[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11917-S11922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             FLOWERING TREE

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to debate fiscal 
year 1997 funding levels for the Department of Health and Human 
Services [HHS], I would like to take a moment to discuss my concerns 
regarding a pending decision of the Department of Health and Human 
Services that would affect an important program in South Dakota. This 
decision deserves the Senate's attention.
  The program affected is called Flowering Tree. It is a nationally 
recognized alcoholism treatment program that has been operating on the 
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in my home State of South Dakota. This 
alcohol treatment program was backed by a 5-year Federal grant. It is 
only one of four substance abuse treatment programs nationally that 
allows Native American women to continue caring for their children 
while they receive treatment. The Flowering Tree program at Pine Ridge 
serves the second largest Indian reservation in the United States. On a 
reservation with 87 percent unemployment, widespread poverty and 
substance abuse, Flowering Tree has been a vital component of the Pine 
Ridge community.
  In spite of Flowering Tree's success in combating generational 
alcohol abuse, it was brought to my attention that HHS intends to pull 
federal funding from Flowering Tree, which would force the program to 
close its doors. The program is funded through the Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA]. The loss of Federal 
support for the Flowering Tree program would be very harmful to those 
participating in it. Flowering Tree keeps families together and helps 
to build a better future for both mothers and their children by 
treating alcohol abuse. The program is working. If Flowering Tree is 
forced to close, many of the children assisted by the facility could 
lose their families and be referred for adoption, foster care or group 
homes. To say this would be unfortunate is a gross understatement. The 
breakup of families, combined with the loss of a program that offers a 
real way out of substance addiction, would be a devastating double-
punch for the mothers currently participating or waiting to participate 
in the program.
  I am troubled by the Department of Health and Human Services plan to 
terminate assistance to Flowering Tree. The pending decision apparently 
is based on anticipated fiscal year 1997 funding levels. The Senate 
soon will consider a bill that would significantly increase funding for 
substance abuse treatment programs. Flowering Tree's funding request 
for fiscal year 1997 is only $688,913. I have written a letter to the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, urging her to 
reverse the Department's decision. Last week, I received an initial 
response from David Mactas, Director of the Center for Substance Abuse 
Treatment. Mr. Mactas explained the rationale for the Department's 
decision to terminate funding for Flowering Tree.

[[Page S11918]]

However, this week, my staff learned from staff at HHS that the 
decision to terminate funding was put on hold, pending the outcome of 
the bill that could fund this program.
  Mr. President, I see on the floor my colleague from Pennsylvania, the 
distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education, Senator Specter. I know my 
friend is working hard on the fiscal year 1997 spending bill that funds 
substance abuse programs. I hope my colleague had the opportunity to 
hear my earlier comments and I would yield to him for any comments he 
may wish to make.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my friend, the Senator from South Dakota, for 
yielding. The Senator raises some understandable concerns regarding the 
future of the Flowering Tree Program on the Pine Ridge Indian 
Reservation. I agree with the statement of my colleague from South 
Dakota that the bill would provide sufficient funds for the Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's budget.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Would the Senator from Pennsylvania agree the 
Appropriations Committee's proposed funding level should provide HHS 
with the funding necessary to continue supporting Flowering Tree?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes. I believe this funding level should be adequate to 
provide support for Flowering Tree's request for FY 1997. In fact, the 
Appropriations Committee has provided sufficient funds to continue all 
13 residential women and children grants that were proposed to be 
discontinued by HHS at the end of the current fiscal year. The 
committee expects these projects to be fully funded in FY 1997. The 
Senator from South Dakota has made a very compelling case for Flowering 
Tree and I hope this information is helpful to my friend and colleague.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I want to thank my dear friend and colleague from 
Pennsylvania for all his hard work and dedication on the Appropriations 
Committee. I appreciate very much the information he has provided. I 
also commend the Senator for his work to ensure adequate funding levels 
for substance abuse programs. I am pleased Congress intends to provide 
the funding necessary for Flowering Tree to continue fighting 
alcoholism and securing a brighter future for mothers and their 
children. Given this information, I hope Secretary Shalala and her 
department will do the right thing and continue to support the 
Flowering Tree program in Pine Ridge, SD.


