[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 30 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1649-S1654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENT ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Johnston):
  S. 1596, A bill to direct a property conveyance in the State of 
California; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   the ward valley land transfer act

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with 
my colleague, Senator Johnston, directing a land conveyance for the 
purpose of siting a low level radioactive waste facility at Ward 
Valley, CA. This measure is virtually identical to language the Senate 
previously agreed to in the reconciliation bill conference report, with 
the exception that we have added an additional condition that 
California must provide its written commitment to carry out 
environmental monitoring and protection measures based on 
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, subject to Federal 
oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  Mr. President, the Congress--in 1980 and again in 1985--gave States 
the responsibility for low level radioactive waste disposal. After an 8 
year licensing process costing more than $45 million, the State of 
California awarded a license for a waste disposal site at Ward Valley, 
in the Mojave Desert. California is the host State for the Southwestern 
low level radioactive waste compact which includes the States of 
Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, and California.
  The Ward Valley site has withstood the scrutiny of two environmental 
impact statements, two biological opinions under the Endangered Species 
Act, and a variety of court challenges. Ward Valley was given a clean 
bill of health by the National Academy of Sciences in a special report 
issued in May 1995. No low level radioactive site has received greater 
scrutiny than this one. It's a safe site, and anyone who reviews the 
facts with the tools of science rather than the rhetoric of emotion 
comes to that conclusion.
  With the license issued, the court challenges exhausted, and the 
science settled, all that remains is a simple, administrative land sale 
from the Bureau of Land Management to the State of California. This is 
the kind of routine conveyance that would normally be handled at a BLM 
field office. But the Secretary of the Interior has intervened, and 
effectively kept the land sale from proceeding for more than 2 years by 
ordering a supplemental EIS, and later, a review by the National 
Academy of Sciences. Both the supplemental EIS and the Academy review 
turned out to be highly favorable to the Ward Valley site, and at the 
conclusion of each we have hoped that any remaining excuse for further 
delay would evaporate. Unfortunately, Ward Valley opponents hope to 
delay this forever, suggesting at each juncture a new study, a new 
hurdle, a new obstacle.
  The latest hurdle was erected on February 15, when Interior Deputy 
Secretary John Garamendi announced yet another round of follow up 
studies to include tritium tests. California is not opposed to tritium 
tests, and the State is willing to conduct them. The problem, Mr. 
President, is that Interior wants the tests concluded prior to the land 
transfer. The National Academy of Sciences did not say this was 
necessary or desirable. In fact, the Academy suggests ongoing testing 
should be undertaken in conjunction with the operation of the facility. 
The Interior Department's actions, in my opinion, are merely a tactic 
to delay the commencement of operations at Ward Valley until after the 
next election.
  If we do nothing, Mr. President, and allow this land conveyance to be 
delayed, I can guarantee that there will be some new obstacle erected 
after the tritium tests are complete. As the National Academy of 
Sciences pointed out, tritium tests are difficult and often 
inconclusive. That's why they should not be rushed, they should not 
precede the conveyance, they should continue along with all of the 
other monitoring and protection measures that will be undertaken during 
the

[[Page S1650]]

