[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2422-S2431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JOHNSTON:
  S. 1627. A bill to designate the visitor center at Jean Lafitte 
National Historical Park in New Orleans, Louisiana as the ``Laura C. 
Hudson Visitor Center''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


       the laura c. hudson visitor center designation act of 1996

 Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a 
measure to designate the visitor center at 419 Rue Decatur in New 
Orleans, LA, as the ``Laura C. Hudson Visitor Center.''
  For almost 24 years I have been privileged to serve in the U.S. 
Senate. For some 20 of those years I have been blessed with the able 
assistance of Laura Hudson, who completed her Senate service last 
August, as my legislative director and indispensable right hand.
  In so many ways, Laura personifies the best tradition of Senate 
service--beginning in one capacity and growing into so many more. The 
young history postgraduate, who took a legislative-

[[Page S2423]]

correspondent position in my office in 1975, quickly grew beyond that 
and has been my invaluable counsel on a variety of legislative 
challenges over the years.
  There are parks and preservation projects, in Louisiana and beyond 
which exist solely because of the personal commitment and legislative 
skill of Laura Hudson, whole regions of the globe, such as Micronesia, 
routinely neglected by many in the Congress, receive a respect and 
recognition in Washington due heavily to Laura's devotion. That 
component closeup program, which brings hundreds of students and 
teachers each year from the former trust territories of Micronesia, is 
but one example of Laura's passion.
  Moreover, I am convinced that the relationship between our country 
and many of the developing and emerging economies, such as China, 
Vietnam, and Indonesia, profit in immeasurable ways from the 
understanding and leadership of staff persons such as Laura.
  This is a woman, Mr. President, who has forsaken many opportunities 
in the private sector because of a deep belief in the merits of public 
service, and a belief in the simple tenet that she could make a 
difference. More often than we acknowledge, it is the Laura Hudsons who 
made a qualitative difference in our daily work product. In honor of 
her unparalleled contributions, I am introducing this legislation 
today.
  I know that Laura will continue to contribute, as only she can, to 
public policy. But I will miss her in a way immediate and direct, as 
will so many of her longtime colleagues in the Senate. But I know they 
join me in expressing appreciation and best wishes as Laura enters an 
exciting new chapter of her life.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1627

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

     SECTION 1. LAURA C. HUDSON VISITOR CENTER.

       The visitor center at Jean Lafitte National Historical 
     Park, located at 419 Rue Decatur in New Orleans, Louisiana, 
     is hereby designated as the ``Laura C. Hudson Visitor 
     Center.''

     SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

       Any reference in any law, regulation, paper, record, map, 
     or any other document of the United States to the visitor 
     center referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the ``Laura C. Hudson Visitor Center''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. 
        Thurmond, and Mr. Helms):
  S. 1628. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, relating to 
the copyright interests of certain musical performances, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                      MUSIC LICENSING LEGISLATION

 Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that would 
lift a burden off of small businesses who currently pay fees to music 
licensing organizations under a complicated and cumbersome copyright 
law.
  Introduction of this legislation reflects what I consider a fair 
position. This bill acknowledges the different sides, and aims to reach 
a compromise position. This legislation comes after hours and hours of 
negotiations with different interests over the course of several 
months.
  Under current law, music licensing organizations are permitted to 
collect fees from those who play a radio or television in their 
commercial establishment. The music may be background music, or it may 
be music played at half-time during a football game. The music license 
fee applies to shoe stores, to diners, to shopping centers or any other 
business establishment.
  The artists who create this music certainly deserve compensation for 
their intellectual property. In fact, those artists are compensated for 
their labors. When a song is played over a radio or TV, the broadcaster 
pays for the rights to play that song. When we are at home, and we turn 
on the radio, we are not expected to pay a second fee. Yet, if a radio 
is played at a commercial establishment for no commercial gain, a 
second fee is charged for the music. This double-dipping smacks of 
unfairness.
  In addition, there is tremendous inequity in the way licensing 
companies assess these fees. The businesses are unable to see a list of 
the songs that are available for licensing. The businesses are unable, 
because of the market inequity, to bargain for a fair price. Instead, 
we have an anticompetitive environment where two or three licensing 
companies control almost all of the music available. Small businesses 
have two options: pay the preordained fee or turn off the radio or TV.
  The approach I have taken to address this problem aims at leveling 
this playing field. The legislation I am introducing would require the 
licensing companies to make a list of their repertory available so 
businesses can know what products they are paying for.
  The legislation would exempt small businesses from paying the fee for 
music played over radio and TV if a fee has already been paid. Where 
music has already been paid for by the broadcaster, the copyright owner 
has in fact been compensated.
  In addition, the legislation would establish arbitration to resolve 
disputes over fees. As it stands, if a retail store wishes to contest 
the fees paid to one of the licensing companies, they have to go to a 
court in New York. Moreover, full blown litigation in any case is often 
prohibitively expensive.
  The legislation would require the music licensing companies to offer 
per period programming licenses--in other words allow radio stations to 
purchase licenses for shorter time periods instead of 24 hours a day if 
they are only playing music in short spots between religious, news, or 
talk shows. I hope my colleagues will join me in leveling the playing 
field and will support this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of this bill from the 
National Federation of Independent Business, the National Religious 
Broadcasters, the National Restaurant Association, and the National 
Retail Federation be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 1996.
     Hon. Hank Brown,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brown: On behalf of the more than 600,000 
     members of the National Federation of Independent Business 
     (NFIB), I would like to express our support for your 
     compromise music licensing legislation. NFIB believes this 
     proposal will resolve many of the serious problems that exist 
     between the small business community and the music licensing 
     societies--ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.
       In a recent NFIB survey, more than 92 percent of small-
     business owners called for music licensing reform. The time 
     has come for fairness in music licensing.
       While your bill is different from S. 1137, it addresses 
     many of the issues that are of great importance to small 
     business owners. It allows small businesses to play 
     incidental music on radios and TV's without violating federal 
     copyright law. In addition, the measure gives small business 
     owners the right to arbitrate fee disputes in local forums 
     rather than forced to file a lawsuit in New York City. Many 
     small businesses across the country cannot afford the added 
     expense of traveling to New York City to dispute fees levied 
     by BMI or ASCAP. The legislation does protect the nine state 
     music licensing laws that have been enacted and the other 15 
     states with legislation pending.
       NFIB commends your efforts to fashion a workable compromise 
     and we look forward to working with you to enact music 
     licensing reform legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                             Donald A. Danner,

                                                   Vice President,
     Federal Governmental Relations.
                                                                    ____



                              National Religious Broadcasters,

                                     Manassas, VA, March 19, 1996.
     Hon. Hank Brown,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brown: On behalf of National Religious 
     Broadcasters, I want to commend you and Senators Thurmond, 
     Faircloth, Helms and Thomas for introducing legislation to 
     address the inequities and abuses in the current system for 
     licensing copyrighted music. Our organization, which 
     represents over 800 religious broadcast stations and program 
     providers, is grateful for your leadership and is prepared to 
     support you in any way possible to pass this bill in the 
     104th Congress.
       Legislation is badly needed to rectify the injustices 
     forced upon Christian radio by the entertainment licensing 
     monopolies, ASCAP and BMI. For years, our members who use 
     limited amounts of music in their programming have tried to 
     negotiate a fair license that would allow them to pay simply 
     for the music they play and not be charged as if they played 
     copyrighted works all day long.