                                joblinks

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand that the omnibus 
appropriations bill includes report language instructing the Labor 
Department to follow the recommendations for demonstration projects 
contained in Senate Report No. 104-368. The Senate report instructs the 
Department of Labor to give full and fair consideration to the Joblinks 
Employment Transportation Center.
  This Joblinks Center is an important initiative because it will help 
States to meet the work requirements of welfare reform by coordinating 
job referral and creation activities with available transportation 
resources. This will include development of a data base and technical 
materials, and onsite technical assistance. Second, the center will 
conduct demonstrations in 10 States--of which at least 4 are 
predominately rural--on coordination of transportation and job referral 
and creation programs. Third, to take advantage of the employment 
opportunities available in transportation, the Joblinks Center will 
create a training institute to train and certify skills in driving, 
dispatching, and operating transit systems. This make it possible for 
individuals to leave welfare and become employees in the Nation's 
transit industry or in a related field.
  My colleague, Senator Harkin, and I developed this initiative 
because, in many rural areas like in South Dakota and Iowa as well as 
in inner-city neighborhoods, unemployed and low-income people are 
stranded. Transportation is the vital link that connects people to jobs 
and can help them gain independence. Yet, in many communities, 
transportation assistance has not kept pace with shifting population 
patterns, changing communities and employment opportunities. In many 
instances, people simply cannot get to jobs.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the tough work requirements of the 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act make it 
imperative that economically disadvantaged people have better access to 
employment opportunities. Among the improvements that must be made in 
easing the transition from welfare to work is in transportation. We 
must find ways to better coordinate our transportation systems with our 
efforts to train and employ individuals on public assistance.
  As I travel around my State, the two largest barriers to work that I 
repeatedly hear about are child care and transportation. The Joblinks 
Center will help States and localities improve transportation systems 
for people who want to become and remain self-sufficient.
  This is a very important initiative. We hope that the Labor 
Department will promptly get to work on funding this important 
activity. If people cannot get to jobs, they cannot work.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic 
leader and my colleague, the ranking member of the Labor, HHS, and 
Education Appropriations Subcommittee, for bringing this initiative to 
the Appropriations Committee. I agree that we need to do more to assist 
low-income individuals to get to work. I think that this is an 
important project that may aid inner cities as well as rural areas, 
which are very important to me given the large number of rural areas in 
Pennsylvania. I agree with my colleagues that the Labor Department 
should give every consideration possible to this proposal.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, my colleague from 
Pennsylvania. I appreciate his efforts to work with us on this 
initiative. If welfare reform is truly to occur, then we need to enable 
more single parents to work. I know that's not easy, particularly for 
parents with young children. But, I believe that enhancing 
transportation assistance may be one key to enabling these parents to 
make it on their own.


        chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome [cfids]

  Mr. HARKINS. Would the distinguished senator from Pennsylvania engage 
in a colloquy to clarify certain congressional intent regarding chronic 
fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome, also known as CFIDS?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes, I would.
  Mr. HARKIN. The first matter pertains to a name change for the 
illness now referred to as chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction 
syndrome, [CFIDS], or chronic fatigue syndrome [CFS]. There is a 
consensus in the CFIDS community that the name chronic fatigue and 
immune dysfunction syndrome does not adequately describe the complex 
nature of the illness. Is it the committee's intent to agree with 
language contained in the House Labor, HHS report to the appropriations 
bill calling upon the Secretary of Health and Human Service to convene 
a committee for the purpose of examining this issue and to report back 
within 6 months of this bill's enactment with recommendations for a new 
scientific name or eponym that more appropriately describes the 
illness?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes, it is the intention of the committee to concur with 
the House report language concerning a name change.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President. The Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention recently convened a panel of experts on CFIDS for the 
purpose of reviewing CDC's current CFIDS program and the direction for 
future research. The review panel, made up of experts in infectious 
diseases, internal medicine and epidemiology, met over the course of 2 
days and issued a report containing specific recommendations to the 
Director of the National Center for Infectious Diseases [NCID] and 
other Center staff. My understanding is that those recommendations have 
been well received by the NCID staff. Would the committee express its 
support for the review panel's recommendations, which include: First, 
establishment of a repository for brain tissue obtained from well-
characterized CFS patients--upon death--for use in etiology studies; 
second, proceeding with planned etiology studies utilizing cutting-edge 
technology, including representational difference analysis [RDA]; and 
third, augmenting existing staff in the Division of Viral and 
Rickettsial Diseases with

