its Housing Subcommittees will continue its evaluation of proposals for 
reorganization and elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. Omnibus housing legislation will be introduced in the 
Spring of 1996 which will reorganize, transfer or eliminate housing and 
community development programs. Some of the programs extended in this 
legislation will be reformed at that time. Modifications of these 
programs will be reserved until the Banking Committee has the 
opportunity for hearings and debate next year.
  The majority of the housing program extensions contained in this bill 
were passed by the Senate and House in the fiscal year 1996 Departments 
of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 2099). If it were not for the recent 
veto of H.R. 2099, this legislation would not be necessary. However, 
the President's veto has placed our Nation's housing delivery system in 
serious jeopardy. It is imperative that we act to extend housing 
programs which would otherwise be suspended for an indefinite time 
period.
  This legislation would extend the following: Section 8 contract 
renewals; the Community Development Block Grant homeownership program; 
the Section 515 rural multifamily loan program; the Home Equity 
Conversion Mortgage program; and the Multifamily Housing Risk-Sharing 
programs.
  I look forward to working with all Members of the Senate on a 
bipartisan basis to ensure the swift passage of this much needed 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to protect the needy recipients of 
these effective housing programs by supporting the Housing Opportunity 
Program Extension Act of 1995. 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 S19112]]


                                S. 1494

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; DEFINITION.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Housing 
     Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1995''.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development.

     SEC. 2. SECTION 8 CONTRACT RENEWALS.

       (a) In General.--During fiscal year 1996, with respect to 
     any project that is determined by the Secretary to meet 
     housing quality standards under the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 and to be otherwise in compliance with that Act, at 
     the request of the owner of the project, the Secretary shall 
     renew, for a period of 1 year, any contract for assistance 
     under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 that 
     expires or terminates during fiscal year 1996, at current 
     rent levels under the expiring of terminating contract.
       (b) Amendments to the National Housing Act.--Section 236(f) 
     of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1(f)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking the second sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``The rental charge for each 
     dwelling unit shall be at the basic rental charge, or such 
     greater amount, not to exceed the lesser of (i) the fair 
     market rental charge determined pursuant to this paragraph, 
     or (ii) the fair market rental established under section 8(c) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for existing housing 
     in the market area in which the housing is located, as 
     represents 30 percent of the tenant's adjusted income.''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (6).

     SEC. 3. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ELIGIBLE 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       Notwithstanding the amendments made by section 907(b)(2) of 
     the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, 
     section 105(a)(25) of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1974, as in existence on September 30, 1995, shall 
     apply to the use of assistance made available under title I 
     of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 during 
     fiscal year 1996.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF RURAL HOUSING PROGRAMS.

       (a) Underserved Areas Set-Aside.--Section 509(f)(4)(A) of 
     the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1479(f)(4)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``fiscal years 1993 
     and 1994'' and inserting ``fiscal year 1996''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``each''.
       (b) Rural Multifamily Rental Housing.--Section 515(b)(4) of 
     the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485(b)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``September 30, 1994'' and inserting ``September 30, 
     1996''.
       (c) Rural Rental Housing Fund for Non-profit Entities.--The 
     first of section 515(w)(1) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 
     U.S.C. 1485(w)(1)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1993 
     and 1994'' and inserting ``fiscal year 1996''.

     SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF FHA MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR HOME 
                   EQUITY CONVERSION MORTGAGES.

       (a) Extension of Program.--The first sentence of section 
     255(g) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(g)) is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 1995'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 1996''.
       (b) Limitation on Number of Mortgages.--The second sentence 
     of section 255(g) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1715z-20(g)) is amended by striking ``25,000'' and inserting 
     ``30,000''.

     SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Risk-Sharing Pilot Program.--The first sentence of 
     section 542(b)(5) of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1707 note) is amended by striking ``on 
     not more than 15,000 units over fiscal years 1993 and 1994'' 
     and inserting ``on not more than 7,500 units during fiscal 
     year 1996''.
       (b) Housing Finance Agency Pilot Program.--The first 
     sentence of section 542(c)(4) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1707 note) is amended by 
     striking ``on not to exceed 30,000 units over fiscal years 
     1993, 1994, and 1995'' and inserting ``on not more than 
     10,000 units during fiscal year 1996''.

     SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall be 
     construed to have become effective on October 1, 1995.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am introducing with Senators D'Amato and 
Mack the Housing Opportunity Program Extenders Act of 1995. This 
legislation is designed to provide HUD and the Rural Housing and 
Community Development Service--commonly known as FmHA--with authority 
to continue certain housing programs which are strongly supported by 
the American public and which will generally be suspended if the 
administration continues to ignore responsible dialogue on housing 
issues and vetoes S. 2099, the VA/HUD fiscal year 1996 appropriations 
bill.
  I emphasize the importance of this bill and urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation. Most importantly, similar to the VA/HUD 
fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, this bill would require HUD to 
renew expiring section 8 project-based contracts for fiscal year 1996 
for 1 year at current rents. There are some 900,000 FHA-insured units 
with section 8 project-based assistance contracts that are expiring 
over the next 10 years. Many of these section 8 contracts are currently 
subsidized at above market rents and fiscal responsibility requires 
that Congress contain the spiraling costs associated with this 
inventory. Moreover, under a recent HUD legal opinion, HUD may renew 
these expiring section 8 project-based contracts at no more than 120 
percent of fair market rents; this means that these section 8 projects 
could begin to default and face foreclosure by HUD during fiscal year 
1996.
  I believe it is critical that Congress reform and adjust the costs, 
including section 8 costs, of these assisted housing programs. However, 
in doing so, we must balance the cost of the expiring section 8 
contracts with the cost of foreclosure of these projects to the HUD 
insurance fund, as well as the significant social policy of the 
possible displacement of low-income housing residents and the 
disinvestment by project owners in these projects which could result in 
significant deterioration of this housing stock. Like the VA/HUD fiscal 
year 1996 appropriations bill, renewing these section 8 contracts for 1 
year will provide the Banking Committee with an opportunity to address 
these concerns through comprehensive legislation that will preserve 
this valuable housing resource as low-income housing at a reasonable 
cost to the Federal Government.
  Second, the legislation would extend the Home Equity Conversion 
Mortgage Program through fiscal year 1996, increasing the maximum 
number of units eligible for insurance from 25,000 to 30,000. This 
program is designed to allow the elderly to tap the accumulated equity 
in their homes for needed expenses without the risk of losing the 
housing as a principal residence. This is a successful program that is 
growing in popularity among the elderly population as an option to 
assist in providing continuing independence, both financially and 
through the continuing use of their homes as a principal resident.
  Third, the legislation would extend the homeownership program under 
the CDBG program as a continuing eligible activity through fiscal year 
1996. This program is widely supported by a number of communities 
throughout the Nation which use the program as an additional resource 
to expand homeownership opportunities.
  Fourth, the bill would extend the FHA multifamily risk-sharing 
programs for fiscal year 1996. These programs authorize HUD to enter 
into mortgage insurance agreements and partnerships with Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac and with State housing finance agencies for the creation of 
affordable multifamily housing. These are important programs which help 
to guarantee the availability of affordable rental housing in the 
Nation.
  Finally, the bill would extend the Rural Housing and Community 
Development Service's section 515 rural multifamily housing program for 
fiscal year 1996. Currently, fiscal year 1996 appropriations generally 
have limited the available funding for fiscal year 1996 to 
rehabilitation. However, there is a significant need for additional 
rural housing which is affordable. Moreover, section 515 projects are, 
in many cases, the only available and affordable low-income housing in 
rural areas. While there has been substantial criticism leveled at 
abuses in the section 515 program, the Rural Housing and Community 
Development Service has addressed a number of the failings in the 
program and the Banking Committee has pledged to review closely the 
section 515 program and address any concerns as part of a major housing 
and community development overhaul and reform bill.
  Mr. President, this legislation is bipartisan, simple, 
straightforward and necessary. I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator D'Amato as 
a cosponsor of this bill to extend for 1 year a number of housing 
activities under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. The fiscal 
year 1996 VA-HUD-Independent agencies appropriation bill extended the 
authority for a 

