[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7670-S7675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Moseley-Braun and 
        Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1937. A bill to allow postal patrons to contribute to funding for 
breast-cancer research through the voluntary purchase of certain 
specially issued United States postage stamps; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


                  THE BREAST CANCER RESEARCH STAMP ACT

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Boxer, 
Moseley-Braun, and Snowe would like to introduce the Breast Cancer 
Research Stamp Act.
  In a time of shrinking budgets and resources for breast cancer 
research, this legislation would provide an innovative way to provide 
additional funding for breast cancer research.
  This bill would: authorize the U.S. Postal Service to issue an 
optional special first class stamp to be priced at 1 cent above the 
cost of normal first-class postage; earmark a penny of every stamp for 
breast cancer research; provide administrative costs from the revenues 
for post office expenses; and clarify current law, that any similar 
stamp would require an act of Congress to be issued in the future.
  If only 10 percent of all the first class mail used this optional 33 
cent stamp, $60 million could be raised for breast cancer research 
annually.
  There is wide support for this legislation. Congressman Fazio, along 
with 62 cosponsors have already introduced the companion bill in the 
House.
  The breast cancer epidemic has been called this Nation's best kept 
secret. There are 2.6 million women in America today with breast 
cancer, 1 million of whom have yet to be diagnosed with the disease.
  In 1996, an estimated 184,000 will be diagnosed with, and 44,300 will 
die from, breast cancer. It is the No. 1 killer of women ages 40 to 44 
and the leading cause of cancer death in women ages 15 to 54, claiming 
a woman's life every 12 minutes in this country.
  For California, 17,100 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 
4,100 women will die from the disease in 1996.
  In addition to the cost of women's lives, the annual cost of 
treatment of beast cancer in the United States is approximately $10 
billion. This means the average American woman will have $5,000 added 
to her health care costs because of the disease.
  Over the last 25 years, the National Institutes of Health has spent 
over $31.5 billion on cancer research--$2 billion of that on breast 
cancer. In the last 6 years alone, appropriations for breast cancer 
research have risen from $90 million in 1990 to $600 million today. 
That is the good news.
  But, the bad news is that the national commitment to cancer research 
overall has been hamstrung since 1980. Currently, NIH is able to fund 
only 23 percent of applications received by all the institutes. For the 
Cancer Institute, only 23 percent can be funded--significant drop from 
the 60 percent of applications funded in the 1970's.
  Most alarming is the rapidly diminishing grant funding available for 
new researcher applicants.

[[Page S7671]]

  In real numbers, the National Cancer Institute will fund 
approximately 3,600 research projects, of which about 1,000 are new, 
previously unfunded activities. For investigator-initiated research, 
only 600 out of 1,900 research projects will be new.
  The United States is privileged to have some of the most talented 
scientists and many of the leading cancer research centers in the world 
such as UCLA, UC San Francisco, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, and the M.D. 
Anderson.
  This lack of funding is starving some of the most important 
research--because scientists will have to look elsewhere for their 
livelihood.
  The United States must reverse the trend of diminishing research 
funds if these scientists and institutions are to continue to 
contribute their vast talents to the war on cancer and finding a cure.
  What is clear is that there is a direct correlation between increases 
in research funding and the likelihood of finding a cure.
  Cancer mortality has declined by 15 percent from 1950 to 1992 due to 
increases in cancer research funding. In fact, federally funded cancer 
research has yielded vast amounts of knowledge about the disease--
information which is guiding our efforts to improve treatment and 
search for a cure. We have more knowledge and improvements in 
prevention through: identification of a cancer gene, use of 
mammographies, clinical exams, and encouragement of self breast exams. 
Yet there is still no cure.
  The Bay Area has one of the highest rates of breast cancer incidence 
and mortality in the world. According to data given to my staff by the 
Northern California Cancer Center, Bay Area white women have the 
highest reported breast cancer rate in the world, 104 per 100,000 
population. Bay Area African-American women have the fourth highest 
reported rate in the world at 82 per 100,000.
  I want to recognize Dr. Balazs (Ernie) Bodai who suggested this 
innovative funding approach. Dr. Bodai is the chief of the surgery 
department at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in Sacramento, CA. He 
is the founder of Cure Cancer Now, which is a nonprofit organization 
committed to developing a funding source for breast cancer research.
  As you know, last week the Postal Service introduced their breast 
cancer awareness stamp. Although the issuance of the awareness stamp 
was an important step toward educating the public about the disease, 
the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act is a new and different effort in 
that it would actually raise funds for the NIH research on breast 
cancer, and if the stamps were purchased and not used, the postal 
service would still make money.
  This legislation is also supported by the American Cancer Society, 
Association of Operating Room Nurses, California Health Collaborative 
Foundations, YWCA-Encore Plus, the Sacramento City Council and Mayor 
Joe Serna, Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, Sutter County Board of 
Supervisors, Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Yuba City Council, 
California State Senator Diane Watson and California State 
Assemblywoman Dede Alpert as well as the Public Employees Union, San 
Joaquin Public Employees Association, and Sutter and Yuba County 
Employees Association.
  Given the intense competition for Federal research funds in a climate 
of shrinking budgets, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act would allow 
anyone who uses the postal service to contribute in finding a cure for 
the breast cancer epidemic.
  In a sense, this particular proposal is a pilot. I recognize that the 
postal service may oppose this since it has not been done before. I 
also recognize that in a day of diminishing Federal resources, this 
innovation is an idea whose time has come.
  It will make money for the post office and for breast cancer 
research. No one is forced to buy it, but women's organizations may 
even wish to sell the stamps in a fundraising effort.
  The administrative costs can be handled with the 1 cent added on the 
32 cent stamp and conservatively it can make from $60 million per year 
for NIH's research on breast cancer.
  We need to find a cure for breast cancer and I believe the Breast 
Cancer Research Stamp Act is an innovative response to the hidden 
epidemic among women. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND (for himself and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 1938. A bill to enact the model Good Samaritan Act Food Donation 
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