[[Page S11919]]

an FTE with the demonstrated expertise in neuroendrocrinology and 
neuropsychology to guide case control studies of defects in the HPA 
axis?
  Mr. SPECTER. The recent review by a panel of experts of the Centers 
for Disease Control's past work and future direction in CFIDS was a 
significant step forward in the Federal response to CFIDS. The 
committee applauds that initiative and urges the CDC to carry out the 
recommendations expeditiously.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President, for your support of these 
important CFIDS provisions.


                        section 2241 in title ii

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, section 2241 in title II of H.R. 4278, the 
omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 that is before us 
today, contains a technical drafting error that could have an 
unintended detrimental effect on foreign banks. Inadvertently, section 
2241 as currently drafted may delete the Comptroller of Currency's 
current authority in 12 U.S.C. 72 to waive the citizenship requirements 
for directors of national banks if a bank is a foreign bank affiliate. 
Under current law that has been in effect since the International 
Banking Act of 1978 was enacted, the Comptroller has had the authority 
to waive the citizenship requirement for up to a minority of national 
bank directors if the bank is a subsidiary or affiliate of a foreign 
bank. Section 2241 could be read to inadvertently repeal that 
longstanding authority. Section 2241 was intended to expand the 
Comptroller's authority to waive requirements for national bank 
directors and was not intended to repeal existing authority to waive 
citizenship requirements. I hope legislation correcting this error will 
be introduced and passed in the next Congress but, in the mean time, 
the OCC should treat the citizenship waiver authority as continuing in 
effect and should not do anything that would require foreign bank 
subsidiaries or affiliates to restructure their boards.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. 
Section 2241 was not in anyway intended to repeal or change the 
Comptroller's existing authority to grant waivers to foreign bank 
affiliates under 12 U.S.C. 72. I join with my colleague in stating that 
it is the intent of this body that the OCC should treat any change to 
its current exemption authority as a drafting error and should not take 
any action to implement the change. I will work with my colleague in 
the 105th Congress to correct the drafting error made by section 2241.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I too, would like to join with my 
colleagues in support of a technical amendment to section 2241 after we 
reconvene. I agree that any change that section 2241 would make to 
foreign bank operations in the United States is unintentional and is in 
error. I think that my colleagues are correct to instruct the OCC that 
this change is an error and should not be implemented.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, title II of the omnibus appropriations 
bill is comprised of several bills that the Senate Banking Committee 
considered and reported this Congress. Title II contains critical 
legislation to stabilize the deposit insurance funds, commonly referred 
to as BIF/SAIF. Title II also contains language based on our 
committee's lender liability, regulatory relief and fair credit 
reporting legislation.
  Our actions today will ensure that the taxpayer will not pay one 
additional dollar for cleaning up the savings and loan crises. The 
package we are considering today represents a significant achievement. 
This time Congress will take the responsible action and resolve a 
pending problem before another S&L crisis erupts.
  Mr. President, Congress needs to take action now to resolve the 
difficulties facing the Savings Association Insurance Fund [SAIF]. The 
thrift industry has recovered from the dire financial straits it faced 
in the late 1980's. However, the SAIF, which insures thrift deposits, 
is in extremely weak financial condition. Currently, the SAIF holds 
only half the capital it is required to hold under statute. The Bank 
Insurance Fund [BIF] was fully capitalized in 1995, permitting bank 
insurance premiums to drop to near zero. SAIF members continue to pay 
significantly higher rates which means that thrifts will continue to 
try and move deposits out of SAIF. The possible shrinkage of SAIF also 
raises the probability of a default on the $800 million in Financing 
Corporation [FICO] bond interest that thrifts now pay.
  The BIF/SAIF proposal requires institutions with SAIF deposits to pay 
a one-time special assessment to full capitalize the SAIF. This special 
assessment will ensure that thrifts pay their fair share of the costs 
and will raise $4.1 billion in collections. Beginning January 1, 1997, 
all FDIC-insured institutions will pay the $800 million annual interest 
payments due on FICO bonds. Spreading the FICO burden will eliminate 
the incentive for SAIF deposits incentive to leave the fund. By 
removing the incentive to shift from SAIF to BIF, SAIF will be a more 
stable fund. Bank regulators will also have the authority to prevent 
SAIF deposits from being shifted in the BIF for purposes of evading 
SAIF assessments. However, Congress does not intend that regulators 
inappropriately use this authority to prevent institutions from 
accurately communicating with either existing or potential customers 
regarding the products and services offered by their institutions.

