[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11992-S11998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        DeWine, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Simon):
  S. 2178. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
allow for additional deferred effective dates for approval of 
applications under the new drugs provisions, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


              the better pharmaceuticals for children act

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Better 
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. This bill will create a new 
partnership among pharmaceutical researchers and manufacturers, 
pediatric researchers, and the government to improve the information 
about pediatric uses of pharmaceuticals. The provisions of this bill 
were originally included in S. 1477, the Food and Drug Administration 
[FDA] Performance and Accountability Act, which was approved in March, 
with bipartisan support, by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.
  The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires a showing of safety and 
effectiveness before drugs can be marketed to the American public. 
Until recently, it was thought that such a showing would be the same 
for adults and children. It is now clear, however, that children are 
not small adults. They do not necessarily react to drugs the same way. 
New data are necessary to ensure that America's children have the same 
benefit of safe and effective drugs as our adults do. As it stands now, 
however, 80 percent of the drugs taken by children are not labelled for 
pediatric use.
  The Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act addresses this need for 
pediatric use data by providing an incentive to manufacturers to 
conduct pediatric studies for new and approved drugs. Manufacturers who 
provide pediatric data for the drugs most urgently needed by our 
children would receive an extra six months market exclusivity for their 
product. By taking this type of partnership approach, we can get 
critically needed information on pediatric uses. Providing the FDA with 
the extra authority to offer this type of encouragement will help to 
ensure that companies conduct such studies.
  Under the bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is 
required to develop, in consultation with pediatric experts, a list of 
approved drugs for which additional pediatric information may produce 
health benefits in the pediatric population. For pediatric studies of 
new and approved drugs to trigger the six-month exclusivity incentive, 
they must be formally requested by the Secretary, and filed with the 
Secretary in an acceptable manner. Manufacturers would be precluded 
from obtaining more than one six-month period of exclusivity.
  I am proud to join with Senators Kennedy, Dodd, DeWine, Mikulski, and 
Simon in introducing this bill. Mr. President, it creates a win-win 
situation in which manufacturers get a benefit for proactively testing 
drugs for pediatric use, while our children get timely access to the 
safe and effective drugs they so desperately need.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor, again, of 
the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. I have cosponsored this 
legislation in several Congresses now, and hope that finally, we will 
pass this enormously important legislation.
  This act would address a problem that pediatricians first recognized 
more than 30 years ago: information about safe and effective therapies 
for their young patients is scarce. According to the American Academy 
of Pediatrics only about one-fifth of all drugs marketed in the United 
States today, and only four of the 25 new drugs approved by the FDA 
last year, have been labeled for use by children.
  Given this largely adults-only drug market, individual doctors face 
an uncomfortable dilemma with many of their child patients. Should 
doctors limit themselves to the handful of proven pediatric drugs? Some 
might not even exist for certain illnesses, and in such cases this 
could mean not treating a sick child. Or should they take a gamble on 
an adult drug and rely on their training, professional judgment, and 
luck to make it work as intended?
  Most physicians find the latter option, known as ``off-label 
prescribing,'' to be the more acceptable choice. As a result, the 
American Academy of Pediatrics says that off-label prescribing has ``by 
default become an established standard of care of children.''
  This practice is neither illegal nor improper, but it can present 
unnecessary risk for young patients. Children are not just smaller than 
adults. Their bodies function very differently from adults. And as any 
parent can tell you, they change drastically from infancy to childhood 
to adolescence. For young, growing patients, the only way to be sure 
whether a medication is safe and effective, and what the dosage should 
be, is the test it on different age groups.
  The Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act is a straightforward 
solution to the unnecessary shortage of pediatric medicine. It grants 
an additional 6 months of market exclusivity for drugs which have 
undergone pediatric studies according to accepted scientific protocols. 
This provides a fair and reasonable market incentive for drug companies 
to make the extra effort needed to label their products for use by 
children.
  Simply put, this bill is a sensible way to keep our children 
healthier. That is why it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, both 
inside and outside this body. In addition to the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, other supporters include the Pharmaceuticals Research and 
Manufacturers of America, and the Pediatric AIDS Foundation. I urge my 
colleagues to support this act.
  By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2179. A bill to protect children and other vulnerable 
subpopulations from exposure to certain environmental pollutants, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


            Children's Environmental Protection Act of 1996

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill that 
will help protect the children of this country from the harmful effects 
of environmental pollutants including pesticides and other hazardous 
substances.

[[Page S11993]]

  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have 
worked to protect children and other vulnerable subpopulations from 
contaminants in drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act that was 
recently signed into law by President Clinton included my amendments to 
require that Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] drinking water 
standards be set at levels that take into account the special 
vulnerability of our children, our infants, pregnant women, our 
elderly, the chronically ill, and other groups that are at 
substantially higher risk than the average healthy adult. That was a 
very important step forward because our safe drinking water standards--
and, in fact, most of our country's public protection standards--are 
set at levels to protect the average healthy person, and not our most 
vulnerable loved ones.
  The bill I am introducing today, the Children's Environmental 
Protection Act [CEPA], carries the concept of my Safe Drinking Water 
Act amendments even further. It requires the EPA to set all health and 
safety standards at levels that protect our children and our vulnerable 
subpopulations.
  Mr. President, this is a much needed step forward because science 
tells us that children are not simply smaller versions of adults. 
Recent studies by the National Academy of Sciences found that children 
are more vulnerable to the chemical hazards in the environment for two 
principal main reasons. First, children eat more food, drink more 
water, and breath more air as a percentage of their body weight than 
adults. As a consequence, they are more exposed to the chemicals 
present in food, water and air. Second, because children are still 
growing and many of their internal systems are still in the process of 
developing and maturing, children may be physiologically more 
susceptible than adults to the hazards associated with these exposures.
  Today, there are more questions than ever with respect to children's 
developmental health. For example, it has been estimated that up to one 
half of a person's lifetime cancer risk may be incurred in the first 
six years of life, but current science cannot tell us exactly where and 
how children are exposed to cancer risks in the environment.
  Unfortunately, while we have many questions, we have very few 
answers. It is clear that the factors behind the special environmental 
risks that children face need immediate special attention.