[[Page S2424]]

     In the face of monopoly powers granted to ASCAP and BMI by 
     the federal government, and in the absence of clear 
     Congressional policy to guide competition in the licensing 
     arena, we find we have no leverage with which to negotiate a 
     fair ``per program license''. Your bill goes a long way 
     toward solving that problem.
       We also understand your bill will require the music 
     licensing monopolies to disclose in a practical and user-
     friendly way the songs for which they have the rights to 
     collect royalties, and it will not allow ASCAP, BMI or any 
     other licensing organization to bring infringement actions 
     against music users for songs that are not listed in their 
     publicly available data bases. These provisions, together 
     with an effective per program license, are critical to 
     establishing music licensing rules that bear some resemblance 
     to a free market system.
       In addition to our strong support for your bill, I also 
     urge you and your cosponsors to block any copyright-related 
     legislation in the Senate that does not incorporate music 
     licensing reforms. It would be unconscionable for Congress to 
     enact any measures that enhance the economic clout of the 
     music licensing monopolies without first correcting their 
     abusive business practices. In the view of religious 
     broadcasters, the current system essentially forces Christian 
     radio stations to indirectly subsidize immoral, violent and 
     sexually explicit entertainers--entertainers who reap 
     millions in royalties from the unfair blanket licenses small 
     religious broadcasters are forced to buy. Please see the 
     attached resolution passed by the NRB Board of Directors in 
     February in this regard.
       Thank you again for taking a stand for fairness in music 
     licensing. In doing so, you're also making a stand for the 
     positive, life-changing power of religious radio. The 
     millions of Americans whose lives are enriched every day by 
     religious broadcasts are watching this issue very carefully.
           Sincerely,
     E. Brandt Gustavson, L.L.D., President.
                                                                    ____



                                   National Retail Federation,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 1996.
     Hon. Hank Brown,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brown: On behalf of the National Retail 
     Federation and the 1.4 million U.S. retail establishments, I 
     am writing to support your compromise legislation to amend 
     federal copyright law to provide the nation's retailers with 
     protection against the arbitrary pricing, discriminatory 
     enforcement and abusive collection practices of music 
     licensing organizations.
       Retailers of all sizes, particularly smaller establishments 
     in your state, are confronted daily by costly and 
     unreasonable demands from music licensing organizations. 
     These organizations have monopoly power to set rates and 
     therefore, retailers are frequently asked to pay outrageous 
     and unfair licensing fees to play music which is only 
     incidental to the purpose of their business.
       Under your legislation, business establishments that use 
     radio or TV music with less than 5,000 square feet of public 
     space would be exempt from licensing fees as long as the 
     music was purely background or incidental to the purpose of 
     the business, and customers were not charged a fee to listen 
     to the music. While not all retailers are covered under this 
     compromise, we believe it represents significant progress. 
     Your bill also gives businesses the right to arbitrate fee 
     disputes in local forums rather than being forced to file 
     lawsuits in New York and requires music licensors to provide 
     consumers with full information about the music they are 
     purchasing.
       Thank you for your leadership on behalf of America's Main 
     Street. Your efforts and those of your staff to provide 
     relief are greatly appreciated. We look forward to working 
     with you to enact this legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                           John J. Motley III,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Government and Public Affairs.
                                                                    ____



                              National Restaurant Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 1996.
     Hon. Hank Brown,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brown: On behalf of the National Restaurant 
     Association and the 739,000 foodservice establishments 
     nationwide, we would like to express our support for your 
     compromise music licensing legislation. We believe this 
     proposal will resolve many of the serious problems that exist 
     between the business community and the music licensing 
     societies--ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.
       As you know, your legislation represents major concessions 
     by the business community and is different from S. 1137, the 
     Fairness in Musical Licensing Act of 1995. More importantly, 
     however, you measure addresses many of the issues that are of 
     great significance to restaurateurs throughout the country. 
     These include:
       Allowing for a logical expansion of current law to allow 
     small businesses to play incidental music on radios and TVs 
     without violating federal copyright law.
       Giving businesses the right to arbitrate fee disputes in 
     local forums rather than being forced to file a lawsuit in 
     New York City.
       Requiring music licensors to provide consumers with full 
     information on the product--the music--they are buying.
       All of this is done while protecting the nine state laws 
     that have been enacted and the other 15 states with 
     legislation pending. As you know, S. 1619, introduced by 
     Senator Hatch would preempt all state music licensing laws. 
     It also, in our opinion, fails to address the number of the 
     problems that exist with the societies including arbitration 
     and access to repertoire.
       Senator, as you know, restaurateurs from around the country 
     have faced harassment, frivolous lawsuits, and arbitrary and 
     onerous licensing fees. On behalf of the entire industry, we 
     want to thank you and your staff for the countless hours you 
     have devoted to reach a reasonable compromise. We fully 
     support your efforts and will work towards enactment of your 
     bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Elaine Graham,
                              Senior Director, Government Affairs.

                                                    Katy McGregor,
                               Legislative Representative.
                                 ______

      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Bennett, 
        Mr. Brown, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, 
        Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Grams, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hatch, 
        Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Kempthorne, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Smith, and 
        Mr. Thompson):
  S. 1629. A bill to protect the rights of the States and the people 
from abuse by the Federal Government; to strengthen the partnership and 
the intergovernmental relationship between State and Federal 
governments; to restrain Federal agencies from exceeding their 
authority; to enforce the 10th amendment to the Constitution; and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


               the 10th amendment enforcement act of 1996

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today, on behalf of 23 of my colleagues, 
as well as Governors, attorneys general, State legislators, and mayors 
across the Nation, I rise to introduce the 10th Amendment Enforcement 
Act of 1996.
  The 10th amendment was a promise to the States and to the American 
people that the Federal Government would be limited, and that the 
people of the States could, for the most part, govern themselves as 
they saw fit.
  Unfortunately, in the last half century, that promise has been 
broken. The American people have asked us to start honoring that 
promise again: to return power to State and local governments which are 
close to and more sensitive to the needs of the people.
  The 104th Congress and in particular, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act, started to shift power out of Washington by returning it to our 
States and to the American people. Today we continue that process.
  The 10th Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 will return power to the 
States and to the people by placing safeguards in the legislative 
process, by restricting the power of Federal agencies and by 
instructing the Federal courts to enforce the 10th amendment.
  The act enforces the 10th amendment in five ways:
  First, the act includes a specific congressional finding that the 
10th amendment means what it says: The Federal Government has no powers 
not delegated by the Constitution, and the States may exercise all 
powers not withheld by the Constitution;
  Second, the act states that Federal laws may not interfere with State 
or local powers unless Congress declares its intent to do so and 
Congress cites its specific constitutional authority;
  Third, the act gives Members of the House and Senate the ability to 
raise a point of order challenging a bill that lacks such a declaration 
or that cites insufficient constitutional authority. Such a point of 
order would require a three-fifths majority to be defeated;
  Fourth, the act requires that Federal agency rules and regulations 
not interfere with State or local powers without constitutional 
authority cited by Congress. Agencies must allow States notice and an 
opportunity to be heard in the rulemaking process;
  Fifth, the act directs courts to strictly construe Federal laws and 
regulations that interfere with State powers, with a presumption in 
favor of State authority and against Federal preemption.
  Before the bill was even introduced, I received letters of support 
from many Governors and attorneys general--men and women from across 
the Nation and from both parties who support our efforts to return 
power to the States and to the people.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
letters from Governors Allen, Bush,

[[Page S2425]]

Engler, Leavitt, Merrill, Racicot, Cayetano, and Thompson, and from 
Attorneys General Bronster, Condon, and Norton be included in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as the Supreme Court has stated,

     just as the separation and independence of the coordinate 
     branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the 
     accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy 
     balance of power between the States and the Federal 
     Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from 
     either front.

  The 10th Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 will prevent overstepping 
by all three branches of the Federal Government, and will focus 
attention on what State and local officials have been advocating for so 
long: the need to return power to the States and to the people.