           THE BILL EMERSON GOOD SAMARITAN FOOD DONATION ACT

 Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I pay tribute to my good friend and 
colleague from Missouri, Congressman Bill Emerson, who represented 
southeast Missouri's Eighth Congressional District for 16 years. Bill 
Emerson was well known in this body, and certainly to many around this 
city, and was loved by the people of southeast Missouri. He had a long 
and distinguished career of service in the U.S. Congress.
  Bill was especially well known for his work in agriculture and in the 
fight against hunger, including being an ardent supporter of food 
distribution programs. One of his legislative priorities this session 
was a bill that would make it easier for millions of tons of unused 
food by restaurants, supermarkets, and other private businesses to end 
up in food pantries and shelters rather than in garbage cans and 
dumpsters.
  In honor of Bill Emerson, I now send to the desk the Bill Emerson 
Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which is identical to legislation 
championed by Bill Emerson before his death. In the past, private 
donors have been reluctant to make contributions to non-profit 
organizations because they are concerned about potential civil and 
criminal liability. With this legislation, private donors will be 
protected from such liability, except in cases of gross negligence and 
intentional misconduct. Those in need will truly benefit from this 
legislation.
  I am happy to continue Bill Emerson's effort, and I will work hard to 
ensure that the Senate passes this common sense approach to fight 
hunger. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 


        By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Kerrey):

  S. 1939. A bill to improve reporting in the livestock industry and to 
ensure the competitiveness of livestock producers, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


            The Livestock Market Revitalization Act of 1996

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Livestock 
Market Revitalization Act of 1996. My colleagues, Senator Dorgan and 
Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, are cosponsors of this legislation.
  I offer this legislation at a time of tremendous challenges within 
the livestock sector. The occupant of the Chair knows full well what we 
are facing in the livestock industry. His State is a major producer, as 
is mine. From long, drawn-out battles over meat inspection to sudden 
flareups like ``mad cow disease'' in England, to the debilitating price 
declines we have been experiencing for the last several months, the 
industry is facing repeated and difficult challenges.
  The biggest challenge facing individual producers is the need to 
climb out of the downturn in the market and ensure a stable income long 
into the future. I know the occupant of the Chair knows full well, as 
other of my colleagues do, what has happened to the prices of livestock 
over the last year. It has been in precipitous and dramatic decline. 
The pressure this is putting on producers is enormous.
  Let me just say that according to North Dakota State University, in 
1995 net farm income in my State of North Dakota was down 24 percent. 
That is a 24-percent reduction in farm income, its lowest level in 6 
years, largely because of the steep drop in cattle prices. In fact, for 
some, net farm income dropped as much as 30 percent from the previous 
year.
  I was recently in my home State talking to some of my closest 
friends, many of them cattle producers. One after another related to me 
the extraordinary economic pressure they are under as a result of this 
steep decline in prices. These price declines are occurring at the same 
time concentration

[[Page S7672]]

within the livestock industry is at record levels. The top four 
meatpacking firms in America controlled 82 percent of the market in 
1994, the latest statistic available. When Congress last took action to 
address this industry in 1920, the level of concentration was only 49 
percent.

