[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7179-S7190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

       By Mrs. BOXER:

  S. 1910. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
expanding, intensifying, and coordinating activities of the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute with respect to

[[Page S7180]]

heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women; to 
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources


    The Women's Cardiovascular Diseases Research and Prevention Act

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Women's 
Cardiovascular Diseases Research and Prevention Act, a bill to expand 
and intensify research and educational outreach programs regarding 
cardiovascular diseases in women. This bill will aid our Nation's 
doctors and scientists in developing a coordinated and comprehensive 
strategy for fighting this terrible disease.
  Cardiovascular disease is the No. 1 killer of women in the United 
States. Over 479,000 women die from cardiovascular disease each year 
and 1 in 5 women has some form of the disease. Research is our best 
hope for averting this national tragedy which strikes so many of our 
grandmothers, mothers, aunts and daughters.
  The Women's Cardiovascular Diseases Research and Prevention Act 
authorizes $140 million to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute 
to expand and intensify research, prevention, and educational outreach 
programs for heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases in 
women.
  This bill will educate women and doctors about the dire threat heart 
disease poses to women's health. It will help train doctors to better 
recognize symptoms of cardiovascular disease which are unique to women. 
It would also teach women about risk factors, such as smoking, obesity, 
and physical inactivity, which greatly increase their chances of 
developing coronary heart disease.
  For years, women have been underrepresented in studies conducted on 
heart disease and stroke. Models and tests for detection have been 
conducted largely on men. This legislation will help ensure that women 
are well represented in future heart and stroke research studies.
  The Women's Cardiovascular Diseases Research and Prevention Act has 
been introduced in the House by Representative Waters, and it has been 
included in the Women's Health Equity Act, a broader package of bills 
to bring national attention to women's health issues.
  I urge my colleagues to commit to combating cardiovascular disease by 
supporting this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1910

       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 ``women's Cardiovascular 
     Diseases Research and Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows with respect to women in the 
     United States:
       (1) Heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases 
     are the leading causes of death in women.
       (2) Heart attacks and strokes are leading causes of 
     disability in women.
       (3) Cardiovascular diseases claim the lives of more women 
     each year than does cancer. Each year more than 479,000 
     females die of cardiovascular diseases, while approximately 
     246,000 females die of cancer. Heart attack kills more than 5 
     times as many females as breast cancer. Stroke kills twice as 
     many females as breast cancer.
       (4) One in 5 females has some form of cardiovascular 
     disease. Of females under age 65, each year more than 20,000 
     die of heart attacks. In the case of African-American women, 
     from ages 35 to 74 the death rate from heart attacks is 
     approximately twice that of white women and 3 times that of 
     women of other races.
       (5) Each year since 1984, cardiovascular diseases have 
     claimed the lives of more females than males. In 1992, of the 
     number of individuals who died of such diseases, 52 percent 
     were females and 48 percent were males.
       (6) The clinical course of cardiovascular diseases is 
     different in women than in men, and current diagnostic 
     capabilities are less accurate in women than in men. Once a 
     woman develops a cardiovascular disease, she is more likely 
     than a man to have continuing health problems, and she is 
     more likely to die.
       (7) Of women who have had a heart attack, approximately 44 
     percent die within 1 year of the attack. Of men who have had 
     such an attack, 27 percent die within 1 year. At older ages, 
     women who have had a heart attack are twice as likely as men 
     to die from the attack within a few weeks. Women are more 
     likely than men to have stroke during the first 6 years 
     following a heart attack. More than 60 percent of women who 
     suffer a stroke die within 8 years. Long-term survivorship of 
     stroke is better in women than in men. Of individuals who die 
     from a stroke, each year approximately 61 percent are 
     females. In 1992, 87,124 females died from strokes. Women 
     have unrecognized heart attacks more frequently than men. Of 
     women who died suddenly from heart attack, 63 percent had no 
     previous evidence of disease.
       (8) More than half of the annual health care costs that are 
     related to cardiovascular diseases are attributable to the 
     occurrence of the diseases in women, each year costing this 
     nation hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs 
     and lost productivity.

     SEC. 3. EXPANSION AND INTENSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES REGARDING 
                   HEART ATTACK, STROKE AND OTHER CARDIOVASCULAR 
                   DISEASES IN WOMEN.

       Subpart 2 of part C of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285b et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 424 the following section:


   ``heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women

       ``Sec. 424A. (a) In General.--The Director of the Institute 
     shall expand, intensify, and coordinate research and related 
     activities of the Institute with respect to heart attack, 
     stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women.
       ``(b) Coordination With Other Institutes.--The Director of 
     the Institute shall coordinate activities under subsection 
     (a) with similar activities conducted by the other national 
     research institutes and agencies of the National Institutes 
     of Health to the extent that such Institutes and agencies 
     have responsibilities that are related to heart attack, 
     stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women.
       ``(c) Certain Programs.--In carrying out subsection (a), 
     the Director of the Institute shall conduct or support 
     research to expand the understanding of the causes of, and to 
     develop methods for preventing, cardiovascular diseases in 
     women. Activities under such subsection shall include 
     conducting and supporting the following:
       ``(1) Research to determine the reasons underlying the 
     prevalence of heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular 
     diseases in women, including African-American women and other 
     women who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups.
       ``(2) Basic research concerning the etiology and causes of 
     cardiovascular diseases in women.
       ``(3) Epidemiological studies to address the frequency and 
     natural history of such diseases and the differences among 
     men and women, and among racial and ethnic groups, with 
     respect to such diseases.
       ``(4) The development of safe, efficient, and cost-
     effective diagnostic approaches to evaluating women with 
     suspected ischemic heart disease.
       ``(5) Clinical research for the development and evaluation 
     of new treatments for women, including rehabilitation.
       ``(6) Studies to gain a better understanding of methods of 
     preventing cardiovascular diseases in women, including 
     applications of effective methods for the control of blood 
     pressure, lipids, and obesity.
       ``(7) Information and education programs for patients and 
     health care providers on risk factors associated with heart 
     attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women, 
     and on the importance of the prevention or control of such 
     risk factors and timely referral with appropriate diagnosis 
     and treatment. Such programs shall include information and 
     education on health-related behaviors that can improve such 
     important risk factors as smoking, obesity, high blood 
     cholesterol, and lack of exercise.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $140,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, and such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 
     1999. The authorization of appropriations established in the 
     preceding sentence is in addition to any other authorization 
     of appropriation that is available for such purpose.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 1911. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
encourage economic development through the creation of additional 
empowerment zones and enterprise communities and to encourage the 
cleanup of contaminated brownfield sites; to the Committee on Finance.


                 the community empowerment act of 1996

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure, 
together with my colleagues, Senators D'Amato and Jeffords, to 
introduce the Community Empowerment Act of 1996. This is economic 
development legislation that will create new growth and new jobs, by 
facilitating the cleanup and reuse of what are called brownfield 
industrial and commercial sites, and by adding 20 additional 
empowerment zones and 80 additional enterprise communities all across 
the Nation.
  Mr. President, this legislation provides a new opportunity for 
cooperation between government and the private sector not only to help 
rebuild

[[Page S7181]]