[[Page S19113]]
number of expired HUD programs and activities for 1 year to give the 
authorizing committee time to consider needed reforms in those programs 
and deal with them more permanently.
  Unfortunately, the President vetoed the appropriation bill, and these 
programs are in immediate jeopardy. This legislation is necessary to 
continue authorizations for activities that have broad support. I 
stress to my colleagues that this is emergency legislation that 
contains no programmatic reforms.
  First, and foremost, this bill would allow HUD to renew expiring 
section 8 rental assistance contracts at current rents for 1 year. HUD 
has taken the position that it currently has no authority for fiscal 
year 1996 to renew expiring section 8 contracts at above fair market 
rent [FMR]. Without language to allow contract renewals at above FMR, a 
large number of FHA-insured multifamily housing projects could face 
default this year. This extension will give the authorizing committee 
time to develop an orderly ``mark-to-market'' strategy to restructure 
the debt on these projects, end payments of excessive rental subsidies, 
and help bring HUD's budget under control.
  This bill also extends the Federal Housing Administration's mortgage 
insurance program Home Equity Conversion Mortgages. This popular 
demonstration program has allowed more than 14,000 elderly homeowners 
to tap into the equity in their homes, but mortgage authority for the 
program expired at the end of fiscal 1995. This extension will give us 
the time needed to pass legislation extending the program for another 5 
years and to enact reforms that will make the program more effective.
  The legislation extends the FHA section 515 rural rental housing loan 
program. This is the only program extension included that is not under 
the jurisdiction of the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations 
subcommittee. However, this is an important housing development program 
under the Banking Committee's jurisdiction, and there is currently a 
significant backlog of preapproved applications for section 515 loans.
  I am, however, concerned by reports issued by the General Accounting 
Office and others indicating that structural and financial management 
problems exist in the section 515 program. As chairman of the Housing 
Opportunity and Community Development Subcommittee, I intend to hold 
hearings on this and other rural housing programs early next year and 
to propose program reforms where needed. No further extensions of the 
section 515 program should be approved until the program has been 
thoroughly reviewed by the Banking Committee.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 1495. A bill to control crime, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                    THE CRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Crime Prevention Act. 
One of the most important responsibilities for the 104th Congress is to 
pass a tough comprehensive crime measure that will restore law and 
order to America's streets.
  Reported crime may have decreased slightly over the past few years, 
but the streets are still too dangerous. Too many Americans are afraid 
to go out for fear of being robbed, assaulted, or murdered.
  In fact, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report 
``Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims,'' approximately 
2 million people are injured a year as a result of violent crime. Of 
those who are injured, more than half require some level of medical 
treatment and nearly a quarter receive treatment in a hospital 
emergency room or require hospitalization.


                       THE CRIME CLOCK IS TICKING

  The picture painted by crime statistics is frightening. According to 
the Uniform Crime Reports released by the Department of Justice, in 
1994 there was: a violent crime every 17 seconds; a murder every 23 
minutes; a forcible rape every 5 minutes; a robbery every 51 seconds; 
an aggravated assault every 28 seconds; a property crime every 3 
seconds; a burglary every 12 seconds; and a motor vehicle theft every 
20 seconds.
  In short, a crime index offense occurred every 2 seconds. And this is 
just reported crime.


                               STATISTICS

  Again, according to the Uniform Crime Reports in 1994, there were 
1,864,168 violent crimes reported to law enforcement, a rate of 716 
violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. The 1994 total was 2 percent 
above the 1990 level and 40 percent above that of 1985.
  Further, juvenile crime is skyrocketing. According to statistics 
compiled by the FBI, from 1985 to 1993 the number of homicides 
committed by males aged 18 to 24 increased 65 percent, and by males 
aged 14 to 17 increased 165 percent. In addition, according to 
statistics recently released by the Department of Justice, during 1993, 
the youngest age group surveyed--those 12 to 15 years old--had the 
greatest risk of being the victims of violent crimes.
  Crime in my State, Arizona, is very much on the rise. In 1994, 
Phoenix suffered a record 244 homicides. An article in the December 
12th Arizona Republic, stated that 235 people have been slain this 
year, 9 short of last year's record. Statewide crime was up in Mesa, 
Chandler, Glendale, Scottsdale, and Tempe. By August, the number of 
murders in Tucson this year eclipsed last year's total.


                        THE HEAVY COST OF CRIME

  Aside from the vicious personal toll exacted, crime also has a 
devastating effect on the economy of our country. Business Week 
estimated in 1993 that crime costs Americans $425 million annually. To 
fight crime, the United States spends about $90 billion a year on the 
entire criminal justice system. Crime is especially devastating to our 
cities, which often have crime rates several times higher than suburbs.
  The Washington Post ran an October 8 article detailing the work of 
professors Mark Levitt and Mark Cohen in estimating the real cost of 
crime to society. According to the article, ``[i]nstead of merely 
toting up the haul in armed robberies or burglaries, Cohen tallied all 
of the costs associated with various kinds of crime, from loss of 
income sustained by a murder victim's family to the cost of counseling 
a rape victim to the diminished value of houses in high-burglary 
neighborhoods.'' These quality of life costs raise the cost of crime 
considerably. Cohen and Levitt calculated that one murder costs society 
on average $2.7 million. A robbery nets the robber an average of $2,900 
in actual cash, but it produces $14,900 in quality of life expenses. 
And while the actual monetary loss caused by an assault is $1,800, it 
produces $10,200 in quality of life expenses.


                              LEGISLATION

  Fighting crime must be one of our top priorities. Few would dispute 
this. In fact, according to an article in the July 19th Tucson Citizen, 
about 500 business, education, and government leaders in Tucson ranked 
crime as the No. 1 issue in a survey commissioned by the Greater Tucson 
Economic Council.
  The House has done its part. It has delivered on the Contract With 
America by passing a series of strong crime bills in February.
  The Senate has not acted with comparable vigor. Given the magnitude 
of the problem of crime in our society, I believe that it is important 
to consider a comprehensive crime package. My bill has solid reforms 
that should blunt the forecasted explosion in crime.
  I would like to take this opportunity to given an outline of the 
major provisions included in the Crime Prevention Act of 1995.


                        prison litigation reform

  Although numbers are not available for all of the States, 33 states 
have estimated that inmate civil rights suits cost them at least $54.5 
million annually. Thus, extrapolating this figure to all 50 states, the 
estimate cost for inmate civil rights suits is $81.3 million per year. 
Not all of these cases are frivolous, but according to the National 
Association of Attorneys General, more than 95 percent of inmate civil 
rights suits are dismissed without the inmate receiving anything.
  Title I of this bill will deter frivolous inmate lawsuits by:
  Removing the ability of prisoners to file free lawsuits, instead 
making them pay full filing fees and court costs.
  Requiring judges to dismiss frivolous cases before they bog down the 
court system.
  Prohibiting inmate lawsuits for mental and emotional distress.
  
[[Page S19114]]

  Retracting good-time credit earned by inmates if they file lawsuits 
deemed frivolous.
  These provisions are based on similar provisions that were enacted in 
Arizona. Arizona's recent reforms have already reduced state prisoner 
cases by 50 percent. Now is the time to reproduce these common sense 
reforms in Federal law. If we achieve a 50-percent reduction in bogus 
Federal prisoner claims, we will free up judicial resources for claims 
with merit by both prisoners and nonprisoners.


                            special masters

  This bill requires the Federal judiciary to pay for special masters 
in prison litigation cases. Currently, Federal court judges can, and 
do, force States to pay the costs for special masters. This is an 
unfunded judicial mandate. The special masters appointed in prison 
litigation cases have cost Arizona taxpayers more than $370,000 since 
1992. Arizona taxpayers have paid special masters up to $175 an hour. 
In one case, taxpayers funds were used to hire a chauffeur for a 
special master.


                  victim rights and domestic violence

  Women are the victims of more than 4.5 million violent crimes a year, 
including half a million rapes or other sexual assaults, according to 
the Department of Justice. The National Victims Center calculates that 
a woman is battered every 15 seconds.
  Last year's crime bill, which is now law, did much to help victims of 
domestic violence--making it easier for evidence of intrafamilial 
sexual abuse to be introduced, for example. It will now be much easier 
for prosecutors in Federal cases to introduce evidence that the accused 
committed a similar crime in the past. The crime act also provides 
Federal funding for battered women's shelters and training for law-
enforcement officers and prosecutors.

  But more needs to be done. A message must be sent to abusers that 
their behavior is not a family matter. Society should treat domestic 
violence as seriously as it does violence between strangers. My bill 
will strengthen the rights of domestic violence victims in Federal 
court and, hopefully, set a standard for the individual States to 
emulate.
  First, my bill authorizes the death penalty for cases in which a 
woman is murdered by her husband or boyfriend.
  My bill also provides that if a defendant presents negative character 
evidence concerning the victim, the Government's rebuttal can include 
negative character evidence concerning the defendant.
  We must establish a higher standard of professional conduct for 
lawyers. My legislation prohibits harassing or dilatory tactics, 
knowingly presenting false evidence or discrediting truthful evidence, 
willful ignorance of matters that could be learned from the client, and 
concealment of information necessary to prevent sexual abuse or other 
violent crimes.
  Violence in our society leaves law-abiding citizens feeling 
defenseless. It is time to level the playing field. Federal law 
currently gives the defense more chances than the prosecution to reject 
a potential juror. My bill protects the right of victims to an 
impartial jury by giving both sides the same number of peremptory 
challenges.