  Mr. President, producers are deeply frustrated because they lack 
confidence in the livestock market and find it difficult to obtain 
timely, reliable market information.
  Mr. President, I believe that is the least that we can do to ensure 
that market participants are engaged in a level playing field.
  For this reason, I am introducing the Livestock Market Revitalization 
Act of 1996. This bill will restore confidence to the livestock market 
by achieving the following objectives:
  First, define captive supplies to include livestock controlled by or 
committed to a packer more than 7 days prior to slaughter through 
standing arrangements, instead of the current 2 weeks.
  Second, strengthen the position of the seller in the livestock market 
by providing them daily information on the demand for his or her 
livestock.
  Third, collect and disseminate data on national, regional, and local 
market activities to monitor possible anticompetitive behavior.
  Fourth, promote the use of a value-based pricing system that is 
equitable to all cattle dealers and packers.
  Fifth, improve collection and dissemination of data on imports and 
exports of cattle and meat.
  If there is one thing my producers have said to me, it is, ``We 
deserve to know what is going on in this market on a regional basis and 
on a local basis. We deserve to know what is happening with imports and 
exports. We deserve that information more readily.
  Sixth, recognize that the USDA may need additional resources to 
achieve the objectives of the bill and ask the USDA to report its needs 
in this area.
  Seventh, protect the interests of farmer-owned cooperatives by 
strengthening their ability to compete in the livestock market.
  Eighth, improve labeling of cattle and meat so producers and 
consumers have more information about the origins of meat and meat 
products in retail markets.
  Let me say that is not just in the interest of producers, that is in 
the interest of consumers as well. Where is the meat that they are 
buying coming from? What is the country of origin? I think that has 
been something that has been delayed for a little too long.
  Ninth, encourage the livestock industry to review its efforts on 
product development to improve the demand for red meat.
  Mr. President, now is the time to act. We must make action possible 
now. There should be no further delay.
  The current depressed cattle market is devastating producers in all 
cattle producing States. While Members on both sides of the aisle, and 
the administration, have been actively seeking ideas to solve this 
problem, it is time to turn those ideas into action.
  My bill addresses real concerns about an industry no one can argue is 
perfect, and many can argue has serious problems.
  I have specifically designed this bill to be one which Republicans 
and Democrats can support--one that can achieve quick passage.
  I would prefer to make the bill broader but I understand that in the 
interest of getting legislation through Congress in this shortened and 
busy year, lean and targeted legislation has better prospects.
  Some of the items in my bill will bolster the authorities currently 
held by the USDA, and will complement the actions the administration 
has already taken. Those actions include the President's and the 
Secretary of Agriculture's decision to open the Conservation Reserve 
Program for haying and grazing, to accelerate the purchase of beef for 
the School Lunch Program, and to continue to maintain our net-exporter 
status on beef with an expected 16 percent increase in total beef 
exports from 1995 to 1996.
  But while administrative actions are good, in a period as serious as 
this in which prices are depressed and market behaviors are troubling, 
it is incumbent on Congress to take action.
  I believe the first action we should take is to get the best possible 
information. That is the main focus of my bill. It is not burdensome. 
It is not invasive. It does not point fingers. It is focused and 
forward-thinking.
  It is an effort to help everyone understand the pressures at each 
level of the livestock industry, from producing to marketing to packing 
to retailing.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in this very important effort.
  I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section description of the 
bill as well as the bill itself be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1939

       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 ``Livestock Market 
     Revitalization Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. CAPTIVE SUPPLY.

       (a) Definition of Captive Supply.--Section 2(a) of the 
     Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Captive supply.--The term `captive supply' means 
     livestock acquired for slaughter by a packer (including 
     livestock delivered 7 days or more before slaughter) under a 
     standing purchase arrangement, forward contract, or packer 
     ownership, feeding, or financing arrangement, as determined 
     by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Annual Report on Livestock Marketed or Slaughtered.--
     Section 407 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 
     228), is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Annual Report on Livestock Marketed or Slaughtered.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make available to 
     the public an annual statistical report on the number and 
     volume of livestock marketed or slaughtered in the United 
     States, including--
       ``(A) information collected on the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       ``(B) information on transactions involving livestock in 
     regional and local markets.
       ``(2) Administration.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall ensure that--
       ``(A) a significant share of regional and local livestock 
     transactions are reported; and
       ``(B) the confidentiality of individual livestock 
     transactions is maintained.''.
       (c) Information on Captive Supply Transactions.--Section 
     407 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 228), 
     as amended by subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(g) Information on Captive Supply Transactions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 24 hours after a 
     transaction involving captive supply is recorded, the 
     Secretary shall make information concerning the transaction 
     (including the specific standing arrangement) available to 
     the public using electronic and other means that will ensure 
     wide availability of the information.
       ``(2) Ongoing livestock transactions.--Any information 
     collected on captive supply under paragraph (1) shall be 
     reported in conjunction with ongoing livestock 
     transactions.''.

