[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9853-S9855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS


  THE OWENS RIVER VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND MANZANAR LAND 
                          TRANSFER ACT OF 1996

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2052. A bill to provide for disposal of certain public lands in 
support of the

[[Page S9854]]

Manzanar National Historic Site in the State of California, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce 
legislation that would allow the Federal Government to obtain 
expeditiously the lands designated as the Manzanar National Historic 
Site.
  As we look back in United States history, we see many triumphs, as 
well as many failures. We must be humble about our successes and 
apologetic for our errors. One of those mistakes was committed during 
World War II when 11,000 Japanese-Americans were held at the Manzanar 
Internment Camp. These individuals were some of the over 120,000 
Japanese-Americans interned at 10 sites throughout the United States.
  While we revel in the victory of World War II, we also make redress 
for the suffering that Japanese-Americans endured as a result of the 
internment. Legislation passed in 1988 directed an official apology by 
the Federal Government and symbolic payments to Japanese Americans that 
were interned. This legislation also included efforts to educate 
Americans about the internment.
  The National Park Service determined in the 1980's that, of the 10 
former internment camps, Manzanar was best suited to be preserved as a 
reminder to Americans of the blatant violation of civil rights that the 
internment represented. As a result, Congress passed legislation in 
1992 to establish a national historic site at Manzanar.
  My legislation will allow us to finish the process of creating the 
Manzanar national historic site and complete a necessary acknowledgment 
of mistaken practices. The bill will make it possible for the Federal 
Government to obtain the Manzanar site through a land exchange with the 
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [LADWP], which currently owns 
the property. The LADWP, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, and Inyo County have agreed to a land exchange that can 
occur rapidly once our legislation is passed. I commend these parties, 
as well as the Manzanar National Historic Site Advisory Commission and 
the Japanese-American community, for their work in bringing us to this 
stage in the process. I also deeply appreciate the commitment of my 
colleagues in the House, Congressman Bob Matsui and Congressman Jerry 
Lewis.
  In addition to the cultural significance of this legislation, the 
land transfer will allow for the completion of a necessary 
environmental restoration project. Through an agreement between the 
LADWP and Inyo County, 60 miles of the Owens River Valley will be 
revived--wetlands will be restored, riparian areas will be renewed, and 
wildlife will again thrive.
  The injustice that occurred at Manzanar should not be forgotten. 
Manzanar should be preserved as a reminder of a terrible mistake--one 
which should never have been committed and one we should never repeat. 
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, so that we can quickly make 
the Manzanar national historic site a reality and instill in our 
citizens a high level of public awareness about the internment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. D'Amato, and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 2053. A bill to strengthen narcotics reporting requirements and to 
require the imposition of certain sanctions on countries that fail to 
take effective action against the production of and trafficking in 
illicit narcotics and psychotropic drugs and other controlled 
substances, and for other purposes; read the first time.


                   NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
revise the annual certification process for drugs. It is called the 
International Narcotics Control Act of 1996.
  Ten years ago, Congress passed bipartisan legislation in the Foreign 
Assistance Act that requires the President to report annually on 
international illegal drug production. That legislation also requires 
him to certify annually to the American public what major drug 
producing and transiting countries are doing to cooperate with 
international efforts to stop the production and transit of illegal 
drugs.
  Virtually all the illegal drugs that come to the United States reach 
our shores from overseas. These drugs--particularly heroin and 
cocaine--are illegal to grow and produce in their countries of origin. 
In addition, these same major producers of illegal drugs are also 
signatories to various international agreements that commit them to 
stop this terrible trade. The certification legislation has the 
practical goal of giving us a realistic gage by which to determine 
whether others are doing their fair share in stopping illegal drugs.
  The legislation of 10 years ago also encourages U.S. administrations 
to make stopping illegal drugs a foreign policy priority. It has also 
been instrumental in encouraging greater cooperation by other countries 
in taking meaningful steps to deal with illegal drug production and 
transportation.
  We and others in the international community expect each nation--
producer or consumer--to take serious measures to stop the flow or use 
of illegal drugs. Unfortunately, not all countries have undertaken such 
efforts.
  When these countries fall short of reasonable standards, the 
certification legislation requires the President to take note of this. 
In serious cases, it requires him to decertify a country if that 
country's efforts fall short of meaningful, credible cooperation.
  It also requires the imposition of sanctions on countries that fail 
to take effective action against the production and trafficking of 
illegal drugs. These sanctions, however, have no real teeth. They are 
mainly an embarrassment.
  Although there are tough sanctions available, in the Narcotics 
Control Trade Act, these are optional and have never been used. This is 
true even though some of the decertified countries, like Burma, have 
been on the list almost since the list was started. To many decertified 
countries, then, embarrassment is hardly a serious concern. For others, 
once they learn how limited the practical effects are, embarrassment 
soon disappears. It is time, therefore, to update the present 
legislation and to give it more realistic measures to encourage serious 
cooperation. This is even more important at a time when illegal drug 
production is growing overseas and teenage use in this country is on 
the rise.
  The legislation I am proposing today puts more force behind our 
policy. It introduces serious sanctions for noncooperation. These 
sanctions would not take effect until the third year of 
decertification. They are, therefore, not arbitrary. It allows ample 
time for a country to improve its record. In addition, the proposed 
sanctions are more flexible than the present ones, which means they are 
more realistic. They give the President greater ability to use 
meaningful sanctions against countries that he determines are not 
living up to reasonable standards. If the administration has seen fit 
to decertify a country for 3 consecutive years, it is fitting that we 
take steps to support that judgment. This legislation does that.
  In an effort to strengthen the reporting and certification process, 
this legislation would require the President to include information on 
the bilateral trade relationship between the United States and each 
country. This information will be necessary to evaluate the potential 
effect of various sanctions. Trade sanctions are perhaps one of the 
most powerful tools we have to put pressure on foreign governments, and 
also one of the least used. This legislation, however, gives us an 
effective tool for the future.
  In addition, this legislation will require an update from the 
president on the status of cooperation of any country that did not 
receive full certification. As this information is already gathered 
throughout the year, and would only apply to a small number of 
countries--nine from 1996--this should not be a significant additional 
burden for the State Department.
  This legislation also would codify additional items that should be 
taken into consideration regarding cooperation.
  These cover changes in the drug trafficking industry that have 
occurred since certification was enacted in 1986. It also considers 
additional cooperation benchmarks that were unnecessary 10 years ago: 
such as, the better inspection of loaned or leased U.S. equipment; 
certification of the destruction of confiscated illegal drugs; and,

