[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3216-S3228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1655. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide, 
with respect to research on breast cancer, for the increased 
involvement of advocates in decision making at the National Cancer 
Institute; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 1656. A bill to permit individuals to continue health plan 
coverage of services while participating in approved clinical studies; 
to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                       BREAST CANCER LEGISLATION

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce two important pieces of 
legislation which promise to be of great significance to women with 
breast cancer: the Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act 
of 1996, and the Improved Patient Access to Clinical Studies Act of 
1996.
  Breast cancer is a national health crisis of enormous proportions. 
Each year, breast cancer strikes approximately 182,000 women, resulting 
in 46,000 deaths. It has become the most common form of cancer and the 
second leading cause of death among American women. An estimated 2.6 
million women in the United States are living with breast cancer, 1.6 
million have been diagnosed with the disease, and an estimated 1 
million women do not yet know they have breast cancer.
  Some 1 out of 8 women in our country will develop breast cancer in 
her lifetime, up from one out of 14 in 1960. In fact, this year, a new 
case of breast cancer will be diagnosed every 3 minutes, and a woman 
will die from breast cancer every 11 minutes.
  Breast cancer is a crisis that has tragically claimed the lives of 
almost 1

[[Page S3217]]

million women of all ages and backgrounds since 1960. It has become the 
leading cause of death for women age 40 to 44, and the leading cause of 
cancer death in women age 25 to 54.
  In 1994, 900 Maine women were diagnosed with breast cancer. This is 
the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer among Maine women, and 
represents more than 30 percent of all new cancer among women in Maine.
  Over the past few years, we have made significant gains in funding 
for breast cancer research. In fiscal year 1991, Congress spent $92.7 
million on breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health. 
By fiscal year 1995, spending had increased to $308.7 million. 
Moreover, the Department of Defense has received $460 million over the 
past 3 years to undertake breast cancer research.
  However, funding alone is not enough. We must work to ensure that the 
most worthy and innovative projects are pursued and funded. This means 
funding projects which victims of breast cancer believe are important 
and meaningful to them in their fight to live with this disease.
  Over the past 3 years, the Department of Defense has included lay 
breast cancer advocates in breast cancer research decision making. The 
involvement of these breast cancer advocates has helped foster new and 
innovative breast cancer research funding designs and research 
projects. While maintaining the highest level of quality assurance 
through peer review, breast cancer advocates have helped to ensure that 
all breast cancer research reflects the experiences and wisdom of the 
individuals who have lived with the disease. In addition, breast cancer 
advocates provide a vital educational link between the scientific and 
lay communities.
  My bill, the Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act of 
1996, urges the National Institutes of Health to follow the DOD's lead. 
It urges NIH to include breast cancer advocates in breast cancer 
research decision making, and to report on progress that the Institute 
is making next year.
  I believe that this legislation provides the critical next step in 
making breast cancer research more responsive to the needs of millions 
of American women living with breast cancer.
  But it is not the only step we need to take. People suffering from 
diseases with no known cure often have access to the latest, most-
innovative therapies only through clinical trials. This is often the 
case for women with breast cancer. Yet insurance companies regularly 
deny coverage for such treatments on the basis that they are 
experimental or investigational.
  As a result, many patients who could benefit from these potentially 
life-saving investigational treatments do not have access to them 
because their insurance will not cover the costs. Denying reimbursement 
for these services also impedes the ability of scientists to conduct 
important research, by reducing the number of patients who are eligible 
to participate in clinical trials.
  The second bill I am introducing today, the Improved Patient Access 
to Clinical Studies Act of 1996, addresses this problem. This bill 
would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for services 
provided to individuals participating in clinical trials, if those 
services would otherwise be covered by the plan. This bill would also 
prevent health plans from discriminating against enrollees who choose 
to participate in clinical trials.
  Mr. President, March is Women's History Month. We should take this 
opportunity to celebrate the important gains we have made over the past 
few years in the area of women's health research. At the same time, we 
must also recognize how far we still have to go. I believe that the 
bills I have introduced today represent continued progress in the fight 
against breast cancer, and I urge my colleagues to support them.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 1658. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
improved access to quality long-term care services and to provide 
incentives for the purchases of long-term care insurance, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                the family choice in long-term care act

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the graying of America means 
significant changes for our Nation's families. Traditionally, a family 
member, most likely a wife or daughter, has cared for an ailing spouse 
or parent at home. However, today's pressures of work, child-rearing, 
and family mobility greatly restrict the ability of adult children to 
administer to the day-to-day needs of a chronically ill parent. In 
addition, the rigors of home-based care can have a debilitating impact 
on the health and well-being of a caring spouse.
  Few families are fully prepared for the physical, emotional, or 
financial demands of long-term care. For too many, this difficult 
journey begins with a unexpected jolt from a sudden accident, the death 
of a spouse or parent, or the diagnosis of a debilitating, long-term 
illness.
  As America's population ages, the need for long-term care increases. 
In 1993, almost 33 million Americans were over the age of 65, and by 
2011, the elderly population is estimated to number close to 40 
million. While the opportunity for a happy and healthy retirement is 
better than ever, an October 1995 long-term care survey by Harvard/
Harris revealed that 1 in 5 Americans over age 50 is at high risk of 
needing long-term care during the next 12 months.
  Today, a variety of long-term care services are available, from help 
in cleaning one's home and getting groceries to skilled nursing care 
with 24-hour supervision. However, the means to pay for long-term care 
are still very limited and the expense can be overwhelming. For 
example, $59 billion was spent on nursing home care for the elderly in 
1993, and 90 percent was covered by out-of-pocket payments and 
Medicaid.
  The cost of paying out-of-pocket for 1 year in a nursing home is more 
than triple a senior's average annual income. Long-term care expenses 
put a lifetime of work and investment at risk. To gain Medicaid 
coverage, seniors must spend down their assets in order to meet State 
eligibility requirements. While Medicare takes care of hospital costs 
and home care, it provides only limited coverage for short-term stays 
in skilled nursing facilities.
  The medical side of long-term care has seen enormous advances over 
the years in new technologies, facilities, treatment methods, and even 
psychological studies of the effects of long-term care on patients. But 
the financing side of long-term care has simply failed to keep up, and 
as a result it is ill-prepared for seniors' future needs. Today, 
private insurance pays for less than 2 percent of long-term care costs. 
As Federal mandates for Medicaid coverage have increased, States have 
attempted to contain costs by restricting services for the elderly. 
State-imposed caps on the number of Medicaid-sponsored nursing home 
beds has separated families from their loved ones because the only 
Medicaid beds available were hundreds of miles away from their 
community. Most disturbingly, the remaining assets of a deceased 
elderly couple can be tapped through an estate recovery action to 
compensate the State for the couple's Medicaid expenses.
  Since 1990, Medicaid expenditures for long-term care have been 
increasing by almost 15 percent annually, causing costs to double every 
5 years. Medicaid's service as the sole long-term care safety net for 
middle class seniors may seriously impair the program's ability to 
serve the underprivileged. While low-income families accounted for 73 
percent of Medicaid's beneficiaries in 1993, nearly 60 percent of 
expenditures went to nursing home care and other long-term care 
services. For example, in 1993, Kentucky's Medicaid spending per 
enrollee for children was $964; while the cost for elderly 
beneficiaries was $6,540. Without relief, a harsh battle between 
generations may emerge.

  Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Choice in Long-
Term Care Act, a bill that would alleviate dependence on Medicaid by 
enabling families and seniors to plan ahead for their long-term care 
needs. Currently, our tax code does not define long-term care as a 
medical expense. My proposal would end this discrimination and allow 
long-term care expenses and policy premiums to be tax deductible.
  Like health care insurance, payments under long-term care insurance 
would not be taxable when received. Children would be able to purchase 
policies on behalf of their parents. In

[[Page S3218]]

addition, employer-based plans would be treated like accident or health 
policies. Individuals could convert a life insurance contract in favor 
of a long-term care policy without suffering a tax penalty. Under my 
bill, terminally or chronically ill patients could receive accelerated 
death benefits to pay for their long-term care needs. And my 
legislation would also permit qualified withdrawals from individual 
retirement accounts of 401(k) plans for the purchase of a long-term 
care policy.
  Interest in long-term care insurance is growing. According to the 
American Health Care Association, the average growth rate in long-term 
care policy sales has averaged 27 percent annually since 1987. In 1993 
alone, a total of 3.4 million insurance policies were sold. A study 
conducted by the research firm of Cohen, Kumar & Wallack found that it 
is not just higher-income seniors who are interested in long-term care 
insurance. The study showed that 30 percent of surveyed long-term care 
policy-holders earned less than $20,000 annually.
  While tax clarifications will make long-term care plans more 
affordable to seniors and families, attention must be paid to assure 
investment quality and security. My proposal would establish the 
National Long-Term Care Insurance Advisory Council to advise Congress 
on the market's development and promote public education on the 
necessity of long-term care planning and the options available. The 
bill also outlines consumer protection standards for policies as 
recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
  Finally, my proposal would require the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to develop and distribute a summary of recommended health care 
practices to Medicare beneficiaries. As always, prevention is the first 
step in curtailing the demand for high-cost medical care.
  While there has been a great deal of rhetoric about tax cuts lately, 
long-term care tax clarification benefits everyone. Seniors can invest 
in a quality long-term care plan without fear of losing everything they 
own, and families will have access to the support they feel is most 
appropriate for their loved ones.
  In addition, Medicaid will continue to provide long-term care 
services for seniors in need. A 1994 study published in Health Affairs 
estimates that Medicaid would save $8,000 to $15,500 on each nursing 
home entrant who held a long-term care policy. Also, the probability of 
a senior's spending down to Medicaid eligibility would be reduced by 40 
percent. Private long-term care insurance would preserve the medical 
safety net for seniors and benefit other Medicaid recipients, 
particularly low-income children and the disabled.
  Mr. President, in sum, private long-term care insurance translates 
into quality, flexible care for seniors, more Medicaid funds for low-
income families and the disabled, and essential support for families 
who want their loved ones to be safe and secure. These are priorities 
that all Members of Congress share. We should not miss this opportunity 
to help America's families prepare for the challenges of long-term 
care.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 1659. A bill to declare a portion of Queens County, New York, to 
be nonnavigable waters of the United States, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


           the queens-west waterfront development act of 1996

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, with my esteemed 
colleague Senator D'Amato, a bill to eliminate an impediment to an 
important economic development project in Queens. The Queens West 
development is 12 years in the making. Construction of the first 
apartment tower should create 1,000 construction jobs, and the entire 
project should ultimately create 14,000 construction jobs and 10,000 
permanent jobs. This in a county with unemployment two points higher 
than the State average.
  With the financial parties ready to go to closing this month, the 
title search turned up an impediment that threatens to make the entire 
project uninsurable, and therefore untenable. A portion of the 
development would be built on an area that in the last century was on 
the watery side of the historical high water mark of the East River. 
Since then it has been filled, bulkheaded, or otherwise developed. The 
Federal Government, however, retains the right of navigational 
servitude, which means the Government can condemn the area because it 
is still navigable in law, if not in fact.
  The only solution is for Congress to declare the area nonnavigable. 
This bill does so. The declaration of nonnavigability would apply only 
to areas that ``will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied by 
permanent structures or other physical improvements''--including 
parklands. The declaration would expire in 20 years if the area is not 
occupied by permanent structures.
  Mr. President, I believe this is a commonsense effort to allow an 
important project to go forward. We will not need to resume navigating 
this portion of the East River. We do need the economic development 
that the Queens West project will bring. Senator D'Amato and I ask for 
the support of our colleagues.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1659

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

     SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF NONNAVIGABILITY FOR PORTION OF 
                   QUEENS COUNTY, NEW YORK.