urban areas and rural areas and suburban areas to attract investments, 
but also to effect the cleanup of what I sometimes refer to as an 
``environmentally challenged area.''
  The act refers to brownfields specifically and provides a tax 
incentive rather for brownfield cleanups. Incentives exist in that 
money spent by new owners for the cleanup of environmentally polluted 
areas will accrue as an expense on their income tax.
  Brownfields are contaminated industrial sites. Usually, the 
facilities are abandoned and have problems selling because of the 
contamination that was left on the property. These sites are well 
suited for industrial and commercial redevelopment because the 
transportation infrastructure already exist, the utilities are there 
and the labor force is there. However, potential redevelopers usually 
stay away from these sites, in no small part because current law forces 
them to capitalize environmental cleanup costs. That constitutes a 
daunting obstacle to redevelopment. Even small amounts of contamination 
adds significantly to the cost and uncertainty of a reuse project. 
Therefore, businesses have a significant incentive to move to areas 
outside of the brownfield communities because of the cost associated 
with the cleanup and redevelopment. Reversing this deterrent, therefore 
will help to encourage businesses to reuse these brownfields.
  Under the provisions of this legislation, qualifying brownfields 
would be provided full first-year expensing of environmental cleanup 
costs under the Federal tax code. Full first-year expensing simply 
means that a tax deduction will be allowed for the cleanup costs in the 
year that the costs are incurred.
  At present, if an industrial property owner does environmental damage 
to their property and then cleans up the site, the owner is allowed to 
expense the cost of that cleanup. However, in a strange twist of logic, 
someone who buys an environmentally damaged piece of property and who 
cleans up that property is now allowed to expense these cleanup costs, 
but instead must deduct the cost over many years.
  The result? An urban landscape littered with vacant and abandoned 
properties--properties which attract crime and bring down property 
values in the surrounding neighborhoods.
  This is an issue that directly affects the lives of literally 
millions of Americans, and addressing it will empower communities 
across the country. The collective efforts of everyone, particularly, 
the nonprofit community, the private sector, the Government, developers 
and grassroots community groups are essential to begin the process of 
returning brownfield properties back to productive use, and to bring 
economic growth back to the inner cities and disadvantaged rural areas.
  In order to help communities across the Nation begin rebuilding their 
economic base, reestablish viable areas for businesses to locate, and 
to stimulate job growth, at the Federal level, we must provide the 
appropriate mix of incentives and the right climate to encourage 
private investment.
  This legislation take a non bureaucratic approach to encouraging 
investment because all of the funds go toward the cleanup and not to 
administrative costs. This legislation opens up opportunity through 
targeted tax incentives.
  The Community Empowerment Act creates tax incentives, that we hope 
will break through some of the current barriers preventing the private 
industry from investing in brownfields cleanup projects. The 
legislation's tax incentives will help bring thousands of 
environmentally contaminated industrial sites back into productive use 
again, help to rebuild neighborhoods, create jobs, and help restore our 
Nation's cities, distressed communities and rural areas.
  Particularly in my State of Illinois, the brownfields provisions 
should have a major impact on efforts to help restore severely 
neglected areas. It will allow for the cleanup of 300 to 500 sites in 
Illinois with remediation costs ranging from $250,000 to $500,000. It 
is expected that such cleanup will create hundreds of jobs.
  This legislation will help companies all across America absorb the 
costs of restoring brownfields. The Treasury Department estimates that 
the Community Empowerment Act of 1996 will provide $2 billion in tax 
incentives, and that it will leverage $10 billion in private 
investment, returning an estimated 30,000 brownfields to productive use 
again.
  What makes this legislation so attractive, is that the Federal 
dollars to cleanup these brownfields will be concentrated in the areas 
with the most severe problems. The tax incentive would be available in 
neighborhoods that are truly in need of an investment. The bill targets 
four areas: First, existing EPA brownfields pilot areas; second, areas 
with a poverty rate of 20 percent or more and in adjacent industrial or 
commercial areas; third, areas with a population under 2,000 or more 
than 75 percent of which is zoned for industrial or commercial use; and 
fourth, Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities.
  This legislation will assist efforts to cleanup these brownfields in 
cities across the Nation, with the active primary participation of the 
cities and community leaders. Such participation will make the 
initiative efficient, and successful.
  Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, has taken the initiative to establish 
a brownfields pilot program. One example of a successful public/private 
partnership pulling together to cleanup a brownfields site is the 
Madison Equipment site located in Illinois. This abandoned industrial 
building was a neighborhood eyesore. Scavengers had stolen most of the 
wiring and plumbing and illegal or ``midnight'' dumping was rampant. 
Madison Equipment needed expansion space but feared environmental 
liability. However, in 1993, the city of Chicago invested just a little 
over $3,000 in this project and 1 year later Madison had put $180,000 
into redeveloping the building. The critical reason that lenders and 
investors will look at this area is because the city committed public 
money to spur private redevelopment and investment. When the local 
government demonstrates the confidence to commit public funds, private 
financial institutions are more likely to follow suit.
  Chicago's pilot program successfully will return all of the pilot 
sites to productive use for a total of about $850,000. It has helped to 
retain and create hundreds of jobs, and stimulated private investment. 
Chicago is a perfect example of what this legislation can accomplish on 
a national level. But in order to make it all happen, cooperation is 
key. Effective strategies require strong partnerships among government, 
industry, organized labor, community groups, developers, 
environmentalists, and financiers who all realize that when their 
efforts are aligned, progress is easier.
  Brownfields are both an environmental and an economic development 
problem and brownfield initiatives should be viewed as one important 
component of a larger strategy for revitalizing our Nation's 
communities. Cleaning up sites is only half the goal. Cleanup must be 
pursued along with redevelopment that will benefit not only the private 
companies but the community at large.
  That is why along with the brownfield tax incentives, the legislation 
also establishes 20 more empowerment zones and 80 additional enterprise 
communities. Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities receive a 
variety of tools from the Federal Government: First, a package of tax 
incentives and flexible grants available over a 10-year period; second, 
priority consideration for other Federal empowerment programs; and 
third, assistance in removing bureaucratic red tape and regulatory 
barriers that prevent innovative uses of Federal funds.
  This approach recognizes that top-down, big-government solutions are 
not the answer to communities' problems, and that enhanced public-
private partnerships are essential.
  Economic empowerment can be achieved but it is best done through 
public/private partnerships. Economic revitalization in this Nation's 
most distressed communities is essential to the growth of our entire 
Nation. With the concept of team effort, we can rebuild our cities by 
stimulating investment that creates jobs. Environmental protection can 
be and is good business. With this legislation, we will begin the 
effort to restore economic growth back into our countries industrial 
centers and rural communities while improving the environment.

[[Page S7182]]

  I would like to thank President Clinton, Vice President Gore and 
Secretary Rubin for their leadership and work on this issue. I 
appreciate my colleagues Senator D'amato and Jeffords for their 
cosponsorship and in making this legislation a bipartisan effort. I 
urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting the quick passage of 
this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a 
section-by-section analysis of the bill and the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  I urge my colleagues to take a good look at the legislation. I think 
and I hope that it will receive bipartisan support.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1911

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                 TITLE I--ADDITIONAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES

     SEC. 101. ADDITIONAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 1391(b) (relating 
     to designations of empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``9'' and inserting ``11'',
       (2) by striking ``6'' and inserting ``8'', and
       (3) by striking ``750,000'' and inserting ``1,000,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that designations of new empowerment zones made 
     pursuant to such amendments shall be made during the 180-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       TITLE II--NEW EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES

     SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND 
                   ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1391 (relating to designation 
     procedure for empowerment zones and enterprise communities) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Additional Designations Permitted.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to the areas designated 
     under subsection (a)--
       ``(A) Enterprise communities.--The appropriate Secretaries 
     may designate in the aggregate an additional 80 nominated 
     areas as enterprise communities under this section, subject 
     to the availability of eligible nominated areas. Of that 
     number, not more than 50 may be designated in urban areas and 
     not more than 30 may be designated in rural areas.
       ``(B) Empowerment zones.--The appropriate Secretaries may 
     designate in the aggregate an additional 20 nominated areas 
     as empowerment zones under this section, subject to the 
     availability of eligible nominated areas. Of that number, not 
     more than 15 may be designated in urban areas and not more 
     than 5 may be designated in rural areas.
       ``(2) Period designations may be made.--A designation may 
     be made under this subsection after the date of the enactment 
     of this subsection and before January 1, 1998.
       ``(3) Modifications to eligibility criteria, etc.--
       ``(A) Poverty rate requirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--A nominated area shall be eligible for 
     designation under this subsection only if the poverty rate 
     for each population census tract within the nominated area is 
     not less than 20 percent and the poverty rate for at least 90 
     percent of the population census tracts within the nominated 
     area is not less than 25 percent.
       ``(ii) Treatment of census tracts with small populations.--
     A population census tract with a population of less than 
     2,000 shall be treated as having a poverty rate of not less 
     than 25 percent if--

       ``(I) more than 75 percent of such tract is zoned for 
     commercial or industrial use, and
       ``(II) such tract is contiguous to 1 or more other 
     population census tracts which have a poverty rate of not 
     less than 25 percent (determined without regard to this 
     clause).