  If the EPA is to be able to fulfill a mandate to set all of its 
standards to protect our children, it must collect more data and carry 
out more research to improve our understanding of how children are 
exposed to environmental pollutants, where they are exposed, and how 
the exposure may affect their health. My bill would require the EPA to 
work with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Department of Health and 
Human Services to develop and implement research studies to examine the 
physiological and pharmacokinetic effects of environmental pollutants 
on children and other vulnerable subpopulations. It also requires 
research on children's dietary, dermal and inhalation exposure to 
environmental pollutants.
  Mr. President, CEPA would also institute measures that would help 
protect our children from coming into contact with environmental 
pollutants including pesticides and other hazardous substances. First, 
my bill includes a family-right-to-know initiative to be adopted by 
every State. The principle behind the initiative is that public health 
and safety depends on citizens being aware of the toxic dangers that 
exist in their communities and neighborhoods. We must provide basic 
information to parents to give them the ability to make informed 
decisions to protect their family.
  The Children's Environmental Protection Act would require users who 
apply pesticides and other hazardous substances in public areas that 
are reasonably accessible to children, to keep a record of the amount 
of chemical used, where it was applied and when it was applied. States 
would provide the public with copies of annual reports summarizing the 
information. The reports would also be available on the Internet. 
Detailed information such as information on a particular school would 
be available to the public upon request. The EPA would complete a 
nationwide survey every two years and make the information available to 
the public in written form and on the Internet. So both scientists and 
parents would have information about to what extent children are being 
exposed in public areas such as school, parks, playgrounds, shopping 
malls, and movie theaters.
  CEPA takes a further step in the case of schools and parks by 
requiring that the EPA identify a list of most dangerous commonly used 
hazardous substances and pesticides--and within one year prohibit their 
use.
  I would like to pay tribute to one exceptional mother. This mother 
knows the intense sadness of losing her child. This very special mother 
lives in my State and I am proud to call her my friend. Three years 
ago, Mrs. Nancy Chuda came to visit me to ask for help. Her little 
girl, all of 5 years old, had died of a nongenetic form of cancer. No 
one knows why or how or what caused little Colette Chuda to become 
afflicted. She was a normal, beautiful girl in every way. She liked to 
draw pictures of flowers and happy people. One thing is certain, she 
was blessed to have two wonderful parents. Nancy and Jim Chuda, despite 
their grief, chose to turn their own personal tragedy into something 
positive. They have labored endlessly to bring to the country's 
attention the environmental dangers that threaten our children. If 
future illness and death can be prevented, I know we all will be 
indebted to the tremendous energy and perseverance of Nancy Chuda.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2179

       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 ``Children's Environmental 
     Protection Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN.

       The Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``TITLE V--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN

     ``SEC. 501. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(1) public health and safety depends on citizens and 
     local officials knowing the toxic dangers that exist in their 
     communities and neighborhoods;
       ``(2) children and other vulnerable subpopulations are more 
     at risk from environmental pollutants than adults and 
     therefore face unique health threats that need special 
     attention;
       ``(3) a study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences 
     on the effects of pesticides in the diets of infants and 
     children concluded that current approaches to risk assessment 
     typically do not consider risks to children and, as a result, 
     current standards and tolerances often fail to adequately 
     protect infants and children;
       ``(4) risk assessments of pesticides and other 
     environmental pollutants conducted by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency do not clearly differentiate between the 
     risks to children and the risks to adults;
       ``(5) data are lacking that would allow adequate 
     quantification and evaluation of child-specific and other-
     vulnerable-subpopulation-specific susceptibility and exposure 
     to environmental pollutants; and
       ``(6) the absence of data precludes effective government 
     regulation of environmental pollutants, and denies 
     individuals the ability to exercise a right to know and make 
     informed decisions to protect their families.
       ``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States that--
       ``(1) all environmental and public health standards set by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency must be adequate to 
     protect children and other vulnerable subpopulations that are 
     at greater risk from exposure to environmental pollutants;
       ``(2) adequate hazard data should be developed with respect 
     to the special vulnerability and exposure to environmental 
     pollutants of children and other vulnerable subpopulations to 
     better assess where, and at what levels, children and other 
     vulnerable subpopulations are being exposed;
       ``(3) scientific research opportunities should be 
     identified by the Environmental Protection Agency to study 
     the health effects of cumulative and simultaneous exposures 
     of children and other vulnerable subpopulations to 
     environmental pollutants;
       ``(4) information should be made readily available by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to the general public to 
     advance the public's right-to-know, and allow the public to 
     avoid unnecessary and involuntary exposure; and
       ``(5) a family right-to-know initiative should be developed 
     by the Environmental

[[Page S11994]]

     Protection Agency to provide parents with basic information 
     so the parents can make informed choices to protect their 
     children from environmental health threats in their homes, 
     schools, and communities.

     ``SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Children.--The term `children' includes adolescents 
     and infants.
       ``(2) Environmental pollutant.--The term `environmental 
     pollutant' means a hazardous substance, as defined in section 
     101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601), or 
     a pesticide, as defined in section 2 of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136).
       ``(3) User.--The term `user' means any commercial 
     applicator of, or any person who applies, an environmental 
     pollutant in a school, park, or public area that is 
     reasonably accessible to children.
       ``(4) Vulnerable subpopulations.--The term `vulnerable 
     subpopulations' means children, pregnant women, the elderly, 
     individuals with a history of serious illness, and other 
     subpopulations identified by the Administrator as likely to 
     experience elevated health risks from environmental 
     pollutants.