       (a) Description of Nonnavigable Area.--Subject to 
     subsections (b) and (c), that portion of Long Island City, 
     Queens County, New York, which is not submerged and lies 
     between the existing southerly high water line of Anable 
     Basin (also known as the 11th Street Basin) and the existing 
     northerly high water line of Newtown Creek and extends from 
     the existing high water line of the East River to the 
     original high water line of the East River is declared to be 
     nonnavigable waters of the United States.
       (b) Requirement That Areas Be Improved.--
       (1) In general.--The declaration of nonnavigability under 
     subsection (a) shall apply only to those portions of the 
     areas described in subsection (a) that are or will be 
     bulkhead, filled, or otherwise occupied by permanent 
     structures or other permanent physical improvements 
     (including parklands).
       (2) Applicability of federal law.--The work to meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) shall be subject to applicable 
     Federal laws, including--
       (A) sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899, commonly 
     known as the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 
     U.S.C. 401 and 403);
       (B) section 404 of the Federal Water pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1344); and
       (C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (43 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (c) Expiration Date.--The declaration of nonnavigability 
     under subsection (a) shall expire with respect to a portion 
     of an area described in subsection (b), if that portion--
       (1) is not filled or otherwise occupied by a permanent 
     structure or other permanent physical improvement (including 
     parkland) in accordance with subsection (b) by the date that 
     is 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) requires work described in subsection (b)(2) that is 
     subject to a permit under an applicable Federal law, and that 
     work is not commenced by the date that is 5 years after the 
     date of issuance of that permit.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Moynihan, in introducing legislation that will allow 
for the commencement of a project of immense economic significance in 
the city of New York and the Borough of Queens. This project, which has 
been named Queens West, will produce a myriad of waterfront apartment 
buildings, parkland, hotel, and commercial space and will create 14,000 
construction jobs as well as 10,000 permanent jobs. This ambitious 
project will rejuvenate this section of New York and add to its 
vitality for countless generations to come.
  As I am sure many of my colleagues can understand, there is a great 
deal of excitement about the Queens West project. However, with the 
parties ready to close, a single issue has emerged that could delay the 
financing and disrupt the timing of this project. Some of the land upon 
which Queens West is to be built falls within the historic, 
unobstructed high water mark of the East River that was established in 
the 1800's. However, a bulkhead has since been established in this 
particular area and industrial development has occurred there for many 
years.

[[Page S3219]]

 Nevertheless, this area still remains defined as ``navigable in law'' 
which allows the Federal Government to retain a right to navigational 
servitude. Because of this glitch, the project may not be insurable and 
may not therefore commence in a timely fashion.
  The legislation that Senator Moynihan and I are introducing will 
rectify this situation. Simply, it will declare this portion of the 
land nonnavigable and thus take the property out of navigational 
servitude. Should no permanent structure be built on this site within 
20 years, the area reverts to its current status. Once this bill is 
passed, the Borough of Queens and indeed all of New York will receive a 
vital economic boost. This legislation is identical to H.R. 2987, which 
Congressman Tom Manton introduced in the House of Representatives, and 
enjoys support from State and city officials.
  Mr. President, the thousands of jobs, the housing, the recreational 
opportunities, and the commercial benefits created by the Queens West 
project are urgently needed. I urge my colleagues to join Senator 
Moynihan and I in supporting speedy passage of this legislation.
                                       

      By Mr. GLENN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Moynihan, 
        Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        D'Amato, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 1660. A bill to provide for ballast water management to prevent 
the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species into the waters of 
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


               the national invasive species act of 1996

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the National 
Invasive Species Act of 1996 with my colleagues Senators Leahy, 
Jeffords, Moynihan, Sarbanes, Johnston, Inouye, Mikulski, and Levin. 
This act is a reauthorization and expansion of the Nonindigenous 
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. I am pleased that 
my Ohio colleague, Congressman LaTourette and 18 of his colleagues in 
the House of Representatives also are introducing this act today.

  Picture a pollution spill in the waters of your region that simply 
will not go away. Government and industry teams work to disperse it 
with chemicals and mechanical barriers, but as soon as the treatments 
stop, the pollution resurges. Worse yet, the spill spreads and 
concentrates in connecting water ways, and is further seeded by 
unintentional transport overland. Municipalities, manufacturers, and 
agriculture experience degraded water supplies and higher operating 
costs. Shell fisheries and fin fisheries permanently decline.
  This scenario seems like a nightmare, yet it closely approximates the 
result of unintentional releases of nonindigenous species, or 
biological pollution, into U.S. waters. As a Senator from the Great 
Lakes region, where we spend many millions of dollars annually to 
battle sea lamprey and zebra mussel infestations, I can attest that 
such biological spills can and do happen, their impacts on the 
receiving system are additive, and the resource degradation is 
permanent.
  As shown in the display map, the zebra mussel, a native species of 
eastern Europe, has spread throughout the United States from the Great 
Lakes where it was unintentionally introduced in ballast water of 
commercial vessels around 1986. Wherever it becomes established, the 
zebra mussel threatens both economic and environmental well-being. It 
clogs intake pipes, fouls drinking water, and covers swimming beaches 
with sharp shells. The zebra mussel also has led to the loss of many 
highly valued native species of freshwater mussel in both the Great 
Lakes and the Mississippi River.
  I remember when Allegra Cangelosi, who is with me on the floor today, 
first came into my office and talked about zebra mussels in the 1980's. 
She had a bottle of these critters and set them on my desk and said, 
``Here is what they are.'' And they multiply--each zebra mussel lays 
about 30,000 eggs a year. Eggs that are laid early in the season mature 
into adult zebra mussels by the end of the season.
  Zebra mussels and other nonindigenous species can survive in ballast 
water transported into our nations waters largely because we now have 
faster sea transportation. Ironically, some of our own waters in this 
country are cleaner, allowing the species to become established.
  The Great Lakes are not the only entryway for invasive species into 
U.S. waters. Last week, I hosted a National Forum on Nonindigenous 
Species Invasions of U.S. and Fresh Waters in cooperation with the 
Northeast-Midwest Institute. At the day long event, experts and natural 
resource stakeholders from around the country cited invasion impacts in 
just about all of America's fresh and marine waters. Biodiversity and 
economic well-being are suffering due to invasions of nonindigenous 
species in San Francisco Bay, the Pacific Islands, the Gulf of Mexico, 
the Mississippi River, the Northeast and Southeast Atlantic coasts, the 
Great Lakes, and Lake Champlain.
  In 1990, I authored and gained enactment of the Nonindigenous Aquatic 
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act to begin to address the tremendous 
problem of unintentional invasions of aquatic species into the Great 
Lakes and other U.S. waters. The 1990 act consisted of two basic parts: 
One which focused on prevention of new introductions of species into 
the Great Lakes by the ballast water of vessels; and the other which 
established a national program of prevention, monitoring, management, 
and control of invasive species already established in U.S. waters. 
All of the many vectors of aquatic species transfers fell under the 
purview of this portion of the act. Most of the revisions contained in 
the bill which I am introducing today with my Senate and House 
colleagues pertain to the prevention portion of the program.

  With respect to prevention, the 1990 act focused on ballast water of 
vessels. This water is the leading vector for unintentional transfers 
of nonindigenous species into United States waters. Ships carry ballast 
water to maintain trim when they are empty or partially empty of cargo. 
They discharge this water at their ports of call. Currently, there is 
practically nothing to prevent the uptake, transfer, and discharge of 
organisms along with that water.
  An estimated 21 billion gallons of ballast water from vessels from 
foreign ports is discharged into U.S. waters each year. That's 58 
million gallons per day, and 2.4 million gallons per hour. This ballast 
water contains just about everything and anything that was in the 
harbor from which the water was drawn. It is estimated that 3,000 
species of aquatic organisms are in transit in ballast tanks around the 
world in any given 24-hour period. Most of these organisms will come to 
nothing in the receiving ports, but any one of them could cause 
billions of dollars of damage. It's a huge gamble. Even human cholera 
is transported unintentionally in ballast water and has been detected 
in ships visiting Mobile Bay and the Chesapeake, among other regions.
  Fortunately, a ballast management practice known as high seas ballast 
exchange greatly reduces the transfers of dangerous organisms through 
ballast water. This technique is not applicable in all circumstances; 
it cannot be employed in stormy weather and with some types of vessels. 
However, where it can be employed safely, it results in a substantial 
reduction in the risk of invasive species transfers. It is for this 
reason that the Australian Government among other nations, and the 
International Maritime Organization, already encourage ballast 
management practices for commercial vessels.
  The 1990 law included a voluntary ballast management program for the 
Great Lakes which automatically became regulatory in 1992. The act 
assigned the Coast Guard the task of consulting with the maritime 
industry and Canada to develop voluntary guidelines, conducting 
education and outreach, and, after 2 years, promulgating regulations to 
help reduce the probability of new introductions of alien species by 
commercial vessels into the Great Lakes.
  The 1990 act also included several studies to help build information 
on the threat and impacts of ballast discharge on other U.S. waters. 
These studies, now complete, provide strong evidence that unmitigated 
ballast water exchange is a serious economic and environmental threat 
in regions

[[Page S3220]]

outside the Great Lakes. In particular, the biological study conducted 
pursuant to the act found that a new species of aquatic organism 
invades San Francisco Bay every 12 weeks. Serious risks of invasion to 
the Chesapeake Bay and Florida coasts have also been documented. A crab 
which is the host of a dangerous human parasite has been found in 
United States waters within the Gulf of Mexico, fortunately not yet 
established.
  In light of this information, and based on the successful experience 
with the Great Lakes voluntary ballast management program, my 1996 
proposal establishes a national voluntary ballast management program to 
begin to address concerns of other United States coastal regions. The 
Coast Guard is directed to issue voluntary ballast management 
guidelines for all vessels visiting U.S. ports after operating outside 
the exclusive economic zone. Consistent with the Great Lakes program, I 
want to stress, Mr. President, that this program puts safety first. The 
guidelines will protect the safety of vessel and crew, whatever that 
may entail, including waiving the requirement where necessary.
  While there will be no penalty against vessels which do not 
participate in the national program, record keeping by vessels 
to document participation is required. In the interest of maintaining a 
level playing field, the Coast Guard has authority to issue the same 
guidelines as regulations in regions where a review of ship records 
reveals poor cooperation with the voluntary approach. Importantly, the 
maritime industry would see only one set of rules nationally. However, 
over time, there may be enforcement mechanisms associated with the 
guidelines in certain regions. Of great interest to the Great Lakes 
community, the successful Great Lakes regulatory program remains in 
place. For better prevention of invasions in the future, a ballast 
water management demonstration program is established in the Act. This 
project will demonstrate promising ballast technologies and practices 
to prevent the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species through 
ballast water.