                                firearms

  Almost 30 percent of all violent crimes are committed through the use 
of a firearm, either to intimidate the victim into submission or to 
injure the victim, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. And 
70 percent of all murders committed were accomplished through the use 
of a firearm. To help stop this violence the bill increases the 
mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who use firearms in the 
commission of crimes. It imposes the following minimum penalties: 10 
years for using or carrying a firearm during the commission of a 
Federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime; 20 years if the 
firearm is discharged; incarceration for life or punishment by death if 
death of a person results.


                         the exclusionary rule

  To ensure that relevant evidence is not kept from juries, the bill 
extends the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule to nonwarrant 
cases, where the court determines that the circumstances justified an 
objectively reasonable belief by officers that their conduct was 
lawful.


                           the death penalty

  The vast majority of the American public supports the option of the 
death penalty. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in January 
1995 found that 74 percent of Americans favor the death penalty for 
persons convicted of murder. Similarly, a Market Opinion Research poll 
conducted in December 1994 found that nearly three-quarters of 
Americans support capital punishment.
  To deter crime and to make a clear statement that the most vicious, 
evil behavior will not be tolerated in our society, the bill 
strengthens the death penalty standards.
  Additionally, the bill adds murder of a witness as an aggravating 
factor that permits a jury to consider the death penalty; provides 
effective safeguards against delay in the execution of Federal capital 
sentences resulting from protracted collateral litigation, including 
time limits on filing and strict limitations on successive motions; and 
provides for capital punishment for murders committed in the District 
of Columbia.


                             habeas corpus

  To eliminate the abuse, delay, and repetitive litigation in the lower 
Federal courts, title VIII of this bill provides that the decision of 
State courts will not be subject to review in the lower Federal courts, 
so long as they are adequate and effective remedies in the State courts 
for testing the legality of a person's detention. This provision limits 
the needless duplicative review in the lower Federal courts, and helps 
put a stop to the endless appeals of convicted criminals. Judge Robert 
Bork has written a letter in support of this provision.


                             Computer Crime

  I am pleased to include, in this bill, my National Information 
Infrastructure Protection Act which will strengthen current public law 
on computer crime and protect the national information infrastructure. 
My fear is that our national infrastructure--the information that bonds 
all Americans--is not adequately protected. I offer this legislation as 
a protection to one of America's greatest commodities--information.
  Although there has never been an accurate nationwide reporting system 
for computer crime, specific reports suggest that computer crime is 
rising. For example, the Computer Emergency and Response Team [CERT] at 
Carnegie-Mellon University reports that computer intrusions have 
increased from 132 in 1989 to 2,341 last year. A June 14 Wall Street 
Journal article stated that a Rand Corp. study reported 1,172 hacking 
incidents occurred during the first 6 months of last year. A report 
commissioned last year by the Department of Defense and the CIA stated 
that ``[a]ttacks against information systems are becoming more 
aggressive, not only seeking access to confidential information, but 
also stealing and degrading service and destroying data.'' Clearly 
there is a need to reform the current criminal statutes covering 
computers.


                        Administrative Subpoena

  This bill allows high-ranking Secret Service agents to issue an 
administrative subpoena for information in cases in which a person's 
life is in danger. The Department of Agriculture, the Resolution Trust 
Corporation, and the Food and Drug Administration already have 
administrative subpoena power. The Secret Service should have it to 
protect the lives of American citizens.


                           Internet Gambling

  There is a new underworld of gambling evolving. Gambling on the 
Internet is on the rise. Many ``virtual'' casinos have emerged on this 
vast network that accept real money at the click of a mouse or the 
punch of a key. It is estimated that Internet gambling could, before 
too long, become a $50 billion business. That is why I have included a 
section which will make it illegal, if it is illegal to gamble in your 
State, to gamble on the Internet. Current statutes make it illegal only 
if you are in the business of gambling on the Internet. I have also 
included a provision that would require the Department of Justice to 
analyze all problems associated with enforcing the current gambling 
statute.


                               conclusion

  The Kyl crime bill is an important effort in the fight against crime. 
We can win this fight, if we have the conviction, and keep the pressure 
on Congress to pass tough crime-control measures. It is time to stop 
kowtowing to prisoners, apologists for criminals, and the 

[[Page S19115]]
defense lawyers, and pass a strong crime bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    The Crime Prevention Act of 1995


                   title i--prison litigation reform

 Section 101: Amendments to Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons 
                                  Act

       Amends the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act to 
     require that administrative remedies be exhausted prior to 
     any prison conditions action being brought under any federal 
     law by an inmate in federal court.

               Section 102: Proceedings in forma pauperis

       Provides that whenever a federal, state, or local prisoner 
     seeks to commence an action or proceeding in federal court as 
     an indigent, the prisoner will be liable for the full amount 
     of a filing fee, and will initially be assessed a partial 
     filing fee of 20 percent of the larger of the average monthly 
     balance in, or the average monthly deposits to, his inmate 
     account. The fee may not exceed the full statutory fee, and 
     an inmate will not be barred from suing if he is actually 
     unable to pay. This section also imposes the same payment 
     system for court costs as it does for filing fees. This 
     provision, like the filing fee provision, will ensure that 
     inmates evaluate the merits of their claims.

                    Section 103: Judicial screening

       Requires judicial screening of a complaint in a civil 
     action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental 
     entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. The 
     court must dismiss a complaint if the complaint fails to 
     state a claim on which relief may be granted. Also, the court 
     must dismiss claims for monetary relief from a defendant who 
     is immune from such relief.

        Section 104: Federal tort claims and civil rights claims

       Prohibits lawsuits by inmates for mental or emotional 
     injury suffered while in custody unless the inmates can show 
     physical injury.

    Section 105: Payment of damage award in satisfaction of pending 
                           restitution orders

       Provides that restitution payments must be taken from any 
     award won by a prisoner.

      Section 106: Notice to crime victims of pending damage award

       Mandates that restitution payments must be taken from any 
     award won by the prisoner and requires victims to be notified 
     whenever a prisoner receives a monetary award from the state.

         Section 107: Earned release credit or good time credit

       Deters frivolous inmate lawsuits by revoking good-time 
     credits when a frivolous suit is filed. Specifically, in a 
     civil action brought by an adult convicted of a crime and 
     confined in a federal correctional facility, the court may 
     order the revocation of earned good-time credit if the court 
     finds that (1) the claim was filed for a malicious purpose, 
     (2) the claim was filed solely to harass the party against 
     which it was filed, or (3) the claimant testifies falsely or 
     otherwise knowingly presents false evidence or information to 
     the court.


                           title ii--prisons

                      Section 201: Special masters

       Requires the federal judiciary to pay for special masters 
     in prison litigation cases. Each party shall submit a list of 
     five recommended special masters and can strike three names 
     from the opposing party's list. The court shall select the 
     master from the remaining names. Each party shall have the 
     right to an interlocutory appeal, on the grounds that the 
     master is not impartial or will not give due deference to the 
     public safety. The court shall review the appointment of the 
     special master every six months to determine whether the 
     services of the special master are still required. Imposes 
     new requirements on special masters. The special master must 
     make findings on the record as a whole, is prohibited from 
     making findings or communications ex parte, and shall be 
     terminated upon the termination of relief.


                title iii--equal protection for victims

           Section 301: Right of the victim to impartial jury

       Protects the right of victims to an impartial jury by 
     equalizing the number of peremptory challenges afforded to 
     the defense and the prosecution in jury selection.

       Section 302: Rebuttal of attacks on the victim's character

       Provides that if a defendant presents negative character 
     evidence concerning the victim, the government's rebuttal can 
     include negative character evidence concerning the defendant.

        Section 303: Victim's right of allocution in sentencing

       Extends the right of victims to address the court 
     concerning the sentence to all criminal cases. Current law 
     provides such a right for victims only in violent crime and 
     sexual abuse cases, though the offender has the right to make 
     an allocutive statement in all cases.

     SECTION 304: RIGHT OF THE VICTIM TO FAIR TREATMENT IN LEGAL 
                   PROCEEDINGS

       Establishes higher standards of professional conduct for 
     lawyers in federal cases to protect victims and other 
     witnesses from abuse, and to promote the effective search for 
     truth. Specific measures include prohibition of harassing or 
     dilatory tactics, knowingly presenting false evidence or 
     discrediting truthful evidence, willful ignorance of matters 
     that could be learned from the client, and concealment of 
     information necessary to prevent violent or sexual abuse 
     crimes.