       ``(iii) Exception for developable sites.--Clause (i) shall 
     not apply to up to 3 noncontiguous parcels in a nominated 
     area which may be developed for commercial or industrial 
     purposes. The aggregate area of noncontiguous parcels to 
     which the preceding sentence applies with respect to any 
     nominated area shall not exceed 1000 acres (2,000 acres in 
     the case of an empowerment zone).
       ``(iv) Certain provisions not to apply.--Section 1392(a)(4) 
     (and so much of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1392(b) as 
     relate to section 1392(a)(4)) shall not apply to an area 
     nominated for designation under this subsection.
       ``(v) Special rule for rural empowerment zones and 
     enterprise communities.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     designate not more than 1 empowerment zone, and not more than 
     5 enterprise communities, in rural areas without regard to 
     clause (i) if such areas satisfy emigration criteria 
     specified by the Secretary of Agriculture.
       ``(B) Size limitation.--
       ``(i) In general.--The parcels described in subparagraph 
     (A)(iii) shall not be taken into account in determining 
     whether the requirement of subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 
     1392(a)(3) is met.
       ``(ii) Special rule for rural areas.--If a population 
     census tract (or equivalent division under section 
     1392(b)(4)) in a rural area exceeds 1,000 square miles or 
     includes a substantial amount of land owned by the Federal, 
     State, or local government, the nominated area may exclude 
     such excess square mileage or governmentally owned land and 
     the exclusion of that area will not be treated as violating 
     the continuous boundary requirement of section 1392(a)(3)(B).
       ``(C) Aggregate population limitation.--The aggregate 
     population limitation under the last sentence of subsection 
     (b)(2) shall not apply to a designation under paragraph 
     (1)(B).
       ``(D) Previously designated enterprise communities may be 
     included.--Subsection (e)(5) shall not apply to any 
     enterprise community designated under subsection (a) that is 
     also nominated for designation under this subsection.
       ``(E) Indian reservations may be nominated.--
       ``(i) In general.--Section 1393(a)(4) shall not apply to an 
     area nominated for designation under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Special rule.--An area in an Indian reservation 
     shall be treated as nominated by a State and a local 
     government if it is nominated by the reservation governing 
     body (as determined by the Secretary of Interior).''
       (b) Employment Credit Not To Apply to New Empowerment 
     Zones.--Section 1396 (relating to empowerment zone employment 
     credit) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Credit Not To Apply to Empowerment Zones Designated 
     Under Section 1391(g).--This section shall be applied without 
     regard to any empowerment zone designated under section 
     1391(g).''
       (c) Increased Expensing Under Section 179 Not To Apply in 
     Developable Sites.--Section 1397A (relating to increase in 
     expensing under section 179) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Limitation.--For purposes of this section, qualified 
     zone property shall not include any property substantially 
     all of the use of which is in any parcel described in section 
     1391(g)(3)(A)(iii).''
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsections (e) and (f) of section 1391 are each 
     amended by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``this 
     section''.
       (2) Section 1391(c) is amended by striking ``this section'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (a)''.

     SEC. 202. VOLUME CAP NOT TO APPLY TO ENTERPRISE ZONE FACILITY 
                   BONDS WITH RESPECT TO NEW EMPOWERMENT ZONES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1394 (relating to tax-exempt 
     enterprise zone facility bonds) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Bonds for Empowerment Zones Designated Under Section 
     1391(g).--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a new empowerment zone 
     facility bond--
       ``(A) such bond shall not be treated as a private activity 
     bond for purposes of section 146, and
       ``(B) subsection (c) of this section shall not apply.
       ``(2) Limitation on amount of bonds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to a new 
     empowerment zone facility bond only if such bond is 
     designated for purposes of this subsection by the local 
     government which nominated the area to which such bond 
     relates.
       ``(B) Limitation on bonds designated.--The aggregate face 
     amount of bonds which may be designated under subparagraph 
     (A) with respect to any empowerment zone shall not exceed--
       ``(i) $60,000,000 if such zone is in a rural area,
       ``(ii) $130,000,000 if such zone is in an urban area and 
     the zone has a population of less than 100,000, and
       ``(iii) $230,000,000 if such zone is in an urban area and 
     the zone has a population of at least 100,000.
       ``(C) Special rules.--
       ``(i) Coordination with limitation in subsection (c).--
     Bonds to which paragraph (1) applies shall not be taken into 
     account in applying the limitation of subsection (c) to other 
     bonds.
       ``(ii) Current refunding not taken into account.--In the 
     case of a refunding (or series of refundings) of a bond 
     designated under this paragraph, the refunding obligation 
     shall be treated as designated under this paragraph (and 
     shall not be taken into account in applying subparagraph (B)) 
     if--

       ``(I) the amount of the refunding bond does not exceed the 
     outstanding amount of the refunded bond, and
       ``(II) the refunded bond is redeemed not later than 90 days 
     after the date of issuance of the refunding bond.

       ``(3) New empowerment zone facility bond.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `new empowerment zone facility 
     bond' means any bond which would be described in

[[Page S7183]]

     subsection (a) if only empowerment zones designated under 
     section 1391(g) were taken into account under sections 1397B 
     and 1397C.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 203. MODIFICATIONS TO ENTERPRISE ZONE FACILITY BOND 
                   RULES FOR ALL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE 
                   COMMUNITIES.

       (a) Modifications Relating to Enterprise Zone Business.--
     Paragraph (3) of section 1394(b) (defining enterprise zone 
     business) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Enterprise zone business.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as modified in this paragraph, 
     the term `enterprise zone business' has the meaning given 
     such term by section 1397B.
       ``(B) Modifications.--In applying section 1397B for 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(i) Businesses in enterprise communities eligible.--
     References in section 1397B to empowerment zones shall be 
     treated as including references to enterprise communities.
       ``(ii) Waiver of requirements during startup period.--A 
     business shall not fail to be treated as an enterprise zone 
     business during the startup period if--

       ``(I) as of the beginning of the startup period, it is 
     reasonably expected that such business will be an enterprise 
     zone business (as defined in section 1397B as modified by 
     this paragraph) at the end of such period, and
       ``(II) such business makes bona fide efforts to be such a 
     business.

       ``(iii) Reduced requirements after testing period.--A 
     business shall not fail to be treated as an enterprise zone 
     business for any taxable year beginning after the testing 
     period by reason of failing to meet any requirement of 
     subsection (b) or (c) of section 1397B if at least 35 percent 
     of the employees of such business for such year are residents 
     of an empowerment zone or an enterprise community. The 
     preceding sentence shall not apply to any business which is 
     not a qualified business by reason of paragraph (1), (4), or 
     (5) of section 1397B(d).
       ``(C) Definitions relating to subparagraph (b).--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) Startup period.--The term `startup period' means, 
     with respect to any property being provided for any business, 
     the period before the first taxable year beginning more than 
     2 years after the later of--

       ``(I) the date of issuance of the issue providing such 
     property, or
       ``(II) the date such property is first placed in service 
     after such issuance (or, if earlier, the date which is 3 
     years after the date described in subclause (I)).

       ``(ii) Testing period.--The term `testing period' means the 
     first 3 taxable years beginning after the startup period.
       ``(D) Portions of business may be enterprise zone 
     business.--The term `enterprise zone business' includes any 
     trades or businesses which would qualify as an enterprise 
     zone business (determined after the modifications of 
     subparagraph (B)) if such trades or businesses were 
     separately incorporated.''
       (b) Modifications Relating to Qualified Zone Property.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 1394(b) (defining qualified zone 
     property) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Qualified zone property.--The term `qualified zone 
     property' has the meaning given such term by section 1397C; 
     except that--
       ``(A) the references to empowerment zones shall be treated 
     as including references to enterprise communities, and
       ``(B) section 1397C(a)(2) shall be applied by substituting 
     `an amount equal to 15 percent of the adjusted basis' for `an 
     amount equal to the adjusted basis'.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 204. MODIFICATIONS TO ENTERPRISE ZONE BUSINESS 
                   DEFINITION FOR ALL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND 
                   ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1397B (defining enterprise zone 
     business) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``80 percent'' in subsections (b)(2) and 
     (c)(1) and inserting ``50 percent'',
       (2) by striking ``substantially all'' each place it appears 
     in subsections (b) and (c) and inserting ``a substantial 
     portion'',
       (3) by striking ``, and exclusively related to,'' in 
     subsections (b)(4) and (c)(3),
       (4) by adding at the end of subsection (d)(2) the following 
     new flush sentence:

     ``For purposes of subparagraph (B), the lessor of the 
     property may rely on a lessee's certification that such 
     lessee is an enterprise zone business.'',
       (5) by striking ``substantially all'' in subsection (d)(3) 
     and inserting ``at least 50 percent'', and
       (6) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Treatment of Businesses Straddling Census Tract 
     Lines.--For purposes of this section, if--
       ``(1) a business entity or proprietorship uses real 
     property located within an empowerment zone,
       ``(2) the business entity or proprietorship also uses real 
     property located outside the empowerment zone,
       ``(3) the amount of real property described in paragraph 
     (1) is substantial compared to the amount of real property 
     described in paragraph (2), and
       ``(4) the real property described in paragraph (2) is 
     contiguous to part or all of the real property described in 
     paragraph (1),

     then all the services performed by employees, all business 
     activities, all tangible property, and all intangible 
     property of the business entity or proprietorship that occur 
     in or is located on the real property described in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) shall be treated as occurring or situated in an 
     empowerment zone.''
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Special rule for enterprise zone facility bonds.--For 
     purposes of section 1394(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, the amendments made by this section shall apply to 
     obligations issued after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
        TITLE III--EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS

     SEC. 301. EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.

       (a) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 198. EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.