                               Exhibit 1

                                S. 1629

       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 referred to as the ``Tenth Amendment 
     Enforcement Act of 1996.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (a) in most areas of governmental concern, State 
     governments possess both the Constitutional authority and the 
     competence to discern the needs and the desires of the People 
     and to govern accordingly;
       (b) Federal laws and agency regulations, which have 
     interfered with State powers in areas of State jurisdiction, 
     should be restricted to powers delegated to the Federal 
     Government by the Constitution;
       (c) the framers of the Constitution intended to bestow upon 
     the Federal Government only limited authority over the States 
     and the People;
       (d) under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the 
     powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
     reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;
       (e) the courts, which have in general construed the Tenth 
     Amendment not to restrain the Federal Government's power to 
     act in areas of State jurisdiction, should be directed to 
     strictly construe Federal laws and regulations which 
     interfere with State powers with a presumption in favor of 
     State authority and against Federal preemption.

     SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION.

       (a) On or after January 1, 1997, any statute enacted by 
     Congress shall include a declaration--
       (1) that authority to govern in the area addressed by the 
     statute is delegated to Congress by the Constitution, 
     including a citation to the specific Constitutional authority 
     relied upon;
       (2) that Congress specifically finds that it has a greater 
     degree of competence than the State to govern in the area 
     addressed by the statute; and
       (3) if the statute interferes with State powers or preempts 
     any State or local government law, regulation or ordinance, 
     that Congress specifically intends to interfere with State 
     powers or preempt State or local government law, regulation, 
     or ordinance, and that such preemption is necessary.
       (b) Congress must make specific factual findings in support 
     of the declarations described in this section.

     SEC. 4. POINT OF ORDER.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Information required.--It shall not be in order in 
     either the Senate or House of Representatives to consider any 
     bill, joint resolution, or amendment that does not include a 
     declaration of Congressional intent as required under section 
     3.
       (2) Supermajority required.--The requirements of this 
     subsection may be waived or suspended in the Senate or House 
     of Representatives only by the affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members of that House duly chosen and sworn. An 
     affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate 
     or House of Representatives duly chosen and sworn shall be 
     required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the chair 
     on a point of order raised under this subsection.
       (b) Rule Making.--This section is enacted--
       (1) as an exercise of the rule-making power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, and as such, it is deemed a 
     part of the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives, 
     but is applicable only with respect to the matters described 
     in sections 3 and 4 and supersedes other rules of the Senate 
     or House of Representatives only to the extent that such 
     sections are inconsistent with such rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the Constitutional right of 
     the Senate or House of Representatives to change such rules 
     at any time, in the same manner as in the case of any rule of 
     the Senate or House of Representatives.

     SEC. 5. EXECUTIVE PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 559 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 560. PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW.

       ``(a) No executive department or agency or independent 
     agency shall construe any statutory authorization to issue 
     regulations as authorizing preemption of State law or local 
     ordinance by rule-making or other agency action unless--
       ``(1) the statute expressly authorizes issuance of 
     preemptive regulations; and
       ``(2) the executive department, agency or independent 
     agency concludes that the exercise of State power directly 
     conflicts with the exercise of Federal power under the 
     Federal statute, such that the State statutes and the Federal 
     rule promulgated under the Federal statute cannot be 
     reconciled or consistently stand together.
       ``(b) Any regulatory preemption of State law shall be 
     narrowly tailored to achieve the objectives of the statute 
     pursuant to which the regulations are promulgated and shall 
     explicitly describe the scope of preemption.
       ``(c) When an executive branch department or agency or 
     independent agency proposes to act through rule-making or 
     other agency action to preempt State law, the department or 
     agency shall provide all affected States notice and an 
     opportunity for comment by duly elected or appointed State 
     and local government officials or their designated 
     representatives in the proceedings.
       ``(1) The notice of proposed rule-making must be forwarded 
     to the Governor, the Attorney General and the presiding 
     officer of each chamber of the Legislature of each State 
     setting forth the extent and purpose of the preemption. In 
     the table of contents of each Federal Register, there shall 
     be a separate list of preemptive regulations contained within 
     that Register.
       ``(d) Unless a final executive department or agency or 
     independent agency rule or regulation contains an explicit 
     provision declaring the Federal government's intent to 
     preempt State or local government powers and an explicit 
     description of the extent and purpose of that preemption, the 
     rule or regulation shall not be construed to preempt any 
     State or local government law, ordinance or regulation.
       ``(e) Each executive department or agency or independent 
     agency shall publish in the Federal Register a plan for 
     periodic review of the rules and regulations issued by the 
     department or agency that preempt, in whole or in part, State 
     or local government powers. This plan may be amended by the 
     department or agency at any time by publishing a revision 
     in the Federal Register.
       ``(1) The purpose of this review shall be to determine 
     whether and to what extent such rules are to continue without 
     change, consistent with the stated objectives of the 
     applicable statutes, or are to be altered or repealed to 
     minimize the effect of the rules on State or local government 
     powers.''.
       (b) Any Federal rule or regulation promulgated after 
     January 1, 1997, that is promulgated in a manner inconsistent 
     with this section shall not be binding on any State or local 
     government, and shall not preempt any State or local 
     government law, ordinance, or regulation.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding after the item for section 559 the following:

     ``Sec. 560. Preemption of State Law.''.

     SEC. 6. CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) No statute, or rule promulgated under such statute, 
     enacted after the date of enactment of this Act, shall be 
     construed by courts or other adjudicative entities to 
     preempt, in whole or in part, any State or local government 
     law, ordinance or regulation unless the statute, or rule 
     promulgated under such statute, contains an explicit 
     declaration of intent to preempt, or unless there is a direct 
     conflict between such statute and a State or local government 
     law, ordinance, or regulation, such that the two cannot be 
     reconciled or consistently stand together.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     ambiguities in this Act, or in any other law of the United 
     States, shall be construed in favor of preserving the 
     authority of the States and the People.
       (c) If any provision of this Act, or the application 
     thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the 
     validity of the remainder of the Act and the application of 
     such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not 
     be affected thereby.
                                                                    ____

                                                    State of Utah,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Salt Lake City, March 18, 1996.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Government Affairs Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent correspondence 
     sharing with me your proposal to strengthen the 10th 
     Amendment by requiring the federal government to restrict its 
     legislative and regulatory activities to those powers 
     delegated to it under the Constitution.
       As you know, I have spent a great deal of time over the 
     past few years working on 10th Amendment issues, and I am 
     very supportive of your proposed legislation. As I have 
     studied the history of the 10th Amendment, it has become 
     clear to me that we must act overtly to strengthen this 
     important precept of the Constitution, or it will continue to 
     erode away.
       Let me provide some background on why I believe this is so 
     important. The founders of our country attempted to carefully 
     balance power between the competing interests of the states 
     and the national government. They worried that the national 
     government might gain too much power, so they gave