     SECTION 305: USE OF NOTICE CONCERNING RELEASE OF THE OFFENDER

       Repeals the provision that notices to state and local law 
     enforcement concerning the release of federal violent and 
     drug trafficking offenders can only be used for law 
     enforcement purposes. This removes an impediment to other 
     legitimate uses of such information, such as advising victims 
     or potential victims that the offender has returned to the 
     area.

     SECTION 306: BALANCE IN THE COMPOSITION OF RULES COMMITTEES

       Provides for equal representation of prosecutors with 
     defense lawyers on committees in the judiciary that make 
     recommendations concerning the rules affecting criminal 
     cases.


                      title iv--domestic violence

     SECTION 401: DEATH PENALTY FOR FATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 
                   OFFENSES

       Authorizes capital punishment, under the federal interstate 
     domestic violence offenses, for cases in which the offender 
     murders the victim.

     SECTION 402: EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S DISPOSITION TOWARD 
                   VICTIM IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

       Clarifies that evidence of a defendant's disposition toward 
     a particular individual--such as the violent disposition of a 
     domestic violence defendant toward the victim--is not subject 
     to exclusion as impermissible evidence of character.

     SECTION 403: BATTERED WOMEN'S SYNDROME EVIDENCE

       Clarifies that battered women's syndrome evidence is 
     admissible, under the federal expert testimony rule, to help 
     courts and juries understand the behavior of victims in 
     domestic violence cases and other cases.

     SECTION 404: HIV TESTING OF DEFENDANTS IN SEXUAL ASSAULT 
                   CASES

       Provides effective procedures for HIV testing of defendants 
     in sexual assault cases, with disclosure of test results to 
     the victim.


                           title v--firearms

     SECTION 501: MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR CRIMINALS USING 
                   FIREARMS

       Imposes the following minimum penalties: 10 years for using 
     or carrying a firearm during the commission of a federal 
     crime of violence or drug trafficking crime; 20 years if the 
     firearm is discharged; incarceration for life or punishment 
     by death if death of a person results.

     SECTION 502: FIREARMS POSSESSION BY VIOLENT FELONS AND 
                   SERIOUS DRUG OFFENDERS

       Provides mandatory penalties (5 years and 10 years 
     respectively) for firearms possession by persons with one or 
     two convictions for violent felonies or serious drug crimes.

     SECTION 503: USE OF FIREARMS IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   COUNTERFEITING OR FORGERY

       Adds counterfeiting and forgery to offenses making 
     applicable mandatory penalties under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) when 
     firearms are used to facilitate their commission.

     SECTION 504: POSSESSION OF AN EXPLOSIVE DURING THE COMMISSION 
                   OF A FELONY

       Strengthens mandatory penalty provision for cases of 
     felonies involving explosives.

     SECTION 505: SECOND OFFENSE OF USING AN EXPLOSIVE TO COMMIT A 
                   FELONY

       Increases to 20 years the mandatory penalty for a second 
     conviction for using or possessing an explosive during the 
     commission of a felony.


                      TITLE VI--EXCLUSIONARY RULE

             Section 601: Admissibility of certain evidence

       Extends the ``good faith'' exception to the exclusionary 
     rule to non-warrant cases, where the court determines that 
     the circumstances justified an objectively reasonable belief 
     by officers that their conduct was lawful.


                   TITLE VII--FEDERAL DEALTH PENALTY

   Section 701: Strengthening of Federal death penalty standards and 
                               procedures

       Strengthens federal death penalty standards and procedures. 
     Requires defendant to give notice of mitigating factors that 
     will be relied on in capital sentencing hearing (just as the 
     government is now required to give notice of aggravating 
     factors), adds use of a firearm in committing a killing as an 
     aggravating factor that permits a jury to consider the death 
     penalty, directs the jury to impose a capital sentence if 
     aggravating factors outweight mitigating factors, and 
     authorizes uniform federal procedures for carrying out 
     federal capital sentences.

          Section 702: Murder of witness as aggravating factor

       Adds murder of a witness as an aggravating factor that 
     permits a jury to consider the death penalty.

   Section 703: Safeguards against delay in the execution of capital 
                       sentences in Federal cases

       Provides effective safeguards against delay in the 
     execution of federal capital sentences resulting from 
     protracted collateral litigation, including time limits on 
     filing and strict limitations on successive motions

     Section 704: Death penalty for murders committed with firearms

       Creates federal jurisdiction and authorizes capital 
     punishment for murders committed 

[[Page S19116]]
     with a firearm where the firearm has crossed state lines.

  Section 705: Death penalty for murders committed in the District of 
                                Columbia

       Provides for capital punishment for murders committed in 
     the District of Columbia.


                       TITLE VIII--HABEAS CORPUS

       Section 801: Stopping abuse of Federal collateral remedies

       Provides that an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 
     behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a judgment or order 
     of a state court shall not be entertained by a judge or a 
     court of the United States unless the remedies in the courts 
     of the state are inadequate or ineffective to test the 
     legality of the person's detention.


                         TITLE IX--IMMIGRATION

  Section 901: Additional expansion of definition of aggravated felony

       Aliens who commit aggravated felonies can be deported from 
     the country. The section adds to that definition crimes 
     involving the transportation of persons for the purposes of 
     prostitution; serious bribery, counterfeiting, or forgery 
     offenses; serious offenses involving trafficking in stolen 
     vehicles; offenses involving trafficking in counterfeit 
     immigration documents; obstruction of justice, perjury, and 
     bribery of a witness; and an offense relating to the failure 
     to appear to answer for a criminal offense for which a 
     sentence of two or more years my be imposed.

Section 902: Deportation procedures for certain criminal aliens who are 
                        not permanent residents

       Modifies the INA to make it clear that the existing 
     expedited deportation procedures which apply to non-resident 
     criminal aliens apply also to aliens admitted for permanent 
     residence on a conditional basis. The section also prohibits 
     the Attorney General from using discretionary power under the 
     INA to grant relief from deportation to any non-resident 
     alien who has been convicted of committing an aggravated 
     felony.

Section 903: Restricting the defense to exclusion based on seven years 
            permanent residence for certain criminal aliens

       Modifies that portion of the INA which determines who may 
     be denied entrance to the United States and who may be 
     deported from the country. Under present law, legal permanent 
     residents who have lived in the country for seven years may 
     leave temporarily and return but not be subject to many of 
     the INA provisions that determine who may legally enter the 
     United States. However, if these persons have been convicted 
     of an aggravated felony and served five years in prison, 
     the government may exclude them from the country 
     notwithstanding their seven years of residence. The change 
     made by this section strengthens this exception to allow 
     the government to exclude these persons if they were 
     sentenced to five or more years in prison for one or more 
     aggravated felonies. The change is being made so that the 
     government may begin deportation proceedings when the 
     criminal alien is incarcerated rather than having to wait 
     for five years to pass.

Section 904: Limitation on collateral attacks on underlying deportation 
                                 order

       This section applies to cases where an alien is charged 
     with attempting to re-enter the United States after having 
     been deported. The penalties for illegally re-entering the 
     United States after having been deported were enhanced by the 
     1994 Crime Act. This section makes it clear that an alien 
     charged with illegally re-entering may only challenge the 
     validity of the original deportation order when the alien can 
     show that he or she has exhausted all administrative 
     remedies, that the deportation order improperly deprived the 
     alien of the opportunity for judicial review, and that the 
     deportation order was fundamentally unfair.

           Section 905: Criminal alien identification system

       Modifies that part of the 1994 Crime Act which created a 
     ``Criminal Alien Tracking Center.'' The 1994 act failed to 
     state the purpose of the center. This section specifies that 
     the center is to be used to assist federal, state, and local 
     law enforcement agencies in identifying and locating aliens 
     who may be deportable because they have committed aggravated 
     felonies. The bill also changes the name of the center to 
     ``Criminal Alien Identification System'' in order to more 
     accurately reflect its function.

   Section 906: Wiretap authority for alien smuggling investigations

       Adds certain immigration-related offenses to the list of 
     crimes to which the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt 
     Organizations (``RICO'') law applies. The RICO statute is 
     among the principal tools that federal law enforcement 
     officials use to combat organized crime. The amendment made 
     by this section expands the definition of ``predicate acts'' 
     to enable them to use that statute to combat alien smuggling 
     organizations. The bill also gives federal law enforcement 
     officials the authority to utilize wiretaps to investigate 
     certain immigration-related crimes.

Section 907: Expansion of criteria for deportation for crimes of moral 
                               turpitude

       This section amends the INA to deport aliens who have been 
     in the country for less than five years (and legal permanent 
     resident aliens who have resided in the country for less than 
     ten years) and who are convicted of a felony crime involving 
     moral turpitude. Under current law, persons convicted of 
     crimes of moral turpitude can only be deported if they have 
     been sentenced to, or serve, at least one year in prison.