site's operation. If we proceed with rushed tritium testing, we will 
likely end up with an inclusive result, providing project opponents 
with yet another excuse for delay. At the very least, the project 
opponents will ask for another supplemental EIS to consider any new 
information. A new basis for further litigation or new strategies for 
delay would be fabricated. They delays would just go on and on.
  What we have, Mr. President, is a Department of the Interior--lacking 
expertise or responsibility in matters relate to the regulation of 
radioactive materials--that aspires to get into the business of nuclear 
regulation. Even worse, the Secretary of the Interior is acting to 
usurp the statutory authority of the State of California to protect the 
radiological health and safety of its citizens through the State 
management and oversight of low-level radioactive waste disposal.
  Some of my colleagues may recall that we made low-level radioactive 
waste management a State responsibility in the 1980 and 1985 act in 
response to heavy lobbying by the National Governors' Association. At 
the time, Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton 
were prominent leaders in the National Governors' Association. Governor 
Babbitt even served on a special NGA task force recommending that low 
level radioactive waste management become a State responsibility. 
Today, Interior Secretary Babbitt is working to usurp and erode the 
very State authority he lobbied Congress for as Governor. I find that 
most ironic.
  The irony is not lost on the Governor of California. He has asked us 
for this legislation. He is concerned about the health, safety, and 
welfare of Californians. He is aware that low-level radioactive waste 
is being stored in hospitals, in residential neighborhoods, in 
businesses, and in universities at 2,254 sites in 800 locations across 
California, and that the waste in these temporary sites are subject to 
fires, floods, and earthquakes.
  If you oppose this bill, then you are by necessity arguing for the 
continued storage of these materials all over California, or the 
transport of these materials across the United States to the only 
facility currently open to California--Barnwell, SC. Meanwhile, some 
hospitals in California are running out of room. Will this result in 
the curtailment of cancer treatment or AIDS research that uses 
radioactive materials? Will this result in an accidental release at one 
of these dispersed locations as a consequence of a fire, flood or 
earthquake? We can only hope and pray that it will not.
  To summarize, Mr. President: This is a simple directed land sale that 
does what the administration should have done long ago. If we fail to 
do this, we not only create problems for California and Arizona, North 
Dakota, South Dakota as Southwestern Interstate Compact States, we 
challenge the viability of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act 
and the policy of State responsibility upon which it is based.
  A June 16 editorial in Science magazine perhaps says it best: ``The 
risks stemming from one carefully monitored Ward Valley LLRW site are 
trivial in comparison with those from 800 urban accumulations. Enough 
of groundless fears and litigation.''
  Mr. President, we have, indeed, had enough of groundless fears and 
litigation. The time has come to act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1596

       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 ``Ward Valley Land Transfer 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.

       Effective upon the tendering to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury of $500,100 on behalf of the State of California and 
     the tendering to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission of a written commitment by the State to carry out 
     environmental monitoring and protection measures based on 
     recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences subject 
     to federal oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2021, as amended, all right, title and 
     interest of the United States in the property depicted on a 
     map designated USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle, west of Flattop 
     Mtn, CA 1984 entitled ``Location Map for Ward Valley Site'', 
     located in San Bernardino Meridian, Township 9 North, Range 
     19 East, and improvements thereon, together with all 
     necessary easements for utilities and ingress and egress to 
     such property, including, but not limited to, the right to 
     improve those easements, are conveyed by operation of law to 
     the Department of Health Services of the State of California. 
     Upon the request of the State of California, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall provide evidence of title transfer.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 1597. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
discourage American businesses from moving jobs overseas and to 
encourage the creation of new jobs in the United States, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                     the american jobs act of 1996

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I intend to introduce legislation 
called the American Jobs Act, and I simply wanted to come to the floor 
and describe it. I also intend in the coming weeks to try to convince 
as many Members of the Senate as possible to cosponsor this, because I 
think it does relate to a lot of the issues that the American people 
are very concerned about.