[[Page S2426]]

     states tools, or rules, that if followed would maintain the 
     healthly tension necessary to protect self-governance by the 
     people and prevent any level of government from overstepping 
     its bounds.
       Among those rules or tools given to states were these:
       The 10th Amendment, which reserved any power not 
     specifically delegated to the national government to the 
     states and the people. Clearly, the founders intended the 
     national government to stay within the bounds of duties 
     enumerated in the Constitution.
       The election of U.S. senators by state legislatures. Having 
     senators directly accountable to state legislatures would 
     keep the national government in check. If the national 
     government centralized authority or passed bills disliked by 
     the states, legislatures could call their senators in for an 
     accounting. It would not be likely for the Congress to usurp 
     state authority if senators owed their political lives to 
     state legislatures. The power was carefully balanced and the 
     tension was healthy.
       The ability of state legislatures to initiate 
     constitutional amendments. This also would keep the national 
     government in check because if it got out of line the states 
     could take action to rein it in. It is clear that the 
     founders intended state leaders to have the ability to 
     initiate constitutional amendments.
       The sense that state leaders would rise in indignation and 
     band together to oppose congressional centralization of 
     authority and usurpation of power. In Federalist 46, James 
     Madison predicted that ``ambitious encroachments of the 
     federal government on the authority of the state governments 
     . . . would be signals of general alarm. Every government 
     would espouse the common cause . . . plans of resistance 
     would be concerted.'' States would react as though in danger 
     from a ``foreign yoke,'' he suggested.
       Those were some of the tools the founders put in place to 
     safeguard the roles of both levels of government and to 
     prevent either from becoming too dominant.
       It would likely be a matter of some bitterness and 
     disappointment to the founders if they were to return today 
     to see what happened to the finely-crafted balance, the 
     healthy tension that they built into the Constitution. As 
     they see a national government that dictates to states on 
     nearly every issue and that is involved in every aspect of 
     citizens' lives, they might wonder what happened to those 
     tools and rules they established to maintain balance.
       The sad fact is that each one of those tools has either 
     been eroded away, given away, or rendered impossible to use. 
     Thus, today there does not exist any restraint to prevent the 
     national government from taking advantage of the states. To 
     their credit, leaders of the Republican Congress have gone 
     out of their way to involve governors in important decisions. 
     But there is nothing permanent in that relationship. With a 
     change in leadership, state leaders could easily be relegated 
     to their past status as lobbyists and special interest 
     groups. Over the past several decades, they have had to 
     approach Washington hat in hand, hoping and wishing that 
     Congress will listen to them. There has been no balance of 
     power, no full partnership in a federal-state system. States 
     must accept whatever the Congress gives them. States have no 
     tools, no rules, ensuring them an equal voice.
       Let's look at what happened to those tools and rules the 
     founders so carefully provided to ensure balance.
       The 10th Amendment has been eroded to the point that in the 
     minds of most Washington insiders it barely exists. The 
     preponderance of congressional action and federal court 
     decisions over the past 60 years have rendered the 10th 
     Amendment nearly meaningless. It would barely be recognizable 
     by the founders. States did not defend or guard it properly 
     and it no longer protects states.
       States gave away the power to have their U.S. senators 
     directly accountable to state legislatures. There was good 
     reason for this, as graft and corruption sometimes occurred 
     in the appointment of senators by legislatures. States 
     ratified the 17th Amendment making senators popularly 
     elected, and citizens should not be asked to give up the 
     right to elect their senators. But while it does not make 
     sense to try to restore that tool, it should be replaced 
     with something else more workable.
       The ability of states to initiate constitutional amendments 
     has never been used and is essentially unworkable. Clearly, 
     the founders intended for state leaders to be able to 
     initiate amendments as a check on federal power, but it has 
     never happened and likely never will. The Congress sits as a 
     constitutional convention every day it is in session, and can 
     propose constitutional amendments any time it desires. But 
     many citizens have an enormous fear of state leaders coming 
     together to do the same thing, even though any amendment 
     proposed would require ratification by three-fourths of 
     states. Thus, this tool provided by the founders has become 
     impractical and does not protect states from federal 
     encroachment.
       The fourth tool was the founders' belief that state leaders 
     would jealously guard their role in the system and rise up in 
     opposition to federal intrusions. That has not happened, 
     especially as state governments have become dependent on 
     federal dollars and have been willing to give up freedom for 
     money. States have proven themselves to be politically 
     anemic. Instead of mobilizing against federal encroachments, 
     state leaders have spent their time lobbying for money and 
     hoping for flexibility.
       Thus, it is no wonder that states have little true clout as 
     budget cuts are made and as the pie is being divided in 
     Washington D.C. There is no healthy tension. States have no 
     tools or rules to protect themselves. What is passing for 
     federalism in Washington today is not a true sharing of 
     power, but a subcontracting of federal programs to states. 
     The federal government is merely delegating, not devolving 
     true authority.
       Because the tools protecting states have been rendered 
     ineffective, it is important that Congress replace them with 
     new versions that accomplish what the Founders intended. That 
     is why I am so supportive of your Tenth Amendment Enforcement 
     Act. It would help prevent all three branches of the federal 
     government from overstepping their constitutional authority 
     and would help restore the careful balance put in place by 
     the Founders.
       I thank you for your efforts to return power to the states 
     and to the people. Please count me among the supporters of 
     this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael O. Leavitt,
     Governor, State of Utah.
                                                                    ____

                                         Commonwealth of Virginia,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                   March 12, 1996.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Member, U.S. Senate, Chairman, Committee on Governmental 
         Affairs, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ted: Thank your for your letter regarding the Tenth 
     Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996.
       Two centuries ago, the challenge to individual liberty came 
     from an arrogant, overbearing monarchy across the sea. Today, 
     that challenge comes all too often from our own federal 
     government, which has ignored virtually every constitutional 
     limit fashioned by the framers to confine its reach and thus 
     to guard the freedoms of the people.
       In our day, the threat to self-determination posed by the 
     centralization of power in the nation's capital has been 
     dramatically demonstrated. Under my administration, Virginia 
     has challenged the constitutionality of federal mandates in 
     court, and I have testified before the Congress in support of 
     restoring powers to the States and the people.
       The legislation you are proposing will help the States and 
     the people regain prerogatives usurped by an overbearing 
     federal government. I wholeheartedly support your efforts and 
     would be pleased to work with you to highlight the impact of 
     federal intrusion in Virginia.
       With kind personal regards, I remain,
           Sincerely,
     George Allen.
                                                                    ____

                                                State of Michigan,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                      Lansing, MI, March 19, 1996.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: I am writing in support of the Tenth 
     Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996, which I understand you 
     intend to introduce this week. Congressional action of this 
     type is necessary to restore vigor to this often-neglected 
     provision of our constitution and I wholeheartedly support 
     your effort to do so.
       Congress has over the years run roughshod over state 
     concerns and prerogatives and has generally lost sight of the 
     fact that ours is a federal system of government. In that 
     system, the federal government has only those powers 
     specifically delegated to it and enumerated in the 
     constitution, with the balance remaining with the states or 
     the people. Too often in our recent history the federal 
     government has ignored the meaning of the Tenth Amendment in 
     a mad rush to impose a one-size-fits-all approach in areas of 
     traditional state and local concern. This approach stifles 
     innovation and takes the policy debate further from the 
     people by centralizing decision-making in Washington, D.C.
       A recent example of federal intrusion into a matter best 
     left to the states is the Motor Voter law, which imposes an 
     unfunded mandate on the states to offer voter registration 
     services at state social services offices. Michigan must 
     comply with this requirement even though nearly 90 percent of 
     its eligible population is already registered to vote. In 
     fact, Michigan demonstrated the states' superior ability to 
     craft innovative solutions in areas such as this when it 
     initiated the motor voter concept some 21 years ago by 
     offering voter registration services at Secretary of State 
     branch offices. The imposition of a federal ``solution'' in 
     this area ignores the fact that states are better positioned 
     to address the needs of their citizens and can do so without 
     prodding from the federal government.
       The Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 will help 
     restore the balance to our federal system that the framers of 
     the constitution intended. It will do so by requiring 
     congress to identify specific constitutional authority for 
     the exercise of federal power. This will have the salutary 
     effect of reminding the congress that it can legislate only 
     pursuant to an enumerated power in the constitution. 
     Requiring congress to state its intention to preempt existing 
     state or federal law or interfere with state power should 
     assist in limiting the intrusion the federal Motor Voter law 
     exemplifies.
       I recently offered amendments to the National Governors' 
     Association's policy on

[[Page S2427]]

     state-federal relations that the governors adopted at our 
     1996 winter meeting. That policy calls upon Congress to 
     ``limit the scope of its legislative activity to those areas 
     that are enumerated and delegated to the federal government 
     by the constitution.'' The Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 
     1996 will help reinvigorate this fundamental constitutional 
     principle and for that reason enjoys my full support.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Engler,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                           Office of the Governor,