     ``SEC. 503. FAMILY RIGHT-TO-KNOW INITIATIVE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator shall work with each 
     State to develop a family right-to-know initiative in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall make grants to 
     States to develop and carry out a family right-to-know 
     initiative in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Terms and conditions.--Grants made under this 
     subsection shall be subject to such terms and conditions as 
     the Administrator establishes to further the purposes of this 
     title.
       ``(c) Requirements of Initiative.--A State carrying out a 
     family right-to-know initiative shall--
       ``(1) require that any user who applies an environmental 
     pollutant in a public area that is reasonably accessible to 
     children complete a simple, easy-to-understand form that 
     provides the amount of environmental pollutant applied, where 
     the environmental pollutant was applied, and when the 
     environmental pollutant was applied;
       ``(2) work with the Administrator to--
       ``(A) develop a uniform definition of the term `public area 
     that is reasonably accessible to children' for purposes of 
     this section, that shall include, at a minimum, schools, 
     shopping malls, movie theaters, and parks;
       ``(B) develop a uniform form to be completed by users under 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(C) determine the manner and length of time of keeping 
     the forms completed by users; and
       ``(D) determine the format for reporting information 
     collected under paragraph (1) to the public;
       ``(3) prepare annual State reports summarizing the 
     information collected under paragraph (1) for distribution to 
     the Administrator;
       ``(4) provide the public with copies of annual State 
     reports and local recordkeeping for schools, parks, and 
     public areas;
       ``(5) make State reports available to the public on the 
     Internet;
       ``(6) provide the Administrator with such data as the 
     Administrator requests to prepare a nationwide survey under 
     subsection (d); and
       ``(7) satisfy such other requirements as the Administrator 
     prescribes to carry out this section.
       ``(d) Nationwide Surveys.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall prepare a 
     biennial nationwide survey of the information collected under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Assessment.--The nationwide survey shall assess the 
     extent to which environmental pollutants are present in 
     private office and commercial buildings that are reasonably 
     accessible to children.
       ``(3) Recommendation.--The nationwide survey shall 
     recommend whether public recordkeeping and public reporting 
     concerning application of environmental pollutants in areas 
     that are reasonably accessible to children should be 
     required.
       ``(e) Public Availability of Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--On request by a member of the public, 
     the Administrator shall provide a copy of any State report or 
     nationwide survey prepared under this section.
       ``(2) Internet.--The Administrator shall make any State 
     report or nationwide survey prepared under this section 
     available to the public on the Internet.

     ``SEC. 504. SAFE SCHOOLS AND PARKS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this title, the Administrator shall--
       ``(1) identify hazardous substances and pesticides commonly 
     used in schools and parks;
       ``(2) create, after peer review, a list of the substances 
     identified in paragraph (1) with high hazard health risks to 
     children and other vulnerable subpopulations;
       ``(3) make the list created under paragraph (2) available 
     to the public;
       ``(4) review the list created under paragraph (2) on a 
     biennial basis; and
       ``(5) develop and issue an Environmental Protection Agency 
     approved sign and label for posting by a school or park to 
     indicate that high hazard environmental pollutants were not 
     used in the school or park.
       ``(b) Cooperation.--The Administrator shall work with the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of 
     Education, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary 
     of Agriculture to ensure wide public distribution of the list 
     created under subsection (a)(2).
       ``(c) Compliance by Schools and Parks.--Not later than 1 
     year after the list created under subsection (a)(2) is made 
     available to the public, the Administrator shall prohibit a 
     school or park from using any environmental pollutant on the 
     list.

     ``SEC. 505. RESEARCH TO IMPROVE INFORMATION ON EFFECTS ON 
                   CHILDREN.

       ``(a) Toxicity Data.--The Administrator, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall coordinate the development and implementation of 
     research studies to examine the physiological and 
     pharmacokinetic differences in the effects and toxicity of 
     pesticides (including active and inert ingredients) and other 
     environmental pollutants on children and other vulnerable 
     subpopulations, as identified in the study of the National 
     Academy of Sciences entitled `Pesticides in the Diets of 
     Infants and Children'.
       ``(b) Exposure Data.--The Administrator, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall conduct surveys and applied research to document 
     differences between children and adults with respect to 
     dietary, dermal, and inhalation exposure to pesticides and 
     other environmental pollutants.
       ``(c) Biennial Reports.--The Administrator, the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall submit biennial reports to Congress on actions 
     taken to carry out this section.

     ``SEC. 506. SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN AND OTHER VULNERABLE 
                   SUBPOPULATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(1) evaluate environmental health risks to vulnerable 
     subpopulations in all of the risk assessments, risk 
     characterizations, environmental and public health standards, 
     and general regulatory decisions carried out by the 
     Administrator;
       ``(2) carry out paragraph (1) in accordance with the policy 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency on the assessment of 
     risks to children in effect on November 1, 1995; and
       ``(3) develop and use a separate assessment or finding of 
     risks to vulnerable subpopulations or publish in the Federal 
     Register an explanation of why the separate assessment or 
     finding is not used.
       ``(b) Reevaluation of Current Public Health and 
     Environmental Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--As part of any risk assessment, risk 
     characterization, environmental or public health standard, or 
     general regulatory decision carried out by the Administrator, 
     the Administrator shall evaluate the environmental health 
     risks to children and other vulnerable subpopulations.
       ``(2) Implementation.--In carrying out paragraph (1), not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this title, 
     the Administrator shall--
       ``(A) develop an administrative strategy and an 
     administrative process for reviewing standards;
       ``(B) identify a list of standards that may need revision 
     to ensure the protection of children and vulnerable 
     subpopulations;
       ``(C) prioritize the list according to the standards that 
     are most important for expedited review to protect children 
     and vulnerable subpopulations;
       ``(D) identify which standards on the list will require 
     additional research in order to be reevaluated and outline 
     the time and resources required to carry out the research; 
     and
       ``(E) identify, through public input and peer review, not 
     fewer than 5 public health and environmental standards of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to be repromulgated on an 
     expedited basis to meet the criteria of this subsection.
       ``(3) Revised standards.--Not later than 6 years after the 
     date of enactment of this title, the Administrator shall 
     propose not fewer than 5 revised standards that meet the 
     criteria of this subsection.
       ``(4) Completed revision of standards.--Not later than 15 
     years after the date of enactment of this title, the 
     Administrator shall complete the revision of standards in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       ``(5) Report.--The Administrator shall report to Congress 
     on an annual basis on progress made by the Administrator in 
     carrying out the objectives and policy of this subsection.