  I spoke yesterday on the floor of the Senate about the issue of trade 
and jobs and the economy. I know some people get tired of hearing that. 
It is probably the same song with 10 different verses that I come and 
talk about from time to time.
  But I think it is central to the question of where are we headed as a 
country? Who are we and where are we going? We are a country that is a 
wonderful country with enormous challenges ahead of us, but a country 
still filled with substantial strength and opportunity in the future.
  I mentioned yesterday how interesting it is to me that at a time when 
people talk about how awful this country is, we have people suggesting 
we ought to put fences down across the border down south to keep people 
out. Why would we want to keep people from coming to this country? We 
have an immigration problem. Why do people want to come here? Because 
they think this is a remarkable place. Most people around the world 
think this is a wonderful place to live and a wonderful place to be.
  What is happening in our country? Well, we are a country that 
survived the Civil War and came out as one country. We survived the 
depression and went on to build the strongest economy in the world. We 
defeated Hitler, cured polio, and we put a person on the Moon. When you 
think of all the wonderful things we have done in this country and then 
understand there is a kind of mood in America that is a mood of 
dissatisfaction and concern, not about what is past because all of us 
understand that what we have done has been quite remarkable in the 
history of humankind, but the concern is about the future. Where are we 
headed? Where are we going? What kind of a country will we be in the 
future?
  There are several levels of that concern. One is about the declining 
standards and values in our country that people see. One is about crime 
and the increase in violence in our country and the concern about why 
that exists. But the other is about the issue of jobs. Will we have 
good jobs in our country? Under what circumstance will we have good 
jobs? There is not a social program in America--none that we talk about 
in the Senate or the House ever during the year--that is as important 
or as useful as a good job to an able-bodied person that wants to have 
a good job.
  A good job is the best social program in our country--a good job with 
good income. My ancestors came here from other countries because they 
saw that beacon of hope and opportunity in our country. They wanted to 
take advantage of it. They wanted a good job. They got good jobs and 
were able to give their children an education. That is what people in 
America want today. They are concerned because so many jobs in America 
seem to be moving elsewhere, and because the jobs that exist here seem 
to pay less money than they used to and have less security than they 
used to have.
  We do not have wages spiking up in America, except for the wages of 
CEO's. Yesterday there was a report in the newspaper in town that says 
the

[[Page S1651]]

average CEO salary of the large corporations of the country was up 23 
percent in 1 year--an average $4 million salary. But that is unusual 
because blue-collar workers are not keeping pace with inflation. In 
fact, 60 percent of the American families sit around the dinner table 
and talk about their lot in life, and they discover that after 20 years 
they are working harder and they have less income. If you adjust it for 
inflation, they have less income now than 20 years ago.
  Why is that the case? Why is it the case that we have jobs with lower 
income, with less security, and jobs that are moving from our country 
overseas?
  The chart behind me shows America's trade deficit. I am not going to 
speak about that today. That is for another time. I have already given 
that speech, in any event. But the trade deficit. The merchandise trade 
deficit last year was over $170 billion. What does that mean? It means 
we are buying more from other countries than they are buying from us. 
And we have a very substantial deficit. What it means is jobs that used 
to be here now are somewhere else. It means jobs are moving from 
America, from our country, to other countries. In fact, this chart 
shows foreign imports now take over one-half of U.S. manufacturing 
gross domestic product.
  Said another way, if you evaluate what it is we produce, manufacture 
in our country, and measure that to what we import from other 
countries, foreign imports now take one-half of U.S. manufacturing GDP. 
A fair portion of these foreign imports are goods made by American 
corporations in foreign countries to be shipped back for purchase by 
American consumers. Or said another way, there are American jobs that 
are now gone overseas somewhere, making the same products to ship back 
to Pittsburgh, Denver, Fargo, and Sacramento, to be bought by American 
consumers. They think it is a good deal. If you can get somebody 
working for 14 cents an hour in some foreign land to make your shoes, 
shirts, or pants, think of how cheap that is going to be for American 
consumers--not understanding, of course, that the jobs that used to 
exist here to produce those products for our people are now gone.