  Other changes to the 1990 program which are contained in our National 
Invasive Species Act of 1996 include: First, the authorization of 
research in several coastal regions--including the Chesapeake Bay, Lake 
Champlain, the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico--which are at 
particular risk of degradation by species invasions; second, voluntary 
guidelines to help recreational boaters to prevent unintentional 
transfer of zebra mussels; and third, provisions to encourage more 
regions to set up coordinating panels and develop State management 
plans for invasive species prevention and control. Though now much 
broader in scope, I am proud to announce that the overall cost of the 
National Invasive Species Act of 1996 does not exceed that of the 1990 
law.
  I would like to close by pointing out that species invasions that 
originate anywhere on the continent have the potential to affect all of 
us. Once established on the North American continent nonindigenous 
invasive organisms will make their way to the far reaches of their 
potential range. Just as the zebra mussel has expanded its range from 
the Great Lakes to the entire Mississippi River and has been found on 
recreational vessels entering California, the east coast marine 
resources could be harmed by invasions on the west coast and vice-
versa. Moreover, biological pollution of U.S. waters, so far, has not 
had serious public health implications. But the 1992 transfer of human 
cholera from South American ports to the shellfish beds of Mobile Bay 
via ballast water of commercial vessels reminds us that our luck may 
not hold forever. It is in everyone's interest to improve our Nation's 
precautions against invasions of aquatic nuisance species. Mr. 
President, I will ask unanimous consent that an updated version of a 
Northeast-Midwest Economic Review article be printed in the Record 
following my remarks. This article provides further background on the 
context, history, and content of the National Invasive Species Act.
  I am personally quite excited about the progress that we can make in 
protecting the economy, the environment, and the biodiversity of our 
coasts through passing the National Invasive Species Act this year. 
Unusual in the environmental arena, this issue offers us low-hanging 
fruit and bipartisan enthusiasm. I am grateful to my colleagues, 
Senators Leahy and Sarbanes for authoring legislation last year which 
helped draw attention to the national scope of the invasive species 
problem, and to my other colleagues for joining us in support of the 
National Invasive Species Act. I look forward to working closely with 
them to gain its enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the text of the bill be printed in the Record, along with the article 
previously mentioned.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Biological Invasions: Congress Takes a Second Look

 (By Allegra Cangelosi, Senior Policy Analyst of the Northeast-Midwest 
                              Institute,)

 [From an Updated Version of an Article That Appeared in the Northwest-
                Midwest Economic Review, September 1995]

       Five years into implementation of the Nonindigenous Aquatic 
     Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA), there 
     is new awareness of the magnitude of the exotic species 
     problem and the difficulty of the management task. As 
     Congress prepares to reauthorize the Act, it faces pressure 
     to broaden the prevention program to include coastal areas in 
     addition to the Great Lakes, while keeping the burdens of 
     regulation to a minimum.


                    The Life and Times of NANPCA '90

       In 1989 and 1990, the zebra mussel infestation of the lower 
     Great Lakes exploded before the startled eyes of the region's 
     natural resource managers and industrial water users. Mussel 
     encrustation of intake pipes shut-down the Monroe, MI city 
     water supply for two-days, bringing the impact of the zebra 
     mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) directly to the homes of basin 
     residents. Meanwhile, a population of Eurasian ruffe 
     (Gymnocephalus cernuus), a small forage fish native to 
     Eastern Europe, staged in Duluth/Superior Harbor, preparing 
     for an all but inevitable migration from the cold waters of 
     Lake Superior to the more habitable lower Great Lakes.
       For fishery and biodiversity experts, the appearance of 
     both the zebra mussel and the ruffe implied permanent 
     degradation of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Over time, the two 
     alien species were expected to spread to all five Great Lakes 
     and most of the U.S. freshwater system. Irreversible loss in 
     biological diversity was inevitable; the only question was 
     whether the degradation would be cataclysmic, or gradual and 
     insidious.
       These concerns arose from hard experience. The sea lamprey 
     (Petromyzon marinus), native to the Atlantic, caused a near 
     collapse of the Great Lakes fishery in the 1950s. A 
     fortuitous discovery of a chemical lampricide is the only 
     reason the fishery is once again abundant. But lampricide 
     treatments, even coupled with vigorous fish stocking efforts 
     by the States, have been effective only at restoring the 
     rough appearance of the pre-lamprey fishery. They cannot 
     restore the system's previous structure, composition or self-
     sustainability. Moreover, without annual treatments with the 
     lampricide, the populations of lampreys would quickly 
     rebound. The annual battle to continue funding for the 
     lamprey control program provides Great Lakes fishery experts 
     constant incentive to avert the costly and enduring impacts 
     of further exotic species invasions.
       The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control 
     Act of 1990 (NANPCA) originated in draft in 1989 in response 
     to concern over the potential impact of the Eurasian ruffe on 
     the Great Lakes fishery. But the zebra mussel infestation 
     ultimately filled its political sails, to reach final 
     enactment in just a year.
       The Act, championed by Senator John Glenn of Ohio, enjoyed 
     enthusiastic support of the bipartisan Great Lakes delegation 
     in both chambers, and several federal agencies, especially 
     the Fish and Wildlife Service. It also benefitted from the 
     commitment of environment committee leadership from outside 
     the basin.
       NANPCA set forth a national program for preventing, 
     researching, monitoring and controlling infestations in U.S. 
     waters of alien aquatic species. It set up a standing multi-
     agency task force (the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force), 
     chaired by NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to develop 
     and oversee the program, a policy review of the impacts of 
     intentional introductions of exotic species (such as for 
     sport fishing or biological pest control), a zebra mussel 
     demonstration project, and state aquatic nuisance management 
     planning. It created a Great Lakes Aquatic Nuisance Species 
     Panel to help coordinate federal, state, local and private 
     sector activities to prevent and control exotic species 
     within the Great Lakes basin. Other provisions addressed the 
     brown tree snake, research protocols to prevent the spread of 
     exotics by research and risk assessment.
       Most importantly, the Act assigned the Coast Guard the task 
     of promulgating voluntary guidelines and, after two-years, 
     regulations to help reduce the probability of new 
     introductions of alien species by commercial

[[Page S3221]]

     vessels. The ballast water of commercial vessels is a leading 
     vector by which alien aquatic species enter U.S. waters. The 
     zebra mussel and the ruffe, along with the spiny water flea 
     (Bythotrephes cederstroemi), and many of the hundred-plus 
     other alien organisms that currently complicate the Great 
     Lakes ecosystem were transported to the Great Lakes in the 
     ballast holds of transoceanic vessels. Red tide, human 
     cholera, and the brown clam (Perna perna), are examples of 
     ballast stow-aways that have been discharged into U.S. marine 
     coastal environments.
       The 1990 Act underwent many changes as it moved through the 
     Congressional process to enactment. Perhaps the most 
     significant such change was the decision by the Senate 
     Commerce Committee to reduce the scope of the Coast Guard 
     prevention program from national to Great Lakes-only. Besides 
     fiscal concerns of the Coast Guard, the political rationale 
     for such a change was clear. The maritime community had no 
     choice but to acknowledge the obvious though unintended 
     impacts of its ballasting practices on the Great Lakes 
     environment. Moreover, as residents of the basin, Great Lakes 
     port operators and the laker association members shared 
     concern over the condition of the Great Lakes ecosystem. But 
     in areas other than the Great Lakes, there was less awareness 
     of exotic species impacts and the broader maritime community 
     was under less pressure to change its ballasting practices.


                            Today's Context

       Today, six years after initial passage of the Act, there is 
     growing interest in reforming the measure to better address 
     other U.S. waters. The zebra mussel has become established in 
     much of the freshwater systems of the eastern United States, 
     including the upper Mississippi River, where it has degraded 
     an economically valuable commercial mollusk fishery. 
     Similarly, there is new awareness of the threat of 
     nonindigenous species to marine coastal areas. Perna perna, 
     native to the Indo-Pacific region, invaded South America via 
     ballast discharge years ago, and was transported to the Gulf 
     of Mexico near Galveston, Texas, more recently. The non-
     native mussel threatens Mangrove communities, coats hard 
     surfaces and could compete with native oysters.
       In some cases, concern over the impact of exotic species on 
     aquatic systems beyond the Great Lakes has been elevated to 
     the Congressional level. In 1995, Senator Sarbanes (MD) 
     introduced the Chesapeake Bay Ballast Water Management Act of 
     1995, S. 938, to assure that the reauthorization of NANPCA 
     broadens the Coast Guard's ballast management program to 
     include saltwater coasts. In response the mussel's spread to 
     Vermont, Senator Leahy introduced a measure, the Lake 
     Champlain Zebra Mussel Control Act, S. 1089, to focus the 
     reauthorization on the needs of Lake Champlain.
       Both legislative measures are firmly rooted in the 
     expressed interests of local constituencies. For example, the 
     Sarbanes bill is a response to resolutions passed by the 
     Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania general assemblies urging 
     action to prevent future introductions of nonindigenous 
     aquatic species into the Chesapeake Bay through ballast 
     management. A report developed by a wide range of 
     stakeholders and endorsed by the Chesapeake Bay Commission 
     further spells out the recommendations of the States. While 
     the Sarbanes bill proposes national voluntary guidelines for 
     ballast management, the Chesapeake Bay proposal urges a 
     follow-on regulatory system nationally within 24 months if 
     participation or effectiveness of the voluntary system is 
     inadequate.