     SEC. 3. MONITORING OF ANTITRUST AND ANTICOMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR 
                   AMONG PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 407 of the Packers and Stockyards 
     Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 228) (as amended by section 2(c)), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Monitoring of Antitrust and Anticompetitive 
     Behavior.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) review and monitor the degree of antitrust and 
     anticompetitive behavior on a national, regional, and local 
     basis (as defined by the Secretary) among packers, stockyard 
     owners, market agencies, and dealers to ensure compliance 
     with Federal law and to ensure that actions taken by packers, 
     stockyard owners, market agencies, and dealers will enhance, 
     and not diminish, competitiveness; and
       ``(B) report the results of the review and monitoring to 
     Congress, the Attorney General, and the public.
       ``(2) Coordination.--The Secretary and the Attorney General 
     shall coordinate efforts to ensure that packers, stockyard 
     owners, market agencies, and dealers do not violate Federal 
     law relating to antitrust and anticompetitive behavior.''.
       (b) Reports.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate--
       (1) a report that--
       (A) assesses the resource needs of the Department of 
     Agriculture for effectively carrying out section 407(h) of 
     the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1971 (7 U.S.C. 228(h)) (as 
     added by subsection (a)); and
       (B) includes a request for any additional funding that may 
     be required for effectively carrying out section 407(h) of 
     the Act; and
       (2) a report that assesses progress in implementing 
     additional monitoring activities

[[Page S7673]]

     identifying geographical procurement markets described in the 
     report entitled ``Monitoring by Packers and Stockyard 
     Administration'', dated October 1991 (GAO/RCED-92-36).

     SEC. 4. COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF MARKETING 
                   INFORMATION.

       Section 204(g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1622(g)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``In carrying out this subsection, on a national, 
     regional, and local basis (as defined by the Secretary), the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(1) provide price information, with emphasis on providing 
     the information at the point of sale;
       ``(2) provide price and other information on a regular and 
     timely basis;
       ``(3) make the information available to the public 
     electronically;
       ``(4) collect and disseminate information supplied by 
     packers (as defined in section 201 of the Packers and 
     Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 191)) on contract pricing 
     related to captive supply (as defined in section 2 of the Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 182));
       ``(5) to the extent practicable, promote the use of 
     consistent, value-based pricing methodology throughout the 
     meat industry; and
       ``(6) report, on a weekly basis, the volume of cattle and 
     meat products imported into the United States.''.

     SEC. 5. COOPERATIVE BARGAINING.

       Section 4 of the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 (7 
     U.S.C. 2303) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) To fail to engage in good-faith negotiations with 
     producer cooperatives (including new cooperatives), or to 
     unfairly discriminate among producer cooperatives (including 
     new cooperatives), with respect to the purchase, acquisition, 
     or other handling of agricultural products.''.

     SEC. 6. LABELING OF MEAT AND MEAT FOOD PRODUCTS.

       Section 7(b) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
     607(b)) is amended by striking ``require,'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     ``require--
       ``(1) the information required under section 1(n); and
       ``(2) if it was imported (or was produced from an animal 
     that was located in another country for at least 120 days) 
     and is graded, a grading labeling that bears the words 
     `imported', `may have been imported', `this product contains 
     imported meat', `this product may contain imported meat', 
     `this container contains imported meat', or `this container 
     may contain imported meat', as the case may be, or words to 
     indicate its country of origin.''.

     SEC. 7. LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall, in 
     consultation with representatives of the livestock industry, 
     establish a national commission composed of non-governmental 
     members appointed by the Secretary to study and recommend 
     means of modernizing the livestock industry and responding to 
     the consumer demand for red meat.
       (b) Study.--In carrying out this section, the commission 
     shall analyze costs and benefits, and make recommendations 
     with respect to--
       (1) value-added livestock products;
       (2) the impact of antitrust and anticompetitive behavior on 
     cattle prices;
       (3) the grading system for meat used by the Secretary; and
       (4) refunds of assessments collected under the Beef 
     Research and Information Act (7 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.).
       (c) Report.--Not later January 1, 2000, the commission 
     shall submit a report the describes the results of the study 
     required under this section to the Committee on Agriculture 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.
                                                                    ____