     ``SEC. 507. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF DATA.

       ``(a) Disclosure of Health Effects and Exposure Data.--
     Subject to subsection (b), any data or information known by a 
     Federal agency concerning any test of a pesticide, residue of 
     a pesticide, or other environmental pollutant to determine 
     the potential levels of exposure or health effects shall be 
     available for disclosure to the public, except to the extent 
     the data or information relates to--
       ``(1) a manufacturing or quality control process;
       ``(2) a method for detecting the quantity of any 
     deliberately added inert ingredient of a chemical substance 
     other than a method for detecting a residue of the inert 
     ingredient in or on food; or
       ``(3) explicit information derived from a pesticide use 
     form submitted under section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i-1).

[[Page S11995]]

       ``(b) Data and Information Submitted Under FIFRA.--Any data 
     or information described in subsection (a) that was submitted 
     to the Administrator under the Federal Insecticide, 
     Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) shall 
     be made available for disclosure to the public in accordance 
     with section 10 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 136h).
       ``(c) Disclosure.--This section shall not restrict the 
     release of--
       ``(1) information that is otherwise subject to disclosure 
     under section 552 of title 5, United States Code; or
       ``(2) information available through--
       ``(A) a material safety data sheet;
       ``(B) published scientific literature; or
       ``(C) a government document.

     ``SEC. 508. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this title.''.
       By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Shelby):

  S. 2180. A bill to establish felony violations for the failure to pay 
legal child support obligations and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


              THE DEADBEAT PARENTS PUNISHMENT ACT OF 1996

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Deadbeat Parents Punishment 
Act of 1996. Along with Senator Shelby and Congressmen Hyde and 
Schumer, I introduced the original Child Support Recovery Act in 1992, 
and today I am pleased to introduce a bill that will toughen the 
original legislation to ensure that more serious crimes receive more 
serious punishment. In so doing, we can send a clear message to 
deadbeat dads--and moms: ignore the law, ignore your responsibilities, 
and you will pay a high price; that is, pay up or go to jail.
  Current law already makes it a Federal offense to willfully fail to 
pay child support obligations to a child in another State if the 
obligation has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater 
than $5,000. However, current law provides for a maximum of just 6 
months in prison for a first offense, and a maximum of 2 years for a 
second offense.
  Police officers and prosecutors have used the current law 
effectively, but they have found that these penalties do not adequately 
deal with more serious cases--those deadbeat parents who deliberately 
ignore or evade the law. These are cases in which parents move from 
State to State to intentionally evade child support penalties, or fail 
to pay child support obligations for more than 2 years--serious cases 
that deserve serious punishment. In response to these concerns, 
President Clinton has drafted legislation that would address this 
problem, and I am pleased to introduce it today.
  This new effort builds on past successes achieved through bipartisan 
work. In the 4 years since the original deadbeat parents legislation 
was signed into law by President Bush, collections have increased by 
nearly 50 percent, from $8 billion to $11.8 billion, and we should be 
proud of that increase. Moreover, a new national database has helped 
identify 60,000 delinquent fathers, over half of whom owed money to 
women on welfare.
  Nevertheless, there is much more we can do. It has been estimated 
that if delinquent parents fully paid up their child support, 
approximately 800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare 
rolls. Our legislation cracks down on the worst violators, and makes 
clear that intentional or long-term evasion of child support 
responsibilities will not receive a slap on the wrist. In so doing, it 
will help us continue the fight to ensure that every child receives the 
parental support they deserve.
  Mr. President, we introduce this measure today, at the end of the 
session, in order to provide an opportunity for review in the coming 
months. But when we return for the 105th Congress, it will be one of my 
highest priorities. So I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
give police and prosecutors the tools they need to effectively pursue 
individuals who seek to avoid their family obligations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       The Child Support Recovery Amendments Act of 1996 amends 
     the current criminal statute regarding the failure to pay 
     legal child support obligations, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 228, to 
     create felony violations for egregious offenses. Current law 
     makes it a federal offense willfully to fail to pay a child 
     support obligation with respect to a child who lives in 
     another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for 
     longer than a year or its greater than $5,000. A first 
     offense is subject to a maximum of six months of 
     imprisonment, and a second or subsequent offense to a maximum 
     of two years.
       The bill addresses the law enforcement and prosecutorial 
     concern that the current statute does not adequately address 
     more serious instances of nonpayment of support obligations. 
     A maximum term of imprisonment of just six months does not 
     meet the sentencing goals of punishment and deterrence. 
     Egregious offenses, such as those involving parents who move 
     from State-to-State to evade child support payments, require 
     more severe penalties.
       Section 2 of the bill creates two new categories of felony 
     offenses, subject to a two-year maximum prison term. These 
     are: (1) traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the 
     intent to evade a support obligation if the obligation has 
     remained unpaid for a period longer than one year or is 
     greater than $5,000; and (2) willfully failing to pay a 
     support obligation regarding a child residing in another 
     State, if the obligation has remained unpaid for a period 
     longer than two years or is greater than $10,000. These 
     offenses, proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 228(a) (2) and (3); 
     indicate a level of culpability greater than that reflected 
     by the current six-month maximum prison term for a first 
     offense. The level of culpability demonstrated by offenders 
     who commit the offenses described in these provisions is akin 
     to that demonstrated by repeat offenders under current law, 
     who are subject to a maximum two-year prison term.
       Proposed section 228(b) of title 18, United States Code, 
     states that the existence of a support obligation in effect 
     for the time period charged in the indictment or information 
     creates a rebuttable presumption that the obligor has the 
     ability to pay the support obligation for that period. 
     Although ``ability to pay'' is not an element of the offense, 
     a demonstration of the obligor's ability to pay contributes 
     to a showing of willful failure to pay the known obligation. 
     The presumption in favor of ability to pay is needed because 
     proof that the obligor is earning or acquiring income or 
     assets is difficult. Child support offenders are notorious 
     for hiding assets and failing to document earnings. A 
     presumption of ability to pay, based on the existence of a 
     support obligation determined under State law, is useful in a 
     jury's determination of whether the nonpayment was willful. 
     An offender who lacks the ability to pay a support obligation 
     due to legitimate, changed circumstances occurring after the 
     issuance of a support order has civil means available to 
     reduce the support obligation and thereby avoid violation 
     of the federal criminal statute in the first instance. In 
     addition, the presumption of ability to pay set forth in 
     the bill is rebuttable; a defendant can put forth evidence 
     of his or her inability to pay.
       The reference to mandatory restitution in proposed section 
     228(d) of title 18, United States Code, amends the current 
     restitution requirement in section 228(c). The amendment 
     conforms the restitution citation to the new mandatory 
     restitution provision of federal law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3663A, 
     enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
     Penalty Act of 1996, P.L. 104-132, section 204. This change 
     simply clarifies the applicability of that statute to the 
     offense of failure to pay legal child support obligations.
       For all of the violations set forth in proposed subsection 
     (a) of section 228, the requirement of the existence of a 
     State determination regarding the support obligation is the 
     same as under current law. Under proposed subsection (e)(1), 
     as under current subsection (d)(1)(A), the government must 
     show that the support obligation is an amount determined 
     under a court order or an order of a administrative process 
     pursuant to the law of a State to be due from a person for 
     the support and maintenance of a child or of a child and the 
     parent with whom the child is living.
       Proposed subsection (e)(2) of section 228 amends the 
     definition of ``State,'' currently in subsection (d)(2), to 
     clarify that prosecutions may be brought under this statute 
     in a commonwealth, such as Puerto Rico. The current 
     definition of ``State'' in section 228, which includes 
     possessions and territories of the United States, does not 
     include commonwealths.
  By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 2181. A bill to provide for more effective management of the 
National Grasslands, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