                 National Invasive Species Act of 1996

       Senator Glenn, author of the 1990 NANPCA, is the lead 
     sponsor of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) 
     which reauthorizes and expands the 1990 Act. A bipartisan 
     group of Senators from in and outside the Great Lakes region 
     has joined him in sponsoring the measure. Congressman 
     LaTourette and his colleagues are the sponsors of a companion 
     bill in the House of Representatives. As in 1990, the Senate 
     Commerce Committee is expected to have jurisdiction over the 
     prevention portion of the measure, while the Environment and 
     Public Works Committee will consider the remainder of the 
     bill. Both the Resources Committee and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure will likely have 
     jurisdiction over part or all of the House measure.
       In the stark light of 1995-1996 budget fights, a national 
     regulatory ballast management program such as the one 
     proposed in the original 1990 bill appears impractical and 
     unaffordable. To implement such a scheme, the Coast Guard 
     would have to monitor compliance with regulations at each 
     harbor, stretching human and monetary resources beyond their 
     limits. On the other hand, if the Coast Guard were to simply 
     issue national voluntary guidelines, the effort would lack 
     accountability, providing little additional protection for 
     regions eager for change such as the Chesapeake Bay.
       NISA 1996 finds a middle ground. It emphasizes a voluntary 
     approach in light of the positive response of the shipping 
     community to the voluntary phase of the Great Lakes program. 
     But it reserves authority for the Coast Guard to promulgate 
     the same voluntary guidelines as regulations in coastal 
     regions where recordkeeping or compliance with the voluntary 
     system seem to be lacking. Such an approach gives shippers 
     and ports both the opportunity and incentive to cooperate 
     with voluntary guidelines, while conserving Coast Guard 
     resources for regions with special needs.
       Whether voluntary or not, a national ballast management 
     program which employs existing port inspection infrastructure 
     will hold the additional hassle for ports, shippers and the 
     Coast Guard to a minimum. NISA 1996 urges a cooperative 
     approach between the Coast Guard and the Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which already boards 
     vessels to inspect for crop pests. The addition of just a few 
     items on the questionnaire that APHIS routinely distributes 
     to vessel masters could meet new ballast-related reporting 
     needs.
       Among other changes that are included in NISA 1996 are: 
     Ballast technology demonstrations: A bill introduced in the 
     103rd Congress (and passed in the House) to create a 
     demonstration program for ballast technologies that can be 
     installed or designed into commercial vessels to prevent the 
     unintentional transfers of exotic species is incorporated 
     into NISA 1996.
       Naval ballast management: A provision from the Sarbanes 
     bill (S. 938) to incorporate ballast management procedures 
     into naval operations is included.
       Ecological surveys, ballast discharge surveys: The package 
     authorizes the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 
     to undertake ecological and ballast discharge surveys for 
     selected harbor areas to assess the risks and impacts of 
     invasions by exotic species.
       Voluntary guidelines for recreational boaters: The recent 
     discovery of live zebra mussels on the hull of a recreational 
     vessel ready to enter California waters underscores the role 
     of recreational boating in spreading exotic species 
     infestations. A provision of Senator Leahy's legislation (S. 
     1089) to create national voluntary guidelines for 
     recreational boaters to prevent the spread of zebra mussels 
     is included in NISA 1996.
       Regional coordination: The reauthorization package includes 
     a provision to encourage the establishment of regional 
     coordinating panels for other regions of the country in 
     addition to the Great Lakes.
       While the U.S. government invests over $100 million 
     annually to prevent new invasions of exotic agricultural 
     pests, less than $1 million is being invested to prevent new 
     introductions of nonindigenous aquatic organisms as 
     devastation as the sea lamprey. NISA 1996 offers Congress an 
     important opportunity to better protect the nation's valuable 
     marine and freshwater resources from exotic pests. But only 
     support from a broad political spectrum and diverse 
     geographic regions can assure enactment.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as an original 
cosponsor of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, to address the 
serious threat posed by nonindigenous aquatic species entering the U.S. 
waters from the exchange of ballast water. I want to thank and commend 
my colleague, Senator Glenn, for his leadership in crafting this very 
important legislation.
  The introduction of nonindigenous species through the exchange of 
ballast water is a serious national and international problem with 
potentially profound economic and environmental consequences. These 
invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, have already caused 
millions of dollars in damage to municipal and industrial water intake 
pipes, and valuable fisheries throughout the United States and Canada. 
By the turn of the century, damage to aquatic ecosystems and public and 
private infrastructure is expected to be in the billions of dollars 
from the zebra mussel alone.
  In the Chesapeake Bay, our Nation's largest estuary, the threat of 
these invading species is particularly acute due to the extensive 
release of ballast water from foreign ports. Over 3 billion gallons of 
ballast water a year--more than any other east or west coast port--is 
released into the bay from ships calling at the ports of Baltimore and 
Norfolk. This water originates from 48 different foreign ports. An on-
going study by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, one of 
foremost authorities on this issue, found that nearly 90 percent of the 
vessels sampled arriving at Chesapeake Bay ports had living organisms 
in their ballast water, placing the bay at very high risk from these 
potentially harmful species. Indeed, some scientists speculate that the 
diseases that devastated oyster stocks in the bay were introduced 
through the exchange of ballast water. It is estimated that there more 
than 100 exotic species now established in the bay, some of which are 
recent arrivals via ballast water discharge.
  The interstate and international nature of ballast-mediated invasions 
make it impractical for the individual States of the Chesapeake region 
to address this risk alone. Various interests

[[Page S3222]]

in the Chesapeake Bay community, as well as the State legislatures of 
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, are, in fact, seeking increased 
Federal action to address this important concern. I want to 
particularly commend the Chesapeake Bay Commission for focussing 
attention on this very important issue.
  Mr. President, this measure is an important step forward in 
understanding and managing the risks of ballast-mediated invasions. It 
incorporates provisions of legislation I introduced last year, S. 938, 
to study and manage ballast water releases in the Chesapeake Bay. It 
establishes national voluntary guidelines for vessels entering U.S. 
waters to reduce the probability of ballast transfers of these exotic 
species. It authorizes research, demonstration, and education programs 
to help prevent the introduction and spread of these species into our 
lakes, rivers, and bays. I urge my colleagues to join with us in 
support of this important legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in 
introducing the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. This 
comprehensive bill includes the provisions of my Lake Champlain Zebra 
Mussel Control Act and is the vehicle which can help Vermont and other 
States wage war on exotic nuisance species like the zebra mussel.
  Mr. President, a tiny mussel the size of my thumbnail threatens to 
choke off 25 percent of Vermont's drinking water, clog our hatcheries, 
and unravel the Lake Champlain ecosystem. It was only three summers ago 
when the mussel was first discovered in the South Lake near Orwell, VT, 
by a young boy. Two years later, zebra mussel densities has reached 
134,000 larvae per cubit meter. The end is not in sight.
  We did not ask for them, but we got them. Now Vermont has to face the 
consequences of a problem that Vermont has been powerless to stop. The 
zebra mussel problem in Lake Champlain deserves immediate and swift 
action. This exotic pest poses a serious risk to the water resources 
throughout Vermont, economic opportunities along the lake, and the 
health and safety of the people of Vermont.
  This bill we are introducing today addresses a number of issues that 
can only be resolved through Federal coordination and cooperation. 
Millions of gallons of water are imported each day from foreign ports 
throughout the globe. One gallon can contain the seeds of an invasive 
species epidemic that can wipe out domestic species, ecosystems, and 
economic resources. Vermonters know this well through our experience 
with lampreys on trophy sportfish, millfoil throughout our lakes, and 
zebra mussels in Lake Champlain.
  The United States needs this bill now. Our inland and marine seaports 
are a ticking time bomb. The heart of this bill is a nationwide effort 
to control the transportation and discharge of ballast water from 
international cargo ships. One seaport cannot tackle this problem alone 
without risking their economic base. However, if every port works 
together, we can protect fisheries, marine resources, and ultimately 
taxpayers from the enormous cost of fighting an exotic nuisance 
species.
  The other major theme in this bill is a concerted effort to control 
exotic species once they have arrived and multiplied. This second theme 
is based largely on my bill, the Lake Champlain Zebra Mussel Control 
Act. In addition to highlighting the specific needs of Lake Champlain, 
my bill--and this bill--includes a three point plan for tackling exotic 
species.
  First, establishes national voluntary guidelines for recreational 
boaters who are a major mechanism for the spread of zebra mussels and 
other exotics within the United States freshwater bodies.
  Second, allows states to work cooperatively on watershed approaches 
to attack this problem. If Vermont devotes millions of dollars to this 
effort and our neighbors do nothing, the effort will be futile.
  Third, reauthorizes and enhances the Federal authority for agencies 
to fight exotics. The nuisance species problem crosses many 
jurisdictions. Therefore, the comprehensive strategy set forth in this 
bill includes the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, the 
Coast Guard, the Smithsonian, and other Federal efforts. As our Federal 
foot soldiers in this war against the zebra mussel and other species, 
all of these departments and agencies need the authority, resources, 
and flexibility to win the battle.
  Mr. President, every minute that we delay an effort to stop the zebra 
mussels, the mussels multiply exponentially and risk the physical and 
economic health of Vermont. While my colleagues may not know first hand 
the scourge of zebra mussels or other exotic species, let me assure 
them that the ounce of prevention in my bill will save them pounds of 
cure. To turn our backs on this problem of national significance only 
guarantees that it gets much worse. Mr. President, I hope we can move 
this bill quickly.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Daschle, 
        and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 1661. A bill to specify that States may waive certain requirements 
relating to commercial motor vehicle operators under chapter 313 of 
title 49, United States Code, with respect to the operators of certain 
farm vehicles, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                    CUSTOMER HARVESTERS LEGISLATION

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, earlier this year the U.S. Custom 
Harvesters held their annual meeting in Sioux Falls, SD. South Dakotans 
put out the welcome mat for custom harvesters throughout the country, 
and the annual meeting was a resounding success.

  During that meeting it was brought to my attention that custom 
harvesters were not granted equal treatment as farmers and farm workers 
under Federal laws requiring commercial driving licenses [CDL]. 
Presently, States can grant waivers to the Federal CDL requirement to 
farmers and farm workers. Those same waiver requirements are not 
afforded to custom harvesters.
  In many parts of the country, including South Dakota, custom 
harvesters are a crucial component in agricultural production. The bill 
I am introducing today simply grants States the right to waive CDL 
requirements for custom harvesters similar to those waivers currently 
afforded farmers and farm-related businesses. Joining me in this effort 
are Senators Burns, Inhofe, Daschle, and Baucus.
  Mr. President, customer harvesters normally drive less than 5,000 
miles per year. They drive mostly on roads leading to and from farms 
and to the local grain elevator. Little time is spent on highways. 
Generally, custom harvesters drive less that 500 miles annually on 
interstate highways. It is a simple matter of fairness that they be 
treated equally.
  My bill would provide relief to custom harvesters from onerous and 
costly CDL requirements. Under the waivers, family members can take an 
active role in custom harvesting and drivers with experience and trust 
can be hired to drive custom harvesting vehicles.
  Custom harvesting involves many small, family owned companies. Custom 
operators account for nearly 40 percent of the total wheat acreage 
harvested annually. Their equipment must be utilized properly, kept in 
tip-top working conditions and safe in order to provide quality 
services. These harvesters go the extra mile to maintain equipment, 
train employees, and operate in the safest way possible.
  In 1988, States were provided the authority to waive CDL requirements 
for farmers. In 1991, the Senate passed a bill to provide the authority 
to individual States to provide the same exemption to custom 
harvesters. Unfortunately, that bill never passed and custom harvesters 
are still burdened with CDL requirements. My bill is similar to the 
measure passed in 1991. Given past Senate support for this measure, I 
am hopeful adoption of this bill will occur soon. I thank those 
Senators who have joined me in this effort and urge the Senate to adopt 
this bill.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATFIELD:
  S. 1662. A bill to establish areas of wilderness and recreation in 
the State of Oregon, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.

[[Page S3223]]

the opal creek wilderness and opal creek scenic recreation area act of 
                                  1996

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the natural resources of my State are 
indisputably among the most significant and spectacular in the world. 
It has been almost 30 years since the enactment of the Oregon 
wilderness bill--the massive, 100,000-acre Mt. Jefferson Wilderness in 
central Oregon. I sponsored that bill and two other comprehensive 
pieces of legislation in 1978 and 1984, which increased Oregon's 
wilderness system fourfold, from 500,000 acres to 2.1 million acres.
  Throughout my years in the Senate I have attempted to protect 
Oregon's resources by following the philosophy of the one of our 
Nation's first and foremost conservationists, the original U.S. Forest 
Service Chief, Gifford Pinchot. Gifford Pinchot said:

       The conservation of natural resources [in this country] is 
     the key to the future. It is the key to the safety and 
     prosperity of the American people. Conservation is the 
     greatest material question of all.