                     Section-by-Section Description


                         section 1. short title

       The bill is titled Livestock Market Revitalization Act of 
     1996 to convey the sense that more information and monitoring 
     is needed on a regional and local basis to ensure the 
     competitiveness of the livestock industry.


                      section 2. captive supplies

       (a) The intent is to respond to concerns that information 
     about captive supplies is inadequate. The bill requests that 
     the Secretary defines captive supply transactions to be when 
     packers use any standing arrangement to procure cattle to be 
     delivered for slaughter more than 7 days out. It is also 
     intended that efforts to monitor anticompetitive and 
     antitrust behavior be improved by collecting data nationally, 
     regionally and locally on the types of standing arrangements 
     used, so as a distribution of standing arrangements is 
     provided.
       (b) The intent is to provide guidance to packers using 
     captive supplies to ensure that markets are as competitive as 
     possible. The extent to which captive supplies are utilized 
     nationally, regionally and locally are unknown.
       (c) The intent is to ensure that the USDA reports 
     statistics on livestock transactions in a regular and timely 
     fashion, at least annually. In addition, the reports need to 
     provide for more disaggregate information on the industry, 
     maintaining all confidentially concerns. Specifically, the 
     intent is to define and report by geographical procurement 
     markets.
       (d) The intent is to provide information on captive 
     supplies in a more timely fashion and with the advancement 
     and availability of technology, report no later than 24 hours 
     after a transaction. This reporting requirement is not 
     intended to be burdensome to any of the parties involved. It 
     is intended to strengthen the position of the seller in the 
     market with respect to knowing the demand for his/her 
     livestock.


 section 3. monitoring of antitrust and anticompetitive behavior among 
                         packers and stockyards

       (a) It is the intent to recognize the high level of 
     concentration in the packing industry, and to ensure that the 
     proper data is collected and disseminated to the industry so 
     that cattlemen and stockmen can have the necessary data to go 
     to Justice or USDA for enforcing the Sherman and Clayton and 
     P&S Acts. Data on more disaggregate levels in needed for the 
     Department to better monitor and report on anticompetitive 
     and antitrust behavior.
       (b) The intent is to allow the Secretary to recognize and 
     request additional funding because this bill requires new 
     efforts data be undertaken to ensure the competitiveness of 
     the livestock industry and may have to review its resources 
     on hand.
       In addition to the resource report, the Secretary will 
     report on progress made after the GAO report recommending 
     that the Secretary of Agriculture determine a feasible and 
     practical approach for monitoring the activity in regional 
     livestock markets. In defining the relevant markets, P&SA 
     must determine the types of data and analysis it needs and 
     the cost-effectiveness of obtaining and analyzing the data. 
     The GAO study reports that P&SA officials agree that 
     effective monitoring for anticompetitive behavior depends 
     upon knowing the relative boundaries for geographical 
     livestock procurement markets. By focusing on calculating 
     national statistics on concentration in the meat packing 
     industry and not defining regional livestock procurement 
     markets, P&SA may in its data be understanding the potential 
     risks associated with concentration in some areas.


    SECTION 4. COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF MARKETING INFORMATION

       The intention is to direct the Secretary to collect and 
     disseminate more timely and relevant information to the 
     industry and to utilize existing technologies which enhance 
     the timeliness of delivery. The red meat sector pricing 
     system is largely based on visual quality characteristics and 
     not measurable value. It is intended that the Secretary work 
     with the industry to develop a value based pricing 
     methodology that is equitable to all cattle dealers and 
     packers. Producers also need to have timely information on 
     imports and exports of cattle and meat in order to better 
     schedule their sales.


                   SECTION 5. COOPERATIVE BARGAINING

       The intent is to strengthen the ability of cooperatives 
     ability to bargain with the large packers on the terms of 
     sale. It is important to ensure that packers utilize the 
     supplies from cooperatives in the same fashion as other 
     feedlots.


           SECTION 6. LABELING OF MEAT AND MEAT FOOD PRODUCTS

       The intent here is to provide the consumer with information 
     about the country of origin of meat and meat food products so 
     as to eliminate any confusion about the USDA grade label 
     implying the beef was produced in the United States. It also 
     requires that cattle entering the United States to be 
     slaughter be label as having resided in other countries 
     unless it has resided here for 120 days.