                   NATIONAL GRASSLANDS MANAGEMENT ACT

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National 
Grasslands Management Act. This bill applies to the grasslands in North 
Dakota and half a dozen other States. I want to explain briefly what 
the objective of this bill is and how it came about.
  For several years, the ranchers in western North Dakota have been 
asking for a less cumbersome approach to management of the grasslands 
and in North Dakota, both Chambers of the 1995 legislature passed a 
resolution unanimously asking for change on the grasslands as well.

[[Page S11996]]

  The current regulatory regime is cumbersome mainly because the Forest 
Service must manage the grasslands under the same framework as it does 
the rest of the National Forest System. It doesn't handle efficiently 
the day-to-day problems of the ranchers and grazing associations. For 
example, ranchers have had to wait for as long as 2 to 3 years to get 
approval for a stock tank because of the labyrinth of regulations that 
the Forest Service overlays on the management of the grasslands. This 
legislation will change that by removing the national grasslands from 
the National Forest System and creating a new structure of rules 
specifically suited to the grasslands and their environment.
  However, it is not only the ranchers needs that I am attempting to 
address. There is a broad range of uses on the public lands which must 
be protected. All hunting, fishing and recreational activities will 
continue as before and environmental protections will continue to be in 
place. Further, it is my intention that the public must be involved in 
the decision making process as these new rules are implemented. Only by 
working together can we solve the problems on the grasslands.
  Several environmental groups and interested citizens have expressed 
concern that this bill, which was originally incorporated as part of a 
larger grazing package, would make grazing the dominant use of the 
public lands at the expense of other uses and some have expressed 
concern that this bill would prohibit hunting and fishing, end the 
multiple use of the national grasslands, turn over the management of 
the Grasslands to the ranchers and disconnect the grasslands from 
environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air 
Act, and the Clean Water Act.
  These concerns are unfounded. I have worked diligently with the 
ranchers, environmentalists, and other recreational users of the 
grasslands to ensure that further misinterpretation is not possible. 
The result of that work is the National Grasslands Management Act that 
I am introducing today.
  The legislation explicitly states that there will be no diminished 
hunting or fishing opportunities, that all applicable environmental 
laws will apply to those lands, and that the grasslands will be managed 
under a multiple use policy. The bill directs the Secretary to 
promulgate regulations which promote the efficient administration of 
livestock agriculture and provide environmental protections equivalent 
to that of the National Forest System.
  In short, I believe that the National Grasslands Management Act is a 
solid piece of legislation that will make the administration of the 
Grasslands more responsive to the people who live there, without 
diminishing the rights and opportunities of other multiple users of 
this public land.
  By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 2182. A bill to consolidate certain mineral interests in the 
National Grasslands in Billings County, North Dakota, through the 
exchange of Federal and private mineral interests to enhance land 
management capabilities and environmental and wildlife protection, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                  MINERAL RIGHTS EXCHANGE LEGISLATION