  In the long term, the BIF/SAIF provisions would merge the BIF and the 
SAIF to protect the smaller, less diversified SAIF fund with the 
broader membership of the BIF. The merger will be dependent on 
subsequent Congressional action to address the complex issues 
surrounding the future of the thrift charter. I am hopeful that the 
next Congress will diligently work to resolve these issues.
  Mr. President, by accepting these banking provisions, this Congress 
can also act to lower the cost of regulation to financial institutions 
and their consumers. The committee-reported regulatory relief 
provisions go a long way in relieving banks of some of the bureaucratic 
redtape that increases operating costs for banks and other lenders. 
Regulatory micromanagement is significant because higher costs for 
lenders drive up the price of financial products, and ultimately drive 
up the cost for consumers. The mountain of regulatory redtape that 
confronts banks is the cumulative result of years of legislation. Laws 
were passed to achieve any of a number of legitimate private policy 
concerns. Nevertheless, many of these laws are regulatory overkill. 
Many of the laws that are amended or repealed by this title do not help 
to accomplish an intended goal. Other provisions are being amended or 
repealed because they impose compliance costs that outweigh the 
discernible benefit. As a result, banks and other financial 
institutions are overburdened with regulatory mandates that bear no 
reasonable relationship to safety and soundness, consumer protection or 
protection of the deposit insurance funds.
  Title II eliminates many arcane regulatory burdens that just don't 
make sense. For example, our language eliminates branch application 
requirements for ATM's. These applications are time consuming for banks 
to prepare and for the regulators to approve. Our language also 
eliminates the 90 day prior-notice requirement for moving a branch 
within the same neighborhood. Title II also removes the 7 percent 
growth cap on nonbank banks. These provisions will allow banks and 
other lenders to operate more efficiently and cheaply. They will help 
to defer the costs that banks will incur as part of the BIF/SAIF 
package.
  Title II also contains fair credit reporting reform language. These 
provisions will ensure that mistakes in credit reports will be 
corrected quickly and properly. Consumer credit reports play an 
essential role in the consumer finance markets. These reports allow 
lenders to make informed credit-granting decisions quickly and cheaply. 
However, if credit reports are inaccurate, both the consumer and lender 
lose; the consumer loses an opportunity to obtain needed financing, and 
the lender loses potential business. The provisions of title II will 
help make sure that credit reports are accurate, and that any 
discovered inaccuracies are corrected as soon as practicable.
  The provisions of title II will also promote greater privacy for the 
information in credit reports by assuring that credit report 
information is not distributed wily-nilly, but rather, only to persons 
with narrowly defined legitimate purposes for using the information. 
This law will provide significant new privacy protections for 
consumers.

