[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2901-S2926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 528. A bill to require the display of the POW/MIA flag on various 
occasions and in various locations; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              the NATIONAL POW/MIA RECOGNITION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to begin my statement today 
describing a powerful and emotional sight that moves us to the core of 
our faith and beliefs about America and about those who served in the 
Armed Forces of our Nation.
  Many of us have visited one or more of the military academies that 
train our future military leaders. These academies have varied missions 
and yet all of them share in the critical task of developing leaders 
for their particular service. On the grounds of each academy is a 
chapel, a spectacular place that at once identifies itself as a place 
of worship.
  In each chapel, a place has been reserved for the prisoners of war 
and the missing in action from their particular service. A pew has been 
set aside and marked by a candle, a powerful symbol that not all have 
returned from battle. This hallowed place has been set aside so that 
all POW's and MIA's are remembered with dignity and honor. It is a 
moving and emotional moment to pause at this reserved pew, to be 
encouraged by the burning candle, to recall the valor and sacrifice of 
those soldiers, sailors, and pilots and to be inspired today by what 
they have done.
  We can do more to honor the memory of the POW's and MIA's who have 
served in our Nation's wars.
  Therefore, today I am introducing the National POW/MIA Recognition 
Act of 1997. This act would authorize the POW/MIA flag to be displayed 
over military installations, post offices, and memorials around the 
Nation and other appropriate places of significance on Armed Forces 
Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day, National 
POW/MIA Recognition Day, and on the last business day before each of 
the preceding holidays. A companion bill has been introduced in the 
House of Representatives by Congresswoman Jane Harman from California.
  Congress has officially recognized the National League of Families 
POW/MIA flag. Displaying this flag would be a powerful symbol to all 
Americans that we have not forgotten--and will not forget.
  As you know, the United States has fought in many wars, and thousands 
of Americans who served in those wars were captured by the enemy or 
listed as missing in action. In 20th century wars alone, more than 
147,000 Americans were captured and became prisoners of war; of that 
number more than 15,000 died while in captivity. When we add to the 
number those who are still missing in action, we realize that more can 
be done to honor their commitment to duty, honor, and country.
  The display of the POW/MIA flag would be a forceful reminder that we 
care not only for them, but also for their families who personally 
carry with them the burden on sacrifice. We want them to know that they 
do not stand alone, that we stand with them and beside them, as they 
remember the loyalty and devotion of those who served.
  As a veteran who served in Korea, I personally know that the 
remembrance of another's sacrifice in battle is one of the highest and 
most noble acts we can do. Let us now demonstrate our indebtedness and 
gratitude for those who served that we might live in freedom.
  Just as those special reserved pews in the chapels of the military 
academies recall the spirit and presence of our POW's and MIA's, so too 
will the display of their flag over military installations and other 
Government offices be a special reminder that we have not forgotten--
and will not forget. Before this coming Memorial Day I invite my Senate 
colleagues to please join me in passing this bill to display the POW/
MIA flag on national days of celebration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.

[[Page S2902]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 528

       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 ``National POW/MIA Recognition 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States has fought in many wars, and 
     thousands of Americans who served in those wars were captured 
     by the enemy or listed as missing in action;
       (2) many of these Americans are still missing and 
     unaccounted for, and the uncertainty surrounding their fates 
     has caused their families to suffer tragic and continuing 
     hardships;
       (3) as a symbol of the Nation's concern and commitment to 
     accounting as fully as possible for all Americans still held 
     prisoner, missing, or unaccounted for by reason of their 
     service in the Armed Forces and to honor the Americans who in 
     future wars may be captured or listed as missing or 
     unaccounted for, Congress has officially recognized the 
     National League of Families POW/MIA flag; and
       (4) the American people observe and honor with appropriate 
     ceremony and activity the third Friday of September each year 
     as National POW/MIA Recognition Day.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF POW/MIA FLAG.

       In this Act, the term ``POW/MIA flag'' means the National 
     League of Families POW/MIA flag recognized and designated by 
     section 2 of Public Law 101-355 (104 Stat. 416).

     SEC. 4. DISPLAY.