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, I, along with Senator Kent Conrad, 
am introducing a bill that will facilitate a mineral exchange in 
Western North Dakota. The purpose of this mineral exchange is to 
consolidate certain mineral estates of both the U.S. Forest Service and 
Burlington Resources, formerly known as Meridian Oil. This 
consolidation will produce tangible benefits to an economically 
distressed region in North Dakota and also protect environmentally 
sensitive areas.
  For years, the land and mineral ownership pattern in Western North 
Dakota has been extremely fragmented. In many cases the Forest Service 
owns and manages the surface land while private parties, such as 
Burlington Resources, own the subsurface mineral estates. This 
fragmentation has not only frustrated the management objectives of the 
Forest Service, it has also inhibited mineral exploration and 
development.
  By consolidating the mineral estates, the Forest Service will have 
the opportunity to protect the viewshed along the Little Missouri 
River, creating a more attractive hunting, fishing and hiking area. 
Further, the mineral exchange will protect certain bighorn sheep 
calving areas. The Forest Service and Burlington have already signed a 
Memorandum of Understanding which will aid in the protection of 
wildlife and wildlife habitat after the exchange is concluded. The 
exchange is also supported by all major environmental groups in the 
State, the Governor of North Dakota, and the Bureau of Land 
Management's Dakotas Resource Advisory Council.
  Burlington Resources supports this legislation. Burlington will have 
better opportunities for mineral exploration and development within 
their consolidated mineral estates. This increased development will 
benefit not only Burlington, but also Billings County and the State of 
North Dakota through increased tax revenue..
  One point that I would like to make clear is that this mineral 
exchange should in no way be seen as affecting the multiple uses of the 
land. Current multiple uses, such as recreation, livestock grazing, 
watershed protection or fish and wildlife purposes, will continue as 
before.
  I would also like to point out that this mineral exchange is not 
meant as a preamble to--or a substitute for--a designation of this area 
as wilderness. I do not favor the designation of wilderness within 
Billings County.
  May I further underscore that this mineral exchange costs the U.S. 
taxpayer nothing. The bill provides for an exchange of about the same 
number of acres with equivalent monetary values. Yet, this no-cost 
transaction will yield substantial economic, environmental, and 
management dividends.
  It is my hope that this mineral exchange will address some of the 
difficult land use questions in this area. It will accomplish a number 
of objectives. It will protect certain environmentally sensitive and 
scenic areas from development and I think that is important in these 
unique circumstances. It will also consolidate mineral holdings so that 
more orderly and predictable development will occur where development 
is feasible and appropriate. And, as I noted before, it will preserve a 
multiple use framework for managing these lands so that grazing and 
other activities are not otherwise affected by this legislation.
  Further, it does not rely on the Government imposing a solution. 
Rather, this voluntary agreement embodies a consensus reached between 
the affected parties, the mineral holders, the State and its citizens, 
the environmental organizations, and the United States Forest Service.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the Governor of 
North Dakota, the Dakotas Resource Council and the Sierra Club, and the 
Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Forest Service and Burlington 
Resources be printed in the Record in order to aid my colleagues in 
their deliberations on the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        State of North Dakota,

                                       Bismark, ND, July 25, 1996.
     Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: The State of North Dakota supports the 
     introduction of a bill which would implement a proposed 
     mineral exchange between the United States Forest Service and 
     Meridian Oil, Inc. This effort will advance our ``2020'' 
     program to plan and implement sound management of the 
     Badlands well into the future.
       Current land and mineral ownership patterns in the Bullion 
     Butte and Ponderosa Pine areas of the Little Missouri 
     National Grasslands are fragmented, thereby complicating 
     management of surface and mineral resources.
       The proposed exchange is an opportunity to consolidate 
     ownership, enhance natural badlands habitat adjacent to the 
     Little Missouri River and facilitate mineral development 
     while reducing conflict by competing activities.
       Finally, I have included a summary describing more 
     completely, the intended exchange and its effect.
           Sincerely,
                                                Edward T. Schafer,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____


   Legislation To Effect an Exchange of Mineral Rights in the Little 
               Missouri National Grasslands, Billings, ND

       For over a decade, the United States Forest Service (USFS) 
     and Meridian Oil, Inc. (Meridian) have been considering a 
     possible exchange of oil and gas rights in the Bullion

[[Page S11997]]