  This principle of conservation has led me to sponsor numerous land 
protection bills over the years.
  Let me say, as I list this record of legislation, I want it clearly 
understood that, like anything else that happens in this Senate and in 
the legislative body, it was a team effort. It was a group effort. We 
had the advocates in the population and communities, we had the 
organizations sponsoring such issues in the public, and I had 
colleagues, colleagues not only in the Senate but colleagues in the 
House of Representatives, who were all part of this record that I am 
reciting today. In addition to that is the staff, the staff that serves 
these committees with such dedication, such expertise. None of it could 
have happened solely on the energy or effort of any one Member.
  I have also sponsored legislation enacting the Columbia River Gorge 
National Scenic Area, the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, the 
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, Yaquina Head and Cascade Head on 
the Oregon coast, the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, the 
Newberry Crater National Monument, and the Oregon Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act, which includes protection of 42 Oregon rivers, more than 
any other State in the Union.
  In fact, the next highest State is California with 11.
  To put Oregon's 42 wild and scenic rivers into context, having just 
made that statement about California, Alaska has displaced California. 
Alaska now has 25 rivers. Next comes Michigan, with 16. California now 
has 13 and Arkansas 8. I am proud that Oregon has led the way in 
protecting our wild and scenic rivers. Again, having stated the figures 
of those other States, Oregon is 42.
  Each time I have labored to protect these special areas, I have been 
forcefully reminded that I represent a State that is often sharply 
divided on natural resource issues. These divides generally reflect the 
difference between the urban and the rural way of life. During the 
decades I have devoted to public service, I have sought to bridge the 
chasm that has formed between the urban and rural citizens of my State 
and bring some order and balance to natural resource conflicts by 
addressing both sides of the debate.
  Today, in a sense, I am coming full circle to where I started with 
the 1968 Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Act. Today, I am introducing 
legislation to, once again, increase Oregon's wilderness system and 
protect one of Oregon's most important low-elevation old growth 
forests, Opal Creek. This legislation, called the Oregon Resources 
Conservation Act, also includes solutions to two other natural resource 
issues in my State on which I have been working for many years: 
protection of the Mt. Hood corridor; and promotion of consensus-based 
working groups in the Klamath and Deschutes River Basins. I am also 
including a so-called placeholder title for the Coquille Forest 
proposal, which will require a significant amount of public input prior 
to the introduction of any legislation.
  Title I of the Oregon Resources Conservation Act creates a 25,800-
acre Opal Creek Wilderness and National Scenic-Recreation Area. Opal 
Creek is truly one of Oregon's ecological crown jewels. It is one of 
the last remaining intact, low-elevation old-growth forest areas in 
western Oregon. Portions of Opal Creek are literally blanketed with 
majestic old-growth forests and crystal clear, stair-stepping waters.

  I have always felt this area should be protected in perpetuity from 
commercial timber harvesting and mining. In fact, I included it in the 
original versions of both my 1984 Oregon Wilderness Act and my 1988 
Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Each time, however, the area was 
removed from these bills at the request of the State's Governor.
  In 1991, I sponsored additional Opal Creek protection legislation 
when I included a provision which was enacted as part of the fiscal 
year 1992 Department of Defense appropriations bill to to facilitate 
the issuance of a patent on the key access property to Opal Creek. This 
provision was necessary to facilitate a large charitable donation of 
land and mineral interests by a mining company to the Nature 
Conservancy for the protection of the area. Unfortunately, the Nature 
Conservancy was forced to reject this donation due to its concerns 
about potential liability for an existing contaminated abandoned mining 
site in the Opal Creek area. Subsequently the Friends of Opal Creek, a 
local conservation group, stepped forward to accept this large 
charitable donation.
  In 1994, there was another Opal Creek protection bill before the 
Congress. The bill, sponsored by my good friend, then-Representative 
Mike Kopetski of Oregon, passed the House of Representatives under his 
fine leadership and was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources in the final days of the 103d Congress.
  In fact, Mr. President, I invited my former colleague, Congressman 
Mike Kopetski, to be here today on this very historic occasion to share 
in the results of many of his long years of commitment and his 
dedicated effort.
  The Senate was unable to take final action on this legislation in the 
few remaining weeks prior to sine die. These difficulties were enhanced 
by the administration's initial opposition and ambivalence toward the 
proposal.
  I called for and chaired a hearing before the the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources on October 5, 1994, which examined the 
concerns with the bill and sought to build momentum for a working group 
process at the local level which would attempt to build consensus and 
bring divergent parties together on this controversial issue.
  This hearing did, indeed, create the momentum necessary for the 
formation of an Opal Creek working group, and on September 1, 1995, the 
first meeting of the group was held in Salem, OR. The Willamette 
University Dispute Resolution Center agreed to facilitate the meeting 
and attempt to build a consensus on the issue. The group, with the 
benefit of the outstanding facilitation skills of Prof. Richard Birke, 
met from September 1995 to March of this year and has developed a 
several-hundred page report summarizing its deliberations. I believe 
the group has done an excellent job discussing difficult issues and 
working together to find a solution. Mind you, this was a very broadly 
based group representing industry, local officials, environmental 
organizations, user groups and so forth. While no clear-cut consensus 
emerged from the group, their report has given me a strong 
understanding of the existing natural values of the area, the issues 
involved in protection of the area and the positions of all groups 
involved in the debate. Indeed, this report has greatly assisted me in 
developing the legislation I am introducing today.
  As many of my colleagues know, we have a political environment in 
Oregon and the Pacific Northwest that is as splintered as any I have 
seen in my political career. This environment is characterized by a 
lack of trust on all sides of the political spectrum and extreme 
polarization. The Opal Creek working group, therefore, is a great 
success in bringing parties together in an attempt to heal old wounds 
and build new partnerships. The group also represents in my mind a 
great success in addressing one of my major concerns with the House's 
legislation from 1994, which was the general lack of agreements and 
limited dialog regarding protection of this forested area. I thank each 
and every member of the group of their dedication to this 6-month 
process and to resolving this difficult issue.

[[Page S3224]]

  Again, I want to say, parenthetically, that one of the outstanding 
members of that group is former Congressman Mike Kopetski who, again, 
was able to give leadership from some of his experience in giving his 
life effort to the development of Opal Creek.
  The legislation I am introducing today also addresses another major 
concern I had with the 1994 Opal Creek bill, its lack of ecosystem 
watershed management principles. The 1994 bill would have protected 
approximately 22,000 acres in the Opal Creek area. My bill protects 
25,800 acres, including the creation of approximately 12,800 acres of 
new wilderness. Each and every one of the sub watersheds--we took a 
map, and we looked at that map as an ecosystem. We looked at that map 
as a great basin, a watershed. So we took from that map, with concern 
for protection of the entire ecosystem. Each and every one of those sub 
watersheds in the Little North Fork Santiam River drainage are 
addressed in some way in my legislation, either through a wilderness or 
a national scenic recreation area designation.
  By doing this, we have attempted to protect the outstanding resource 
values in each of these sub drainages, while at the same time 
addressing the area comprehensively as an intact ecosystem.
  In addition to addressing the protection of the entire watershed, the 
Opal Creek title of this bill maintains recreation at existing levels 
and allows for growth in uses where appropriate. The bill also calls 
for historical, cultural and ecological interpretation in the newly-
created area to be conducted in a balanced and factually accurate 
manner. Motorized recreation will be prohibited except on the existing 
road system and nonmotorized use will be permitted throughout the area, 
except, of course, in the wilderness. The existing road system will be 
analyzed and evaluated through a management planning process, which 
will decide which roads to close and which to leave open. No new water 
impoundments will be allowed in this area. No new mining claims will be 
allowed to be filed under the 1872 mining law, and no existing claims 
will be allowed to be patented. In addition, the bill calls for the 
creation of an advisory council composed of members of the local 
community, industry, environmental groups, locally elected officials, 
the Forest Service and an appointee by the Governor. Finally, the bill 
will not allow commercial timber harvesting of any kind in the Opal 
Creek area except to prevent the spread of a forest fire or to to 
protect public health and safety. It is important to note that the 
lands covered by my legislation are not included--not included--in the 
timber base and are not open to commercial harvest today.
  The final element of the Opal Creek package, Mr. President, was an 
important part of the working group's discussions. I am referring to an 
economic development package for the Santiam Canyon, which includes the 
communities immediately adjacent to the Opal Creek area. This package 
is based, primarily, on a set of infrastructure improvements developed 
by these communities in conjunction with the State Economic Development 
Office, which are designed to improve the water quality and delivery 
systems of the communities in the area.
  I have made the first downpayment on this economic commitment package 
by including a $300,000 appropriation in the fiscal year 1996 Omnibus 
Appropriations Act to help begin the clean up of the contaminated 
Amalgamated Mill site at Jawbone Flats in Opal Creek.
  Throughout the coming fiscal year 1997 appropriations cycle, I will 
work closely with Oregon's Gov. John Kitzhaber, and my colleague on the 
House Appropriations Committee from Oregon, Jim Bunn, to further refine 
this package and provide additional funding, as needed, for the 
Amalgamated Mill cleanup and for the critical community infrastructure 
projects designed to allow these former timber communities to diversify 
their economic bases and improve their water systems.
  In short, the Opal Creek title of this bill attempts to address every 
issue raised both in the 1994 hearings on Opal Creek and in the working 
group process conducted out in Oregon. This is an issue I have worked 
on for almost 20 years. I am extremely pleased that, with this 
legislation and accompanying infrastructure development package, we 
will finally be able to address the protection of Opal Creek and the 
adjacent portions of the Little North Fork Santiam Watershed, as well 
as improvements to the water quality and delivery systems of nearby, 
timber-dependent communities.
  Mr. President, the Oregon Resources Conservation Act also contains 
two other titles. The first is a relatively noncontroversial provision 
which promulgates a land exchange in the Mt. Hood Corridor between the 
Bureau of Land Management and the Longview Fibre timber company in the 
State of Washington. Both parties are willing participants in this 
process, which seeks to protect the viewshed along the Highway 26 
corridor on the way to Mt. Hood, the highest mountain peak in my State.
  Longview Fibre owns approximately 3,500 acres of timber land in the 
scenic Mt. Hood corridor, which are interspersed with BLM lands in a 
checkerboard fashion. Longview would like to harvest these lands within 
the next 5 years, but is sensitive about the public perception 
regarding these clearcuts along such a heavily traveled route. I agree 
with Longview Fibre and feel harvesting these trees along Highway 26 
would be a disaster both for the ecological and visual characteristics 
of the resource. Longview, to their credit, has been extremely 
interested in working with local planning and environmental groups to 
identify BLM parcels elsewhere in western Oregon that could be traded 
for the Longview Fibre lands in the corridor.

  This proposal is a unique opportunity to forge ahead with a plan that 
has been built at the local level over the past 5 years and which has 
virtually unanimous support, including the local county government, 
local businesses, the timber industry, and local environmental groups.
  The third, and final, title of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act 
includes the establishment of a 5-year pilot project for two, 
consensus-based natural resource planning bodies now working in 
Oregon's Klamath and Deschutes Basins. Both of these bodies are already 
in place and have been working to provide the Federal agencies with 
recommendations about how best to prioritize spending for ecological 
restoration, economic health, and reducing drought impacts.
  I called for the creation of the Upper Klamath Basin working group in 
1995. This group is citizen-led and includes environmentalists, 
irrigators, local business leaders, locally elected officials, 
educators, the Klamath Tribes, and Federal land management agencies in 
an advisory capacity. This group was charged with developing both 
short- and long-term recommendations for restoring ecological health in 
the Klamath Basin. They were successful in developing short-term 
funding recommendations ranging from riparian and wetland restoration, 
to fish passage and the coordination of geological information systems 
in the basin. I followed through on these recommendations and was able 
to obtain either funding or direction to the pertinent agencies in the 
fiscal year 1996 appropriations process.
  The group has also developed a long-term recommendation which 
includes a formal registration of the group as a State-sanctioned 
foundation and congressional legislation enabling them to help land 
management agencies set priorities for how money is spent in the basin 
on various ecological restoration and economic stabilization projects.
  The legislation I am introducing today addresses their long-term 
recommendation by creating a 5-year pilot project to allow the Upper 
Klamath Basin Working Group-Foundation, in conjunction with the Federal 
land management agencies in the basin, to develop funding priorities 
for ecological restoration in the basin. It will provide $1 million per 
year to be spent consistent with these priorities. This money will be 
administered by the agencies and matched by an equal amount of non-
Federal dollars.