[[Page S11920]]

While access to credit information is necessary for a number of 
legitimate business reasons, and credit reporting allows consumers to 
obtain prompt credit at low cost, the privacy of consumer credit 
information must be jealously guarded. Title II will help promote this 
important privacy goal.
  Title II also includes the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability and 
Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996. This legislation is based on 
S. 394, a bill that I introduced at the beginning of this Congress. The 
lender liability provisions contained in title II represent the results 
of extensive negotiations among the administration, the lending 
industry and the interested committees of both Houses. These 
environmental liability provisions will ensure greater access to credit 
for small business and for environmental cleanup efforts; they will 
help fuel economic growth without endangering the environment. It is a 
clear demonstration of what can be accomplished, on a bipartisan basis, 
when the administration and the Congress work together to craft 
commonsense solutions to real problems. I would particularly like to 
thank Senators Chafee and Smith, the chairman of the Environment 
Committee and its Superfund Subcommittee, respectively, for their 
cooperation and assistance with this legislation--they were both 
instrumental in resolving this major public policy issue.

  The environmental title clarifies the liability of both secured 
parties and fiduciaries under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, or Superfund. Court decisions 
have eviscerated the so-called secured lender exemption contained in 
the original Superfund law and created uncertainty as to the liability 
of lenders for cleanup costs. As a result, lenders have been less 
willing to make loans to small businesses and farms in order to avoid 
the risk of unlimited liability under CERCLA. Lenders do not make loans 
to certain types of business because they fear potential liability for 
environmental damage if they try to protect themselves against default 
through the foreclosure process. Court decisions also have raised the 
prospect of fiduciaries being held personally liable for environmental 
problems on properties held in trust, even when the fiduciary did not 
create, or contribute to, the problem. Title II clarifies and confirms 
the original secured creditor exemption. For lenders and fiduciaries, 
this bill does not remove liability; it simply establishes bright lines 
tests for liability. These tests should promote greater understanding 
among all lenders of the ``do's and don'ts'' of environmental 
liability. As a result of this greater understanding, lenders should 
become constructively involved in environmental cleanups.
  This legislation provides the certainty needed by all parties--
lenders, fiduciaries, guarantors, insurers, university foundations, 
pension administrators as well as a host of borrowers. Federal agencies 
such as the FDIC also stand in the position of lenders as well as 
receivers of property and will benefit from the certainty provided by 
this legislation. For the most part, this legislation codifies the 
terms of rules of the Environmental Protection Agency on Superfund and 
on the Solid Waste Disposal Act's underground storage tank provisions.
  Some sections of the bill merit particular attention.
  The new section 101(20)(G)(iv) defines the term ``lender'' by 
providing examples of institutions or activities that qualify an 
institution as a lender. This laundry list is joined together by the 
word and between items (VII) and (VIII). Readers of this provision 
should not be misled or interpret the use of and as establishing an 8-
step test--a person may qualify as a lender if it meets any of the 
requirements provided in (G) (I) through (VII), not all of these 
requirements. This is just common sense; otherwise, it would be 
impossible for any institution to qualify as a lender. For instance, 
none of the Government-sponsored enterprises described in subparagraph 
(VI), can also qualify as an insured depository institution under 
subparagraph (I) or as an insured credit union under subparagraph 
(II)--it just is not possible under current Federal banking law. These 
provisions should be read as separate tests for qualifying as a lender, 
and this drafting error should be addressed as soon as possible.
  This legislation includes a new CERCLA section 107(n)(3). This new 
section is intended to make clear that the standard for liability under 
CERCLA for fiduciaries for their negligent acts is the common-law 
standard for negligence when acting in a fiduciary capacity. The new 
section 107(n)(4) clarifies that if a fiduciary stays within the 
specified safe harbors, the fiduciary will not face personal liability; 
rather, the underlying trust or estate would be liable under the 
general CERCLA liability rules contained in section 107(a).
  The definition of fiduciaries, in the new section 107(n)(5) which 
refers to indenture agreements, participations in debt securities and 
like activities, is intended to describe the kinds of activities 
contemplated by the Trust Indenture Act. Trust indentures facilitate 
corporate borrowings and are similar to mortgages because they provide 
security for repayment of investors. The trustee protects the interest 
of security holders who have purchased bonds issued by an obligor 
developing a project. As with other trustees, indentured trustees face 
less choice than lenders on whether or not to take possession of the 
property, as such duties may be required in connection with fulfilling 
the trustee's fiduciary obligations to the security holders. Because 
such trust indentures do not arise under the same common law rules as 
traditional trusts, the language in the new section 107(n)(5)(A)(X) of 
CERCLA simply assures that these trusts receive the same guidance as 
provided for other types of trusts.