  This chart depicts jobs that used to be in America. To pick a few 
countries, U.S. jobs now in foreign affiliates of U.S. firms were 
nearly 70,000 in 1992; 53,000 in Hong Kong; 14,000 in Costa Rica; 
40,000 in Ireland, and it goes on and on.
  I pointed out yesterday that there are a lot of reasons for all of 
this, like global economics, in which corporations are redefining the 
economic model and saying, ``We want to produce where it is cheap and 
sell into an established market.'' That might be fine for them because, 
for them, that is profits. For the rest of the American people it is 
translated into lost jobs.
  The initiative I am offering in the Senate today has two purposes, 
one of which I have already introduced in a separate smaller piece of 
legislation. The first provision is to say let us start by stopping the 
bleeding. Let us decide we will not reward a tax break to companies 
which decide to shut their American plants down and move their U.S. 
jobs overseas. How do we do that? Here is an example: If we have two 
companies on the same street making the same product, owned by two 
Americans, in any American city in the country, and they are the same 
kind of company, make the same product, they may have the same 
profitability; the only difference is that one of them, on a Monday, 
decides, I am out of here, I am done, I am tired of having to pay a 
living wage to an American worker. I am tired of having to comply with 
air and water pollution laws. I am sick and tired of not being able to 
hire kids. I am tired of having to comply with these regulations that 
require my workplace to be safe. So I am escaping. I am shutting my 
door, getting rid of my workers, taking my equipment and capital and 
moving to a foreign country where I do not have to bother about 
pollution laws. I can dump whatever I want into the streams and air. I 
can hire 14-year-olds if I choose. I do not have to care about an 
investment in safety in the workplace. Most importantly, I can pay 14 
cents an hour, 25 cents an hour, or 50 cents an hour and increase my 
profitability.
  When that person, on a Monday, decides he is going to do that, and 
his plant closes, and the other person on the other end of the block 
making the same product stays here, what is the difference? The person 
that left our country to produce the same product and ship it back into 
our country and compete with the person that stayed gets a tax break.
  Our tax law says that if you leave this country, shut your plant 
down, move your jobs overseas, we will give you a deal. You get 
something called ``deferral.'' You can defer your income tax obligation 
on the profits you earned. In fact, you can defer them permanently, if 
you wish, and never pay taxes on that profit. You can invest those 
proceeds overseas and use profits to build more plants and create more 
jobs overseas. We will give you a deal. The American taxpayer tells you 
that you can get a big fat tax break.
  Well, no more. In fact, I tried to close that little thing last year, 
and 52 Members of the Senate cast a vote to say, ``No, we want to keep 
that tax break.'' I do not have the foggiest idea why they would think 
that. But I am going to give them a chance to think about it at least a 
dozen more times this year because we are going to vote and vote and 
vote on this provision until we decide to do the right thing. The right 
thing is to have a Tax Code that is at least neutral on the question of 
whether you ought to have your jobs in America or overseas.
  I am really flat tired of seeing a Tax Code that subsidizes the 
movement of American jobs abroad. Are there conditions under which 
people would move jobs abroad? Yes. Should we stop it? I do not think 
we can because we have a global economy. But should we subsidize it? 
No! It is totally ridiculous. Title I of my bill says let us stop this 
insidious tax loophole, stop the break that says we will reward you if 
you simply shut down your American plant and move your jobs to Mexico, 
Singapore, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, or you name it.
  Title II is also very simple: It says for those that create net new 
jobs in America, for those American companies that stay in America and 
create net new jobs in America, you get a 20 percent payroll tax credit 
on your income taxes for the first 2 years of that new job. Why am I 
doing that? Because I want to close the loophole that allows them to 
move their jobs overseas and get paid for doing it, and I want to 
create an incentive for people to create jobs here in this country.
  These people in this town who have this global notion that it does 
not matter where manufacturing exists, it does not matter where jobs 
are, are not thinking about the well-being of this country. This 
country does not exist by consumption figures alone. Every single month 
you drive to work, turn the radio on, guess what? There is some 
commentator telling us about our economic health. How do they describe 
our economic health? They say we consumed so much last month, we bought 
so much, sales were so high. So we measure now the economic health of 
America by what we consume. That is not what describes the economic 
health of my hometown or the economic health of my State or this 
country.
  Economic health in this country is described by what we produce--
manufacture, production. The genesis and source of wealth in this 
country is what does this country produce. Those who believe America 
will remain a long-term economic world power without a strong vibrant 
manufacturing economy have not studied the British disease of long, 
slow economic decline at the turn of the century when they decided it 
did not matter where manufacturing existed. This country had better 
start caring again about whether we have a productive sector, whether 
we have a strong manufacturing base, and whether we retain a broad 
network of good paying jobs in this country. That comes from the 
manufacturing sector.
  We spend our time in the Congress talking about almost everything 
except that which matters most to American families--jobs. Jobs and 
opportunity. You ask most people what they care about. They care about 
whether or not they have a decent job and they have an opportunity to 
make a living and support their family. Then they care about whether 
their kids are going to be able to find a decent job. Yes, along the 
way, whether they can get a