       The POW/MIA flag shall be displayed on Armed Forces Day, 
     Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, Veterans Day, 
     National POW/MIA Recognition Day, and on the last business 
     day before each of the preceding holidays, on the grounds or 
     in the public lobbies of--
       (1) major military installations as designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense;
       (2) Federal national cemeteries;
       (3) the national Korean War Veterans Memorial;
       (4) the national Vietnam Veterans Memorial;
       (5) the White House;
       (6) the official office of the--
       (A) Secretary of State;
       (B) Secretary of Defense;
       (C) Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and
       (D) Director of the Selective Service System; and
       (7) United States Postal Service post offices.

     SEC. 5. REPEAL OF PROVISION RELATING TO DISPLAY OF POW/MIA 
                   FLAG.

       Section 1084 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (36 U.S.C. 189 note, Public Law 
     102-190) is repealed.

     SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the agency or department responsible for a location 
     listed in section 2 shall prescribe any regulation necessary 
     to carry out the provisions of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Grams):
  S. 529. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
certain farm rental income from net earnings from self-employment if 
the taxpayer enters into a lease agreement relating to such income; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                   the FARM INDEPENDENCE ACT OF 1997

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill on the 
Internal Revenue Code. From time to time we need to change the Internal 
Revenue Code, particularly when it deals with agriculture. However, 
there may be some people listening who do not understand agriculture. 
They may see these efforts as doing something special for farmers. I 
want to clarify today that I am a person who comes from the school of 
thought that every penny of legal tax that is owed the Federal 
Government should be paid. But I think, also, we have a responsibility, 
as Representatives of the people, to make sure that we balance 
taxpayers' compliance with taxpayers' rights.
  The legislation I am introducing today is centered on a proposition 
that has been the law for approximately 40 years. It proscribes that 
most farm landlords, just like small business people and other 
commercial landlords, should not have to pay self-employment tax on 
cash rent income. For 40 years it has been that way for farm people and 
city people alike. But in 1995, there was an Arkansas Federal tax court 
case that said the IRS could take other expansive factors into 
consideration. As a result of that tax case, the IRS decided to issue a 
related technical advice memorandum. These are widely deemed to be IRS 
policy statements on the law. As a result, many farm landlords are now 
treated differently from commercial and other city landlords. 
Consequently, farmers and retired farmers now find themselves paying 
15.3 percent self-employment tax on cash rent.
  So, I say to the IRS, as I give an explanation for my legislation 
this morning: Don't try to game the system. The law remains what people 
have counted on for 40 years. Unless there is an act of Congress, you 
ought to respect history before you change the rules. Obviously, the 
test of time ought to prove the taxpayer was right and the IRS was 
wrong, particularly since there now is a difference between the farm 
sector and the city sector.
  The correct rationale is simple, the self employment tax applies to 
income from labor or employment. Income from cash rents represents the 
value of ownership or equity in land, not labor or employment. 
Therefore, the self employment tax should not ordinarily apply to 
income from cash rents.
  So, along with Senator Grams of Minnesota, I am introducing this bill 
so farmers and retired farmers are not going to be encroached upon by 
the IRS and the Tax Code as a result of this Arkansas Federal tax court 
case and the IRS technical advice memorandum. The IRS has thus, through 
this court case and broadened by its own pronouncement, introduced a 
new barrier to the family farmer. Our legislation would remove this new 
IRS barrier so that farm families and retired farmers can continue to 
operate.
  Specifically, our legislation would clarify that when the IRS is 
applying the self-employment tax to the cash rent farm leases, it 
should limit its inquisition to the lease agreement. This is not an 
expansion of the law for the taxpayers. Rather, it is a narrowing of an 
antitaxpayer expansion initiated by the Internal Revenue Service. The 
tax law does not ordinarily require cash rent landlords in cities to 
pay the self-employment tax. Indeed, cash rent farm landlords are the 
only ones occasionally required to pay the tax. This is due to a 40-
year-old exception that allowed the retired farmers of the late 1950's 
to become vested in the Social Security system.
  However, the law originally imposed the tax on farm landlords only 
when their lease agreements with their renters required the landlord to 
participate in the operation of the farm and in the farming of the 
land.
  Forty years later and we are here today, the IRS has expanded the 
application of the self-employment tax for farmland owners. Now the Tax 
Court has told the IRS that in one particular instance, the IRS could 
look beyond the lease agreement. On this very limited authority, the 
IRS has unilaterally expanded the one court case even further so it now 
approximates a national tax policy.
  Our legislation clarifies that the IRS should examine only the lease 
agreement. Thus, it would preserve the pre-1996 status quo. We want to 
preserve the historical self-employment tax treatment of farm rental 
agreements, equating them with landlords in small businesses and 
commercial properties within the cities. The 1957 tax law was designed 
to benefit retired farmers of that generation so that they would 
qualify for Social Security.
  So, obviously, those persons of the 1950's have all since passed from 
the scene. Their children and grandchildren are now the victims of this 
IRS expansion of their old rule. Congress does not intend that farm 
owners be treated differently from other real estate owners, other than 
as they have been historically. We need the clarity provided in our 
legislation in order to turn back an improper, unilateral, and targeted 
IRS expansion of old tax law. In other words, I see this legislation as 
removing this new IRS barrier to the family farm and the American 
dream.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 529