  The language in the new section 107(n)(8)(B) of CERCLA (regarding 
claims against nonemployee agents or independent contractors retained 
by fiduciaries) refers to such parties engaged in property management 
or hazardous waste disposal and does not infer that actions should be 
available against lawyers, accountants and other parties who are 
retained by a fiduciary but without responsibility for decisionmaking 
on hazardous materials.
  The language referring to a lender as one who holds indicia of 
ownership should not be interpreted to mean that a lender who gives up 
indicia of ownership, either by transferring a security interest to a 
third party or by relinquishing the interest, loses the protection of 
the exemption. Under section 101(20)(F)(ii), if a security holder gives 
up their interest and is subsequently joined as a party in a suit, the 
former security interest holder will enjoy the same protection enjoyed 
while holding the security interest.
  New section 101(20)(G)(I) is intended to clarify that the defined 
term extension of credit includes the making or renewal of any loan, 
the granting of a line of credit or extending credit in any manner, 
such as an advance by means of an overdraft or the issuance of a 
standby letter of credit, in addition to the two specifically listed 
types of lease financing transactions.
  This legislation makes the same lender and fiduciary provisions that 
apply under Superfund law applicable to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 
and the underground storage tank provisions of that act. The 
Environmental Protection Agency should move expeditiously to provide 
guidance consistent with the statutory language for fiduciaries, who 
are not currently addressed in section 9003(h)(9) or in the current EPA 
underground storage tank rule.
  It is my hope that this legislation will encourage environmental 
cleanups by the private sector, and help to put farm land and urban 
properties back to full use. Lenders will have clear guidance as to the 
potential environmental liability they face, and, hopefully, small 
businesses will be able to obtain credit more easily. Fiduciaries 
receiving property will be able to operate with greater certainty in 
undertaking their duties.
  Mr. President, I want to thank all of my colleagues on the Senate 
Banking Committee for their hard work on the legislation incorporated 
in title II. This title contains a significant portion of the 
committee's agenda for this year. The committee has worked diligently 
to consider and pass a challenging legislative agenda this Congress. 
This agenda included Securities litigation reform, BIF/SAIF 
legislation, Regulatory relief, Fair Credit Reporting Reform, 
Environmental Lender Liability and Securities Regulatory Reform.

[[Page S11921]]

  The Committee has worked effectively, on a bipartisan basis, and I 
commend the entire membership of the committee. I would like to thank 
the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes for his cooperation. I would also 
like to thank Senators Shelby and Mack for their stewardship of 
regulatory reform, and Senators Bond and Bryan for their leadership on 
Fair Credit.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support these banking measures 
which will strengthen our Nation's financial system and protect our 
taxpayers.