[[Page S1652]]

good education for their kids. Yes, whether their families are safe. 
Yes, whether they get decent health care. Those are the central issues 
for families. All of it is driven by do you have an opportunity to get 
a decent job.
  It ought not escape anybody's notice that as those who describe our 
economic circumstances in our country, these economists--and I guess I 
should make clear with truth in labeling that I taught economics in 
college for a couple of years part-time; I was able to overcome that 
and go on and do other things in life. The economists who have 
described for us an economic model in which they talk about how 
wonderfully healthy America's economy is because it is growing and it 
is moving ahead. Why? Because they talk about how much we are 
consuming--a fair amount, incidentally with debt, debt-assisted 
consumption, as opposed to manufacturing assisted by good investment. 
That is the difference.
  If we do not start moving to debate the central issue of what moves 
our economy ahead and what provides economic strength and vitality for 
American families, we are always, it seems to me, going to be on the 
end of a disconnection from the average American voter. They want us to 
be dealing with things that matter most in their lives. There is not 
much that is more important than the issue of will this economy of ours 
produce decent jobs in the future? Now, we can, as we have in the past, 
just hang around here and talk about all the other ancillary issues 
that do not matter very much, but if we do not decide that jobs matter 
and that our Tax Code that actually encourages people to move their 
jobs overseas, if we do not decide that desperately needs changes, we 
do not deserve to belong in this Chamber. We have to decide what the 
central issues for our country are.
  I think everybody in this country knows that we have lost some 3 
million manufacturing jobs in about a 5-to 8-year-period, at a time 
when we have increased by tens of millions the number of American 
citizens who live here. A good job base in the manufacturing sector is 
shrinking, our population is increasing. Opportunity is moving away. It 
is not too late. I think that what most of the American people would 
like us to do is put America's Tax Code on the side of America's 
workers and America's taxpayers, and not on the side of big 
corporations that will milk the Tax Code by moving jobs overseas 
instead of keeping jobs here at home.
  Mr. President, I will be introducing the legislation in the Senate 
today. I hope that some of my colleagues will join me. Again, I 
indicate that I fully intend that we will have repeated votes on this 
kind of legislation this year because I think it is central to the 
issue of what we ought to be doing.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GLENN:
  S. 1598. A bill to provide that professional sports teams relocating 
to different communities shall lose trademark protection with respect 
to team names, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                        the sports heritage act

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sports 
Heritage Act of 1996. This legislation addresses a problem faced by 
many communities after the loss of a professional sports team and is a 
companion to a bill I introduced in November, the Fans Rights Act.
  Simply, the Sports Heritage Act would allow a community to keep a 
professional team's name and colors in the event of a relocation. The 
only condition is that the team must have played at least 10 years in 
the community. The bill also says that the elected officials of a 
community can waive this right.
  Mr. President, relocation fever is sweeping American professional 
sports. At a record number, professional sports teams are abandoning--
or attempting to abandon--their host communities, often with little 
regard for the historical legacy of the team in its home city.
  The Sports Heritage Act gives communities some protection over that 
historical tradition. For example, the proposed team relocation which 
has truly shocked sports fans across the country is the Cleveland 
Browns' decision to move to Baltimore.
  Mr. President, I am not going to get into the specifics of that move 
or why it has shocked sports fans. But let me tell you a bit about the 
tradition of the Browns in Cleveland.
  The Cleveland Browns have been a symbol of undying and unwavering fan 
support for half-a-century. During the football season, Lakefront 
Municipal Stadium is packed to the rafters with Browns' fans rooting on 
their team. There have been glorious Browns' seasons and their have 
been not-so-glorious seasons. But one constant has been the fan 
support. And that support has been passed on from generation to 
generation.
  I am pleased that the deal between the city and the NFL will maintain 
the Browns' name and colors in Cleveland for a future team. Let's be 
honest, did anyone really think Baltimore Browns sounded right? Not 
only doesn't it sound right, it flies in the face of sports history in 
Cleveland, in Ohio, and the rest of America. The name Browns belongs to 
the rich sports tradition of northern Ohio and its right that the name 
and colors will stay.
  Another example is the Oakland Raiders. How many of us spent the last 
decade referring to the team as the Oakland Raiders instead of the Los 
Angeles Raiders? Or could you imagine other situations, such as the 
Orlando Yankees or the New Orleans Cubs? I'm not suggesting these two 
storied franchises are going to move, but I use the examples to stress 
how a team name can be woven into the fabric of a community's 
traditions.
  The Sports Heritage Act would permit communities that have long-
standing ties to a sports franchise, 10 or more years, to retain the 
team name for any future franchises. I think that's only fair.
  The current relocation fever in professional sports has brought about 
a great deal of attention in Congress. Fans and communities need more 
protection and I believe the Fans Rights Act will accomplish that. The 
Sports Heritage Act will help strengthen that protection and I urge all 
Senators to support this bill.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Mack):
  S. 1600. A bill to establish limitations on health plans with respect 
to genetic information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources.