       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 ``Farm Independence Act of 
     1997''.

[[Page S2903]]

     SEC. 2. LEASE AGREEMENT RELATING TO EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN FARM 
                   RENTAL INCOME FROM NET EARNINGS FROM SELF-
                   EMPLOYMENT.

       (a) Internal Revenue Code.--Section 1402(a)(1)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to net earnings from 
     self-employment) is amended by striking ``an arrangement'' 
     and inserting ``a lease agreement''.
       (b) Social Security Act.--Section 211(a)(1)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act is amended by striking ``an arrangement'' 
     and inserting ``a lease agreement''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1997.
                                                                    ____

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this morning in strong support of 
the Farm Independence Act of 1997 which my good friend, Senator 
Grassley, and I introduce here today. This legislation is critical in 
protecting American farmers and ranchers from yet another IRS attack--
the third this year--on the family farm.
  I suspect when President Grover Cleveland remarked that, ``just when 
you thought you were making ends meet, someone moves the ends,'' the 
former President must have been thinking about the Internal Revenue 
Service.
  This time, the IRS has issued a decision in one of its technical 
advice memoranda that, if fully enforced, will result in a 15.3-percent 
tax increase for thousands of farmers. Let me repeat that. A recent IRS 
decision could result in a 15.3-percent tax increase for thousands of 
farmers.
  Essentially, if a producer incorporates--and many Minnesota 
producers, both small and large, do--and then rents his land to the 
farm corporation, the rental income the farmer receives is not only 
subject to income tax but to an additional 15.3-percent self-employment 
tax.
  The purpose of the Grassley-Grams Farm Independence Act of 1997 is 
simple and it is straightforward. Our bill would stop the IRS from 
imposing this 15.3-percent tax increase on our farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. President, last Congress, we passed the most sweeping reforms in 
agricultural policy in 60 years and gave farmers the freedom to farm. 
At that time, we also promised farmers regulatory relief, improved 
research and risk management, free and fair trade, and--perhaps most 
importantly--we promised farmers tax relief.
  Now, many of us in Congress have made tax relief a top priority. I do 
so, in part, because it is a top priority for Minnesota farmers, and 
toward this end, I am an original cosponsor of a bill to repeal the 
estate tax, and I strongly support legislation to cut capital gains 
taxes.
  But, unfortunately, we haven't made much progress in convincing the 
President and some in Congress that this is not fat-cat legislation but 
absolutely necessary for the survival and success of the family farm.
  But, even more frustrating than these obstacles to providing farmers 
with critical relief from the death tax and capital gains taxes are 
back-door attempts by the IRS to actually raise taxes on our farmers 
and ranchers.
  First, came the alternative minimum tax which attacked cash-based 
accounting. Second, came a decision that income from culled cows--cows 
that don't milk--is income that disqualifies low-income farmers from 
receiving the earned income tax credit. And, now, the IRS wants to 
exact a 15.3-percent tax increase on thousands of American farmers and 
ranchers.
  Mr. President, I am 100 percent committed to providing Minnesota 
farmers with tax relief they desperately need. I hope the President and 
others in Congress come around on this issue as well.
  But, at a bare minimum, the President should send a signal to the IRS 
that these back-door attempts to raise revenues on the backs of the 
Nation's farmers and ranchers is totally unacceptable.
  I am convinced that a second gold age of agriculture is within reach 
in the final days of this century and also the whole of the next if 
only we in Government help--rather than hinder--our farmers' and 
ranchers' efforts.
  So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Farm 
Independence Act of 1997. I also commend the Senator from Iowa for his 
leadership on this issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 530. A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, to limit the 
value of certain real and personal property that a debtor may elect to 
exempt under State or local law, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                the BANKRUPTCY ABUSE REFORM ACT OF 1997