  The Deschutes Basin in central Oregon would also be allowed to 
develop a similar regime using, as its base, a group formed by the Warm 
Springs Tribes, the Environmental Defense Fund, local irrigators, and 
locally elected officials. This group has been meeting and 
collaborating on projects in the basin for several years.

[[Page S3225]]

  Recently, both of these working groups have been able to make 
significant progress in building coalitions and consensus on natural 
resource management challenges that, not too long ago, many felt were 
insurmountable. By given them more authority to temporarily assist 
Federal agencies with setting policy priorities using a finite amount 
of money, I hope we can begin to enter a new era of more local control 
and greater public input regarding resource management decisions. I 
also hope these groups, and others that may follow, will continue to 
use the consensus-based management approach to return resource 
management decisions to a collaborative, inclusive process rather than 
divisive, litigious morass in which we find ourselves today.
  Mr. President, today I had also planned on introducing a bill to 
create a 59,000-acre Coquille Forest as part of the federally-
recognized Coquille Tribes' economic self-sufficiency plan. However, 
because of a number of unresolved issues, including the apparent lack 
of agreement, understanding or consensus at the local level, I am 
withholding my introduction of this bill until after I have had an 
opportunity to gather more public input through the congressional 
hearing process. And also there is a local election that is being held 
in May concerning this issue.
  I am extremely pleased with this bill. It protects two of Oregon's 
most important natural resource areas, Opal Creek and the Mt. Hood 
Corridor, and it promotes consensus-based, watershed planning at the 
local level in the Klamath and Deschutes Basins. I have worked many 
years to protect Oregon's magnificent natural resources. I am pleased 
that in this, my last year in the Senate, I will be able to continue 
this legacy of protecting Oregon's beauty for the enjoyment and use of 
future generations.
  I look forward to speedy hearings on the Oregon Resources 
Conservation Act, of which I have been promised by the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Murkowski of Alaska. We will have that hearing later 
in the month of April.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record. This bill is ready to be sent to the House.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1662

       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 ``Oregon Resource Conservation 
     Act of 1996''.
       TITLE I--OPAL CREEK WILDERNESS AND SCENIC RECREATION AREA

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Opal Creek Wilderness and 
     Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Bull of the woods wilderness.--The term ``Bull of the 
     Woods Wilderness'' means the land designated as wilderness by 
     section 3(4) of the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 
     98-328; 16 U.S.C. 1132 note).
       (2) Immediate family.--The term ``immediate family'' means, 
     with respect to the owner of record of land or an interest in 
     land, a spouse, sibling, child (whether natural or adopted), 
     stepchild, and any lineal descendant of the owner.
       (3) Opal creek wilderness.--The term ``Opal Creek 
     Wilderness'' means certain land in the Willamette National 
     Forest in the State of Oregon comprising approximately 13,212 
     acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled ``Proposed 
     Opal Creek Wilderness and Scenic-Recreation Area'', dated 
     March 1996.
       (4) Scenic recreation area.--The term ``Scenic Recreation 
     Area'' means the Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area 
     established under section 103(a)(3).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 103. ESTABLISHMENT OF OPAL CREEK WILDERNESS AND SCENIC 
                   RECREATION AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--On a determination by the Secretary 
     under subsection (b)--
       (1) the Opal Creek Wilderness shall become a component of 
     the National Wilderness System and shall be known as the Opal 
     Creek Wilderness;
       (2) the part of the Bull of the Woods Wilderness that is 
     located in the Willamette National Forest shall be 
     incorporated into the Opal Creek Wilderness; and
       (3) the Secretary shall establish the Opal Creek Scenic 
     Recreation Area in the Willamette National Forest in the 
     State of Oregon, comprising approximately 13,013 acres, as 
     generally depicted on the map entitled ``Proposed Opal Creek 
     Wilderness and Scenic-Recreation Area'', dated March 1996.
       (b) Conditions.--Subsection (a) shall not take effect 
     unless the Secretary makes a determination, not later than 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act, that the 
     following have been donated to the United States in an 
     acceptable condition and without encumbrances:
       (1) All right, title, and interest in the following 
     patented parcels of land:
       (A) Santiam number 1, mineral survey number 992, as 
     described in patent number 39-92-0002, dated December 11, 
     1991.
       (B) Ruth Quartz Mine number 2, mineral survey number 994, 
     as described in patent number 39-91-0012, dated February 12, 
     1991.
       (C) Morning Star Lode, mineral survey number 993, as 
     described in patent number 36-91-0011, dated February 12, 
     1991.
       (D) Certain land belonging to the Times Mirror Land and 
     Timber Company located in section 18, township 8 south, range 
     5 east, Marion County, Oregon, Eureka numbers 6, 7, and 8, 
     and 13 patented mining claims.
       (2) A public easement across the Hewitt, Starvation, and 
     Poor Boy Mill Sites, mineral survey number 990, as described 
     in patent number 36-91-0017, dated May 9, 1991, or any 
     alternative route for the easement that may be available.
       (c) Expansion of Scenic Recreation Area Boundaries.--On 
     acquiring all or substantially all of the land located in 
     section 36, township 8 south, range 4 east, of the Willamette 
     Meridian, Marion County, Oregon, by exchange, purchase, or 
     donation, the Secretary shall expand the boundary of the 
     Scenic Recreation Area to include the land.

     SEC. 104. ADMINISTRATION OF THE SCENIC RECREATION AREA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the Scenic 
     Recreation Area in accordance with the laws (including 
     regulations) applicable to the National Forest System.
       (b) Management plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     establishment of the Scenic Recreation Area, the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the advisory committee established under 
     section 105(a), shall prepare a comprehensive management plan 
     for the Scenic Recreation Area.
       (2) Incorporation in land and resource management plan.--On 
     completion of the management plan, the management plan shall 
     become part of the land and resource management plan for the 
     Willamette National Forest and supersede any conflicting 
     provision in the land and resource management plan.
       (3) Requirements.--The management plan shall provide a 
     broad range of land uses, including--
       (A) recreation;
       (B) harvesting of nontraditional forest products, such as 
     gathering mushrooms and material to make baskets; and
       (C) educational and research opportunities.
       (4) Plan amendments.--The Secretary may amend the 
     management plan as the Secretary may determine to be 
     necessary.
       (c) Cultural and Historic Resource Inventory.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     establishment of the Scenic Recreation Area, the Secretary 
     shall review and revise the inventory of the cultural and 
     historic resources on the public land in the Scenic 
     Recreation Area that were developed pursuant to the Oregon 
     Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-328; 98 Stat. 272).
       (2) Interpretation.--Interpretive activities shall be 
     developed under the management plan in consultation with 
     State and local historic preservation organizations and shall 
     include a balanced and factually-based interpretation of the 
     cultural, ecological, and industrial history of forestry and 
     mining in the Scenic Recreation Area.
       (d) Transportation planning.--
       (1) In general.--To maintain access to recreation sites and 
     facilities in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall prepare a transportation plan for the 
     Scenic Recreation Area that evaluates the road network within 
     the Scenic Recreation Area to determine which roads should be 
     retained and which roads closed.
       (2) Access by persons with disabilities.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with private inholders in the Scenic Recreation 
     Area, shall consider the access needs of persons with 
     disabilities in preparing the transportation plan for the 
     Scenic Recreation Area.
       (3) Motor vehicles.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B) and 
     in the transportation plan under paragraph (1), motorized 
     vehicles shall not be permitted in the Scenic Recreation 
     Area.
       (B) Exception.--Forest road 3209 beyond the gate to the 
     Scenic Recreation Area, as depicted on the map described in 
     section 103(a)(3), may be used by motorized vehicles for 
     administrative purposes and for access to a private 
     inholding, subject to such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary may determine to be necessary.
       (4) Road improvement.--Any construction or improvement of 
     forest road 3209 beyond the gate to the Scenic Recreation 
     Area may not include paving or any work beyond 50 feet from 
     the centerline of the road.
       (e) Hunting and fishing.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to other Federal and State law, 
     the Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing in the Scenic 
     Recreation Area.
       (2) Limitation.--The Secretary may designate zones in 
     which, and establish periods

[[Page S3226]]

     when, no hunting or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of 
     public safety, administration, or public use and enjoyment.
       (3) Consultation.--Except during an emergency, as 
     determined by the Secretary, the Secretary shall consult with 
     the Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife before 
     issuing any regulation under this section.
       (f) Timber Cutting.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall prohibit the cutting of trees in the Scenic Recreation 
     Area.
       (2) Permitted cutting.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary 
     may allow the cutting of trees in the Scenic Recreation 
     Area--
       (i) for public safety, such as to control the spread of a 
     forest fire in the Scenic Recreation Area or on land adjacent 
     to the Scenic Recreation Area; or
       (ii) for activities related to administration of the Scenic 
     Recreation Area.
       (B) Salvage sales.--The Secretary may not allow a salvage 
     sale in the Scenic Recreation Area.
       (g) Withdrawal.--Subject to rights perfected before the 
     date of enactment of this Act, all land in the Scenic 
     Recreation Area are withdrawn from--
       (1) any form of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the 
     public land laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (3) disposition under the mineral and geothermal leasing 
     laws.
       (h) Water impoundments.--Notwithstanding the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission may not license the construction of any dam, water 
     conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, or other 
     project work in the Scenic Recreation Area.
       (i) Recreation.--
       (1) Recognition.--Congress recognizes recreation as an 
     appropriate use of the Scenic Recreation Area.
       (2) Minimum levels.--The management plan shall accommodate 
     recreation at not less than the levels in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Higher levels.--The management plan may provide for 
     levels of recreation use higher than the levels in existence 
     on the date of enactment of this Act if the levels are 
     consistent with the protection of resource values.
       (j) Participation.--In order that the knowledge, expertise, 
     and views of all agencies and groups may contribute 
     affirmatively to the most sensitive present and future use of 
     the Scenic Recreation Area and its various subareas for the 
     benefit of the public:
       (1) Advisory council.--The Secretary shall consult on a 
     periodic and regular basis with the advisory council 
     established under section 105 with respect to matters 
     relating to management of the Scenic Recreation Area.
       (2) Public participation.--The Secretary shall seek the 
     views of private groups, individuals, and the public 
     concerning the Scenic Recreation Area.
       (3) Other agencies.--The Secretary shall seek the views and 
     assistance of, and cooperate with, any other Federal, State, 
     or local agency with any responsibility for the zoning, 
     planning, or natural resources of the Scenic Recreation Area.
       (4) Nonprofit agencies and organizations.--The Secretary 
     shall seek the views of any nonprofit agency or organization 
     that may contribute information or expertise about the 
     resources and the management of the Scenic Recreation Area.