                         regulatory accounting

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I support the regulatory accounting 
provision that Senator Stevens added as section 645 of the Treasury-
Postal Appropriations bill, H.R. 3756. I am pleased that this provision 
was added to the omnibus appropriations bill. This provision requires 
the Office of Management and Budget to provide Congress with a report 
including estimates of the total annual costs and benefits of Federal 
regulatory programs; impacts of Federal rules on the private sector, 
State and local government, and the Federal Government; a more detailed 
analysis of the costs and benefits of rules costing $100 million or 
more, and recommendations to make regulatory programs more cost-
effective. I am pleased that this amendment employs the term ``rule'' 
which is defined in section 551 of title V, United States Code. This 
will insure that this report is, indeed, a comprehensive analysis of 
the costs and benefits of regulation in the broadest sense, including 
legislative rules, interpretative rules, guidance documents, and the 
like. In addition, under the amendment, OMB must provide the public 
notice and an opportunity to comment on the draft report--its 
substance, methodologies, and recommendations. In the final report, OMB 
must summarize the public comments.
  I share Senator Stevens' view that the public has the right to know 
the costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs. Congress also 
must have this information to improve agency performance. The total 
annual cost of Federal regulatory programs is estimated at $677 billion 
this year. These costs are passed on to the public, and the tab exceeds 
$6000 for the average American household. While we have made progress 
in our struggle to balance the budget for tax-and-spend programs, we 
are just breaking ground for imposing accountability on the regulatory 
process. It is long overdue. That is why I sponsored regulatory reform 
legislation that included regulatory accounting last year.
  The regulatory accounting report should be a useful tool for 
Congress. Subsection 645(a)(1) requires OMB to estimate the total 
annual costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs. A report from 
the U.S. Business Administration, ``The Changing Burden of 
Regulation,'' estimates that these costs will be about $688 billion 
next year. Those total annual costs (and the benefits) encompass 
impacts felt both from upcoming rules, as well as older rules that will 
continue to impose costs and benefits this coming fiscal year. OMB 
should quantify costs and benefits to the extent feasible, and provide 
the most plausible estimate. Benefits (and costs) that cannot be 
quantified should be described in qualitative terms.
  To generate this information, OMB should draw upon the wealth of 
studies and reports already done, including the work of Tom Hopkins and 
Bob Hahn Where there are gaps, OMB must supplement existing 
information. To conserve its resources, OMB should issue guidelines to 
the agencies to gather the needed information, as OMB does for the 
fiscal budget process. Where detailed information on the costs and 
benefits of individual programs can be produced, it should be presented 
to Congress. The public comment period should help OMB generate 
information and make most plausible estimates of costs and benefits.
  By September 1997, OMB must provide Congress with a credible and 
reliable accounting statement on the regulatory process. This report 
should demonstrate the costs and benefits of various regulatory 
programs. It should highlight those programs or program elements that 
are inefficient, and it should provide recommendations to reform them.
  In conclusion, I would like to point out that this effort to enact a 
regulatory accounting requirement is not a partisan one. Originally, 
the provision was part of S. 291, a comprehensive regulatory reform 
bill that was reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee last 
year when I was chairman by a unanimous 15-to-0 vote. This effort is, 
not withstanding repeated misstatements, not designed to roll back 
progress achieved through regulation but is rather intended to assess 
where we are and allow us to achieve more good for society at less 
cost. It is time we found out how efficiently we are achieving our 
legislative goals through regulation.