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bankruptcy 
Abuse Reform Act of 1997, legislation which addresses a serious problem 
that threatens Americans' confidence in our bankruptcy laws. The 
measure would cap at $100,000 the State homestead exemption that an 
individual filing for personal bankruptcy can claim. It passed the 
Senate last term when it was included into the Bankruptcy Technical 
Corrections Act (S. 1559), and I hope that we can all support this 
measure again this year. The goal of our measure is simple but vitally 
important: to make sure that our Bankruptcy Code is more than just a 
beachball for crooked millionaires who want to hide their assets.
  Let me tell you why this legislation is critically needed. In chapter 
7 Federal personal bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is allowed to 
exempt certain possessions and interests from being used to satisfy his 
outstanding debts. One of the chief things that a debtor seeks to 
protect is his home, and I agree with that in principle. Few question 
that debtors should be able to keep the roofs over their heads. But, in 
practice, this homestead exemption has become a source of abuse.
  Under section 522 of the Code, a debtor may opt to exempt his home 
according to local, State, or Federal bankruptcy provisions. The 
Federal exemption allows the debtor to shield up to $15,000 of value in 
his house. The State exemptions vary tremendously: some States do not 
allow the debtor to exempt any of his home's value, while eight States 
set no ceiling and allow an unlimited exemption. The vast majority of 
States have exemptions under $40,000.
  My amendment under section 522 would cap State exemptions so that no 
debtor could ever exempt more than $100,000 of the value of his home.
  Mr. President, in the last few years, the ability of debtors to use 
State homestead exemptions has led to flagrant abuses of the Bankruptcy 
Code. Multimillionaire debtors have moved to one of the eight States 
that have unlimited exemptions--most often Florida or Texas--bought 
multi-million-dollar houses, and continued to live like kings even 
after declaring bankruptcy. This shameless manipulation of the 
Bankruptcy Code cheats creditors out of compensation and rewards only 
those who can game the system. Oftentimes, the creditor who is robbed 
is the American taxpayer. In recent years, S&L swindlers, insider 
trading convicts, and other shady characters have managed to protect 
their ill-gotten gains through this loophole.
  One infamous S&L banker with more than $4 billion in claims against 
him bought a multi-million-dollar horse ranch in Florida. Another man 
who pled guilty to insider trading abuses lives in a 7,000-square-foot 
beachfront home worth $3.25 million--all tucked away from the $2.75 
billion in suits against him. We read even now about the possibility 
that O.J. Simpson may seek to avoid the civil suit judgment against him 
buying a lavish home in Florida, a State with an unlimited exemption, 
and declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying his multimillion-dollar 
obligations. These deadbeats get wealthier while legitimate creditors--
including the U.S. Government--get the short end of the stick.

  Simply put, the current practice is grossly unfair and contravenes 
the intent of our laws: People are supposed to get a fresh start, not a 
head start, under the Bankruptcy Code.
  In addition, these unlimited homestead exemptions have made it 
increasingly difficult for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
and the Resolution Trust Corporation to go after S&L crooks. With the 
S&L crisis costing us billions of dollars and with a deficit that still 
remains unacceptably high, we owe it to the taxpayers to make it as 
hard as possible for those responsible for fraud to profit from their 
wrongs.
  Mr. President, the legislation that I have introduced today is 
simple, effective, and straightforward. It caps the homestead exemption 
at $100,000, which is close to the average price of an

[[Page S2904]]

American house. And it will protect middle class Americans while 
preventing the abuses that are making the American middle class 
question the integrity of our laws--the abuses the average American 
taxpayer is paying for out of pocket.
  Indeed, it is even generous to debtors. Other than the eight States 
that have no limit to the homestead exemption, no State has a homestead 
exemption exceeding $100,000. In fact, 38 States have exemptions of 
$40,000 or less. My own home State of Wisconsin has a $40,000 exemption 
and that, in my opinion, is more than sufficient.
  Mr. President, this proposal is an effort to make our bankruptcy laws 
more equitable. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 530

       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 ``Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act 
     of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION.