     SEC. 105. ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment.--On the establishment of the Scenic 
     Recreation Area, the Secretary shall establish an advisory 
     council for the Scenic Recreation Area.
       (b) Membership.--The advisory council shall consist of not 
     more than 11 members, of whom--
       (1) 1 member shall represent Marion County, Oregon, and 
     shall be designated by the governing body of the county;
       (2) 1 member shall represent the State of Oregon and shall 
     be designated by the Governor of Oregon; and
       (3) not more than 8 members shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary from among persons who, individually or through 
     association with a national or local organization, have an 
     interest in the administration of the Scenic Recreation Area, 
     including representatives of the timber industry, 
     environmental organizations, and economic development 
     interests.
       (c) Staggered Terms.--Members of the advisory council shall 
     serve for staggered terms of 3 years.
       (d) Chairman.--The Secretary shall designate 1 member of 
     the advisory council as chairman.
       (e) Vacancies.--The Secretary shall fill a vacancy on the 
     advisory council in the same manner as the original 
     appointment.
       (f) Compensation.--A member of the advisory council shall 
     not receive any compensation for the member's service to the 
     advisory council.

     SEC. 106. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Land acquisition.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the other provisions of this 
     subsection, the Secretary may acquire any lands, waters, or 
     interests in land or water in the Scenic Recreation Area or 
     the Opal Creek Wilderness that the Secretary determines are 
     needed to carry out this title.
       (2) Public land.--Any lands, waters, or interests in land 
     or water owned by a State or a political subdivision of a 
     State may be acquired only by donation or exchange.
       (3) Condemnation.--Subject to paragraph (4), the Secretary 
     may not acquire any privately owned land or interest in land 
     without the consent of the owner unless the Secretary finds 
     that--
       (A) the nature of land use has changed significantly, or 
     the landowner has demonstrated intent to change the land use 
     significantly, from the use that existed on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (B) acquisition by the Secretary of the land or interest in 
     land is essential to ensure use of the land or interest in 
     land in accordance with the management plan prepared under 
     section 104(b).
       (4) Right of first refusal.--
       (A) In general.--The following privately owned lands, 
     interests in land, and structures may not be disposed of by 
     donation, exchange, sale, or other conveyance without first 
     being offered at not more than fair market value to the 
     Secretary:
       (i) The lode mining claims known as the Princess Lode, 
     Black Prince Lode, and King Number 4 Lode, embracing portions 
     of sections 29 and 32, township 8 south, range 5 east, 
     Willamette Meridian, Marion County, Oregon, the claims being 
     more particularly described in the field notes and depicted 
     on the plat of mineral survey number 887, Oregon.
       (ii) Ruth Quartz Mine Number 1, mineral survey number 994, 
     as described in patent number 39-91-0012, dated February 12, 
     1991.
       (B) Acceptance period.--The Secretary shall have not less 
     than 120 days in which to accept an offer under subparagraph 
     (A).
       (C) Acquisition.--The Secretary shall have not less than 45 
     days after the end of the fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year in which an offer was accepted under subparagraph (B) to 
     acquire the land, interest in land, or structure offered 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (D) Prohibition of cheaper sales.--Any land, interest in 
     land, or structure offered to the Secretary under 
     subparagraph (A) may not be sold or conveyed at a price below 
     the price at which the land, interest in land, or structure 
     was offered.
       (E) Reoffer.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), any land, interest 
     in land, or structure offered to the Secretary under 
     subparagraph (A) may not be reoffered for sale or conveyance 
     unless the land, interest in land, or structure is first 
     reoffered to the Secretary.
       (ii) Immediate family.--Clause (i) shall not apply to a 
     change in ownership of land, an interest in land, or a 
     structure within the immediate family of the owner of record 
     on January 1, 1996.
       (F) Proceeds.--The proceeds of any sale to the Secretary 
     under this paragraph may be used only for--
       (i) trail, road, and bridge maintenance;
       (ii) elementary, secondary, undergraduate and graduate 
     level interpretive, research, and educational programs and 
     activities, such as public school field study programs, 
     laboratory studies, workshops, and seminars; and
       (iii) construction of visitor facilities, such as 
     restrooms, information kiosks, and trail signage.
       (b) Environmental response actions and cost recovery.--
       (1) Response actions.--Nothing in this title shall limit 
     the authority of the Secretary or a responsible party to 
     conduct an environmental response action in the Scenic 
     Recreation Area in connection with the release, threatened 
     release, or cleanup of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or 
     contaminant, including a response action conducted under the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
       (2) Liability.--Nothing in this title shall limit the 
     authority of the Secretary or a responsible party to recover 
     costs related to the release, threatened release, or cleanup 
     of any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant in the 
     Scenic Recreation Area.
       (c) Maps and description.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map and a 
     boundary description for the Opal Creek Wilderness and for 
     the Scenic Recreation Area with the Committee on Resources of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate.
       (2) Force and effect.--The boundary description and map 
     shall have the same force and effect as if the description 
     and map were included in this title, except that the 
     Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors in 
     the boundary description and map.
       (3) Availability.--The map and boundary description shall 
     be on file and available for public inspection in the Office 
     of the Chief of the Forest Service, Department of 
     Agriculture.

     SEC. 107. DESIGNATION OF ELKHORN CREEK AS A WILD AND SCENIC 
                   RIVER.

       Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Recreation Rivers Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(  ) Elkhorn Creek.--Elkhorn Creek from its source to its 
     confluence on Federal land, to be administered by agencies of 
     the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture as agreed on 
     by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture or as directed by the President. Notwithstanding 
     subsection (b), the boundaries of the Elkhorn River shall 
     include an average of not more than 640 acres per mile 
     measured from the

[[Page S3227]]

     ordinary high water mark on both sides of the river.''.

     SEC. 108. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this title shall--
       (1) interfere with any activity for which a special use 
     permit has been issued (and not revoked) before the date of 
     enactment of this Act, subject to the terms of the permit; or
       (2) otherwise abridge the valid existing rights of an 
     unpatented mining claimant under the general mining laws of 
     the United States.
                     TITLE II--UPPER KLAMATH BASIN

     SEC. 201. UPPER KLAMATH BASIN ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Ecosystem restoration office.--The term ``Ecosystem 
     Restoration Office'' means the Klamath Basin Ecosystem 
     Restoration Office operated cooperatively by the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, 
     Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service.
       (2) Working group.--The term ``Working Group'' means the 
     Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, established before the 
     date of enactment of this Act, consisting of representatives 
     of the environmental community, Klamath Tribes, water users, 
     local industry, Klamath County, Oregon, the Department of 
     Fish and Wildlife of the State of Oregon, the Oregon 
     Institute of Technology, the city of Klamath Falls, Oregon, 
     and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 
     Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Ecosystem 
     Restoration Office.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b) Cooperative Agreement.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with the Working Group under which--
       (A) the Working Group through the Ecosystem Restoration 
     Office, with technical assistance from the Secretary, will 
     propose ecological restoration projects to be undertaken in 
     the Upper Klamath Basin based on a consensus of interested 
     persons in the community;
       (B) the Working Group will accept donations from the public 
     and place the amount of any donations received in a trust 
     fund, to be expended on the performance of ecological 
     restoration projects approved by the Secretary;
       (C) on continued satisfaction of the condition stated in 
     subsection (c), the Secretary shall pay not more than 50 
     percent of the cost of performing any ecological restoration 
     project approved by the Secretary, up to a total amount of 
     $1,000,000 during each of fiscal years 1997 through 2001;
       (D) funds made available under this title shall be 
     distributed by the Department of the Interior, the Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, and the Ecosystem Restoration Office;
       (E) the Ecosystem Restoration Office may utilize not more 
     than 15 percent of all funds administered under this section 
     for administrative costs relating to the implementation of 
     this title; and
       (F) Federal agencies located in the Upper Klamath Basin, 
     including the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 
     Reclamation, National Park Service, Forest Service, Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service, and Ecosystem Restoration 
     Office shall provide technical assistance to the Working 
     Group and actively participate in Working Group meetings as 
     nonvoting members.
       (c) Conditions.--The conditions stated in this subsection 
     are--
       (1) that the representatives and interested persons on the 
     Working Group on the date of enactment of this Act continue 
     to serve, and in the future consist of not less than--
       (A) 3 tribal members;
       (B) 2 representatives of the city of Klamath Falls, Oregon;
       (C) 2 representatives of Klamath County, Oregon;
       (D) 1 representative of institutions of higher education in 
     the Upper Klamath Basin;
       (E) 4 representatives of the environmental community;
       (F) 4 representatives of local businesses and industries;
       (G) 4 representatives of the ranching and farming 
     community;
       (H) 2 representatives of the State of Oregon; and
       (I) 2 representatives from the local community; and
       (2) that the Working Group conduct all meetings consistent 
     with Federal open meeting and public participation laws.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

     SEC. 202. DESCHUTES BASIN RESTORATION PROJECTS.

       There is hereby authorized the Deschutes Basin Working 
     Group to be constituted in the same manner, with the same 
     membership, provided with the same appropriations and 
     provided with the same ability to offer recommendations to 
     Federal agencies regarding the expenditure of funds as the 
     Klamath Basin Group.
                     TITLE III--MOUNT HOOD CORRIDOR

     SEC. 301. LAND EXCHANGE.