       Section 908: Study of prisoner transfer treaty with Mexico

       Requires the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to 
     submit a study to the Congress concerning the uses and 
     effectiveness of the prisoner transfer treaty with Mexico. 
     That treaty provides for the deportation of aliens who have 
     been convicted of a crime while they are in the United 
     States.

   Section 909: Justice Department assistance in bringing to justice 
      aliens who flee prosecution for crimes in the United States

       Requires the Attorney General, in cooperation with the INS 
     Commissioner and the Secretary of State, to establish an 
     office within the Justice Department to provide technical and 
     prosecutorial assistance to states and political subdivisions 
     in connection with their efforts to obtain extradition of 
     aliens who commit crimes in the United States and then flee 
     the country. This section also requires a report within one 
     year assessing the nature and extent of the problem of 
     bringing to justice aliens who flee prosecution in the United 
     States.

                 Section 910: Prison transfer treaties

       Advises the President that Congress desires him to 
     negotiate prison transfer treaties with other countries 
     within 90 days of the bill's enactment

               Section 911: Interior repatriation program

       Requires the Attorney General and the INS Commissioner to 
     develop programs under which aliens who illegally enter the 
     United States from Mexico or Canada on three or more 
     occasions would be deported at least 500 kilometers within 
     the country. The intent of this section is to make it more 
     difficult for aliens who have a history of illegal entry to 
     re-enter the country after they have been deported. The 
     program is to be implemented within 180 days of enactment of 
     the bill.

Section 912: Deportation of nonviolent offenders prior to completion of 
                        sentence of imprisonment

       Gives the Attorney General the discretion to deport certain 
     aliens held in federal prison before they complete their 
     sentences. Only those criminal aliens who have committed a 
     non-violent aggravated felony may be deported, and the 
     Attorney General must first determine that early deportation 
     is in the best interest of the United States. The Attorney 
     General may also deport non-violent criminal aliens held in 
     state prisons if the governor of the state submits a 
     written request to the Attorney General that aliens be 
     deported before they have served their sentence. In both 
     cases, should an alien illegally re-enter the United 
     States, the Attorney General is required to incarcerate 
     the alien for the remainder of the prison term.


                  title x--gangs, juveniles, and drugs

              Section 1001: Criminal street gang offenses

       Contains provisions, passed by the Senate in the 103rd 
     Congress Senate crime bill, which create new offenses and 
     authorize severe penalties for criminal street gangs 
     activities.

 Section 1002: Serious juvenile drug offenses as Armed Career Criminal 
                             Act predicates

       Contains a provision, passed by the Senate in the 103rd 
     Congress Senate crime bill, which adds serious juvenile drug 
     offenses as predicate offenses for purposes of the Armed 
     Career Criminal Act.

     Section 1003: Adult prosecution of serious juvenile offenders

       Permits adult prosecution down to the age of 13 of 
     junvenile offenders who commit serious violent felonies, and 
     creates a presumption in favor of adult prosecution for such 
     juvenile offenders who are 15 or older.

   Section 1004: Increased penalties for recidivists committing drug 
                        crimes involving minors

       Increases to three years the mandatory minimum penalties 
     for a second offense of distributing drugs to a minor or 
     using a minor in trafficking.

  Section 1005: Amendments concerning records of crimes committed by 
                               juveniles

       Incorporates the amendments of section 618 of the 103rd 
     Congress Senate-passed crime bill which broaden the retention 
     and availability of records for federally prosecuted juvenile 
     offenders.

                    Section 1006: Drive-by shootings

       Incorporates the broad drive-by shooting offense that was 
     passed by the House of Representatives in section 2335 of 
     H.R. 3371 of the 102nd Congress.

                     Section 1007: Steroids offense

       Incorporates the offense, passed by the Senate in section 
     1504 of the 103rd Congress Senate crime bill, which prohibits 
     coaches and trainers from attempting to get others to use 
     steroids.

            Section 1008: Drug testing of Federal offenders

       Adds hair analysis to the permissible forms of drug 
     testing.


                      title xi--public corruption

    Section 1101: Strengthening of Federal anti-corruption statutes 
                               generally

       Strengthens federal public corruption laws. Specific 
     improvements include more adequate coverage of election 
     fraud, more uniform jurisdiction over corruption offenses, 
     increased penalties for such offenses, and protection for 
     whistle blowers.

                   Section 1102: Interstate commerce

       Extends wire fraud statute, which is often used to 
     prosecute public corruption offenses, 

[[Page S19117]]
     including strengthening of jurisdictional provision.

           Section 1103: Narcotics-related public corruption

       Adopts special provisions for drug-related public 
     corruption, including severe penalties.


                   title xii--administrative subponea

Section 1201: Administrative summons authority of United States Secret 
                                Service

       Allows high-ranking Secret Service agents to issue an 
     administrative subponea for information in cases in which the 
     President or other federal protectees are in danger. The 
     Department of Agriculture, the Resolution Trust Corporation, 
     and the Food and Drug Administration already have 
     administrative subponea power.


                      title xiii--computer crimes

     Section 1301: Protection of classified government information

       Penalizes individuals who deliberately break into a 
     computer, or attempt to do so, without authority and, 
     thereby, obtain and disseminate classified information.

 Section 1302: Protection of financial, government, and other computer 
                              information

       Makes interstate or foreign theft of information by 
     computer a crime. This provision is necessary in light of 
     United States v. Brown, 925 F.2d 1301, 1308 (10th Cir. 1991), 
     where the court held that purely intangible intellectual 
     property, such as computer programs, cannot constitute goods, 
     wares, merchandise, securities, or monies which have been 
     stolen, converted, or taken within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2314.

        Section 1303: Protection of government computer systems

       Makes two changes to Sec. 1030(a)(3), which currently 
     prohibits intentionally accessing, without authorization, 
     computers used by, or for, any department or agency of the 
     United States and thereby ``adversely'' affecting ``the use 
     of the Government's operation of such computer.'' First, it 
     deletes the word ``adversely'' since this term suggest, 
     inappropriately, that trespassing in a government computer 
     may be benign. Second, the bill replaces the phrase ``the use 
     of the Government's operation of such computer'' with the 
     term ``that use.'' When a computer is used for the 
     government, the government is not necessarily the operator, 
     and the old phrase may lead to confusion. The bill makes a 
     similar change to the definition of ``protected computer'' in 
     Sec. 1030(e)(2)(A).

Section 1304: Increased penalties for significant unauthorized use of a 
                            computer system

       Amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030(a)(4) to insure that felony 
     level sanctions apply when unauthorized use or use in excess 
     of authorization is significant.

        Section 1305: Protection from damage to computer systems

       Amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030(a)(5) to further protect 
     computer systems covered by the statute from damage by anyone 
     who intentionally damages a computer, regardless of whether 
     they were authorized to access the computer.

Section 1306: Protection from threats directed against computer systems

       Adds a new section to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030(a) to provide 
     penalties for the interstate transmission of threats directed 
     against computers and computer networks. The new section 
     covers any interstate or international transmission of 
     threats against computers, computer networks, and their data 
     and programs, whether the threat is received by mail, 
     telephone, electronic mail, or through a computerized 
     messaging service.

 Section 1307: Increased penalties for recidivist and other sentencing 
                                changes

       Amends 18 U.S.C. 1030(c) to increase penalties for those 
     who have previously violated any subsection of Sec. 1030. 
     This section provides that anyone who is convicted twice of 
     committing a computer offense under Sec. 1030 would be 
     subject to enhanced penalties.

                      Section 1308: Civil actions

       Limits damage to economic damages, where the violation 
     caused a loss of $1,000 or more during any one-year period. 
     No limit on damages would be imposed for violations that 
     modified or impaired the medical examination, diagnosis or 
     treatment of a person; caused physical injury to any person; 
     or threatened the public health or safety.

                   Section 1309: Mandatory reporting

       The current reporting requirement under Sec. 1030(a)(5) is 
     eliminated. By ensuring that most high technology crimes can 
     be prosecuted, there is less need for reporting requirements. 
     Convictions will provide more information on computer crime. 
     To create a mandatory reporting requirement is unnecessary 
     because private sector groups, such as the Forum of Incident 
     Response and Security Teams (FIRST), are leading the effort 
     to monitor computer crimes statistically.

 Section 1310: Sentencing for fraud and related activity in connection 
                            with computers.

       Requires the United States Sentencing Commission to review 
     existing sentencing guidelines as they apply to sections 1030 
     (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of Title 18 of the 
     United States Code (The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act). The 
     Commission must also establish guidelines to ensure that 
     criminals convicted under these sections receive mandatory 
     minimum sentences for not less than 1 year. Currently, judges 
     are given great discretion in sentencing under the Computer 
     Fraud and Abuse Act. In many cases, the sentences don't match 
     the crimes; and criminals receive light sentences for serious 
     crimes. Mandatory minimum sentences will deter computer 
     ``hacking'' crimes, and protect the infrastructure of 
     computer systems.