       Section 522 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by inserting ``subject to 
     subsection (n),'' before ``any property''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n) As a result of electing under subsection (b)(2)(A) to 
     exempt property under State or local law, a debtor may not 
     exempt an aggregate interest that exceeds $100,000 in value 
     in--
       ``(1) real or personal property that the debtor or a 
     dependent of the debtor uses as a residence;
       ``(2) a cooperative that owns property that the debtor or a 
     dependent of the debtor uses as a residence; or
       ``(3) a burial plot for the debtor or a dependent of the 
     debtor.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 531. A bill to designate a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge as wilderness; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


              ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LEGISLATION

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I read recently that ``the best thing we 
have learned from nearly five hundred years of contact with the 
American wilderness is restraint,'' the need to stay our hand and 
preserve our precious environment and future resources rather than 
destroy them for momentary gain.
  With this in mind, Ioffer legislation today that designates the 
coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the moment this area is 
a national wildlife refuge--one of our beautiful and last frontiers. By 
changing its designation, Mr. President, we can protect it forever.
  And I can't stress how important this is.
  The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our 
Earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete 
spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a 
vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish 
and visit for our soul's good. It offers us a sense of well-being and 
promises that not all dreams have been dreamt.
  The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness 
and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and 
glaciers, gentle foothills and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich 
with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep, 
moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans, 
black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species use the coastal plain.
  It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse 
and feed their young, and set about the critical business of fueling up 
for winters of unspeakable severity.
  The fact is, Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is 
good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands 
that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the 
lands that belong to our future.
  Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came 
across the words of the great Western writer, Wallace Stegner. 
Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation, 
he wrote that it is ``the most splendid part of the American habitat; 
it is also the most fragile.'' And we cannot enter ``it carrying habits 
that [are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely 
excessive.''
  The expectations for oil exploration in this pristine region are 
excessive. There is only a 1-in-5 chance of finding any economically 
recoverable oil in the refuge. And if oil is found, the daily 
production of 400,000 barrels per day is less than 0.7 percent of world 
production--far too small to meet America's energy needs for more than 
a few months.
  In other words, Mr. President, there is much more to lose than might 
ever be gained by tearing this frontier apart. Already, some 90 percent 
of Alaska's entire North Slope is open to oil and gas leasing and 
development. Let's keep this area as the jewel amid the stones.
  What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic 
environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our 
important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and 
judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its 
long-term needs.
  Together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable 
and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better 
place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy, 
liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet--
only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an 
environmental ethic thrives among nations--and only when people have 
frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest dreams.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join again with Senator 
Roth in this effort to designate the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as 
a wilderness area.
  This legislation would save the American people the huge social and 
environmental costs of unwise and unnecessary development of one of 
nature's crown jewels. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the last 
complete Alaskan wilderness with elements of each tundra ecosystem, the 
biological heart of the North Slope of Alaska. It is on a par with our 
other great national resources, including the Grand Canyon, 
Yellowstone, Jackson Hole, the Badlands, Glacier Bay, and Denali. This 
is a unique piece of God's Earth that must be preserved for our entire 
Nation for centuries to come.
  Make no mistake, environmental impacts to the Arctic National Refuge 
from oil development would be severe and irreversible. The refuge 
includes the calving grounds for one of the largest caribou herds in 
North America, the Porcupine herd--152,000 strong. Native American 
customs have centered around the herd's annual migration for at least 
20,000 years. The refuge is a treasure chest of plants, animals, and 
wilderness unique to the world in terms of abundance, diversity, and 
value to humankind. Over 200 species of plants and animals thrive in 
the refuge, including muskoxen, snow geese, Arctic foxes, Arctic 
grayling, and Arctic char. It is the only natural area in the United 
States with all three species of North American bears--the black bear, 
the grizzly bear and the polar bear. It is one of the most natural 
areas in our Nation, untouched by development, and the last of its 
kind.
  Many environmental studies demonstrate that the negative 
environmental effects of opening the Arctic Refuge to development will 
be severe. Biologists from Federal and State agencies and universities 
have concluded that oil development will harm the calving of the 
caribou herd, and reduce its long term numbers very significantly. The 
Office of Management and Budget has stated that ``exploration and 
development activities would bring physical disturbances to the area, 
unacceptable risks of oil spills and pollution, and long-term effects 
that would harm wildlife for decades.'' Raymond Cameron, formerly of 
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, documented that 19 percent