       (a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding any other law, if 
     Longview Fibre Company (referred to in this section as 
     ``Longview'') offers and conveys title that is acceptable to 
     the United States to the land described in subsection (b), 
     the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Secretary'') shall convey to Longview title to some or 
     all of the land described in subsection (c), as necessary to 
     satisfy the requirements of subsection (d).
       (b) Land To Be Offered by Longview.--The land referred to 
     in subsection (a) as the land to be offered by Longview is 
     the land described as follows:
       (1) T. 2 S., R. 6 E., sec. 13--E\1/2\SW\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/
     4\, containing 160 record acres, more or less;
       (2) T. 2 S., R. 6 E., sec. 14--All, containing 640 record 
     acres, more or less;
       (3) T. 2 S., R. 6 E., sec. 16--N\1/2\, SW\1/2\, N\1/2\SE\1/
     4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/2\, containing 600 record acres, more or 
     less;
       (4) T. 2 S., R. 6 E., sec. 26--NW\1/4\, N\1/2\SW\1/4\, 
     SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, NW\1/4\SE\1/4\; (and a strip of land to be 
     used for right-of-way purposes in sec. 23), containing 320 
     record acres, more or less;
       (5) T. 2 S., R. 6 E., sec. 27--S\1/2\NE\1/4\NE\1/4\, NW\1/
     4\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\NE\1/4\, NW\1/4\NW\1/4\, containing 140 
     record acres, more or less;
       (6) T. 2 S., R. 6 E., sec. 28--N\1/2\, Except a tract of 
     land 100 feet square bordering and lying west of Wild Cat 
     Creek and bordering on the north line of Sec. 28, described 
     as follows: Beginning at a point on the west bank of Wild Cat 
     Creek and the north boundary of sec. 28, running thence W. 
     100 feet, thence S. 100 feet parallel with the west bank of 
     Wild Cat Creek, thence E. to the west bank of Wild Cat Creek, 
     thence N. along said bank of Wild Cat Creek to the point of 
     beginning, containing 319.77 record acres, more or less;
       (7) T. 2 S., R. 7 E., sec. 19--E\1/2\SW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/
     4\, Except a tract of land described in deed recorded on 
     August 6, 1991, as Recorder's Fee No. 91-39007, and except 
     the portion lying within public roads, containing 117.50 
     record acres, more or less;
       (8) T. 2 S., R. 7 E., sec. 20--S\1/2\SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, 
     containing 20 record acres, more or less;
       (9) T. 2 S., R. 7 E., sec. 27--W\1/2\SW\1/4\, containing 80 
     record acres, more or less;
       (10) T. 2 S., R. 7 E., sec. 28--S\1/2\, containing 320 
     record acres, more or less;
       (11) T. 2 S., R. 7 E., sec. 29--SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/
     4\NE\1/4\, NW\1/4\, SE\1/4\, containing 380 record acres, 
     more or less;
       (12) T. 2 S., R. 7 E., sec. 30--E\1/2\NE\1/4\,  NW\1/
     2\NE\1/4\, Except the portion lying within Timberline Rim 
     Division 4, and except the portion lying within the county 
     road, containing 115 record acres, more or less;
       (13) T. 2 S., R. 7 E., sec. 33--N\1/2\NE\1/4\, E\1/2\NW\1/
     4\NW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, containing 110 record 
     acres, more or less;
       (14) T. 3 S., R. 5 E., sec. 13--NE\1/4\SE\1/4\, containing 
     40 record acres, more or less;
       (15) T. 3 S., R. 5 E., sec. 25--The portion of the E\1/
     2\NE\1/4\ lying southerly of Eagle Creek and northeasterly of 
     South Fork Eagle Creek, containing 14 record acres, more or 
     less;
       (16) T. 3 S., R. 5 E., sec. 26--The portion of the N\1/
     2\SW\1/4\ lying northeasterly of South Fork Eagle Creek, 
     containing 36 record acres, more or less; and
       (17) T. 6 S., R. 2 E., sec. 4--SW\1/4\, containing 160.00 
     record acres, more or less.
       (c) Land To Be Conveyed by the Secretary.--The land 
     referred to in subsection (a) as the land to be conveyed by 
     the Secretary is the land described as follows:
       (1) T. 1 S., R. 5 E., sec. 9--SE\1/4\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/
     4\, containing 80 record acres, more or less;
       (2) T. 2 S., R. 5 E., sec. 33--NE\1/4\NE\1/4\, containing 
     40 record acres, more or less;
       (3) T. 2\1/2\ S., R. 6 E., sec. 31--Lots 1-4, incl. 
     containing 50.65 record acres, more or less;
       (4) T. 2\1/2\ S., R. 6 E., sec. 32--Lots 1-4, incl. 
     containing 60.25 record acres, more or less;
       (5) T. 3 S., R. 5 E., sec. 1--NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, SE\1/4\, 
     containing 200 record acres, more or less;
       (6) T. 3 S., R. 5 E., sec. 9--S\1/2\SE\1/4\, containing 80 
     record acres, more or less;
       (7) T. 3 S., R. 5 E., sec. 17--N\1/2\NE\1/4\, containing 80 
     record acres, more or less;
       (8) T. 3 S., R. 5 E., sec. 23--W\1/2\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\SW\1/
     4\, containing 120 record acres, more or less;
       (9) T. 3 S., R. 5 E., sec. 25--The portion of the S\1/
     2\S\1/2\ lying southwesterly of South Fork Eagle Creek, 
     containing 125 record acres, more or less;
       (10) T. 3 S., R. 5 E., sec. 31--Unnumbered lot (SW\1/
     4\SW\1/4\), containing 40.33 record acres, more or less;
       (11) T. 7 S., R. 1 E., sec. 23--SE\1/4\SE\1/4\, containing 
     40 record acres, more or less;
       (12) T. 10 S., R. 2 E., sec. 34--SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, containing 
     40 record acres, more or less;
       (13) T. 10 S., R. 4 E., sec. 9--NW\1/4\NW\1/4\, containing 
     40 record acres, more or less;
       (14) T. 10 S., R. 4 E., sec. 21--E\1/2\SW\1/4\, containing 
     80 record acres, more or less;
       (15) T. 4 N., R. 3 W., sec. 35--W\1/2\SW\1/4\, containing 
     80 record acres, more or less;
       (16) T. 3 N., R. 3 W., sec. 7--E\1/2\NE\1/4\, containing 80 
     record acres, more or less;
       (17) T. 3 N., R. 3 W., sec. 9--NE\1/4\NE\1/4\, containing 
     40 record acres, more or less;
       (18) T. 3 N., R. 3 W., sec. 17--S\1/2\NE\1/4\, containing 
     80 record acres, more or less; and
       (19) T. 3 N., R. 3 W., sec. 21--Lot 1, N\1/2\NW\1/4\, SW\1/
     4\NW\1/4\, containing 157.99 record acres, more or less.
       (d) Equal Value.--The land and interests in land exchanged 
     under this section--
       (1) shall be of equal market value; or
       (2) shall be equalized using nationally recognized 
     appraisal standards, including, to the extent appropriate, 
     the Uniform Standards for Federal Land Acquisition, the 
     Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, the 
     provisions of section 206(d) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(d)), and other 
     applicable law.

[[Page S3228]]

       (e) Redesignation of Land To Maintain Revenue Flow.--So as 
     to maintain the current flow of revenue from land subject to 
     the Act entitled ``An Act relating to the revested Oregon and 
     California Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant 
     land situated in the state of Oregon'', approved August 28, 
     1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181a et seq.), the Secretary may redesignate 
     public domain land located in and west of Range 9 East, 
     Willamette Meridian, Oregon, as land subject to that Act.
       (f) Timetable.--The exchange directed by this section shall 
     be consummated not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.
          TITLE IV--COQUILLE FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
       [To be supplied.]
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 1663. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve 
revenue collection and to provide that a taxpayer conscientiously 
opposed to participation in war may elect to have such taxpayer's 
income, estate, or gift tax payments spent for nomilitary purposes, to 
create the U.S. Peace Tax Fund to receive such tax payments, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                  THE U.S. PEACE TAX FUND ACT OF 1996

  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, As tax day approaches, I once again 
come before the Senate to introduce the United States Peace Tax Fund. I 
am joined in this effort by the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who 
has been a longtime original cosponsor of this bill.
  I first introduced the Peace Tax Fund during the 95th Congress, 
nearly 20 years ago. I have reintroduced the Peace Tax Fund in every 
Congress since then because I believe it is important legislation.
  Since 1945 eligible conscientious objectors have been excused from 
combat. Although our Nation long has recognized moral and religious 
opposition to war, it has failed to address the depth and scope of such 
objections. Our tax laws do not recognize that conscience not only 
prohibits participation on the battlefield, but also in the preparation 
for war through payments to the military. CO's may withhold their 
bodies but not their money.
  The Peace Tax Fund Act, if enacted, would allow complete 
participation in our Federal Government by all citizens without many 
being forced to compromise deeply held beliefs of any citizen.
  Over the years I have received many letters from constituents 
describing their disapproval of military taxes and their desire to have 
the Federal Government respect such objections. Some citizens write of 
their decision to set aside their beliefs and pay their taxes in full, 
despite the anguish such payment causes. Others, perhaps following 
Albert Einstein's advice, ``Never do anything against conscience even 
if the State demands it,'' refuse to pay a portion of their taxes. Some 
Americans purposefully keep their income below the taxable level, so 
that they can avoid the decision altogether.
  It is important to point out what the Peace Tax Fund legislation is 
not. The Peace tax Fund is not a method by which a citizen may lodge 
protest over wasteful defense programs. Nor is it a tool to circumvent 
foreign policy initiatives. Tax liabilities cannot be reduced through 
participation in the Peace Tax Fund. The Peace Tax Fund Act was 
developed not for those individuals seeking to alter national policy, 
but rather to allow certain individuals to fully uphold Federal law 
without violating their consciences.
  The Peace Tax Fund would allow these sincere conscientious objectors 
the opportunity to pay their Federal taxes in full. Those who qualify 
may choose to have that portion of their taxes which would go to 
military activities instead be diverted to a special trust fund--the 
Peace Tax Fund--and then disbursed to two Federal programs: Head Start 
and WIC. The bill would not reduce the amount of funding for military 
activities. Nor would it result in any significant loss of revenue, 
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  As defined by the Peace Tax Fund Act, an eligible conscientious 
objector is anyone who has obtained this status under the Military 
Selective Service Act. Others may submit a questionnaire to the 
Secretary of the Treasury certifying his or her beliefs and how those 
beliefs affect that individual's life.
  In the 20-plus years that this issue has been debated, only two 
hearings have been held. The last hearing was held by the House Ways 
and Means Committee in 1992. The Senate has never held hearings on the 
Peace Tax Fund. It is my hope that before I leave the Senate the 
Finance Committee will hold a hearing on this issue.
  The Peace Tax Fund has had the support of many committed religious 
and peace organizations throughout the years. I ask unanimous consent 
that a partial listing of the organizations endorsing the Peace Tax 
Fund be included in the Record.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation so 
important to the protection of personal and religious beliefs of many 
citizens who find themselves each tax season torn between the law and 
conscience.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Partial Listing of Organizations Endorsing the Peace Tax Fund

       1. American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
       2. American Friends Service Committee.
       3. Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America.
       4. Buddhist Peace Fellowship.
       5. Catholic Committee of Appalachia.
       6. Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors.
       7. Church of the Brethren.
       8. Consortium on Peace Research Education and Development.
       9. Episcopal Peace Fellowship.
       10. Evangelicals for Social Action.
       11. Fellowship of Reconciliation.
       12. Franciscan Federation of Brothers and Sisters.
       13. Franciscans Sisters of the Poor.
       14. Friends Committee on National Legislation.
       15. Friends United Meeting.
       16. Fund For Peace.
       17. General Conference of the Mennonite Church.
       18. Grandmothers for Peace.
       19. Jewish Peace Fellowship.
       20. Leadership Conference of Women Religious--Peace/
     Disarmament Task Force.
       21. Lutheran Campus Ministry.
       22. Lutheran Peace Fellowship.
       23. Mennonite Central Committee.
       24. Mennonite Church General Board.
       25. Mercian Orthodox Catholic Church.
       26. National Assembly of Religious Women.
       27. National Council of Churches Ecumenical Witness 
     Conference.
       28. National Federation of Priests' Councils.
       29. National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious 
     Objectors.
       30. National Jobs with Peace Campaign.
       31. NETWORK--A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
       32. New Call to Peacemaking.
       33. Nonviolence International.
       34. Nuclear Free America.
       35. Pax Christi USA.
       36. Presbyterian Church USA.
       37. Presbyterian Peace Fellowship.
       38. Project for Conversion of Johns Hopkins Applied 
     Physicis Laboratory.
       39. School Sisters of St. Francis.
       40. Society of the Sacred heart--US Province Provincial 
     Team.
       41. Sojourners.
       42. Unitarian Universalist Association.
       43. United Church of Christ.
       44. United Methodist Church.
       45. US Province Office of the US Provincials.
       46. Veterans for Peace.
       47. War Resisters' League.
       48. Women Strike for Peace.
       49. Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.
       50. World Peacemakers.

                          ____________________