     Butte and Ponderosa Pine areas of the Little Missouri 
     National Grasslands in North Dakota. The land ownership 
     pattern in those areas is very fragmented, with both federal 
     and privately owned mineral rights and federal surface and 
     private subsurface estates. This lack of unity between the 
     surface and subsurface estates and intermixture of public and 
     private mineral rights have complicated both effective 
     management of surface resource values and efficient 
     extraction of minerals. The USFS views an exchange to 
     consolidate mineral ownerships as an opportunity to protect 
     bighorn sheep and their habitat and the viewshed in the 
     Little Missouri River corridor. Meridian expects an exchange 
     to facilitate exploration for and development of oil and gas 
     by reducing the conflict such activities would have with 
     other sensitive Grasslands resources.
       At the urging of Senator Dorgan and Governor Schafer, the 
     USFS and Meridian reached an agreement last year on an 
     exchange of certain federal and private mineral rights and 
     the imposition of certain constraints on Meridian oil and gas 
     activities. The agreement would be implemented by this 
     legislation.
       What the legislation does. The legislation would accomplish 
     the following:
       Direct the completion of the transfer of Meridian's mineral 
     rights in approximately 9,582 acres to the USFS for federal 
     oil and gas rights in 8,796 acres, all in Billings County, 
     North Dakota, within 45 days of enactment.
       Authorize the exchange of any other private mineral rights 
     in the same area for federal mineral rights within 6 months 
     of enactment.
       Deem the mineral rights to be transferred in the USFS/
     Meridian exchange to be of equal value (since the two parties 
     have already negotiated the exchange and are of the informed 
     opinion that the values are equivalent) and require that the 
     other mineral rights to be transferred be of approximately 
     equal value.
       Require Meridian, as a condition for the exchange, to 
     secure release of any leasehold or other contractual rights 
     that may have been established on the Meridian oil and gas 
     interests that will be exchanged.
       Assure Meridian that it will have access across federal 
     lands to be able, subject to applicable federal and State 
     laws, to explore for and develop oil and gas on the interests 
     it will receive in the exchange and that it will have the 
     same surface occupancy and use rights on the interests it 
     will receive that it now holds on the interests to be 
     surrendered.
       Find that the USFS/Meridian exchange meets the requirements 
     of other federal exchange, environmental, and cultural laws 
     that would apply if the exchange were to be processed without 
     Congressional approval and direction.
       Assure that no provision of the legislation can be 
     interpreted to limit, restrict, or otherwise affect the 
     application of the principle of multiple use (including such 
     uses as hunting, fishing, grazing and recreation) in the 
     Grasslands.
       In addition to facilitating the exchange, the legislation 
     would memorialize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) also 
     negotiated and executed by the USFS and Meridian concerning 
     management of certain Meridian oil and gas properties that 
     will remain in Grasslands' areas with high surface resource 
     values. In particular the MOU, adopted by reference in the 
     legislation, obligates Meridian to make its best efforts to 
     locate any oil and gas facilities and installations outside 
     of the \1/4\ mile view corridor on either side of the stretch 
     of the Little Missouri River being considered for designation 
     as a Wild and Scenic River and to access certain other 
     property adjacent to an important bighorn sheep lambing area 
     only by directional drilling.
       Equally important is what the legislation does not do:
       It does not increase the amount of surface which the USFS 
     controls. The USFS currently controls the surface on 
     essentially all the land involved in the exchange, and this 
     will not change since only mineral interests will be 
     transferred.
       It does not decrease the federal land available for oil and 
     gas development. To the contrary, in the exchange the federal 
     government will receive a net gain of almost 800 acres in 
     mineral rights that may be leased for exploration and 
     development by other parties. And, by consolidating federal 
     mineral rights which now are scattered in a checkerboard 
     pattern, access to them should be improved. The extent to 
     which existing and new federal mineral rights are leased to 
     private parties will be decided by the USFS in the ongoing 
     planning and Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern 
     Little Missouri Grasslands. The ``multiple use'' provision of 
     the legislation makes certain the legislation will not affect 
     that decisionmaking process.
       It does not decrease revenue to the county, state, and 
     federal governments. For the same reason that the exchange 
     would not decrease land available for oil and gas 
     development, the economic interests of taxing entities and 
     the oil and gas industry should not be affected significantly 
     by the exchange. In fact, with Meridian consolidating its 
     mineral holdings in a more manageable and less sensitive 
     unit, area oil and gas activity should increase and produce a 
     net positive economic effect.
       It does not provide either Meridian or USFS with mineral 
     rights of greater value than those they now hold. The USFS 
     with the assistance of the Bureau of Land Management, has 
     reached the conclusion that the mineral rights to be 
     exchanged between the USFS and Meridian are of equal value. 
     Some additional value will accrue to both sets of mineral 
     rights transferred by the exchange because of the greater 
     ease of access and management that will result from 
     consolidation. The legislation requires that any other 
     mineral rights exchanged by other parties under the 
     legislation be of approximately equal value.
       It does not resolve the issue of wilderness designation. 
     Some parties desire wilderness protection for the area. Other 
     parties, including Meridian, oppose wilderness designation, 
     and the USFS has not indicated any intent to establish a 
     wilderness. The legislation would not increase, or decrease, 
     the prospect for wilderness designation since wilderness may 
     be designated whether the mineral rights are privately or 
     publicly owned, the designation can only be accomplished by a 
     separate Act of Congress, and the legislation's ``multiple 
     use'' language makes clear the intent of Congress that the 
     exchange is not intended to affect the wilderness issue.


                            Dakotas Resource Advisory Council,

                                Dickinson, ND, September 12, 1996.
     Hon. Ed Schafer,
     Governor of North Dakota, State Capitol, Bismarck, ND.
       Dear Governor Schafer: The Dakota Resource Advisory Council 
     (RAC), a 12-member body appointed by the Secretary of the 
     Interior, represents users of public lands in North and South 
     Dakota. The RAC provides opportunities for meaningful public 
     participation in land management decisions at the district 
     level and encourages conflict resolution among various 
     interest groups.
       At our meeting in Dickinson, North Dakota on September 9, 
     1996, the RAC reviewed and discussed the Meridian Mineral 
     Exchange that you have been considering. After careful review 
     by our RAC, a resolution was passed indicating our support 
     for legislative to allow the Meridian Mineral Exchange to be 
     completed by the Bureau of Land Management.
       Since there is considerable activity in this area, there is 
     a definite urgency to move this legislation in the remaining 
     of this Congress. The Dakota RAC respectfully requests the 
     introduction and passage of legislation of the Meridian 
     Mineral Exchange.
       If we can be of further assistance to your efforts in this 
     regard, we are most willing to help. District Manager, Doug 
     Burger, has more details with respect to the exchange and we 
     have asked him to assist you.
       Thank you for considering the recommendations of the Dakota 
     RAC.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Marc Trimmer,
     Chair, Dakota RAC.
                                                                    ____