[[Page S2905]]

fewer calves are born to caribou cows on developed lands as opposed to 
undeveloped lands, with a 2-percent margin of error. His study also 
documented that caribou cows miss yearly calving at a 36-percent rate 
in developed areas, versus only 19 percent in undeveloped areas. Even a 
small change in calving success can lead to long-term population 
declines. A study by the State of Alaska showed that the Arctic caribou 
herd at Prudhoe Bay declined from 23,400 to 18,100--23 percent--since 
1992. All the population decline occurred in habitat affected by oil 
development, while herds in undeveloped areas grew slightly. Biologists 
fear that development impacts would be proportionately greater on the 
herd that uses the Arctic Refuge.
  The amount of oil that potentially can be recovered from the Arctic 
Refuge is simply too small to affect our energy security, and too 
destructive to the environment to be worth it. A 1995 assessment of 
petroleum reserves by the U.S. Geological Survey reported that there is 
a 95-percent chance that only 148 million barrels of oil exist in the 
refuge. This would amount to a drop in the national oil bucket--an 8-
day supply. Even if the USGS high estimate were correct, the refuge 
would hold at most a 290-day supply for the United States.
  We can all hope for another strike like Prudhoe Bay. But the simple 
reality, based on the very best geological science and economics 
available today, is that alternative energy supplies, as well as the 
real energy savings from national energy conservation programs, are far 
more reliable, tangible, and less destructive energy sources than a 
wild gamble with the Alaskan wilderness.
  The remaining 90 percent of the Alaskan North Slope is already open 
to oil and gas leasing. Is it too much to protect what little we have 
left? Every reliable national poll conducted on this issue shows 
Americans of all political persuasions are against development in the 
refuge by a more than three to one margin. Let's honor our history of 
conservation and protect the future for generations to come, by saving 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Thomas, Mr. 
        Dorgan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
        Burns, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
        Kerrey, and Mr. Grassley):

  S. 532. A bill to authorize funds to further the strong Federal 
interest in the improvement of highways and transportation, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


  SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION AND REGULATORY STREAMLINING ACT

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 
Surface Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act, 
or STARS 2000. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators Kempthorne and Thomas. 
And by Senators Dorgan, Conrad, Daschle, Johnson, Burns, Craig, Enzi, 
Harkin, Bingaman, Roberts, and Kerrey of Nebraska.

  This bill reauthorizes this Nation's surface transportation programs 
for the year 2000, and beyond.
  As most of my colleagues know, we must act soon to renew these 
programs since today's law, the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act, or ISTEA, will expire on September 30.
  STARS 2000 builds on the progress already made by ISTEA. But it also 
makes some important improvements. Let me focus on the three most 
significant aspects of the bill.