   Section 1311: Asset forfeiture for fraud and related activity in 
                       connection with computers

       Amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) to 
     insure that individuals who commit crimes under the 
     aforementioned sections will forfeit the property used in 
     connection with those crimes. For example, computers and 
     ``hacking'' software used in crimes would be subject to 
     forfeiture.


                  title xiv--computer software piracy

                  Section 1401: Amendment of title 17

       Amends 17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a) to extend criminal 
     infringement of copyright to include any person--not just 
     those who acted for purposes of commercial advantage or 
     private financial gain--who willfully infringes a copyright. 
     Corrects the problem highlighted by the United States v. 
     LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994), that a person 
     could pirate software maliciously, so long as they received 
     no financial gain.

                  Section 1402: Amendment of title 18

       Amends 18 U.S.C. 2319 to allow the court, in imposing a 
     sentence on a person convicted of software piracy, to order 
     that the person forfeit any property used or intended to be 
     used to commit or promote the commission of such offense.


                      title xv--internet gambling

                  Section 1501: Amendment of title 18

       Amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1084 to insure that individuals who 
     gamble or wager via wire or electronic communication are 
     penalized--not just those who are in the business of 
     gambling. Current statutes make it illegal only if you are in 
     the business of sports gambling on the INTERNET. This section 
     would make it illegal to gamble on ``virtual casinos'' as 
     well as electronic sports books.

                  Section 1502: Sentencing guidelines

       Requires the United States Sentencing Commission to review 
     the deterrent effect of existing sentencing guidelines as 
     they apply to sections 1084 of Title 18 and promulgate 
     guidelines to ensure that criminals convicted under section 
     1084 receive mandatory minimum sentences for not less than 
     one year.

                  Section 1503: Reporting requirements

       Requires the Attorney General to report to Congress on (1) 
     the problems associated with enforcing INTERNET gambling, (2) 
     recommendations for the best use of resources of the 
     Department of Justice to enforce section 1084 of Title 18, 
     (3) recommendations for the best use of the resources of FCC 
     to enforce section 1084 of title 18, and (4) an estimate on 
     the amount of gambling activity on the INTERNET. It is not 
     clear how effective law enforcement can police the INTERNET. 
     A report may answer that question.
                                 ______


By Mr. SIMON (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Bond, and 
                             Mr. Ashcroft):

  S. 1496. A bill to grant certain patent right for certain non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for a 2-year period; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


                 property right protection legislation

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation to grant for 
a 2-year period additional property right protection for oxaprozin, an 
important drug in treating arthritis. Oxaprozin is a non-steroidal, 
anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID]. It is produced and marketed as Daypro 
by the G.D. Searle & Co., headquartered in Skokie, IL. I am introducing 
this legislation as a matter of simple fairness and equity because of a 
protracted review by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] that 
consumed the entire patent life of Daypro.
  The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, 
commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act, was designed in part to 
address the unfairness caused by unduly long FDA reviews. 
Unfortunately, the two major protections created by Hatch-Waxman did 
not remedy Daypro's situation. First, Hatch-Waxman provides patent 
extensions in cases of regulatory delay. Ironically, since the FDA 
review consumed Daypro's entire patent life, the delay rendered Daypro 
ineligible for a patent extension; Hatch-Waxman simply did not 
contemplate that an FDA review would consume the entire patent life of 
a drug prior to its approval. Second, Hatch-Waxman allows up to 10 
years of market exclusivity to brand name drug manufacturers following 
protracted FDA review. If the FDA had promptly approved Daypro, Daypro 
would have been protected for 10 years; however, as a result of the 
delay, Daypro only received 5 years of marketing exclusivity 
protection.
  The legislation I am introducing today would provide Daypro 2 years 
of property right protection beyond the 5 years provided in the Hatch-
Waxman Act. This additional property right protection is being sought 
because the 

[[Page S19118]]
delay in obtaining FDA approval of Daypro was so excessive that the 
provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act are inadequate to compensate for the 
complete loss of patent protection for Daypro due to the FDA review.
  I seek this remedy for a drug that was a victim of even more extreme 
regulatory delays than those that were instrumental in causing Congress 
to recognize that the Hatch-Waxman Act was necessary in the first 
place. The Investigational New Drug Application [IND] for Daypro was 
filed in 1972, and the New Drug Application [NDA] for Daypro was filed 
10 years later in August 1982. FDA approval of Daypro was not finally 
granted until October 29, 1992. During the 20 years it took FDA to 
approve Daypro, its patent expired. Thus, the practical patent life for 
Daypro was zero.
  A number of reports have been published by the U.S. General 
Accounting Office and congressional committees in both Houses on the 
regulatory problems that the class of NSAIDs faced in the 1980's. These 
reports and studies make it clear that at least some of the problems 
encountered at FDA were generic--the unprecedented delay in NSAID 
approvals was due to FDA inaction on all NDAIDs after serious problems 
were encountered with previously approved NSAIDs. During this time, the 
FDA effectively imposed a moratorium on the approval of all NSAIDs. It 
is important to note that the purpose of this moratorium was not to 
allow the FDA to collect further data on Daypro or because there were 
concerns about health and safety findings related to Daypro. The FDA 
ultimately approved Daypro in 1992 as safe and efficacious based upon 
the same studies originally submitted to the FDA in the NDA. it took 
the FDA longer to approve Daypro than any other NSAID.
  This legislation does not grant full recovery of the time lost while 
Daypro was under review; it does not grant even half of that time. The 
additional property right protection that would be granted by this bill 
represents only some of the time lost after the drug applications had 
been under FDA review. This legislation provides 2 years of added 
protection as partial compensation for the value lost when Daypro's 
patents expired while the drug application was pending at the FDA. I 
believe the figure of 2 years is a fair and equitable resolution of 
this matter.
  Daypro confronted an inordinate and inequitable delay in obtaining 
FDA approval. No other pharmaceutical that I am aware of has had its 
entire patent life consumed by an FDA review. I urge that the relief 
embodied in this legislation be anacted.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, I rise to cosponsor with Senators 
Simon, Moseley-Braun, Bond, and Ashcroft, S. 1496, a bill to extend for 
2 additional years the exclusive marketing period for the drug 
oxaprozin.
  I am supportive of Senator Simon's effort, because unusual, and 
perhaps unprecedented, administrative delays in review of this 
pharmaceutical have denied the manufacturer any patent protection. The 
Food and Drug Administration [FDA] review of oxaprozin consumed the 
entire 17-year patent term plus another 4 years.
  Some history on this issue may be useful at this point.
  Oxaprozin is a nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drug, or NSAID. It is 
used to treat arthritis and other ailments. Oxaprozin was first 
patented by G.D. Searle in 1971. Shortly thereafter, an investigational 
new drug [IND] application was submitted to FDA.
  In August 1982, a new drug application [NDA] was filed, but FDA did 
not approve the drug until October 29, 1992. In total, over 21 years 
expired after submission of the IND application and over 10 years 
elapsed from the filing of the NDA.
  As a result of this unusually long, and perhaps unprecedented, FDA 
regulatory review period, the patent for oxaprozin expired before 
oxaprozin could be brought to market.
  In the 1980s, Congress became concerned that the lengthy FDA pre-
marketing regulatory approval system was depriving many companies of a 
substantial amount of the potential economic value of new drug patents, 
and thereby decreasing the incentives that lead to new breakthrough 
medications.
  In 1984, Representative Henry Waxman and I worked to secure enactment 
of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, a law 
that, in part, attempted to add patent term or an exclusive marketing 
period to partially restore time lost through FDA regulatory review.
  Under this 1984 law--sometimes referred to as the ``Hatch-Waxman 
Act'' or ``Waxman-Hatch'' an administrative procedure was provided to 
extend certain drug patents or prevent generic copies from entering the 
marketplace in order to provide compensation for at least some of the 
time lost as a result of FDA regulatory review.
  This legislation, however, did not contemplate extreme outliers such 
as oxaprozin.
  In some respects, oxaprozin presents a classic Catch-22 situation: 
Administrative patent extensions under Hatch-Waxman were not available 
until FDA approval was granted, but these administrative extensions 
could only be granted if the term of the patent had not expired. If a 
drug was not approved until after the expiration of the patent, no 
Hatch-Waxman patent extension could be granted, even though such cases 
represent the most egregious example of the problem Congress was trying 
to redress in the first place.
  In addition to patent extensions, the Hatch-Waxman Act contained 
marketing exclusivity provisions to address cases such as oxaprozin in 
which no patent protection remains. The Hatch-Waxman law provided 10 
years of marketing exclusivity for pioneer drugs that were approved for 
marketing between January 1, 1982 and September 23, 1984.
  One result of oxaprozin's unduly long FDA review was that it could 
not qualify for extended patent life under the Hatch-Waxman transition 
rule. Instead, oxaprozin received only the more limited 5-year period 
of marketing exclusivity even though its review period at the FDA 
exceeded all of those drugs that received a 10-year extension.
  From 1974 until 1982, the FDA took, on average, only about 2 years to 
review and approve NSAID product applications. From about 1982, 
however, there existed a de facto moratorium on the approval of new 
NSAIDs.
  The Congress has examined the reasons behind this moratorium. In 
1992, both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, and House Energy 
and Commerce Committee, conducted hearings into the FDA delays in the 
approval of NSAIDs. In addition, the Judiciary Committees requested the 
GAO to investigate this delay.
  These examinations revealed that FDA faced an unusual set of 
circumstances from 1982 through 1987. As a result of the controversy 
surrounding four previously approved NSAIDs that raised serious post-
marketing safety concerns, the average time taken to approve NSAID NDAs 
nearly doubled. By concentrating its resources to investigate the 
causes behind the reported NSAID adverse effects, the FDA directed its 
manpower away from approval of the pending NSAID NDAs.
  Mr. President, 2-weeks ago, the Senate was engaged in a debate that 
involved the sufficiency of the patent laws to help attract private 
sector investment into biomedical research. This issue has important 
ramifications for the public health.
  Over the next few months the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I 
serve as Chairman, will be examining pharmaceutical patent issues. It 
will be important for the committee to examine fully the complex 
interrelationship between the patent laws and the FDA product review 
system for drugs.
  Oxaprozin serves as an important case study of a flawed system in 
which FDA regulatory delay materially undermines the value of 
intellectual property. A regulatory review period of 21 years is simply 
too long. I hope we can all agree that the FDA review period should not 
exhaust the entire patent term of a drug product.
  In light of the general disruption that occurred within the FDA NSAID 
review division and the particular facts relating to the 21 year FDA 
review of oxaprozin, the partial relief granted by S. 1496 is 
justified. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______