                      Memorandum of Understanding

       The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is between Meridian 
     Oil Inc. (Meridian) with offices in Englewood, Colorado and 
     the U.S. Forest Service, Custer National Forest (Forest 
     Service).
       The intent of the MOU is to set forth agreement regarding 
     development of certain oil and gas interests beneath Federal 
     surface. This MOU is in addition to, and does not abrogate, 
     any rights the United States otherwise has to regulate 
     activities on the Federal surface estate or any rights 
     Meridian otherwise has to develop the oil and gas interest 
     conveyed.
       The provisions of this MOU shall apply to the successors 
     and assigns of Meridian.
       The MOU may be amended by written agreement of the parties.
       Section A. View Corridor--Little Missouri River. Includes 
     the following land (Subject Lands) in Township 137N., Range 
     102W.:
       Section 3: Lots 6, 7, 9-12, 14-17 (+) River Bottom 54.7 
     acres
       Section 10: Lots 1-4, N\1/2\, N\1/2\SE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/4\ 
     (+) River Bottoms 7.3 acres
       Section 14: Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\, NW\1/
     4\SW\1/4\, S\1/2\S\1/2\ (+) River Bottom 41.4 acres
       Section 24: Lots 1-9, NE\1/4\, S\1/2\NW\1/4\, NE\1/4\NW\1/
     4\ (+) River Bottom 75.84 acres
       1. The purpose of this Section is to set forth the 
     agreements that Meridian and the Forest Service have made 
     concerning reasonable protection of the view from the Little 
     Missouri River which has been identified as potentially 
     suitable for classification as a Wild and Scenic River under 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This section of the MOU shall 
     remain in effect as long as the Forest Service maintains a 
     corridor for this purpose.
       2. The Forest Service has designated a \1/4\ mile corridor 
     on either side of the River for protection of the view from 
     the River, and this Section applies to the location permanent 
     improvements within said corridor and not to temporary 
     activities such as seismic operations within said corridor.
       3. Meridian agrees to use its best efforts to locate 
     permanent production facilities, well sites, roads and other 
     installations outside the \1/4\ mile corridor on the Subject 
     Lands. However, such facilities may be located within the \1/
     4\ mile corridor if mutually agreed to by the parties in 
     writing.
       4. The Forest Service agrees that Meridian may access its 
     minerals within or without the \1/4\ mile corridor of the 
     subject lands from a well or wells whose surface location is 
     on adjoining lands in which Meridian owns the severed mineral 
     estate.
       Section B. Development of T. 138N., R 102W., Section 12: 
     S\1/2\

[[Page S11998]]

       1. The purpose of this section is to set forth the 
     agreement that Meridian and the Forest Service have made 
     concerning the option to develop the mineral resources in the 
     S\1/2\ Section 12 from specified locations in Section 13, T. 
     138N., R. 102W.
       2. If, at any time, Meridian, at its sole discretion, 
     decides that the development potential of the S\1/2\ Section 
     12 justifies additional directional drilling the following 
     options are hereby made available to them by the Forest 
     Service:
       A. Directional drilling from an expanded pad on the Duncan 
     MP#1 location is Section 13, T. 138N., R. 102W. or
       B. Directional drilling from a location in Section 13 
     adjacent to the county road and screened from the bighorn 
     sheep lambing area located in Section 12.
       If Meridian elects to develop the S\1/2\ Section 12 from 
     one of the specified locations in Section 13, surface 
     disturbing activities related to development and production 
     will only be allowed from June 16 through October 14, 
     annually.
       3. This section of the MOU shall remain in effect as long 
     as the S\1/2\ of Section 12 is subject to the present, or a 
     future, oil and gas lease.
     Steven L. Reinert,
       Attorney-in-Fact, Meridian Oil, Inc.
     Nancy Curriden,
       Forest Supervisor, Custer National Forest.
                                                                    ____

                                                Dacotah Chapter of


                                              the Sierra Club,

                                   Mandan, ND, September 14, 1995.
     Re Meridian mineral exchange.

     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: I am writing to convey the Sierra 
     Club's support for the ``agreement in principle'' for a 
     mineral exchange between Meridian Oil Inc. (MOI) and the 
     Bureau of Land Management (BLM)/United States Forest Service 
     (USFS). This agreement follows extensive negotiations between 
     MOI, USFS, BLM, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department 
     (NDGF) and local conservation organizations.
       It is my understanding that their are two components to the 
     agreement. Part One involves the actual exchange of the 
     mineral estate. Part Two outlines a Memorandum of 
     Understanding (MOU) between the USFS and MOI to protect the 
     viewshed of the Little Missouri State Scenic River while 
     still allowing MOI to access their minerals. The MOU also 
     addresses a plan to directionally drill an oil well to 
     protect a bighorn sheep lambing area.
       I have contacted the enclosed list of conservation 
     organizations and they have also stated their support for 
     Parts One and Two of the agreement as proposed. I join them 
     in urging you to introduction enabling legislation at the 
     earliest opportunity. Your efforts throughout this process 
     have been very much appreciated. Please contact me if there 
     is anything conservationists can do to facilitate this 
     mineral exchange.
           Sincerely,
     Wayde Schafer.
                                                                    ____


     Conservation Organizations in Support of the Mineral Exchange

       Dacotah Chapter of the Sierra Club, National Wildlife 
     Federation, National Audubon Society, Clean Water Action, 
     North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Bismarck Mandan 
     Bird Club, Lewis and Clark Wildlife Club.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague 
from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, to introduce legislation that would 
implement an exchange of subsurface mineral rights between the U.S. 
Forest Service and Burlington Resources in the Little Missouri National 
Grasslands.
  Mr. President, this exchange and consolidation of mineral rights 
makes sense. The current pattern of ownership resembles a checkerboard, 
and this consolidation will help protect sensitive lands in the North 
Dakota Badlands and also facilitate additional oil and gas exploration 
in other areas of the grasslands. The legislation being introduced 
today would transfer Burlington's subsurface mineral rights of 9,582 
acres to the Forest Service, and transfer 8,796 acres of Forest Service 
subsurface mineral rights to Burlington Resources. The parties have 
agreed that the value of the mineral rights being exchanged are of 
equal value. The legislation would also authorize the exchange of other 
private mineral rights for federal mineral rights within 6 months of 
enactment. Finally, this bill contains a very important provision that 
assures that nothing in the legislation can be interpreted to limit, 
restrict, or otherwise affect the application of the principle of 
multiple use.
  It is also important to acknowledge what this legislation does not 
do. This legislation does not increase the surface area controlled by 
the Forest Service. This bill only deals with subsurface mineral 
rights. This bill does not decrease revenue to the county, State, or 
Federal government, nor does it provide Burlington Resources with 
mineral rights of greater value than they currently hold. Finally, this 
legislation is silent on the issue of wilderness designation.
  Mr. President, I believe this is a good, balanced piece of 
legislation that deserves the support of every Member of the Senate.
                                 ______