                             funding levels

  First, the bill increases funding for our highway programs to $27 
billion annually. Transportation is a critical part of our Nation's 
economic growth and prosperity. The investments we make today in 
transportation will help keep us globally competitive well into the 
next century.
  Furthermore, these investments directly generate hundreds of 
thousands of jobs--in Montana, in Idaho, in Illinois, in every State. 
They also indirectly help sustain businesses and millions more jobs all 
across the country.
  The funding in STARS 2000 will support all types of transportation 
projects. It also will enable States and local governments to make the 
investment decisions that best reflect their transportation priorities.
  The funding level in STARS 2000 corresponds to the amount of money 
estimated to be in the highway trust fund over the next 6 years.
  As my colleagues know, this is money already being collected from the 
tax on gasoline and other fuels. My view is that we should spend it for 
the purpose for which it was collected.
  Even with this increase, however, we will not eliminate the shortfall 
in meeting our transportation needs. The Department of Transportation 
estimates that over $50 billion would be needed each year in order to 
just maintain current highway and bridge conditions.
  Yet, today annual spending by all levels of government is only $39 
billion per year.
  Our competitors know the advantage of a sound transportation system. 
That is why Japan invests over four times what we do in transportation 
as a percentage of GDP. The Europeans spend twice as much.
  We cannot afford to squander this important competitive edge. While 
STARS 2000 is not the complete solution, it is a big step in the right 
direction.


                              streamlining

  Second, STARS 2000 dramatically streamlines and simplifies today's 
transportation programs. It reduces administrative burdens on the 
States and the complexity of the programs by consolidating several 
funding categories and by allowing for greater flexibility in 
decisionmaking.
  The bill has two key categories for funding. The National Highway 
System, which makes up 60 percent of the core program, and the Surface 
Transportation Program, which accounts for the remaining 40 percent.
  The National Highway System carries the bulk of our recreational and 
commercial traffic. It consists of 160,000 miles of highways, including 
the entire 45,000 mile Interstate System.
  These roads connect our cities and towns. Our farms to their markets. 
And our manufacturing facilities to our seaports. It just makes sense 
that the NHS should be a priority.
  STARS 2000 devotes over $14 billion annually to these roads.
  As with current law, the Surface Transportation Program remains the 
most flexible category of funds. States can shift funds among projects 
to best serve their transportation needs. STARS 2000 retains ISTEA's 
programs and project eligibilities and includes over $9 billion 
annually for them.


                            funding formulas

  Third, STARS 2000 updates ISTEA's funding formulas. One criticism of 
the current formulas is that they are based on outdated and unnecessary 
data.
  This bill rectifies that problem by using up-to-date information.
  The STARS formula also reflects the transportation needs of a State. 
We have included such factors as lane miles, vehicle miles traveled, 
and freeze-thaw cycles, to better account for the cost of maintaining 
and improving our highway system.


                              environment

  STARS 2000 also continues the commitment to the environment that 
began in ISTEA. It dedicates some $380 million annually to congestion 
mitigation and air quality projects.
  Furthermore, it requires that these funds be spent on projects in 
areas that have not attained our transportation-related air quality 
standards.
  Frankly, I had hoped to include more funding for these projects in 
this bill. But as this legislation progresses, I intend to work with my 
colleagues to see if we can't be more generous here.
  STARS 2000 also continues the transportation enhancement program. 
This is an innovative program that has given States the ability to 
invest in nontraditional highway projects such as bike paths, 
pedestrian walkways and historic preservation.


                               conclusion

  In conclusion, STARS 2000 is a good bill. But it also is one of 
several bills that our committee will consider in the coming weeks.
  Under the leadership of our chairman, Senator Chafee and our 
subcommittee chairman, Senator Warner, along with Senator Moynihan, and 
others, I have no doubt that these various

[[Page S2906]]

proposals will be brought together to produce a fair bill.
  A bill that will bring this Nation and its transportation system into 
the next century.
  Before yielding the floor, I wish to thank the primary cosponsors of 
this bill, Senators Kempthorne and Thomas, for their hard work in 
developing this legislation. I am also grateful for the help of our 
State transportation departments, particularly in Montana and Idaho, 
and their staff, in fashioning this bill.
  STARS 2000 brings a new approach and some new ideas to our surface 
transportation policy. I commend it to my colleagues for their 
consideration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a 
short summary of it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 532

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Surface 
     Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining 
     Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Policy.

                TITLE I--LEVEL AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Effective use of additional highway account revenue.
Sec. 103. Apportionment of program funds.
Sec. 104. Apportionment adjustment program.
Sec. 105. Program administration, research, and planning funds.
Sec. 106. Recreational trails.
Sec. 107. Rules for any limitations on obligations.