                SECTION 7. LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY COMMISSION

       It is the intent to set up an industry lead Commission to 
     research and report on the more contentious issues swirling 
     around in the industry. The red meat industry lags behind 
     poultry and pork in investments and product development. Many 
     reasons exists, but it is time to identify the most important 
     ones and design a strategy to improve the demand for red 
     meat.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Thompson, and Ms. Moseley-Braun):
  S. 1940. A bill to authorize appropriations for the preservation and 
restoration of historic buildings at historically black colleges and 
universities; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                appropriations authorization legislation

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today in conjunction with Senators 
Thompson and Moseley-Braun, to reintroduce a bill to authorize 
appropriations for the preservation and restoration of historic 
buildings at historically black colleges and universities.
  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. 1940

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

     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:

[[Page S7674]]

       (1) Historically black college or university.--The term 
     ``historically black college or university'' means a part B 
     institution (as defined in section 322 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061)).
       (2) Historic building or structure.--The term ``historic 
     building or structure'' means a building or structure listed 
     on the National Register of Historic Places or designated as 
     a national historic landmark.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

TITLE I--HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES HISTORIC BUILDING 
                      RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Historically Black 
     Colleges and Universities Historic Building Restoration and 
     Preservation Act''.

     SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Nation's historically black colleges and 
     universities have contributed significantly to the effort to 
     attain equal opportunity through postsecondary education for 
     African-American, low-income, and educationally disadvantaged 
     Americans;
       (2) over our Nation's history, States and the Federal 
     Government have discriminated in the allocation of land and 
     financial resources to support historically black colleges 
     and universities, forcing historically black colleges and 
     universities to rely on the generous support of private 
     individuals and charitable organizations;
       (3) the development of sources of private and charitable 
     financial support for historically black colleges and 
     universities has resulted in buildings and structures of 
     historic importance and architecturally unique design on the 
     campuses of those historically black colleges and 
     universities; and
       (4) many of the buildings and structures are national 
     treasures worthy of preservation and restoration for future 
     generations of Americans and for the students and faculty of 
     historically black colleges and universities.

     SEC. 103. PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION GRANTS FOR HISTORIC 
                   BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AT HISTORICALLY BLACK 
                   COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

       (a) Authority To Make Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants in 
     accordance with this section to historically black colleges 
     and universities for the preservation and restoration of 
     historic buildings and structures on the campuses of the 
     historically black colleges and universities.
       (2) Source of funding.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, grants under paragraph (1) shall be made out 
     of amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
     National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) 
     for fiscal years 1996 through 1999.
       (b) Grant Conditions.--Grants made under subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the condition that the grantee covenant, 
     for the period of time specified by the Secretary, that--
       (1) no alteration will be made in the property with respect 
     to which the grant is made without the concurrence of the 
     Secretary; and
       (2) reasonable public access to the property with respect 
     to which the grant is made will be permitted by the grantee 
     for interpretive and educational purposes.
       (c) Matching Requirement for Buildings and Structures 
     Listed on the National Register of Historic Places.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary may obligate funds made available under this 
     section for a grant with respect to a building or structure 
     listed on the National Register of Historic Places only if 
     the grantee agrees to match, from funds derived from non-
     Federal sources, the amount of the grant with an amount 
     that is equal or greater than the grant.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive paragraph (1) with 
     respect to a grant if the Secretary determines from 
     circumstances that an extreme emergency exists or that a 
     waiver is in the public interest to ensure the preservation 
     of historically significant resources.
       (d) Funding Provisions.--
       (1) Amounts to be made available.--Not more than 
     $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and not more than 
     $15,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 
     may be made available under this section.
       (2) Allocations for fiscal year 1995.--
       (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under this 
     section for fiscal year 1995--
       (i) $5,000,000 shall be available only for grants under 
     subsection (a) to Fisk University; and
       (ii) $10,000,000 shall be available only for grants under 
     subsection (a) to the historically black colleges and 
     universities identified for inclusion in the Department of 
     the Interior Historically Black College and University 
     Historic Preservation Initiative.
       (B) Less than $20,000,000 available.--If less than 
     $20,000,000 is made available for fiscal year 1995 for the 
     purpose of subparagraph (A), the amount that is made 
     available shall be allocated as follows:
       (i) 25 percent shall be made available as provided in 
     subparagraph (A)(i).
       (ii) 50 percent shall be made available as provided in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii).
       (iii) 25 percent shall be made available for grants under 
     subsection (a) to other eligible historically black colleges 
     and universities.
       (e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.

  TITLE II--COOPER HALL AND SCIENCE HALL PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

     SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants in 
     accordance with this title to preserve and restore--
       (1) Cooper Hall, Sterling College, Sterling, Kansas; and
       (2) Science Hall, Simpson College, Indianola, Iowa.
       (b) Source of Funding.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, grants under subsection (a) shall be made out 
     of amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
     National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).

     SEC. 202. MATCHING REQUIREMENT.