      By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Bond, Mr. 
        Bumpers, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lott, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Johnston, Mr. 
        Abraham, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. 
        Glenn, and Mr. Warner):
        
[[Page S19119]]

  S. 1497. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to make certain 
adjustments in the land disposal program to provide needed flexibility, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


           the land disposal program flexibility act of 1995

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleagues 
Senators Smith, Pryor, Bond, Bumpers, Inhofe, Breaux, Lott, Johnston, 
Abraham, Kempthorne, Lieberman, Faircloth, Glenn, and Warner to 
introduce, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1995. This bill 
represents the culmination of a bipartisan process involving the 
cooperation of The White House, EPA, and the regulated community. It is 
proof that the desire for regulatory reform is real, and needed in this 
country. It is also proof that we can work together to make greater 
sense out of the regulatory morass when we set our minds to it.
  For too long neither Congress which makes the laws, nor EPA which 
implements them, have really been in charge of environmental protection 
in this country. The most significant driver in the field of 
environmental policy has been the courts. In a recent address before 
the Environmental Law Institute, former EPA Administrator William 
Ruckleshaus lamented that most of the important environmental decisions 
of the last quarter century have devolved to the courts.
  The situation that has led to the introduction of this bill is a 
classic case of how the courts, have dominated the making of 
environmental policy. In 1990, EPA implemented RCRA regulations 
relating to the treatment of hazardous waste before it can be disposed 
of on the land. These land disposal restrictions were intended to 
prevent the placement of untreated waste on the ground--an appropriate 
concern given the legacy of such practices prior to the enactment of 
RCRA. EPA also made every effort to implement this regulation taking 
care to coordinate RCRA with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. That, too was as Congress intended.
  Along came the courts and they chose to interpret the RCRA statute in 
such a way as to extend the reach of costly hazardous waste 
requirements to nonhazardous wastes. This interpretation also ignored 
the benefits of treatment and disposal systems such as surface 
impoundments and underground injection wells permitted under the Clean 
Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts respectively.
  As a result, EPA has been forced to propose expensive new regulations 
that even the Agency believes will provide minimal environmental 
benefit. Let me quote from EPA's very own preamble to the new proposed 
rule:

       The risks addressed by this rule, particularly UIC wells, 
     are very small relative to the risks presented by other 
     environmental conditions or situations. In a time of limited 
     resources, common sense dictates that we deal with higher 
     risk activities first, a principle on which EPA, members of 
     the regulated community, and the public can all agree.
       Nevertheless, the agency is required to set treatment 
     standards for these relatively low risk wastes and disposal 
     practices during the next two years, although there are other 
     actions and projects with which the Agency could provide 
     greater protection of human health and the environment.

  Mr. President, this Senate has been wrestling with the larger 
question of comprehensive regulatory reform for some months now. The 
debate on both sides of the aisle has been contentious over the means 
by which such reforms are achieved. But a common theme throughout that 
debate has been the nearly universal recognition that the current 
command and control regulatory system is obsolete, and in need of 
reform. This bill allows us to turn that theme into reality. Not by 
amending the underlying RCRA statute in any way, although we agree with 
the President that further statutory reform is needed, but by merely 
restoring EPA's original regulatory determination: that a waste that is 
no longer hazardous need not be regulated as if it was hazardous.
  Mr. President, that is why I have joined with Senators Smith, Pryor, 
Bond, Bumpers, Inhofe, Breaux, Lott, Johnston, Abraham, Kempthorne, 
Lieberman, Faircloth, Glenn, and Warner to introduce this bill. I also 
submit for inclusion in the record a letter from the administration 
supporting this legislation. The price of not acting soon will mean 
that industry will incur, by EPA's own estimate, $800 million dollars 
per year in compliance costs--again for minimal environmental benefit. 
Mr. President, we have an opportunity here, to provide true regulatory 
relief, while assuring that effective standards of environmental 
protection are maintained. We have worked in a bipartisan way to bring 
this reform forward. I hope that the spirit of cooperation demonstrated 
on all sides will carry through as we tackle this and other much needed 
regulatory reforms.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Nickles, in 
introducing the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1995, and I 
would like to thank the senior Senator from Oklahoma for the time and 
effort that he and his staff have been spending on this issue. In 
addition to a bipartisan coalition of Senators who are cosponsoring 
this legislation, this bill is also supported by the White House and 
the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA].
  This legislation represents a very simple, yet important modification 
to the Solid Waste Disposal Act that has the potential to save our 
society as much as $800 million in annual compliance costs--an expense 
that the EPA agrees will provide no environmental benefit. As the 
chairman of the Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment 
Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation, I believe 
that this bill is a good example of a cooperative, bipartisan effort to 
correct expensive and needless environmental overregulation.
  Under the current land disposal restrictions [LDR's], individuals are 
generally prohibited from the land disposal of hazardous wastes unless 
these wastes have first been treated to meet EPA standards. As a result 
of a 1993 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court, these LDR's would also be 
extended to nonhazardous wastes managed in wastewater systems that are 
already regulated under the Clean Water Act or the underground 
injection control [UIC] program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The 
court adopted this position despite the fact that the EPA had 
previously adopted a rule authorizing the appropriate treatment and 
disposal of these materials, and despite the fact that the Agency 
believed that such strict standards are inappropriate.
  Simply stated, this legislation would counteract the court decision, 
and would restore the EPA's original regulatory determination allowing 
these materials to be safely treated and disposed of in permitted 
treatment units and injection wells.
  One of the issues confronting those who support this legislation is 
timing. Due to the court decision, the EPA will be forced to impose 
these needless and expensive requirements if Congress does not act very 
soon. As the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I will work 
closely with the other interested parties to ensure that this 
legislation will be addressed in a prompt fashion.
  Again, I thank Senator Nickles for working with me on this issue, and 
I commend him for his involvement.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, 
Senators Bond, Bumpers, Inhofe, and Nickles, to introduce the Land 
Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1995. This bill represents months 
of work by the EPA, the White House, both Houses of Congress, as well 
as the regulated community, to come together in a bipartisan manner to 
implement real regulatory reform.
  This legislation makes small adjustments in the current Land Disposal 
Regulations [LDR] Program under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act 
[RCRA], to provide more flexibility for the treatment of nonhazardous 
waste. More importantly, it helps alleviate the type of over-regulation 
that has been the source of so much controversy among the general 
public. Our legislation achieves this goal by denying the 
implementation of a court ordered rule that requires the EPA to treat 
nonhazardous waste as though it were hazardous waste.
  Mr. President, when Congress passed the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act [RCRA] in 1976, it was intended to work as a campanion to 
other existing environmental laws. However, the court decision 
previously mentioned, 