                                             State of Montana,

                                        Helena, MT, March 6, 1996.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Stevens: I am writing in support of your 
     proposed legislation entitled the Tenth Amendment Enforcement 
     Act of 1996. I applaud your efforts to protect states from 
     federal legislation that, while perhaps unintentionally, has 
     had a strangling effect on the states' ability to act 
     effectively on behalf of their citizens.
       The failure to respect states' rights takes a variety of 
     forms, from unfunded mandates to complex requirements that 
     prohibit states from adopting innovative programs to solve 
     problems that may be unique to the state or region. I am sure 
     it is difficult to determine which functions the federal 
     government should properly manage and which should be left to 
     state or local governments. I think most would agree, 
     however, with the intent of the Tenth Amendment--that a 
     better balance must be struck between the federal government 
     and each of the states.
       The revitalization of government is essential in these 
     times of declining trust and diminishing respect of its 
     cities. The Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 would 
     make government more responsive to our citizens and help 
     restore the public's faith in the policy process.
       I hope your proposal is received well in Congress. I know 
     it would be received well in the states.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Marc Racicot,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                               State of Wisconsin,


                            Office of Federal/State Relations,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 1996.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Rules & Administration Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Stevens: I am writing you in support of 
     legislation that you intend to introduce in your committee 
     regarding the Tenth Amendment. Your vision in regard to this 
     delegation of powers should be commended. Our founding 
     fathers would applaud your courageous efforts.
       As you know, the Tenth Amendment restricts the federal 
     government's legislative and regulatory activities to those 
     powers delegated to the federal government under the U.S. 
     Constitution.
       Since I have held elective office I have always been a 
     staunch supporter of States Rights' and a firm believer that 
     decisions are best made at the local level. Your bill 
     identifies the problems associated with the lack of 
     enforcement of the Tenth Amendment at present and aims to 
     amend some of these inconsistencies.
       Under the Tenth Amendment, federal laws may not interfere 
     with state or local powers unless Congress declares its 
     intent to do so, and Congress cites its specific 
     constitutional authority. Allowing Members of Congress to 
     challenge future legislation that attempts to supersede the 
     Tenth Amendment in my opinion would be beneficial.
       As Governor of the State of Wisconsin, I have always been a 
     firm believer that legislation is a far better course of 
     action than litigation. Your bill would do away with needless 
     regulation, infringement of states' abilities to provide 
     quality services to its residents', and encourage local 
     decision making opportunities.
       The Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 would prevent 
     confusion between the three branches of government and would 
     keep the pressure on Washington to address the concerns 
     Governors have been advocating for years; the need to return 
     power to the states and to the people.
       Again, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you 
     for your support on this important legislative matter. Please 
     do not hesitate to contact me in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                Tommy G. Thompson,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                           State of New Hampshire,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Concord, NH, February 26, 1996.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senate, Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: Thank you for your letter outlining 
     your introduction of the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 
     1996. I am pleased to offer my strong endorsement of this 
     piece of legislation.
       The individual states have seen a continual degradation of 
     their power and sovereignty during the past 60 years. 
     Beginning with the creation of the welfare state through 
     President Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930's, the federal 
     government has inappropriately usurped power traditionally 
     left to the states. Issues such as education, crime, commerce 
     and the environment have been co-opted at the federal level. 
     The result is an erosion of local control and the creation of 
     a system of twisted rules and regulations. This 
     overregulation has stifled State initiatives and innovations. 
     The time has come to say enough is enough.
       In the State of New Hampshire, many examples exist of 
     federal overreaching. The most telling of these is our 
     continuing attempts at reforming welfare. Our ambitious 
     program would end welfare as we know it, putting people into 
     the workforce. It is based upon the simple notion that those 
     who are able to work for a living should do so. Instead of 
     collecting a welfare check, individuals would receive 
     unemployment benefits and job training. The result would be a 
     motivated workforce, properly trained and prepared to sustain 
     themselves instead of accepting government largesse. 
     Unfortunately, the federal government has gone out of its way 
     to hinder our efforts. New Hampshire is not alone in this 
     fight. Each state has a similar story to tell.
       Liberty is defined by American Heritage as the ``condition 
     of being free of restriction or control.'' It is clear that 
     this definition does not relate to our current set of 
     circumstances. The individual states are the engines of 
     democracy, pushing new and exciting concepts which enrich the 
     country as a whole. The states have been thwarted in their 
     efforts to accomplish this. The time has come to reassert the 
     authority of the Tenth Amendment and to return power back to 
     the states and to the individual where it belongs. I believe 
     that the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 will do this 
     and strongly support its passage.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Stephen Merrill,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                                   State of Texas,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                February 27, 1996.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: I strongly support your legislation, 
     the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996.
       I applaud your efforts and hope to see this bill's passage 
     this year.
           Sincerely,
     George W. Bush.
                                                                    ____

                                          State of South Carolina,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                     Columbia, SC, March 14, 1996.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: Please accept this letter as a pledge 
     of support for the Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996, 
     which you are introducing in the Senate. This is clearly one 
     of the most important pieces of legislation to come before 
     Congress this year.
       As attorney general of South Carolina, I see first-hand the 
     trouble that arises every time the federal government 
     oversteps its boundaries and intrudes on states' rights. In 
     fact, South Carolina can claim one of the most egregious 
     examples of the federal government meddling in states' 
     affairs with disastrous results.
       Several years ago, when I was a solicitor in Charleston, 
     S.C., a local hospital approached me with a plea: Help us do 
     something about crack babies. In increasing numbers, pregnant 
     women were abusing crack cocaine and giving birth to addicted 
     newborns, who cry and shake uncontrollably, refuse to take 
     food and, too often, ultimately die in intensive care.
       Working with the hospital, I developed a program to 
     aggressively confront pregnant women with the consequences of 
     their drug use. Over five years, we presented all pregnant 
     women who tested positive for cocaine with a choice: seek 
     drug treatment or face arrest and jail time.
       The program was undeniably successful--until the federal 
     government intervened. Without offering any reasonable 
     alternative solutions for saving these crack babies, federal 
     officials came to Charleston and yowled about discrimination 
     and privacy rights. When we refused to back down, they 
     resorted to blackmail. They continued with the program.
       So, now, once again, these crack babies cry unconsolably in 
     Charleston--thanks to the federal government's intrusion 
     where is has no business.
       There are myriad other examples of ways the federal 
     government ignores the 10th amendment--with effects that 
     would be laughable if they didn't do so much harm. A 
     sampling:
       The Hunley. The federal government claims it owns the H.L. 
     Hunley because it won the Civil War. However, the first 
     submarine to sink another vessel lies on soil that belonged 
     to the state of South Carolina even before the United States 
     came into existence. Although common and maritime law, as 
     well as state and federal statutes, point to South Carolina's 
     ownership of the sunken submarine, the federal government's 
     insistence on interfering in South Carolina affairs will cost 
     all of the nation's taxpayers. Worse, its meddling in this 
     matter has caused this war treasure to sit at the bottom of 
     the Atlantic Ocean, rusting away, until the issue can be 
     resolved with the federal government.
       The Citadel. Traditionally, education has been a province 
     of the states. And polls show