       The Secretary may obligate funds made available under this 
     title only if the grantee agrees to match, from funds derived 
     from non-Federal sources, the amount of the grant with an 
     amount that is equal or greater than the grant.

     SEC. 203. FUNDING PROVISIONS.

       Not more than $3,600,000 may be made available for grants 
     for Cooper Hall and not more than $1,500,000 may be made 
     available for grants for Science Hall under this title.
                                 ______
                                 

             By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):

  S. 1941. A bill to designate the Federal building located at 290 
Broadway in New York, NY, as the ``Ronald H. Brown Federal Building''; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


      the ronald h. brown federal building designation act of 1996

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to honor and 
remember a truly exceptional American, Ronald H. Brown. The bill would 
designate the Federal building located at 290 Broadway in New York, NY, 
as the ``Ronald H. Brown Federal Building''.
  It is a grand gesture to recognize the passing of this remarkable 
American and special friend, and I would ask for the support of all 
Senators of this legislation to place one more marker in history on Ron 
Brown's behalf.
  Ron Brown had a great love for enterprise and industry as reflected 
in his achievements as the first African-American to hold the office of 
U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
  His was a life of outstanding achievement and service to his country: 
Army captain; general counsel, deputy executive officer, and vice 
president of the National Urban League; partner in a prestigious law 
firm; chief counsel, and chairman of the National Democratic Committee; 
husband and father. And these are but a few of the achievements that 
demonstrated Ron's spirited pursuit of life.
  To have held any one of these posts in the Government, and in the 
private sector, is extraordinary. To have held all of the positions he 
did and prevail as he did, is unique. Indeed, Ron Brown was unfairly 
taken from us; however, while with us, he lived a sweeping and 
comprehensive life. And we are all diminished by his loss.
  Therefore, I cannot think of a more fitting tribute to this uncommon 
man.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Gorton and Mrs. Murray):

  S. 1942. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax treatment for foreign investment through a U.S. regulated 
investment company comparable to the tax treatment for direct foreign 
investment and investment through a foreign mutual fund; to the 
Committee on Finance.


               THE INVESTMENT COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1996

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the U.S. mutual fund industry has 
become a dominant force in developing, marketing, and managing assets 
for American investors. Since 1990, assets under management by U.S. 
mutual funds have grown from $1 trillion to more than $3 trillion in 
1995. Yet, while direct foreign investment in U.S. securities is 
strong, foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds has remained relatively 
flat.
  Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Gorton and 
Murray, the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996. This legislation, 
which I have had the honor of cosponsoring in each of the last two 
Congresses, would eliminate a major barrier to attracting foreign 
capital into the United States while improving the competitiveness of 
the U.S. mutual fund industry.

[[Page S7675]]