                    the genetic fairness act of 1996

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today, Senator Mack and I are 
introducing a bill to do two things. It would--
  First, prohibit health insurers from conditioning the sale or terms 
of health insurance on genetic information of the insured or applicant 
for insurances; and
  Second, prohibit health insurers from requiring an applicant for 
insurance or an individual or family member presently covered to take a 
genetic test or to be subjected to questions relating to genetic 
history.
  Under this bill, an insurer could not engage in the following actions 
on the basis of any genetic information of an individual or family 
member or on the basis of an individual's or family member's request 
for or receipt of genetic services:
  Terminate, restrict, limit, or otherwise apply conditions to coverage 
of an individual or family member;
  Cancel or refuse to renew the coverage of an individual or family 
member;
  Deny coverage or exclude an individual or family member from 
coverage;
  Impose a rider that excludes coverage for certain benefits and 
services under the plan;
  Establish differentials in premium rates or cost sharing for coverage 
under the plan; or otherwise discriminate against an individual or 
family member in the provision of health care.
  Last fall, as cochairs of the Senate Cancer Coalition, Senator Mack 
and I held a hearing on the status and use of genetic tests. Witnesses 
testified about the great promise of genetic testing in predicting and 
managing a range of diseases. A considerable portion of illness derives 
from defects in one or more genes or the interplay of environmental and 
genetic factors.
  For example, approximately 3 percent of all children are born with a 
severe condition that is primarily genetic in origin. By age 24, 
genetic disease strikes 5 percent of Americans. Genetic disorders 
account for one-fifth of adult hospital occupancy, two-thirds of 
childhood hospital occupancy, one-

[[Page S1653]]