       ``(a) In General.--A taxpayer may elect to treat any 
     qualified environmental remediation expenditure which is paid 
     or incurred by the taxpayer as an expense which is not 
     chargeable to capital account. Any expenditure which is so 
     treated shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year 
     in which it is paid or incurred.
       ``(b) Qualified Environmental Remediation Expenditure.--For 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified environmental 
     remediation expenditure' means any expenditure--
       ``(A) which is otherwise chargeable to capital account, and
       ``(B) which is paid or incurred in connection with the 
     abatement or control of hazardous substances at a qualified 
     contaminated site.
       ``(2) Special rule for expenditures for depreciable 
     property.--Such term shall not include any expenditure for 
     the acquisition of property of a character subject to the 
     allowance for depreciation which is used in connection with 
     the abatement or control of hazardous substances at a 
     qualified contaminated site; except that the portion of the 
     allowance under section 167 for such property which is 
     otherwise allocated to such site shall be treated as a 
     qualified environmental remediation expenditure.
       ``(c) Qualified Contaminated Site.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Qualified contaminated site.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified contaminated site' 
     means any area--
       ``(i) which is held by the taxpayer for use in a trade or 
     business or for the production of income, or which is 
     property described in section 1221(1) in the hands of the 
     taxpayer,
       ``(ii) which is within a targeted area, and
       ``(iii) which contains (or potentially contains) any 
     hazardous substance.
       ``(B) Taxpayer must receive statement from state 
     environmental agency.--An area shall be treated as a 
     qualified contaminated site with respect to expenditures paid 
     or incurred during any taxable year only if the taxpayer 
     receives a statement from the appropriate agency of the State 
     in which such area is located that such area meets the 
     requirements of clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Appropriate state agency.-- For purposes of 
     subparagraph (B), the appropriate agency of a State is the 
     agency designated by the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency for purposes of this section. If no agency 
     of a State is designated under the preceding sentence, the 
     appropriate agency for such State shall be the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.
       ``(2) Targeted area.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `targeted area' means--
       ``(i) any population census tract with a poverty rate of 
     not less than 20 percent,
       ``(ii) a population census tract with a population of less 
     than 2,000 if--

       ``(I) more than 75 percent of such tract is zoned for 
     commercial or industrial use, and
       ``(II) such tract is contiguous to 1 or more other 
     population census tracts which meet the requirement of clause 
     (i) without regard to this clause,

       ``(iii) any empowerment zone or enterprise community (and 
     any supplemental zone designated on December 21, 1994), and
       ``(iv) any site announced before February 1, 1996, as being 
     included as a brownfields pilot project of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.
       ``(B) National priorities listed sites not included.--Such 
     term shall not include any site which is on the national 
     priorities list under section 105(a)(8)(B) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this section).
       ``(C) Certain rules to apply.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the rules of sections 1392(b)(4) and 1393(a)(9) 
     shall apply.
       ``(D) Treatment of certain sites.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, a single contaminated site shall be treated as 
     within a targeted area if--
       ``(i) a substantial portion of the site is located within a 
     targeted area described in

[[Page S7184]]

     subparagraph (A) (determined without regard to this 
     subparagraph), and
       ``(ii) the remaining portions are contiguous to, but 
     outside, such targeted area.
       ``(d) Hazardous Substance.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `hazardous substance' means--
       ``(A) any substance which is a hazardous substance as 
     defined in section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and
       ``(B) any substance which is designated as a hazardous 
     substance under section 102 of such Act.
       ``(2) Exception.--Such term shall not include any substance 
     with respect to which a removal or remedial action is not 
     permitted under section 104 of such Act by reason of 
     subsection (a)(3) thereof.
       ``(e) Deduction Recaptured as Ordinary Income on Sale, 
     Etc.--Solely for purposes of section 1245, in the case of 
     property to which a qualified environmental remediation 
     expenditure would have been capitalized but for this 
     section--
       ``(1) the deduction allowed by this section for such 
     expenditure shall be treated as a deduction for depreciation, 
     and
       ``(2) such property (if not otherwise section 1245 
     property) shall be treated as section 1245 property solely 
     for purposes of applying section 1245 to such deduction.
       ``(f) Coordination With Other Provisions.--Sections 280B 
     and 468 shall not apply to amounts which are treated as 
     expenses under this section.
       ``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this section.''
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VI 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 198. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after 
     such date.
                                                                    ____


                      Section-by-Section Analysis


                 Title I--Additional Empowerment Zones

       Section 101 would authorize the designation of an 
     additional two urban empowerment zones under the 1994 first 
     round.


       Title II--New Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities

       Section 201 authorizes a second round of designations, 
     consisting of 80 enterprise communities and 20 empowerment 
     zones. Of the 80 enterprise communities, 50 would be in urban 
     areas and 30 would be in rural areas. Of the 20 empowerment 
     zones, 15 would be in urban areas and 5 would be in rural 
     areas. The designations would be made before January 1, 1998.
       Certain of the eligibility criteria applicable in the first 
     round would be modified for the second round of designations. 
     First, the poverty criteria would be relaxed somewhat, so 
     that unlike the first round there would be no requirement 
     that at least 50 percent of the population census tracts have 
     a poverty rate of 35 percent or more. In addition, the 
     poverty criteria will not be applicable to areas specified in 
     the application as developable for commercial or industrial 
     purposes (1,000 acres in the case of an enterprise community, 
     2,000 acres in the case of an empowerment zone), and these 
     areas will not be taken into account in applying the size 
     limitations (e.g., 20 square miles for urban areas, 1,000 
     square miles for rural areas). The Secretary of Agriculture 
     will be authorized to designate up to one rural empowerment 
     zone and five rural enterprise communities based on specified 
     emigration criteria without regard to the minimum poverty 
     rates set forth in the statute. Rural census tracts in excess 
     of 1,000 square miles or including a substantial amount of 
     governmentally owned land may exclude such excess mileage or 
     governmentally owned land from the nominated area. Unlike the 
     first round, Indian reservations will be eligible to be 
     nominated (and the nomination may be submitted by the 
     reservation governing body without the State government's 
     participation). The empowerment zone employment credit will 
     not be available to businesses in the new empowerment zones, 
     and the increased expending under section 179 will not be 
     available in the developable acreage areas of empowerment 
     zones.
       Section 202 authorizes a new category of tax-exempt 
     financing for financing for businesses in the new empowerment 
     zones. These bonds, rather than being subject to the current 
     State volume caps, will be subject to zone-specific caps. For 
     each rural empowerment zones, up to $60 million in such bonds 
     may be issued. For an urban empowerment zone with a 
     population under 100,000, $130 million of these bonds may be 
     issued. For each urban empowerment zone with a population of 
     100,000 or more, $230 million of these bonds may be issued.
       Section 203 liberalizes the current definition of an 
     ``enterprise zone business'' for purpose of the tax-exempt 
     financing available under both the first and second rounds. 
     Businesses will be treated as satisfying the applicable 
     requirements during a 2-year start-up period if it is 
     reasonably expected that the business will satisfy those 
     requirements by the end of the start-up period and the 
     business makes bona fide efforts to that end. Following 
     the start-up period a 3-year testing period will begin, 
     after which certain enterprise zone business requirements 
     will no longer be applicable (as long as more than 35 
     percent of the business' employees are residents of the 
     empowerment zone or enterprise community). The rules under 
     which substantially renovated property may be ``qualified 
     zone property,'' and thereby be eligible to be financed 
     with tax-exempt bonds, would also be liberalized slightly.
       Section 204 liberalizes the definition of enterprise 
     business for purposes of both the tax-exempt financing 
     provisions and the additional section 179 expensing by 
     reducing from 80 percent to 50 percent the amount of total 
     gross income that must be derived within the empowerment zone 
     or enterprise community, by reducing how much of the 
     business' property and employees' services must be located in 
     or provided within the zone or community, and by easing the 
     restrictions governing when rental businesses will qualify as 
     enterprise zone businesses. A special rule is also provided 
     to clarify how a business that straddles the boundary of an 
     empowerment zone or enterprise community (e.g., by straddling 
     a population census tract boundary) is treated for purposes 
     of the enterprise zone business definition.