                           mark van de water

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as we debate this omnibus appropriations 
bill, I want to acknowledge the staff that have worked so hard drafting 
these appropriations bills. They have been working night and day on 
this compromise bill. In particular, I would like to note Senator 
Hatfield's deputy staff director for the Appropriations Committee, Mark 
Van de Water.
  Many pundits said that this omnibus fiscal year 1997 bill was not 
possible. They said that the Federal Government would have to operate 
on a 6-month continuing resolution that uses spending formulas. But, 
behind the scenes, Senator Hatfield and his staff worked long and hard 
to develop a basis for compromise. And, for the last few weeks, we all 
worked around the clock to conclude the negotiations that made this 
bill possible. The success of this process and the reality of this bill 
are due, in no small part, to the efforts of our Appropriations 
Committee's deputy staff director, Mark Van de Water.
  Mark is a graduate of St. Lawrence University in New York where he 
studied political science and economics. He has worked on the Hill 
since 1986. From 1991 through 1994, he served on the committee staff as 
the minority clerk for the District of Columbia appropriations bill. I 
came to know him as the man who handled Senator Hatfield's interests in 
our Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill. Specifically, he 
ensured that Oregon's interests were protected in such diverse areas as 
salmon restoration, NOAA's oceanic research, and Federal law 
enforcement. In January 1995, Mark became our committee's deputy staff 
director and J. Keith Kennedy's right hand man.
  Since January 1995, we have been able to count on Mark as a force of 
moderation and decency on the Committee. He continued to operate in his 
straight-forward, bipartisan fashion even in the winter and spring of 
1995, when our Appropriations Committee did not. In September 1995, he 
worked with my staff to develop compromises and a Hatfield/Hollings 
amendment that allowed the Commerce, Justice, and State bill to move 
forward and kept the bill from being recommitted to the Committee. Mark 
continued to watch out for programs that were of special interest to 
Chairman Hatfield, like aid to the poor through the Legal Services 
Corporation and research of the Pacific Ocean through the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  Too often we overlook the career professionals who make this 
institution and this appropriations process work. In Mark Van de Water 
this institution is lucky to have an individual who carries out his job 
with the same professionalism and conscientiousness that typifies our 
chairman, Mark O. Hatfield. I, for one, would like to acknowledge and 
thank him for his contributions to the Appropriations Committee and the 
Senate.


                        Section 318--Log Exports

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about a 
provision of this bill which is very troublesome to me. I am talking 
about Section 318 of this bill which deals with Forest Service 
administration of log exports.
  I view it as unfortunate and unfair to my constituents that the 
prohibitions in Section 318 appear once again in bill language, as they 
do in the current year appropriations bill. I did not object to the 
provision the first time, but its re-appearance in the fiscal year 1997 
bill does raise serious concerns. I know the chairman is aware of these 
concerns.
  Section 318 is the cause of a great deal of controversy within the 
forest products industry because it prevents

[[Page S11922]]

implementation of the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief 
Act of 1990.
  Under the law, a review of sourcing areas relative to the export of 
logs is required after individual sourcing areas have been in place for 
5 years. Sourcing areas are geographically defined areas within which 
companies which export their own private logs are permitted to also 
purchase Federal timber. Sourcing areas are required to be 
``economically and geographically separated'' from those areas which 
produce export logs. The purpose is to prevent so-called 
``substitution''--the illegal replacement of exported private logs with 
logs from Federal lands.
  The Forest Service had begun the 5-year review, but the prohibition 
in the 1996 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation bill stopped it 
cold. Section 318 delays it further, at least through fiscal year 1997.
  Mr. President, it is my impression is that there is a fairly broad 
belief in the industry that the current sourcing area boundaries are 
illogical in many respects. Neither can they be properly monitored to 
prevent substitution. Sharply reduced Federal timber supply has 
dramatically changed historic market patterns and log flow. Companies 
desperate for logs to keep their mills operating are buying logs in 
distant locations and hauling them hundreds and hundreds of miles.
  It may well be the case that sourcing areas are already obsolete. 
Under the circumstances of today's log market, it is difficult to 
imagine how log export zones can be kept ``economically and 
geographically separated,'' to quote the law, from sourcing areas.
  One way to find out is to permit the Forest Service to reopen public 
comment and proceed with a review of sourcing areas as the law 
requires. That is what should happen. However, it will not, because of 
Section 318.
  So, I intend to take some jurisdiction on this issue in the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee and open the record myself through 
hearings and testimony in the next Congress. The current state of 
affairs begs for change, and those changes must not be indefinitely 
delayed.
  I regret that I differ with my colleague from Washington, Senator 
Gorton, on this matter. But I know I can count on him to cooperate in 
reaching an equitable solution. He has already indicated he wishes to 
accomplish the same.
  This concludes my remarks regarding Section 318.

                          ____________________