third of pregnancy loss, and one-third of mental retardation.
  About 15 million people are affected by one or more of the over 4,000 
currently identified genetic disorders. An even larger number are 
carriers of genetic disease. J. Rennie in the June 1994 Scientific 
American estimated that every person has between 5 and 10 defective 
genes though they often are not manifested. Indeed, we are all carrying 
around between 50,000 and 100,000 genes scattered on 23 pairs of 
chromosomes.
  In the past 5 years, there has been a virtual explosion of knowledge 
about genes. Scientists, including those at the Federal Human Genome 
Project, are decoding the basic units of heredity. We know that certain 
diseases have genetic links, including cancer, Alzheimer's disease, 
Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, and Lou 
Gehrig's disease. Altered genes play a part in heart disease, diabetes, 
and many other more common disease.
  While these important understandings hold great potential, they also 
present some serious problems. Witness after witness at our hearing 
discussed the potential and the reality of health insurance 
discrimination. They told us about insurers denying coverage, refusing 
to renew coverage, or denying coverage of a particular condition.
  In a 1992 study, the Office of Technology Assessment found that 17 of 
29 insurers would not sell insurance to individuals when presymptomatic 
testing revealed the likelihood of a serious, chronic future disease. 
Fifteen of 37 commercial insurers that cover groups said they would 
decline the applicant. Underwriters at 11 of 25 Blue Cross-Blue Shield 
plans said they would turn down an applicant if presymptomatic testing 
revealed the likelihood of disease. The study also found that insurers 
price plans higher--or even out of reach--based on genetic information. 
Another study conducted by Dr. Paul Billings at the California Pacific 
Medical Center, reached similar conclusions.
  Here are a few examples, real-life cases:
  An individual with hereditary hemochromatosis (excessive iron), who 
runs 10K races regularly, but who had no symptoms of the disease, could 
not get insurance because of the disease.
  An 8-year-old girl was diagnosed at 14 days of age with PKU 
(phenylketonuria), a rare inherited disease, which if left untreated, 
leads to retardation. Most States require testing for this disease at 
birth. Her growth and development proceeded normally and she was 
healthy. She was insured on her father's employment-based policy, but 
when he changed jobs, the insurer at the new job told him that his 
daughter was considered to be a high risk patient and uninsurable.
  The mother of an elementary school student had her son tested for a 
learning disability. The tests revealed that the son had fragile X 
syndrome, an inherited form of mental retardation. Her insurer dropped 
her son's coverage. After searching unsuccessfully for a company that 
would be willing to insure her son, the mother quit her job so she 
could impoverish herself and become eligible for Medicaid as insurance 
for her son.
  Another man worked as a financial officer for a large national 
company. His son had a genetic condition which left him severely 
disabled. The father was tested and found to be an asymptomatic carrier 
of the gene which caused his son's illness. His wife and other sons 
were healthy. His insurer initially disputed claims filed for the son's 
care, then paid them, but then refused to renew the employer's group 
coverage. The company then offered two plans. All employees except this 
father were offered a choice of the two. He was allowed only the 
managed care plan.

  A woman was denied health insurance because her nephew had been 
diagnosed as having cystic fibrosis and she inquired whether she should 
be tested to see if she was a carrier. After she was found to carry the 
gene that causes the disease, the insurer told her that neither she nor 
any children she might have would be covered unless her husband was 
determined not to carry the CF gene. She went for several months 
without health insurance because she sought genetic information about 
herself.
  These practices deny people health insurance. In the United States, 
40 million people or 15 percent have no health insurance. In 
California, it is 23 percent, translating to between 6 and 7 million 
people. If people with genetic conditions or predispositions cannot buy 
health insurance on the private market, they usually have nowhere to 
turn. To qualify for Medicaid, the primary public health insurance 
program for the nonelderly, families have to spend down or impoverish 
themselves. Having more uninsured people means that we all pay more, 
both for the public programs and for uninsured people arriving in 
hospital emergency rooms at the last minute with exacerbated 
conditions.
  Not only do these denials deprive Americans of health insurance, the 
fear of discrimination can have adverse health effects. For example, if 
people fear retaliation by their insurer, they may be less likely to 
provide their physician with full information. They may be reluctant to 
be tested. This reluctance means that physicians might not have all the 
information they need to make a solid diagnosis or decide a course of 
treatment.
  I hope Congress will begin to address this unfair insurance practice. 
After all, we are all just a bundle of genes. We are all at risk of 
disease and illness. This bill can help make health insurance available 
to many who need it and who want to buy it. I hope my colleagues will 
join me today in enacting this bill. 
                                 ______

      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Glenn, Mr. DeWine and Mr. Kohl):

  S. 1601. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
extend the deadline for and clarify the contents of the Great Lakes 
health research report, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


 THE AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY REAUTHORIZATION 
                              ACT OF 1996