[[Page S9855]]

enforcement of adequate confinement so that narco-traffickers cannot 
continue their activities from inside prisons.
  The present legislation also contains a provision for reporting on 
extraditions. Congress has had considerable difficulty in getting 
information from the State Department or the Justice Department on 
pending extraditions. Often, the first notice that an extradition has 
been agreed to is discovered in the morning paper, weeks after the 
extradition occurred. In an effort to shed more light on extraditions, 
this legislation would require a notice to Congress of any extradition 
agreement that has been reached. It has very simple requirements. And 
it will increase information on what the United States is giving up in 
order to reach these extradition agreements.
  This legislation also expands the trade sanctions that are available 
for the President to choose from to penalize countries that do not 
adequately participate in drug efforts. Presently, there are five 
sanctions which the President may implement. This legislation adds five 
more sanctions to this list, both more and less severe than those 
presently available.
  These sanctions include withdrawal of U.S. personnel and resources 
from participation in any Customs preclearance; denial of trade 
benefits under any existing free-trade area agreements; refusal to 
begin or continue negotiations on the establishment of a free trade 
area; denial or restriction of applications for immigrant or 
nonimmigrant visas; increased inspection standards to at least 35 
percent for goods coming in; and denial of export of U.S. products or 
importation from that country.
  Implementation of these sanctions are at the President's discretion 
for the first 2 years that a country is decertified. If a country is 
fully decertified or receives a national interest waiver for 3 
consecutive years, then the President must choose and implement at 
least one of the listed sanctions. These sanctions will remain in 
effect until a country receives full certification.
  The third change to the certification process that this legislation 
would make are changes in the international narcotics control strategy 
report.
  These added reporting requirements identify what action the United 
States has taken under section 487--official corruption--of the Foreign 
Assistance Act and how the country has been affected by its 
implementation. Also, the report should indicate how a country has been 
affected economically by the production and trafficking in illegal 
drugs, and how and where U.S. equipment are being used. And finally, 
any country that is defined as a major money laundering country will be 
treated as a major drug transit or drug producing country.
  These proposed changes enhance the ability of the United States to 
encourage full international cooperation in dealing with the illegal 
drug trade. The provisions are fully in keeping with reasonable 
standards of international conduct. They are a serious part of making 
the stopping illegal drugs an important part of our foreign policy. 
There are fewer more direct and dangerous threats to our citizens today 
than that posed by illegal drugs. It is time to take the next step in 
ensuring that we are taking the responsible measures to control 
international drug trafficking.
  That's why I am introducing this legislation today. I urge my 
colleagues to review this legislation and support this change.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN:
  S. 2054. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to exempt 
certain small lenders from the audit requirements of the guaranteed 
student loan program; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


         THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 AMENDMENT ACT OF 1996

 Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to provide regulatory relief to small-and medium-sized financial 
institutions and protect the availability of student loans.
  In the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, Congress required 
financial institutions participating in the Federal Family Education 
Loan [EFEL] Program to audit their student loan portfolios.
  Unfortunately, this change did not take into account the impact this 
audit requirement would have on lenders with small student loan 
portfolios. These small lending institutions earn only a few thousand 
dollars annually, while the audit costs as much or more.
  As a result of this prohibitively expensive and unnecessary audit 
requirement, many lenders are selling off their portfolios and leaving 
the FFEL Program altogether.
  The Department of Education has indicated they do not have the 
authority to waive the audit requirement. Further, the Department has 
informed those with loan portfolios of less than $10 million that, 
while they must perform the audits annually, the audit results shall be 
submitted to the Department only upon request. Thus, much of the time 
and money spent on these audits will be wasted.
  The inspector general indicated in its semiannual report that they 
were concerned that the costs of legislatively required annual audits 
may outweigh the benefits. The inspector general has recommended that 
the Department take steps to establish in legislation a threshold for 
requiring these audits.
  My legislation would eliminate the lender audit on institutions with 
portfolios equaling $10 million or less. Without the change in current 
law lending institutions will continue to sell off their portfolios, 
leave the FFEL Program, and reduce the opportunities for our Nations' 
students.
  I urge my colleagues to support this much needed reform.

                          ____________________