        title iii--expensing of environmental remediation costs

       Section 301 would provide a current deduction for certain 
     remediation costs incurred with respect to qualified sites. 
     Generally, these expenses would be limited to those paid or 
     incurred in connection with the abatement or control of 
     environmental contaminants. This deduction would apply for 
     alternative minimum tax purposes as well as for regular tax 
     purposes.
       Qualified sites would be limited to those properties that 
     satisfy use, geographic, and contamination requirements. The 
     use requirement would be satisfied if the property is held by 
     the taxpayer incurring the eligible expenses for use in a 
     trade or business or for the production of income, or if the 
     property is of a kind properly included in the inventory of 
     the taxpayer. The geographic requirement would be satisfied 
     if the property is located in (i) any census tract that has a 
     poverty rate of 20 percent or more, (ii) any other census 
     tract (a) that has a population under 2,000, (b) 75 percent 
     or more of which is zoned for industrial or commercial use, 
     and (c) that is contiguous to one or more census tracts with 
     a poverty rate of 20 percent or more, (iii) an area 
     designated as a federal EZ or EC, or (iv) an area subject to 
     one of the 40 EPA Brownfields Pilots announced prior to 
     February 1996. Both urban and rural sites may qualify. 
     Superfund National Priority listed sites would be excluded.
       The contamination requirement would be satisfied if 
     hazardous substances are present or potentially present on 
     the property. Hazardous substances would be defined generally 
     by reference to sections 101(14) and 102 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 
     (CERCLA), subject to additional limitations applicable to 
     asbestos and similar substances within buildings, certain 
     naturally occurring substances such as radon, and certain 
     other substances released into drinking water supplies due 
     to deterioration through ordinary use.
       To claim the deduction under this provision, the taxpayer 
     would be required to obtain a statement that the site 
     satisfies the geographic and contamination requirements from 
     a State environmental agency designated by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency for such purposes or, if no such agency has 
     been designated by the EPA, by the EPA itself.
       This deduction would be subject to recapture under current-
     law section 1245. Thus, any gain realized on disposition 
     generally would be treated as ordinary income, rather than 
     capital gain, up to the amount of deductions taken with 
     respect to the property.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and 
colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun, in introducing legislation that will 
provide a new tax incentive to encourage the private sector to clean up 
thousands of contaminated, abandoned sites known as ``brownfields.'' 
Brownfield sites are abandoned or vacant commercial and industrial 
properties suspected of being environmentally contaminated.
  Under current law, the IRS has determined that costs incurred to 
clean up land and ground water are deductible as business expenses, as 
long as the costs are incurred by the same taxpayer that contaminated 
the land, and that taxpayer plans to use the land after the cleanup for 
the same purposes used prior to the cleanup. That means that new owners 
who wish to use land suspected of environmental contamination for a new 
purpose, would be precluded from deducting the costs of cleanup in the 
year incurred. They would only be allowed to capitalize the costs and 
depreciate them over time. Therefore, it is time for us to recognize 
the need for aggressive economic development policies for the future 
economic health of communities around the country, and to recognize the 
inequity of current tax law. Senator Moseley-Braun and I believe that 
our

[[Page S7185]]

legislation is the type of initiative the Federal Government needs to 
encourage development of once-abandoned, unproductive sites that will 
bring real economic benefits to urban distressed and rural areas across 
the United States. By encouraging redevelopment, jobs will be created, 
economic growth will continue, property values will increase, as well 
as local tax revenues.
  Mr. President, I am proud to say that in my State of New York, the 
city of Elmira has been selected as a fourth round finalist for the 
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative Demonstration Pilot 
Program. The city of Elmira has primed an unsightly and unsafe urban 
brownfield and is now in the final stages of turning it into a revenue 
and jobs producing venture. The city of Elmira initiated this important 
project with no guarantees of public or private funding and has done 
this at very minimal cost to taxpayers. Can you imagine what could and 
would be done if the public and private sector had the encouragement to 
also become involved?
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
join Senator Moseley-Braun and me in cosponsoring this important 
legislation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators 
Moseley-Braun and D'Amato to introduce a bill that will give tax 
incentives to businesses that cleanup these contaminated industrial 
sites known as brownfields. This bill will put us on a path that will 
bring environmental renewal and economic revitalization to our 
communities.
  Mr. President, brownfields are like scars on the American landscape, 
a legacy of the dramatic shift of industry from inner cities to 
suburban greenfields during the 1970's and 1980's. Once bustling 
factories are now abandoned eyesores. In communities across the 
country, some 500,000 abandoned and contaminated sites and facilities 
are in desperate need of revitalization.
  Vermont may not have as many brownfield sites as some of the more 
industrial States, but we are just as interested in seeing these cites 
cleaned up and put back to use. In Vermont, we see the reuse of 
brownfield sites as a way to keep development downtown and reduce the 
pressure to pave pastureland.
  Mr. President, we treasure our open spaces in Vermont and this 
legislation will give incentives to companies around the country to 
invest in the downtowns of our States. When a company builds a facility 
on a brownfield site it takes advantage of existing infrastructure. The 
revitalization of a brownfield site means one less farm or field is 
paved over or forest cut down for the sake of a new plant or facility.
  The redevelopment of brownfield sites also has important social 
implications for our towns and cites. It means that jobs stay downtown 
and that our urban centers can continue to be places of commerce and 
social interaction. I am pleased that the EPA recently awarded one of 
its brownfields pilot projects to Burlington, VT.
  Mr. President, since the early 1800's, Burlington has been the 
largest and most important industrial center of Vermont and the Lake 
Champlain region. The city is among the least well-off in the State and 
was recently designated as an Urban Enterprise Community.
  There are currently 19 polluted commercial and industrial sites in 
Burlington. The city now has only one unpolluted site available for 
industrial development. The lack of sites has been a major obstacle in 
the city's efforts to attract quality jobs and has contributed to the 
development of prime agricultural soil, suburban sprawl, and all the 
associated environmental problems. Mr. President, most of the city's 
brownfields are located either within or adjacent to low- and moderate-
income neighborhoods, contributing to a trend of disinvestment and 
increased health hazards.
  While this legislation won't solve all of our problems, it is an 
important step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to join 
us in cosponsoring this significant bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. PRYOR:
  S. 1912. A bill to clarify the provision of section 3626(b) of title 
39, United States Code, defining an ``institution of higher 
education''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                    elderhostel catalog legislation

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, to day I am introducing legislation that 
will address a situation facing Elderhostel. Elderhostel, for those who 
have not heard of this organization, is an independent, non-profit 
organization which operates a central course catalog and registration 
system for college level classes for people over the age of 60. These 
courses are sponsored by colleges and universities at more than 1,900 
colleges, universities, museums, national parks, and environmental 
education centers in the United States, Canada, and 47 other countries. 
Elderhostel receives no Federal or State support.
  Elderhostel provides easy access to these continuing education 
programs through the mailing of its course catalog. Unfortunately, a 
U.S. Postal Service definition prevents Elderhostel from mailing their 
catalog at a second-class catalog rate. This catalog rate is used, for 
example, by the American Bar Associations' continuing legal education 
material. Elderhostel is barred from using that rate because rather 
than being a catalog of one institution of higher learning, it is a 
compilation of courses offered by otherwise eligible ``regularly 
incorporated non-profit institutions of learning.''
  The legislation I am introducing today simply expands the definition 
of an institution of higher education eligible to mail at second-class 
rates to include a nonprofit organization that coordinates a network of 
college level courses that non-profit colleges and universities offer 
to older adults. The National Federal of Nonprofits, the Advertising 
Mail Marketing Association and the Direct Marketing Association have no 
objection to this legislation.
  Mr. President, this bill solves a problem caused by the fact that 
Elderhostel does not fit neatly into the Postal Services' definitions 
and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 1913. A bill to establish the Lower East Side Tenement Museum 
National Historic Site, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


 The Lower East Side Tenement Museum National Historic Site Act of 1996

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, most of us have heard the stories of how 
the great wave of immigrants of generations ago entered our Nation, but 
few really know what happened to them after Ellis Island. At the Lower 
East Side Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard Street in New York City, one is 
able to follow the lives of the immigrants beyond the first hours on 
our shores. The museum tells their history, displays their courage and 
showcases their values in an interpretive setting that brings the 
visitor back to an era from which many of us came. The museum presents 
to many of us an awareness of our ancestral roots that we may never 
have known existed. Through the legislation being introduced by my 
friend Senator Moynihan and I, the museum will be declared a national 
historic site and able to affiliate itself with the National Park 
Service. Enactment of this legislation will bestow national recognition 
on the humble beginnings of millions of our ancestors.
  The Tenement Museum is unique in that it not only traces the quality 
of life inside the tenement, but presents a picture of the immigrant's 
outside world as well. Due to the cramped and dingy nature of the 
tenement, as much time as possible was spent outside. Thus, in order to 
fully explore their lives, it is essential to look toward their work, 
their houses of worship, their organizations, and their entertainment. 
The museum incorporates the experiences of yesteryear's immigrants and 
interprets them for today's generations. Besides on-site programs, the 
museum utilizes the surrounding neighborhood; an area which continues 
to this day in its role as a receiver of immigrants.
  Throughout our Nation we have preserved, remembered and cherished 
places of national significance and beauty. We have put enormous energy 
in maintaining homes of noted Americans and protecting vast areas of 
wilderness. What we do not have, though, is a monument to the socalled 
``ordinary citizen.'' The Tenement Museum will fill that role.