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senators 
Glenn, DeWine, and Kohl, to reauthorize and extend an ongoing research 
effort examining human health effects of consuming Great Lakes fish 
that have been exposed to pollutants. Extensive, careful research is 
critical to sensible and cost-effective decisions on the steps needed 
to protect the Great Lakes environment.
  This research effort was originally authorized in the Great Lakes 
Critical Programs Act of 1990, which I authored. The effort is being 
led by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and is 
intended to help provide information on the human and ecological health 
effects of environmental contamination, particularly in the Great 
Lakes.
  Studies have indicated that humans are the final biological receptors 
for many toxic substances. One of the most obvious pathways of human 
exposure is fish consumption, since it is well documented that some 
pollutants of concern accumulate in fish, and fishing is a very popular 
pastime in the Great Lakes.
  Preliminary results from the first phase of this research indicate an 
association between consumption of contaminated fish and human body 
burdens of persistent toxic substances, including PCB's, 
organochlorines, and heavy metals such as mercury and lead. One ongoing 
study component of the overall project suggests that there is a 
positive connection between the amount of Lake Ontario fish consumed by 
mothers and adverse neurobehavioral effects in their children.
  The information being gathered through this research is crucial to 
making well-informed decisions about environmental protection in the 
Great Lakes. Its findings are extremely useful in the development of a 
uniform fish advisory for the entire Great Lakes, rather than the 
confusing system currently in place where each State warns anglers and 
consumers of slightly different hazards to health. This uniform 
approach's key components have received the endorsement of the Michigan 
Environmental Science Board. And, the data being gathered will help 
guide policymakers in addressing possibly one of the most challenging 
issues facing the Great Lakes region--contaminated sediments.
  As my colleagues may know, there are many areas of concern in the 
Great Lakes. These areas are frequently harbors or watersheds drainage 
areas that

[[Page S1654]]

have experienced significant industrial activity. The sediment in these 
areas has become contaminated with any number of persistent pollutants. 
Despite reductions in point source discharges, and projected decreasing 
emissions from air sources that deposit toxics in the Great Lakes, the 
reservoir of contaminants already in sediments will continue to degrade 
water quality and therefore increase opportunities for human exposure. 
We must continue our efforts to remove or treat these sediments, but we 
will need guidance from well-conducted, peer-reviewed scientific work 
like that provided by the ATSDR to prioritize our efforts. Also, I 
would like to once again strongly urge the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency to submit its very tardy report to Congress providing 
the results of a comprehensive national survey of aquatic sediment 
quality. This too is important data we need to attack the problem of 
contaminated sediments.
  Extending this research effort is necessary to help track the long-
term effects of pollutants on human health. This bill authorizes an 
extension until 1999 and requires an additional report to Congress at 
the conclusion of the research. Also, the bill clarifies the purpose of 
the research consistent with scientific recommendations and the 
preliminary study results.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that all my colleagues from the Great 
Lakes region and Senators representing other areas that suffer from 
water quality problems will join me in cosponsoring this bill. We need 
more means and data by which we can measure our environmental 
protection progress and efficiently target our limited resources. This 
research program is a small, but very important part of that effort. We 
cannot afford to make decisions without the information that is coming 
out of the ATSDR research. Our children's future depends on it.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in support for the 
reauthorization of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry's [ATSDR] study examining the connection between consumption 
of contaminated fish and human health.
  I am honored to join my colleagues, Senators Levin, Kohl, and DeWine, 
in the reauthorization of this study of immense importance to the 
people of the Great Lakes basin. I am also pleased that my Ohio 
colleague, Congressman LaTourette, and Congressman Oberstar have 
introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. That 
bill was successfully included in the House-passed Clean Water Act 
Reauthorization.
  As you may know, the Great Lakes States have fish advisories warning 
the public against consumption of certain fish at particular levels due 
to contamination. This bill would continue a research program designed 
to investigate and characterize the association between the consumption 
of contaminated Great Lakes fish and short- and long-term harmful human 
health effects. The ATSDR study develops a body of knowledge on 
exposure pathways, body burdens, and associated human health effects in 
defined at-risk populations. These populations include sport anglers, 
the urban poor, pregnant women and their children, native Americans, 
and elderly.
  This body of knowledge has a variety of potential and beneficial 
uses. Perhaps most importantly, it may be used to assist State and 
local agencies in developing fish advisories, remedial action plans, 
and lake-wide management plans. The study's findings may also increase 
general public awareness of the health implications of the toxic 
pollution in the lakes, and provide a study model for other human 
health research.
  Congress has recognized the merits of this human health effects 
research in the past. I thank my Great Lakes colleagues for their 
continued support in the effort to understand the impacts of consuming 
contaminated fish and hope others will recognize the merits of 
reauthorizing the ATSDR human health effects research.

                          ____________________