[[Page S2428]]

     that the majority of South Carolinians--both male and 
     female--want the option of single-gender education offered by 
     The Citadel. But the federal government thinks it knows 
     what's best for South Carolinians and is trying to destroy an 
     outstanding educational environment that South Carolinians 
     overwhelmingly support.
       Tobacco regulation. The Food and Drug Administration is 
     trampling on states' turf with its new proposals for 
     regulating cigarettes and chewing tobacco. Perhaps its 
     silliest demand is that all advertising label cigarettes as 
     ``a nicotine-delivery device.'' The fact is, Congress has not 
     given the FDA power to regulate tobacco except in limited 
     instances. Everything else is up to the states--at least, 
     it's supposed to be. We know the laws in South Carolina, and 
     we can enforce them without Washington's ``help.''
       Garnishment of wages. The federal government is threatening 
     to sue South Carolina for not complying with a federal law 
     that authorizes the garnishment of wages of people who get 
     behind on student loans. The problem is, the law contains no 
     express provision applying its terms to state government. In 
     fact, its language attempts to override state laws 
     altogether. It provides no clear direction to state 
     governments, but now we're faced with the possibility of 
     defending South Carolina in a suit.
       Motor Voter. South Carolina is one of seven states to 
     challenge the ``Motor Voter'' law that allows people to 
     register to vote when they obtain a driver's license. The 
     issue is not easy and accessible registration; we already 
     have that in place. The issues are the rights of sovereign 
     states and unfunded federal mandates. The federal government 
     demanded that South Carolina spend a million dollars to 
     expand its voter registration program--without giving the 
     state a dime. Then, when we began to implement the program, 
     the Justice Department demanded that the state contact all 
     the people who theoretically could have registered while we 
     were in litigation. And it ordered a monthly report on our 
     progress. This micro-management of state business by the 
     federal government should be an outrage to all U.S. citizens.
       In closing, the legislation you are proposing promises a 
     meaningful solution to the federal government's continued 
     disregard of the 10th Amendment. Count me in as an 
     enthusiastic supporter of the bill, and let me know of 
     anything I can do to promote its passage.
           With kindest personal regards,
                                            Charles Molony Condon,
     Attorney General.
                                                                    ____

                                                  State of Hawaii,


                           Department of the Attorney General,

                                      Honolulu, HI, March 4, 1996.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senator, Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: As the Attorney General for the State 
     of Hawaii, I am writing to express my strong support for the 
     Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 1996 (``TAEA'').
       There have been far too many instances in which federal 
     laws impede, interfere with, or nullify state legislative or 
     administrative actions to the detriment of the interests of 
     the people of Hawaii. This has occurred in large part because 
     the federal courts have given much congressional legislation 
     very broad preemptive scope, in many cases far beyond what it 
     appears Congress itself intended. These preemption rulings 
     have prevented the states from enforcing and implementing 
     needed state policies in areas of traditional state concern, 
     while at the same time failing to serve any significant 
     federal interests.
       In my fourteen month tenure as Attorney General of Hawaii, 
     examples of important state policies which were frustrated by 
     preemption rulings made by the federal courts include the 
     striking down of Hawaii's employment disability 
     discrimination laws as applied to airline pilots, see Aloha 
     Islandair v. Tseu, Civ. No. 94-00937 (D. Haw. 1995), appeal 
     filed, C.A. No. 95-16656 (9th Cir.), the overturning of state 
     labor department discretion to bar preexisting condition 
     limitations in state-wide employee health care plans, 
     Foodland Super Market v. Hamada, Civ. No. 95-00537 (D. Haw. 
     1996), appeal filed (9th Cir.), and the nullification of a 
     state law merely asking the State's two major newspapers, 
     granted the privilege of doing business under a joint 
     operating agreement with antitrust immunity, to turn over 
     their tax returns to the state Attorney General, for 
     subsequent disclosure to the United States Justice 
     Department, in order to assess the economic consequences of, 
     and the newspapers' continued need for, the antitrust 
     immunity, see Hawaii Newspaper Agency v. Bronster, Civ. No. 
     95-00635 (D. Haw. 1996), appeal filed, C.A. No. 96-15142 (9th 
     Cir.).
       Enactment of the TAEA would be a significant step in 
     reversing this disturbing trend, and would help restore state 
     direction over areas of predominant, if not exclusive, state 
     concern. Under the TAEA (Section 6), preemption would only 
     occur when Congress has explicitly stated that a given area 
     is preempted. This would curtail the potentially unlimited 
     sweep of the ``implied preemption'' doctrine, and ideally 
     result in a more narrowly construed ``express preemption.''
       Although certain provisions of the TAEA may pose procedural 
     difficulties, or raise some questions of interpretation, I 
     support the overall effect of, and goals behind, the TAEA, 
     and specifically endorse Section 6, which would do much to 
     minimize unwarranted preemption of state actions. I would, 
     however, broaden the language of Section 6(a) to clarify that 
     federal law shall not preempt ``State or local government 
     law, ordinance, regulation, or action,'' unless the statute 
     explicitly declares an intent to preempt. This should ensure 
     that all types of state action, including, for example, state 
     discretionary administrative actions not commanded by any 
     rule or statute, are not preempted without express 
     congressional statement of intent to do so.
       Thank you for your support of these critical state 
     interests.
           Very truly yours.
                                              Margery S. Bronster,
     Attorney General.
                                                                    ____

         State of Colorado, Department of Law, Office of the 
           Attorney General,
                                       Denver, CO, March 15, 1996.
     Re Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act

     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stevens: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for the proposed Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act of 
     1996. The proposal is an important part of the continuing 
     effort to return to the States matters which properly belong 
     within their control.
       Every state has a vast number of examples of federal laws 
     and regulatory actions which have interfered with state 
     powers and objectives. I will mention just a few examples 
     from Colorado.
       The federal government has been especially intrusive into 
     state affairs in the area of the environment. The country 
     faces many environmental problems, from our quality problems 
     to hazardous waste cleanups. The states are diligently 
     working to solve these problems, while taking into account 
     local needs and concerns. Federal interference with state 
     efforts often results in less protection to the environment 
     and less experimentation by the states.
       For example, in 1994, Colorado passed legislation which was 
     intended to encourage businesses to perform voluntary audits 
     of their environmental compliance and to promptly correct any 
     violations found. In exchange for these voluntary efforts, 
     state regulators will not impose penalties for the 
     violations. This program, which will be of great benefit to 
     the environment, is severely hampered by the federal 
     Environmental Protection Agency's refusal to give the same 
     assurances, that is, to refrain from prosecuting companies 
     that voluntarily report and correct violations.
       Another example of EPA hindering state efforts at 
     experimentation concerns Colorado's attempts to put in place 
     a unique water quality testing program. Colorado was one of 
     the first states to attempt to employ a different 
     biomonitoring test. Rather than encouraging these efforts, 
     EPA continuously rejected Colorado's regulation implementing 
     the program until the state rule was drafted to be word-for-
     word like a comparable federal regulation.
       Another example in the area of the environment concerns air 
     quality. Our state has been developing strategies to deal 
     with air quality issues for years. But our problems and 
     solutions are unique since Colorado is a high elevation 
     state. A federal ``one size fits all'' approach does not work 
     here. The Environmental Protection Agency's answer--a 
     centralized emissions testing program--has created large 
     implementation costs and reduced state flexibility in 
     addressing pollution problems. Even though Colorado drivers 
     will expend hundreds of millions of dollars in testing costs 
     over the next few years, State officials have no practical 
     alternatives if the program does not work or if better 
     solutions are discovered.
       Another example of federal intrusion into matters of state 
     concern arose recently in Colorado with regard to the 
     Medicaid program. As you know, Congress' 1993 change to the 
     Hyde Amendment made federal funds available for abortions 
     terminating pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, but 
     did not require that States pay for any abortions. However, 
     an official at the federal Health Care Financing 
     Administration wrote a letter concluding that states must pay 
     for the disputed abortions. Based solely upon this letter, 
     and without any change in federal statutes or regulations, 
     several federal appellate courts have required States to pay 
     for these procedures, notwithstanding state laws to the 
     contrary.
       Colorado state officials are in an impossible dilemma 
     because our state constitution forbids the use of public 
     funds to pay for these procedures. To avoid violating the 
     state constitution but still be consistent with federal 
     mandates, state officials must either (1) withdraw from the 
     Medicaid program and forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars 
     in federal funds, thereby denying thousands of low income 
     Colorado residents access to needed medical care or (2) face 
     contempt citations from federal judges. This problem could 
     have been avoided if federal officials clearly understood 
     their own responsibility to protect state prerogatives.
       The federal ``motor voter'' law presents a different type 
     of intrusion. This law doesn't treat States just like the 
     private sector, it actually imposes special burdens simply 
     because they are States. As the Supreme Court recognized in 
     Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112