[[Page S7186]]

  It is unlikely that many of those who lived in buildings like the one 
at 97 Orchard Street felt that they were special. Rather, they were 
probably grateful for the chance to come to America to try to make a 
better life for themselves and their families. Given the living and 
working conditions that we now take for granted, the language and 
cultural obstacles they had to overcome, we should be in awe of their 
ability to take hold of an opportunity and not only survive, but 
thrive. It is their contributions to society in the face of 
overwhelming obstacles that defined an era and established an ethic 
that survives to this day. It is their spirit that we admire, and that, 
in retrospect, makes these otherwise ordinary individuals special. The 
Tenement Museum is their monument, and as their descendants, it is ours 
as well.
  Congress has an opportunity to recognize the pioneer spirit of our 
ancestors and deliver it to future generations of Americans. The museum 
reminds us all of an important and often forgotten chapter in our 
immigrant heritage, mainly, that millions of families made their first 
stand in our Nation not in a log cabin or farm house or mansion, but in 
a city tenement. Designating the Lower East Side Tenement Museum a 
National Historic Site and granting it affiliated area status within 
the National Park Service will shed light on that chapter in our 
history while linking it to the chain of the Statue of Liberty, Ellis 
Islands and Castle Clinton in the story of our urban immigrant 
heritage. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Moynihan and me in 
cosponsoring this bill, and I urge its speedy consideration by the 
Senate.
  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. 1913

       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 ``Lower East Side Tenement 
     Museum National Historic Site Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Lower East Side Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard 
     Street is an outstanding survivor of the vast number of 
     humble buildings that housed immigrants to New York City 
     during the greatest wave of immigration in American history;
       (2) the Museum is well suited to represent a profound 
     social movement involving great numbers of unexceptional but 
     courageous people;
       (3) no single identifiable neighborhood in the United 
     States absorbed a comparable number of immigrants;
       (4) the Lower East Side Tenement Museum is dedicated to 
     interpreting immigrant life on the Lower East Side and its 
     importance to United States history, within a neighborhood 
     long associated with the immigrant experience in America; and
       (5) the National Park Service found the Lower East Side 
     Tenement Museum to be nationally significant, suitable, and 
     feasible for inclusion in the National Park System.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure the preservation, maintenance, and 
     interpretation of this site and to interpret in the site and 
     in the surrounding neighborhood, the themes of early tenement 
     life, the housing reform movement, and tenement architecture 
     in the United States;
       (2) to ensure the continuation of the Museum at this site, 
     the preservation of which is necessary for the continued 
     interpretation of the nationally significant immigrant 
     phenomenon associated with the New York City's Lower East 
     Side, and its role in the history of immigration to the 
     United States; and
       (3) to enhance the interpretation of the Castle Clinton 
     National Historic Monument and Ellis Island National Historic 
     Monument through cooperation with the Museum.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the 
     Lower East Side Tenement Museum designated as a national 
     historic site by section 4.
       (2) Museum.--The term ``Museum'' means the Lower East Side 
     Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard Street, New York City, in the 
     State of New York, and related facilities owned or operated 
     by the Museum.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC SITE.

       To further the purposes of this Act and the Act entitled 
     ``An act to provide for the preservation of historic American 
     sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national 
     significance, and for other purposes'', approved August 21, 
     1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Lower East Side Tenement 
     Museum at 97 Orchard Street, in the city of New York, State 
     of New York, is designated as a national historic site.

     SEC. 5. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into a cooperative 
     agreement with the Lower East Side Tenement Museum to carry 
     out this Act.
       (b) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The agreement may 
     include provisions by which the Secretary will provide--
       (1) technical assistance to mark, restore, interpret, 
     operate, and maintain the historic site; and
       (2) financial assistance to the Museum to mark, interpret, 
     and restore the historic site, including the making of 
     preservation-related capital improvements and repairs.
       (c) Additional Provisions.--The agreement may also contain 
     provisions that permit the Secretary acting through the 
     National Park Service, to have a right of access at all 
     reasonable times to all public portions of the property 
     covered by the agreement for the purpose of conducting 
     visitors through the properties and interpreting the portions 
     to the public.

     SEC. 6. APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague 
Senator D'Amato in introducing a bill that will authorize a small but 
most significant addition to the National Park System by designating 
the Lower East Side Tenement Museum a national historic site. For 150 
years New York City's Lower East Side has been the most vibrant, 
populous, and famous immigrant neighborhood in the Nation. From the 
first waves of Irish and German immigrants to Italians and Eastern 
European Jews to the Asian, Latin, and Caribbean immigrants arriving 
today, the Lower East Side has provided millions their first American 
home.
  For many of them that home was a brick tenement; six or so stories, 
no elevator, maybe no plumbing, maybe no windows, a business on the 
ground floor, and millions of our forbearers upstairs. The Nation has 
with great pride preserved log cabins, farm houses, and other symbols 
of our agrarian roots. We have reopened Ellis Island to commemorate and 
display the first stop for 12 million immigrants who arrived in New 
York City.
  Until now we have not preserved a sample of urban, working class life 
as part of the immigrant experience. For many of those who disembarked 
on Ellis Island the next stop was a tenement on the Lower East Side, 
such as the one at 97 Orchard Street. It is here that the Lower East 
Side Tenement Museum will show us what that next stop was like.
  The tenement at 97 Orchard was built in the 1860s, during the first 
phase of tenement construction. It provided housing for 20 families on 
a plot of land planned for a single family residence. Each floor had 
four three-room apartments, each of which had two windows in one of the 
rooms and none in the others. The privies were out back, as was the 
spigot that provided water for everyone. The public bathhouse was down 
the street.
  In 1900 this block was the most crowded per acre on earth. Conditions 
improved after the passage of the New York Tenement House Act of 1901, 
though the crowding remained. Two toilets were installed on each floor. 
A skylight was installed over the stairway and interior windows were 
cut in the walls to allow some light throughout each apartment. For the 
first time the ground floor became commercial space. In 1918 
electricity was installed. Further improvements were mandated in 1935, 
but the owner chose to board the building up rather than follow the new 
regulations. It remained boarded up for 60 years until the idea of a 
museum took hold.
  The Tenement Museum will keep at least one apartment in the 
dilapidated condition in which it was found when reopened, to show 
visitors the process of urban archeology. Others will be restored to 
show how real families lived at different periods in the building's 
history. At a nearby site there will be interpretive programs to better 
explain the larger experience of gaining a foothold on America in the 
Lower East Side of New York.
  There are also plans for programmatic ties with Ellis Island and its 
precursor, Castle Clinton. And the Museum plans to play an active role 
in the immigrant community around it,

[[Page S7187]]

further integrating the past and present immigrant experience on the 
Lower East Side.
  This bill designates the Tenement Museum a national historic site. It 
also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative 
agreements with the Museum. Such agreements could include technical or 
financial assistance to help restore, operate, maintain, or interpret 
the site. Agreements can also be made with the Statue of Liberty/Ellis 
Island and Castle Clinton to help with the interpretation of life as an 
immigrant. It will be a productive partnership.
  Mr. President, I believe the Tenement Museum provides an outstanding 
opportunity to preserve and present an important stage of the immigrant 
experience and the move for social change in our cities at the turn of 
the century. I know of no better place than 97 Orchard Street to do so, 
and no other place in the National Park System doing so already. I look 
forward to the realization of this grand idea, and I ask my colleagues 
for their support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1914. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 
the treatment of research related to an existing business component; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                       clarification legislation

  Mr. HATCH. 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. 1914

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

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF RESEARCH ON EXISTING BUSINESS 
                   COMPONENTS ELIGIBLE FOR RESEARCH CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 41(d)(4) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to activities for 
     which credit is not allowed) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``The preceding sentence shall 
     not apply to research related to the development of a 
     business component of a taxpayer which is an original 
     alternative to achieve the equivalent result of an existing 
     business component of a competitor of the taxpayer.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS:
  S. 1915. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to 
prohibit the sale of products labeled as containing endangered species, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