[[Page S19120]]
would create just the opposite of what was intended. It would require 
the EPA to write a rule that would overlay RCRA requirements on top of 
existing Clean Water Act treatment standards. The cost of this 
additional treatment, according to EPA estimates, would be 
approximately $800 million per year--all to achieve what EPA says is 
almost no environmental improvement.
  What we are doing today with the introduction of the Land Disposal 
Program Flexibility Act, is correcting this court decision by amending 
a very narrow portion of the RCRA law. Simply put, we are asking 
Congress to clarify that the LDR Program does not apply to wastes that 
are no longer hazardous when managed in Clean Water and Safe Drinking 
Water Act systems.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I hope my 
colleagues will support this legislation as it moves through committee 
to the Senate floor for a vote.
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 1498. A bill to authorize appropriations to carry out the 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


        the interjurisdictional fisheries amendments act of 1995

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague on the 
Commerce Committee, Senator Kerry, am introducing the 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Amendments Act of 1995. I am pleased to 
also have Senators Cohen and Kennedy joining us as cosponsors in this 
effort.
  Congress passed the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act in 1986 to 
promote the management of interjurisdictional fisheries resources 
throughout their range, and to encourage and promote active State 
participation in the management of these important resources. The act 
provides modest funding to the States and interstate marine fishery 
commissions to assist with research and management activities, with the 
underlying objective being the development and maintenance of healthy, 
robust fish stocks. The act also authorizes aid to commercial fishermen 
who have suffered losses as a result of fishery resource disasters.
  The bill that we are introducing today extends the act's 
authorization through 1998. It reduces the authorized appropriations 
level for apportionment to the States, maintains the current overall 
authorization level for the Commerce Department, and provides a small 
increase in the authorization level for assistance to the interstate 
fishery management commissions.
  This bill also amends section 308(d) of the act, which deals with 
disaster assistance to commercial fishermen. Earlier this year, the 
Secretary of Commerce declared fishery resource disasters impacting 
commercial fishermen in the Northeast, Pacific Northwest, and the Gulf 
of Mexico, and he committed $53 million in already-appropriated funds 
to help mitigate the impacts of these disasters. In order to 
effectively operate these disaster relief programs, however, certain 
changes must be made in the act's grant-making authority.
  The current provision, for example, limits the kind of assistance 
available under section 308(d) to direct grants to individual fishermen 
or fishing corporations. But recent analysis of disaster relief 
strategies has revealed that, in some cases, aid to fishermen could be 
more efficiently and effectively provided if it is provided indirectly, 
through States, local governments, or nonprofit organizations, who in 
turn would operate programs to help fishermen. This bill amends the 
statute to allow for the provision of both direct and indirect forms of 
assistance.
  The bill also lifts the current $100,000 cap on aid to individual 
fishermen. This cap makes the operation of a fishing vessel buy-back 
program, like the one currently planned for the New England groundfish 
fishery, impossible. The purchase price for many vessels bought out 
under the program will exceed $100,000, and without a lifting of the 
cap, few fishermen will participate. Given the ongoing crisis in the 
New England groundfish industry, we need to move forward with an 
effective, comprehensive buy-back quickly, and passage of this 
amendment to section 308(d) is essential for us to do so.
  Mr. President, this bill will contribute to the improvement of 
conditions in interjurisdictional fisheries around the country, and it 
will assist fishing communities that are suffering the effects of 
fishery resource disasters. This is a bipartisan bill, and it will not 
require significant new federal expenditures. I hope that my colleagues 
will support the bill when the Senate considers it in the next session.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join Senators Snowe, Kennedy, and 
Cohen in introducing the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Amendments Act 
of 1995. This legislation authorizes appropriations for State grants 
and Department of Commerce programs designed to manage 
interjurisdictional fisheries, and amends the Interjurisdictional 
Fisheries Act of 1986 to facilitate the use of available fisheries 
disaster relief funds.
  In 1986, we passed the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act to support 
State activities related to the management of fisheries occurring in 
waters under the jurisdiction of one or more States and the exclusive 
economic zone [EEZ], and to promote management of these fisheries 
throughout their range. This model establishes a mechanism for all who 
have a major interest in managing a fishery extending over several 
jurisdictions to work together to make key management decisions. It 
clearly works successfully. We must continue to support such 
cooperative partnerships.
  The bill introduced today also contains important provisions which 
will clear the way for dispersing previously appropriated economic 
assistance for fishing disaster relief in New England, the Gulf, and in 
the Pacific Northwest.
  In New England, this assistance will be used to alleviate the 
economic hardships caused by the collapse of the traditional groundfish 
fishery. The New England Fishery Management Council has closed 
significant areas of prime fishing grounds on Georges Bank and is now 
considering the adoption of stricter fishing restrictions to rebuild 
the groundfish stocks. Many New England fishermen can no longer draw a 
living from the sea as they have for years before. They, their 
families, and their communities face a severe economic crisis. I have 
supported, and will continue to support, a comprehensive approach to 
addressing this fishery disaster. The New England Fishery Management 
Council has a tough job ahead in designing a rebuilding program. While 
the Council continues to struggle with this issue, I have focused my 
efforts on providing economic assistance to the fishermen and the 
fishing communities during this crisis and rebuilding period.
  In March 1995, NOAA announced a $2.0 million pilot program to buy 
groundfish vessels and begin to address the problem of too many 
fishermen chasing too few fish. The program began in June of 1995, and 
on October 11, 1995, NOAA announced that it would be able to buy back 
13 vessels. Although the $2 million falls far short of the total amount 
needed for a full-scale buyout in New England, the pilot program 
answered many questions about the design, implementation, and potential 
success of an expanded vessel buyout program.
  The pilot program has demonstrated that fishing vessel owners are 
willing to participate in such a program--114 vessel owners applied to 
participate in the pilot program. If funding was available to accept 
all 114 offers received--totalling $52 million--groundfish fishing 
capacity could be decreased by more than 31 percent. This illustrates 
that such a program could be a successful way to reduce the 
overcapitalization in the groundfish fleet and may help ease the 
economic impact of the collapsed groundfish fishery and the strict 
conservation measures anticipated.
  The legislation we are introducing today amends the existing 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 to facilitate the development 
of an expanded buyout program in New England. This would allow some 
fishermen to voluntarily leave the fishery, thereby reducing excess 
fishing capacity. As a condition of the program, the bill would require 
that adequate conservation and management measures be in place to 
restore the stocks and ensure no new boats enter the New England 
groundfish fishery. It would also expedite fishery disaster relief 
programs designed for the Gulf and the Pacific Northwest.

[[Page S19121]]

  I urge my colleagues to move quickly to pass the Interjurisdictional 
Fisheries Amendment Act of 1995.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATFIELD:
  S. 1499. A bill to amend the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 
1986 to provide for direct and indirect assistance for certain persons 
engaged in commercial fisheries, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                the fishing families relief act of 1995

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Pacific Northwest has been presented 
with a number of significant challenges in the last decade. Most 
recently, heavy rains and winds in excess of 100 miles per hour ravaged 
the Oregon coast and the Willamette Valley. Additionally, the timber 
and fishing industries, which once constituted a substantial portion of 
Oregon's economy, have been severely restricted in recent years. Many 
individuals involved in those industries have been forced to find 
alternative sources of employment.
  In 1994, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 
and the Pacific Northwest States initiated three programs to mitigate 
the financial hardship caused by the total closure of the coastal 
salmon fishing season. These programs were designed to assist the 
fishers impacted by the closing and include: a permit buyback program--
Washington State only; a habitat restoration jobs program; and a data 
collection and at sea research jobs program. Both jobs programs 
employed over 100 dislocated fishers while contributing to the 
improvement of fishery habitat. NOAA has approved the request of the 
Governors of Oregon and Washington for an additional $13 million to 
continue these programs for a second year.
  The changes in the Interjurisdicitonal Fisheries Act made by the 
legislation I am introducing today would allow these three programs to 
continue working for dislocated fishers who are severely limited in 
their ability to earn a living through commercial fishing. The current 
language restricts the number of dislocated fishers who have been 
eligible to participate in these programs. Additionally, fishers may 
lose the eligibility to participate in the programs due to the 
uninsured loss determination and the cap on assistance.
  Mr. President, this legislation does not seek additional Federal 
funds for these important assistance programs. However, it does attempt 
to find ways to spend Federal dollars in a more effective and flexible 
manner, with broader participation from those the funds are intended to 
serve. This legislation will also be beneficial for the fishing 
industries in the Northeast and the Gulf Coast areas. I urge my 
colleagues to give their full consideration to this attempt to restore 
economic stability to the fisherman of Oregon and the Pacific 
Northwest.

                          ____________________