[[Page S2429]]

     (1970), it is peculiarly the right of States to establish the 
     qualifications of voters in state elections. In the absence 
     of a constitutional violation such as an outright denial of 
     the right to vote, the States should have control over voter 
     registration. This sort of unfunded mandate is simply not 
     justified, particularly since even though this law 
     unquestionably interferes with the States' internal 
     affairs, it has not appreciably increased turnout at the 
     polls.
       The Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act helps turn the tide in 
     favor of State prerogatives. Particularly noteworthy is the 
     proposal's focus upon agency rulemaking. This is important in 
     two respects. First, many of the most intrusive instances of 
     federal preemption come not by virtue of congressionally-
     enacted legislation, but through extensive regulations 
     promulgated by administrative agencies and expanding upon the 
     congressional authorization.
       Second, statutes seeking to limit subsequent congressional 
     enactments are of limited efficacy, since each subsequent 
     Congress is not bound by the acts of its predecessors. 
     However, focusing upon the regulatory process does not 
     present this problem. My only suggestion would be to include 
     a review or sunset provision requiring every agency to ensure 
     that all of its current rules comply with this new 
     requirement by some date certain, or risk having them 
     invalidated. This would ensure that agencies review the 
     numerous existing federal regulations currently impinging 
     upon Tenth Amendment values--which is, after all, what led to 
     this proposal.
       I appreciate your willingness to carry this proposal 
     forward, and encourage you to continue your efforts to 
     restore a proper balance in our federal system.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gale A. Norton,
                                        Colorado Attorney General.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 1630. A bill to prevent discrimination against victims of abuse in 
all lines of insurance; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


             the victims of abuse insurance protection act

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined 
by Senator Ron Wyden today in introducing the Victims of Abuse 
Insurance Protection Act, legislation that will outlaw discrimination 
by insurance companies against the victims of domestic violence in all 
lines of insurance.
  With this legislation, we are trying to correct an abhorrent practice 
by many insurance companies--the denial of coverage to battered women. 
It is plain, old fashioned discrimination. It is profoundly unjust and 
wrong. And, it is the worst of blaming the victim. Denying women access 
to the insurance they require to foster their mobility out of an 
abusive situation must be stopped.
  There are many stories of women who have been physically abused and 
have sought proper medical care only to be turned away by insurance 
companies who said they were too high risk to insure.
  In Minnesota, three insurance companies denied an entire women's 
shelter insurance because, ``as a battered women's shelter, we were 
high risk.'' The Women's Shelter in Rochester, MN, was told that it was 
considered uninsurable because its employees are almost all battered 
women.
  Another shelter in rural Minnesota purchased a car so that women and 
children in danger who were trying to leave an abusive situation could 
use this anonymous vehicle and thus the abuser could not track their 
automobile to find them. The shelter could not find a company to 
provide them with automobile insurance once the companies knew of the 
risks surrounding battered women.
  A woman in Iowa named Sandra was denied life insurance after the 
company found out that she had been beaten up twice. In one incident, 
she had been so badly beaten by an ex-boyfriend that her cheekbones 
were splintered, and one of her eyes had to be put back in its socket. 
Her mother, Mary, was the one who originally applied for the life 
insurance policy, explaining

       I didn't ask for a lot of coverage. I just wanted to apply 
     for thousand dollar coverage, just enough that if something 
     happened, God forbid, that we could at least bury her.

  Mary was angry about the denial, so she wrote to State officials and 
the Iowa Insurance Commissioners Office tried to intervene on their 
behalf. In four separate letters, the insurance company officials 
stated they denied the coverage because of a history of assaults. In 
one letter they defended their decision by citing numerous documents 
which showed that people involved in domestic violence incidents are at 
a higher risk of death and injury than others, and, therefore, not a 
good risk.
  There are so many stories about victims of domestic abuse being 
denied fire insurance, homeowners insurance, life insurance, and health 
insurance--denied because they were victims of a crime. Domestic 
violence is the leading cause of injury to women, more common than auto 
accidents, muggings, and rapes by a stranger combined. It is the No. 1 
reason that women go to emergency rooms.
  This bill goes a long way toward treating domestic violence as the 
crime that it is--not a voluntary risky behavior that can be easily 
changed and not as a preexisting condition. Insurance company policies 
that deny coverage to victims only serve to perpetuate the myth that 
victims are responsible for their abuse.
  In order to address the practice of insurers using domestic violence 
as a basis for determining whom to cover and how much to charge with 
respect to health, life, disability, homeowners and auto insurance, 
this legislation prohibits insurance companies from discriminating 
against victims in any of the following ways: Denying or terminating 
insurance; limiting coverage or denying claims; charging higher 
premiums; or terminating health coverage for victims of abuse in 
situations where coverage was originally issued in the abuser's name, 
and acts of the abuser would cause the victim to lose coverage.
  This legislation also keeps victims' information confidential by 
prohibiting insurers from improperly using, disclosing, or transferring 
abuse-related information for any purpose unrelated to the direct 
provision of health care services.
  Mr. President, insurance companies should not be allowed to 
discriminate against anyone for being a victim of domestic violence. We 
may never know the full extent of the problem, but it is grossly unfair 
practice and should be prohibited.
  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. 1630

       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 ``Victims of Abuse Insurance 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) The term ``abuse'' means the occurrence of one or more 
     of the following acts between household or family (including 
     in-laws or extended family) members, spouses or former 
     spouses, or individuals engaged in or formerly engaged in a 
     sexually intimate relationship:
       (A) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly, or 
     recklessly causing another person bodily injury, physical 
     harm, substantial emotional distress, psychological trauma, 
     rape, sexual assault, or involuntary sexual intercourse.
       (B) Engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly 
     committing acts toward another person, including following 
     the person without proper authority and under circumstances 
     that place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or 
     physical harm.
       (C) Subjecting another person to false imprisonment or 
     kidnapping.
       (D) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly, or 
     recklessly causing damage to property so as to intimidate or 
     attempt to control the behavior of another person.
       (2) The term ``abuse-related medical condition'' means a 
     medical condition which arises in whole or in part out of an 
     action or pattern of abuse.
       (3) The term ``abuse status'' means the fact or perception 
     that a person is, has been, or may be a subject of abuse, 
     irrespective of whether the person has sustained abuse-
     related medical conditions or has incurred abuse-related 
     claims.
       (4) The term ``health benefit plan'' means any public or 
     private entity or program that provides for payments for 
     health care, including--
       (A) a group health plan (as defined in section 607 of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) or a 
     multiple employer welfare arrangement (as defined in section 
     3(40) of such Act) that provides health benefits;
       (B) any other health insurance arrangement, including any 
     arrangement consisting of a hospital or medical expense 
     incurred policy or certificate, hospital or medical service 
     plan contract, or health maintenance organization subscriber 
     contract;

[[Page S2430]]