               The Rhino and Tiger Products Labeling Act

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to 
introduce legislation aimed at helping to stem the dramatic decrease in 
populations of some of the Earth's most exotic and magnificent animals. 
Animals such as the African black rhino, the white rhino, the Bengal 
tiger and other endangered species are on the brink of extinction. 
Rhinos and tigers are disappearing faster than any other large mammal 
on the planet. No more than 5,000 to 7,500 Bengal tigers and fewer than 
650 Sumatran tigers remain in the world.
  Ironically, in many ways their rarity and mystique are contributing 
to the problem. The parts of these animals are advertised as having 
powerful medicinal qualities. For example, tiger bone and rhino horn 
are considered to calm convulsions and enhance longevity. The business 
of trade in endangered species parts and products is becoming big 
business and encouraging increased poaching of these animals--
threatening international recovery efforts. A booming underground 
market has developed around the trade of endangered species parts and 
products.
  Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will address a 
remaining loophole in the Endangered Species Act that allows the sale 
of products labeled as containing endangered species. My legislation 
will amend section 9 of the Endangered Species Act to prohibit the sale 
of products labeled as containing any species of fish or wildlife 
listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species.
  Through this legislation, we will be addressing the increasing trade 
in endangered species in two ways--first, by giving U.S. law 
enforcement officers the ability to prosecute the retailers of these 
products; and--second, by curbing the marketing of endangered species 
parts as key ingredients in medicinal products.
  First, there is currently no legal mechanism to confiscate or 
prosecute for sale or display of these products once they are on store 
shelves. Through this legislation, law enforcement officers will be 
able to start addressing the increasing promotion and sale of products 
labeled as containing endangered species.
  By addressing the marketing of these products, this legislation will 
help curb the expanding domestic U.S. market for medicines that 
contain, or claim to contain, endangered species parts. By allowing 
these products to remain on the shelves of stores across the country, 
we are perpetuating the reliance upon and perception of the efficacy of 
endangered species I addressing health ailments. Again, this perception 
is fueling increased poaching and smuggling of endangered species 
around the world.
  Mr. President, in order to eliminate the domestic market for patented 
medicines and other products containing critically endangered tigers, 
rhinos and other species, and to increase the success and frequency of 
prosecutions of merchants and traffickers of these items, this change 
in current law is needed. Let us send a message to these merchants and 
traffickers of endangered species that the United States will not help 
feed the global demand for endangered species. Mr. President, let us 
send a strong and forceful message to our wildlife enforcement officers 
that we support their efforts to stem the increasing trade in these 
magnificent animals.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 1916. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey to 
the village of Mariemont, OH, a parcel of land referred to as the 
``Ohio River Division Laboratory of the Army Corps of Engineers'', and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                the army corps of engineers legislation

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that provides 
for the transfer of 3.22 acres of land owned by the Army Corps of 
Engineers at an appraised value to the Village of Mariemont, OH. The 
proceeds of the sale will be deposited in the general fund of the 
Treasury and credited as miscellaneous receipts. The General Services 
Administration conducted a 30-day Federal screening of the property and 
informed the minority side of the Governmental Affairs Committee and me 
that no Federal agency expressed interest in the property.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Shelby):

  S. 1917. A bill to authorize the State of Michigan to implement the 
demonstration project known as ``To Strengthen Michigan Families''; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                  Michigan Welfare Waiver Legislation

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from 
Alabama, Senator Shelby, to introduce legislation that will allow the 
State of Michigan to proceed with the third phase of its comprehensive 
welfare reform program, known as ``To Strengthen Michigan Families.'' 
This legislation is similar to legislation which recently passed the 
House of Representatives that authorized the State of Wisconsin to 
proceed with its latest welfare reform initiatives without requiring 
formal waiver approval by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services.
  In 1992, Michigan began a comprehensive overhaul of its welfare 
reform programs. This effort, called ``To Strengthen Michigan 
Families,'' was guided by four major principles that distinguished it 
from existing Federal welfare policy.
  First, Michigan sought to eliminate many of the existing 
disincentives for welfare recipients to find work and to earn money.
  Second, Michigan proposed to end the elements in the current system 
which serve either as an incentive for families to split up or as a 
disincentive for couples to become or to remain married.
  Third, Michigan sought to instill increased personal responsibility 
among welfare recipients by making greater demands of them with respect 
to finding work or obtaining the education

[[Page S7188]]

and skills necessary to finding future employment.
  Fourth, Michigan sought to supplement these changes in personal and 
familial behavior with a commitment to greater involvement on the part 
of community-based institutions, especially faith-based organizations.
  With reforms in each of these areas, Michigan began its crusade to 
end long-term, chronic welfare dependency. It required executive action 
by the Governor, acts of the State Legislature, and waivers from HHS 
from many burdensome or counterproductive regulations that were 
symptomatic of the existing failed system. And in 1994, Michigan 
enacted and began implementation of its second set of comprehensive 
welfare reforms, building on the foundation established by the original 
reform initiatives.
  The results of Michigan's reforms to date have been impressive and 
demonstrate Michigan's success in moving people off of welfare. 
Michigan's AFDC caseload has dropped from 221,884 cases in September 
1992 to 176,634 cases in May 1996--a decrease of 45,250 cases. The 
current AFDC caseload level is the lowest in nearly 25 years in 
Michigan. Caseloads in our State have decreased for 26 straight months 
and have fallen by more than 20 percent over the past 2 years.
  There is similar evidence that Michigan's emphasis on placing welfare 
recipients into employment activities has been effective. During fiscal 
year 1994 alone, nearly 30,000 individuals were placed into employment. 
In addition, by January 1996, the number of cases with earned income 
had risen to 31.1 percent, compared to the 15.7 percent of cases with 
earned income in September 1992. The most recent figures available--May 
1996--for percentage of caseload with earned income is 29.1 percent. 
Since September 1992, over 90,000 AFDC cases have been closed as a 
result of earned income from employment.
  In developing the latest round of reform initiatives, Michigan 
created advisory committees to make policy recommendations in four core 
areas of public assistance: AFDC and other cash assistance, child care, 
child protection, and Medicaid. These advisory committees were each 
comprised of 50 to 100 people selected to represent a broad cross-
section of community leaders, service providers and advocates, and 
users of services. These advisory committees conducted over 400 focus 
group meetings involving more than 4,000 participants. Their objective 
was to analyze the current system and identify barriers to greater 
program efficiency and to moving people more quickly and 
compassionately from welfare to self-sufficiency.
  The advisory committees were a key reason why these reforms received 
such strong bipartisan support in the Michigan State Legislature. The 
Michigan State Senate adopted the reform package on a vote of 30 to 7. 
The State house of representatives passed the legislation by a margin 
of 85 to 22.
  In the latest series of reforms, we impose tougher requirements on 
welfare recipients, but we also pledge more assistance--including child 
care, transportation and health care--in helping those who are 
attempting to make the transition from welfare to work. The goal is not 
to punish people who receive welfare. Rather, we believe people who are 
in need of assistance and receive it have some important 
responsibilities of their own. We stand ready to assist them as long as 
they are willing to make genuine efforts toward becoming self-
sufficient.
  Mr. President, if Congress and the President cannot agree on 
comprehensive welfare reform legislation at the national level, I 
believe individual States must be allowed to implement their own bold 
and innovative new approaches to ending welfare dependency. Under the 
present system, States are required to obtain prior approval from HHS 
before they implement many types of reform. The latest package of 
Michigan reforms would require 76 waivers. When you consider that 
during the 3\1/2\ years of the Clinton administration HHS has only 
approved 67 waivers nationwide, there is tremendous concern as to how 
long it will likely take for all of Michigan's waivers to become 
approved--if they ever are all approved.
  The bill I am introducing today will provide the State of Michigan 
the latitude it needs and deserves to conduct effective welfare reform 
until it can be enacted at the national level. As I discussed earlier 
in my remarks, Michigan's leadership in the area of welfare reform is 
well-known. To date, the reforms have been very successful--both in 
moving people off of welfare and in improving the quality of life for 
those who remain on welfare. The latest round of reforms follows in the 
tradition of tough but compassionate welfare policies that we in 
Michigan started in 1992. The people of Michigan deserve to be allowed 
to move forward expeditiously with these latest reform initiatives.
  It is my hope that the Clinton administration will move quickly to 
approve all of the necessary waivers that have been requested. If that 
does not happen, the legislation that I have introduced in the Senate 
today--and that my friend and colleague Representative Dave Camp is 
introducing today in the other body--will be available for us to bring 
to the floor for debate and hopefully passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the 
reforms included in the most recent proposed reforms in the Michigan 
program be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record; as follows:


    MICHIGAN'S LATEST ROUND OF PROPOSED WELFARE REFORMS IN THE ``TO 
                 STRENGTHEN MICHIGAN FAMILIES'' PROGRAM

  The third phase of Michigan's on-going efforts at comprehensive 
welfare reform, called ``To Strengthen Michigan's Families,'' passed 
the Michigan State Legislature and were signed into law by Governor 
Engler in December 1995. These reforms affect five major Federal public 
assistance programs: AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, child day care, and 
refugee assistance.
  The proposed reforms require a total of--at last count--76 waivers 
approved by the Department of Health and Human Services. The major 
components of the reform package fall into four general categories:

       (1) Increased Personal Responsibility for Individuals 
     Receiving Assistance:
       Require attendance for all adult AFDC, Food Stamps, and 
     State General Assistance applicants/recipients at a joint 
     orientation meeting with Family Independence Agency and 
     Michigan Job Commission personnel as a condition for 
     eligibility.
       Require recipients to enter into a Family Independence 
     Contract.
       Require compliance with work activity requirements within 
     60 days. Failure to comply will result in the loss of the 
     family's AFDC benefits and food stamps for a minimum of one 
     month and until there is compliance with work requirements.
       Require teen parents to live in an adult-supervised setting 
     and stay in school. Failure to comply will result in case 
     closure.
       (2) Assistance and Incentives for Those Seeking Employment:
       Provide greater employment-related services.
       Guarantee access to child care.
       Guarantee transportation.
       Guarantee access to health care for anyone leaving welfare 
     for work.
       Provide more resources to welfare recipients who work by 
     providing monthly EITC payments instead of one lump sum 
     payment.
       (3) Remove Unnecessary or Overly Burdensome Regulations:
       Provide for a vastly simplified application form--reduced 
     from the current 30 pages to 6 pages in length.
       Provide for the most dramatic simplification of AFDC, Food 
     Stamps, and Medical Assistance anywhere in the country.
       Streamline services by establishing a single point of 
     contact with the welfare office for each welfare recipient--
     regardless of the mix of benefits received.
       (4) Strengthening Families and Increasing Community 
     Involvement:
       Provide additional funding for prevention services to help 
     keep children safe and strengthen families.
       Allow faith-based organizations to work with communities to 
     address the needs of welfare recipients.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Baucus, 
        Mr. Simpson, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. 
        Bradley, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
        Pryor, Mr. Graham, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Gramm, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mr. Pressler, and Mr. Lott):
  S. 1918. A bill to amend trade laws and related provisions to clarify 
the designation of normal trade relations; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page S7189]]

                     the normal trade relations act

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, since the founding of our Republic, the 
cornerstone of United States international trade policy has been the 
principle of nondiscrimination. What this principle means is that every 
country will give equal treatment to all products it imports from any 
other country. For example, the United States applies the same tariff 
duty rate on a particular product imported from one country as it 
applies to imports of the same product from all other countries.
  However, the principle of nondiscrimination goes beyond just trade in 
goods. For example, if a foreign company wants to set up a branch in 
the United States, it is subject to the same rules for establishing and 
running its operations as companies from all other countries operating 
in the United States.
  The traditional term for this principle of nondiscrimination is most-
favored-nation treatment, or MFN for short. This term is rooted in a 
very old concept in international law which states that in trade 
relations, all countries will receive the same treatment as the most 
favored nation.
  While the term ``most-favored-nation'' is very old, it is a misnomer 
that has created much confusion as to its exact meaning. There is no 
such thing as a most favored nation--it is merely a hypothetical 
concept. Yet, many mistakenly believe that a country that has MFN 
status is being singled out for special status or preferential 
treatment.
  Despite its name, however, MFN is not a special trading privilege or 
reward, nor is it the most favorable trade treatment that the United 
States gives to its trading partners. Rather, MFN refers to the uniform 
trade treatment that the United States gives to nearly every country in 
the world. Because there are only seven countries in the world to which 
the United States does not give MFN status, MFN denotes the ordinary, 
not the exceptional, trading relationship.
  To help correct the misconception created by the term ``most-favored-
nation'', Senator Moynihan and Senator Chafee have argued for some time 
that the term should be changed. I agree with my colleagues that a 
better term is needed. After working with them and Senator Baucus on 
this issue, I am now introducing a bill, with the cosponsorship of the 
entire membership of the Committee on Finance, that would establish a 
new term--``normal trade relations'' as a more accurate description in 
U.S. law and regulation of the principle of nondiscrimination. Creating 
this new term does not in any way alter the international rights and 
obligations of the United States. Rather, we merely seek to clarify 
that the principle of nondiscrimination under U.S. law denotes the 
standard and normal trade relationship that we have with nearly every 
country in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to support this modest, but important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I join with the chairman of the 
Committee on Finance in introducing legislation to bring new clarity to 
the muddled language of U.S. trade policy. The unanimity of support for 
this legislation is demonstrated by the fact that each and every Member 
of the Finance Committee is an original cosponsor.
  Since the 18th century, the United States has pursued a policy of 
nondiscrimination among its trading partners. This policy has created 
considerable equality in the trading conditions we extend to the great 
majority of countries with which we trade. If the United States has 
normal trade relations with a country, that country receives treatment 
equal to most others under our trade laws.
  The legislation we introduce today is designed to call this policy of 
equal treatment what it is--normal trade relations. For it has become 
increasingly clear that the 18th century term used to describe this 
policy of equal treatment, the term that still prevails in our 
international agreements, our laws, and our usage, has served only to 
confuse. By confusing, it is complicating the conduct of American 
foreign trade policy.
  Much of international and American law would have one believe that 
there is a select handful of countries that are most favored. Not at 
all the case, so it is time to stop suggesting so.
  The legislation we introduce today states that it is the sense of the 
Congress that henceforth U.S. law should more clearly reflect the 
underlying principles of U.S. trade policy by substituting the term 
``normal trade relations'' for the term ``most-favored-nation.'' In 
each instance in U.S. trade law where it is appropriate to make such a 
change, the legislation does so.
  To our trading partners, let me say that there is no intention to 
alter our international rights or obligations by virtue of this 
legislation. ``MFN'' is a term with a long history of application and 
interpretation. We mean no substantive change here. Our purpose is 
solely linguistic--to change the language, not the content, or our 
trade policy so that it is more comprehensible.
  I hope the Senate will have an opportunity to act on this legislation 
soon. I commend it to the attention of the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1920. A bill to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act, and for other purposes: to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


 THE ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT AMENDMENT ACT OF 
                                  1996

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to 
amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]. I 
introduce this so that we can return to the original intentions of the 
act and clarify the blurring of lines that have occurred over the 
years.
  Fifteen years ago, Congress enacted the ANILCA. Over the opposition 
of many Alaskans, over 100 million acres of land was set aside in a 
series of vast Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness units. Much of 
the concern about the act was the impact of these Federal units, and 
related management restrictions, on traditional activities and 
lifestyles.
  To allay these concerns, ANILCA included a series of unique 
provisions designed to ensure that traditional activities and 
lifestyles would continue, that Alaskans would not be subjected to a 
permit lifestyle, and that the agencies would be required to recognize 
the crucial distinction between managing small units surrounded by 
millions of people in the lower 48 and vast multi-million acre units 
encompassing a relative handful of individuals and communities in 
Alaska. The sponsors of ANILCA issued repeated assurances that the 
establishment of these units would in fact protect traditional 
activities and lifestyles and not place them in jeopardy.
  Early implementation of the act closely reflected these promises. 
However, as the years have passed, many of the Federal managers seem to 
have lost sight of these important representations to the people of 
Alaska. Agency personnel, trained primarily in lower 48 circumstances, 
have brought the mentality of restriction and regulation to Alaska. The 
critical distinctions between management of Parks, Refuges and 
Wilderness areas in the 49th State and the lower 48 have blurred. The 
result is the spread of restriction and regulation and the creation of 
the exact permit lifestyle which we were promised would never happen.
  I have become increasingly aware of this disturbing trend. In my 
conversations with Alaskans, I hear many complaints about every 
increasing restraints on traditional activities and requirements for 
more and more paperwork and permits. A whole new industry has sprung up 
to help Alaskans navigate the bureaucratic shoals that have built up 
during the past few years.
  Let me cite a few of the incidents that have come to our attention 
and were discussed last year during oversight hearings held by the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service decides it wants to establish a wilderness management regime 
and eliminate motorboat use on a river. It proceeds with the plan until 
protests cause the Regional Solicitor to advise the Service that its 
plan violates section 1110(a) of ANILCA. Owners of cabins built, 
occupied, and used long before ANILCA are told they must give up their 
interests in the cabins although section 1303 expressly enables cabin 
owners to retain

[[Page S7190]]

their possessory interests in their cabins. Visitor services contracts 
are awarded and then revoked because the agencies failed to adhere to 
the requirements of section 1307. Small landowners of inholdings seek 
to secure access to their property and are informed that they must file 
for a right-of-way as a transportation and utility system and pay the 
U.S. hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare a totally unnecessary 
environmental impact statement. An outfitter spends substantial time 
and money responding to a request for proposals, submits an apparently 
winning proposal, and has the agency arbitrarily change its mind and 
decide to withdraw its request--it does not offer to compensate the 
outfitter for his efforts.
  State fish and game regulations are circumvented by agency review 
boards that give benefits to guide applicants willing to limit their 
take of animals consistent with the Federal agencies' desires rather 
than management rules of the Alaska Game Board.
  Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today will ensure that 
agencies are fairly implementing ANILCA consistent with its written 
provisions and promises. These technical corrections to ANILCA will 
ensure that its implementation is consistent with the intent of 
Congress.
  Mr. President, conditions have changed in the 15 years since the 
passage of ANILCA and we have all had a great deal of experience with 
the act's implementation. It is time to make the law clearer and to 
make the Federal manager's job easier. We want to turn to the original 
intent of Congress in some cases to make sure that intent is being 
carried out.
  Next month I plan on holding a hearing on this bill and look forward 
to gaining the support of my colleagues for passage of this 
legislation.

                          ____________________