  This legislation would remove a barrier to the sale and distribution 
of U.S. mutual funds outside the United States. The bill would change 
the Internal Revenue Code to provide that foreign investors in U.S. 
mutual funds be accorded the same tax treatment as if they had made 
their investments directly in U.S. stocks or shares of a foreign mutual 
fund.
  Under current law, most kinds of interest and short-term capital 
gains received directly by an investor outside the United States or 
received through a foreign mutual fund are not subject to the 30-
percent withholding tax on investment income. However, interest and 
short-term capital gain income received by a foreign investor through a 
U.S. mutual fund are subject to the withholding tax. This result occurs 
because current law characterizes interest income and short-term 
capital gain distributed by a U.S. mutual fund to a foreign investor as 
a dividend subject to withholding.
  The Investment Competitiveness Act would correct this inequity and 
put U.S. mutual funds on a competitive footing with foreign funds. The 
bill would correctly permit interest income and short-term capital gain 
to retain their character upon distribution.
  Current law acts as a prohibitive export tax on foreign investors who 
choose to invest in U.S. funds. That is why the amount of foreign 
investment in U.S. mutual funds is small.
  Mr. President, it is time to dismantle the unfair and unwanted tax 
barrier to foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds. The American 
economy will benefit from exporting U.S. mutual funds, creating an 
additional inflow of investment into U.S. securities markets without a 
dilution of U.S. control of American business that occurs through 
direct foreign investment in U.S. companies. Moreover, the legislation 
will support job creation among ancillary fund service providers 
located in the United States, rather than in offshore service 
facilities.
  Mr. President, I very much appreciate the efforts of Senators Gorton 
and Murray in cosponsoring this legislation and I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill and help to move it forward.
 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my 
distinguished colleagues, Senators Baucus and Murray, in introducing 
the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996, a bill that will make the 
tax treatment for foreign investment through a U.S. regulated 
investment company comparable to the tax treatment for direct foreign 
investment and investment through a foreign mutual fund.
  The service industry continues to grow rapidly as a vital form of 
trade for the United States. While the United States continues to 
suffer a trade deficit in merchandise, exports of services ran at a 
surplus of $63 billion in 1995. In my home State of Washington, 
services such as financial investments and telecommunications are 
integral to job creation and economic growth.
  Improving the international competitiveness of the United States is 
of the utmost importance, and encouraging capital investment in U.S. 
companies is a critical component of improving our international 
competitiveness. Increasingly, foreign capital has been drawn into U.S. 
securities markets. We need to permit that capital to be invested in 
U.S. companies through U.S. mutual funds. This legislation will help 
ensure that U.S. mutual funds become a leading export for the United 
States and the leader in providing worldwide mutual fund services that 
attract more capital to the United States. Putting U.S. funds on a 
level playing field with foreign-based funds or foreign investments 
made directly in U.S. securities, produces a worldwide market for U.S. 
mutual funds and releases a flow of international capital into U.S. 
investments.
  The U.S. mutual fund industry is clearly the most technologically 
advanced in the world, and thus is the most cost efficient in 
delivering services to its client. Current law, however, imposes a 30-
percent withholding tax on mutual fund distributions, a tax that does 
not apply in the case of comparable foreign-based funds or to direct 
investments in the United States. The withholding tax, which 
effectively imposes an export tax on the U.S. mutual fund industry, 
makes U.S. funds less attractive from a pricing standpoint and creates 
an administrative burden for foreign institutional investors. This tax 
discourages global institutional investors and the managers who invest 
their funds from using U.S.-based mutual funds, thus providing a 
competitive disadvantage to foreign-based funds.
  The Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996 addresses this disparate 
treatment by making the tax treatment of foreign investment in U.S. 
mutual funds comparable to that afforded to foreign investments made 
directly in U.S. securities or indirectly through foreign based funds.
  Without this change, U.S. mutual funds would have a strong incentive 
to establish offshore funds in order to compete with foreign-based 
funds and satisfy the demand for U.S. securities in world markets. This 
has the unsatisfactory effect of moving U.S. mutual fund jobs and 
expertise to offshore facilities. Instead, we should be working to 
increase the demand for the fund services provided by U.S. fund 
managers, custodians, accountants, transfer agents, and others based in 
the United States, rather than locate those jobs offshore. This 
legislation will benefit our capital markets by exporting U.S. mutual 
funds, while creating and maintaining mutual fund jobs in the United 
States.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of 
legislation.
 Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator 
Baucus in cosponsoring the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1996, 
legislation that will correct a provision in the Internal Revenue Code 
that currently makes it difficult to sell mutual funds outside the 
United States.
  I believe Congress has an obligation to implement public policies 
that encourage investments in U.S. companies. These investments are 
essential to raising capital, initiating research and development, 
expanding our Nation's economy and ultimately improving our 
international competitiveness.
  Our current Tax Code deters foreign investors from investing in U.S. 
mutual funds by treating interest income and short-term capital gain as 
a dividend that is subject to a 30-percent withholding tax. On the 
other hand, a foreign investor can invest in other foreign funds or 
directly in U.S. securities without paying this tax.
  Mr. President, the U.S. mutual fund industry has grown significantly 
over the past 6-years. Since 1990, U.S. mutual fund assets have grown 
from $1 trillion to more than $3 trillion. This rapid growth has 
occurred despite the fact that foreign investment in U.S. funds has 
stayed roughly the same.
  Rather than dissuading foreign investment, we should be encouraging 
foreign investment in U.S. funds and companies. Quite simply, American 
companies are put at a disadvantage by a Tax Code that encourages 
foreign investors to invest in other countries and other companies.
  More importantly, our Tax Code forces U.S. mutual fund companies to 
set up subsidiary funds overseas in order to reach the world 
marketplace. For instance, the Frank Russell Co. in Tacoma, WA, is a 
highly successful and innovative mutual fund company that employs more 
than 1,000 people. Unfortunately, in order to serve the world market, 
the company has been forced to move its expertise and some jobs 
overseas. In doing so, foreign investors can avoid the U.S. withholding 
tax.
  Mr. President, it makes no sense to continue a tax policy that both 
encourages our companies to move jobs overseas and hampers our ability 
to attract foreign investment and raise capital in the United States.
  I am pleased to be working with Senators Baucus and Gorton on this 
important legislation, and I am hopeful Congress can act quickly on 
this legislation.

                          ____________________