       (C) workers' compensation or similar insurance to the 
     extent that it relates to workers' compensation medical 
     benefits (as defined by the Federal Trade Commission); and
       (D) automobile medical insurance to the extent that it 
     relates to medical benefits (as defined by the Federal Trade 
     Commission).
       (5) The term ``health carrier'' means a person that 
     contracts or offers to contract on a risk-assuming basis to 
     provide, deliver, arrange for, pay for or reimburse any of 
     the cost of health care services unless the person assuming 
     the risk is accepting the risk from a duly licensed health 
     carrier.
       (6) The term ``insured'' means a party named on a policy, 
     certificate, or health benefit plan as the person with legal 
     rights to the benefits provided by the policy, certificate, 
     or health benefit plan. For group insurance, such term 
     includes a person who is a beneficiary covered by a group 
     policy, certificate, or health benefit plan.
       (7) The term ``insurer'' means any person, reciprocal 
     exchange, interinsurer, Lloyds insurer, fraternal benefit 
     society, or other legal entity engaged in the business of 
     insurance, including agents, brokers, adjusters, and third 
     party administrators. The term also includes health carriers, 
     health benefit plans, and life, disability, and property and 
     casualty insurers.
       (8) The term ``policy'' means a contract of insurance, 
     certificate, indemnity, suretyship, or annuity issued, 
     proposed for issuance or intended for issuance by an insurer, 
     including endorsements or riders to an insurance policy or 
     contract.
       (9) The term ``subject of abuse'' means a person to whom an 
     act of abuse is directed, a person who has had prior or 
     current injuries, illnesses, or disorders that resulted from 
     abuse, or a person who seeks, may have sought, or should have 
     sought medical or psychological treatment for abuse, 
     protection, court-ordered protection, or shelter from abuse.

     SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATORY ACTS PROHIBITED.

       (a) In General.--No insurer or health carrier may, directly 
     or indirectly, engage in any of the following acts or 
     practices on the basis that the applicant or insured, or any 
     person employed by the applicant or insured or with whom the 
     applicant or insured is known to have a relationship or 
     association, is, has been, or may be the subject of abuse:
       (1) Denying, refusing to issue, renew or reissue, or 
     canceling or otherwise terminating an insurance policy or 
     health benefit plan.
       (2) Restricting, excluding, or limiting insurance or health 
     benefit plan coverage for losses as a result of abuse or 
     denying a claim incurred by an insured as a result of abuse, 
     except as otherwise permitted or required by State laws 
     relating to life insurance beneficiaries.
       (3) Adding a premium differential to any insurance policy 
     or health benefit plan.
       (4) Terminating health coverage for a subject of abuse 
     because coverage was originally issued in the name of the 
     abuser and the abuser has divorced, separated from, or lost 
     custody of the subject of abuse or the abuser's coverage has 
     terminated voluntarily or involuntarily and the subject of 
     abuse does not qualify for extension of coverage under part 6 
     of subtitle B of title I or the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1161 et seq.) or 4980B of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Nothing in this paragraph 
     prohibits the insurer from requiring the subject of abuse to 
     pay the full premium for the subject's coverage under the 
     health plan. The insurer may terminate group coverage after 
     the continuation coverage required by this paragraph has been 
     in force for 18 months if it offers conversion to an 
     equivalent individual plan. The continuation of health 
     coverage required by this paragraph shall be satisfied by any 
     extension of coverage under part 6 of subtitle B of title I 
     or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1161 et seq.) or 4980B of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 provided to a subject of abuse and is not intended to be 
     in addition to any extension of coverage provided under part 
     6 of subtitle B of title I or the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1161 et seq.) or 4980B of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (b) Use of Information.--
       (1) In general.--No insurer may use, disclose, or transfer 
     information relating to an applicant's or insured's abuse 
     status or abuse-related medical condition or the applicant's 
     or insured's status as a family member, employer or 
     associate, person in a relationship with a subject of abuse 
     for any purpose unrelated to the direct provision of health 
     care services unless such use, disclosure, or transfer is 
     required by an order of an entity with authority to regulate 
     insurance or an order of a court of competent jurisdiction or 
     by abuse reporting laws. Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed as limiting or precluding a subject of abuse from 
     obtaining the subject's own medical records from an insurer.
       (2) Authority of subject of abuse.--A subject of abuse, at 
     the absolute discretion of the subject of abuse, may provide 
     evidence of abuse to an insurer for the limited purpose of 
     facilitating treatment of an abuse-related condition or 
     demonstrating that a condition is abuse-related. Nothing in 
     this paragraph shall be construed as authorizing an insurer 
     or health carrier to disregard such provided evidence.

     SEC. 4. REASONS FOR ADVERSE ACTIONS.

       An insurer that takes any adverse action relating to any 
     plan or policy of a subject of abuse, shall advise the 
     subject of abuse applicant or insured of the specific reasons 
     for the action in writing. Reference to general underwriting 
     practices or guidelines does not constitute a specific 
     reason.

     SEC. 5. LIFE INSURANCE.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a life 
     insurer from declining to issue a life insurance policy if 
     the applicant or prospective owner of the policy is or would 
     be designated as a beneficiary of the policy, and if--
       (1) the applicant or prospective owner of the policy lacks 
     an insurable interest in the insured; or
       (2) the applicant or prospective owner of the policy is 
     known, on the basis of police or court records, to have 
     committed an act of abuse.

     SEC. 6. SUBROGATION WITHOUT CONSENT PROHIBITED.

       Except where the subject of abuse has already recovered 
     damages, subrogation of claims resulting from abuse is 
     prohibited with the informed consent of the subject of abuse.

     SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Federal Trade Commission.--The Federal Trade Commission 
     shall have the power to examine and investigate any insurer 
     to determine whether such insurer has been or is engaged in 
     any act or practice prohibited by this Act. If the Federal 
     Trade Commission determines an insurer has been or is engaged 
     in any act or practice prohibited by this Act, the Commission 
     may take action against such insurer by the issuance of a 
     cease and desist order as if the insurer was in violation of 
     section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Such cease and 
     desist order may include any individual relief warranted 
     under the circumstances, including temporary, preliminary, 
     and permanent injunctive and compensatory relief.
       (b) Private Cause of Action.--An applicant or insured 
     claiming to be adversely affected by an act or practice of an 
     insurer in violation of this Act may maintain an action 
     against the insurer in a Federal or State court of original 
     jurisdiction. Upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance 
     of the evidence, the court may award appropriate relief, 
     including temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive 
     relief and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the 
     costs of suit and reasonable fees for the aggrieved 
     individual's attorneys and expert witnesses. With respect to 
     compensatory damages, the aggrieved individual may elect, at 
     any time prior to the rendering of final judgment, to recover 
     in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages in 
     the amount of $5,000 for each violation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PELL:
  S. 1631. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Extreme, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                coastwise trading privileges legislation

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that 
the vessel Extreme, official No. 1022278, be accorded coastwise trading 
privileges and be issued a coastwise endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12106 
through 12108.
  The Extreme is 70.9 feet in length, 18 feet in breadth, has a depth 
of 10.8 feet, and is self-propelled.
  The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the 
Extreme to engage in coastwise trade and fisheries of the United 
States. When the owners purchased the boat, they were unaware of the 
coastwise trade and fisheries restrictions of the Jones Act. They 
assumed that there would be no restrictions on engaging the vessel in 
such limited operation. Although the vessel was constructed in North 
Carolina, it was built for a foreign customer; thus it did not meet the 
coastwise license endorsement in the United States. Such documentation 
is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended 
purpose.
  The owners of the Extreme are therefore seeking a waiver of the 
existing law because they wish to engage the vessel in limited 
commercial use. Their desired intentions for the vessel's use will not 
adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If they are 
granted this waiver, it is their intention to comply fully with U.S. 
documentation and safety requirements.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
my statement be printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1631

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

     SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 883),

[[Page S2431]]

     section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, chapter 
     421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106 through 12108 of 
     title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation 
     may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate 
     endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
     vessel EXTREME, United States official number 1022278.

                          ____________________