                     TITLE II--PROGRAM STREAMLINING

Sec. 201. Planning-based expenditures on elements of transportation 
              infrastructure.
Sec. 202. National Highway System.
Sec. 203. Interstate maintenance activities.
Sec. 204. Surface transportation program amendments.
Sec. 205. Conforming amendments to discretionary programs.
Sec. 206. Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program.

                   TITLE III--REDUCTION OF REGULATION

Sec. 301. Periodic review of agency rules.
Sec. 302. Planning and programming.
Sec. 303. Metric conversion at State option.

               TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION RULES

Sec. 401. Effective date; transition rules.

     SEC. 2. POLICY.

       Section 101 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Declaration of Policy.--Congress finds and declares 
     that--
       ``(1) investments in highways and transportation systems 
     contribute to the Nation's economic growth, international 
     competitiveness, and defense, and improve the personal 
     mobility and quality of life of its citizens;
       ``(2) there are significant needs for increased Federal 
     highway and transportation investment across the United 
     States, including a need to improve and preserve Interstate 
     System and other National Highway System routes, which are 
     lifelines for the national economy;
       ``(3) the Federal Government's interest in transportation 
     includes--
       ``(A) ensuring that people and goods can move efficiently 
     over long distances between metropolitan areas and thus 
     across rural areas;
       ``(B) ensuring that people and goods can move efficiently 
     within metropolitan and rural areas;
       ``(C) preserving environmental quality and reducing air 
     pollution;
       ``(D) promoting transportation safety; and
       ``(E) ensuring the effective use of intelligent 
     transportation systems and other transportation technological 
     innovations in both urban and rural settings;
       ``(4) rural States do not have the fiscal resources to 
     support highway investments within their borders that benefit 
     the United States as a whole by enabling the movement of 
     people and goods between metropolitan areas and thus across 
     rural States;
       ``(5) since State governments already take into account the 
     public interest before making transportation decisions 
     affecting citizens of the States--
       ``(A) the need for Federal regulation of State 
     transportation activities is limited; and
       ``(B) it is appropriate for Federal transportation programs 
     to be revised to minimize regulations and program 
     requirements and to provide greater flexibility to State 
     governments; and
       ``(6) the Federal Government should continue to allow 
     States and local governments flexibility in the use of 
     Federal highway funds and require transportation planning and 
     public involvement in transportation planning.''.
                TITLE I--LEVEL AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       The following sums are authorized to be appropriated out of 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account):
       (1) National highway system.--For the National Highway 
     System under section 103 of title 23, United States Code, 
     $14,163,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (2) Surface transportation program.--For the surface 
     transportation program under section 133 of that title, 
     $9,442,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (3) Federal lands highway investments.--
       (A) Federal lands highways program.--
       (i) Indian reservation roads.--For Indian reservation roads 
     under section 204 of that title, $191,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (ii) Public lands highways.--For public lands highways 
     under section 204 of that title, $172,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (iii) Parkways and park roads.--For parkways and park roads 
     under section 204 of that title, $84,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
       (B) Cooperative federal lands transportation program.--For 
     the Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program under 
     section 206 of that title, $155,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003.
       (4) Territories.--For the Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
     Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
     collectively, $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 
     through 2003. Such sums shall be allocated among those 
     territories at the discretion of the Secretary of 
     Transportation.

     SEC. 102. EFFECTIVE USE OF ADDITIONAL HIGHWAY ACCOUNT 
                   REVENUE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 162. Effective use of additional highway account 
       revenue

       ``(a) Determination of Additional Amounts To Be 
     Apportioned.--
       ``(1) Publication of information.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the beginning of each fiscal year beginning with fiscal 
     year 1999, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal 
     Register the following information:
       ``(A) The total estimated revenue of the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) during the period 
     consisting of that fiscal year and the 5 following fiscal 
     years, including all interest income credited or to be 
     credited during the period.
       ``(B) The amount obtained by dividing the amount determined 
     under subparagraph (A) by 6.
       ``(C) The amount obtained by subtracting $27,000,000,000 
     from the amount determined under subparagraph (B).
       ``(2) Apportionment.--If the amount determined under 
     paragraph (1)(C) is greater than zero, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) multiply that amount by 0.85; and
       ``(B) apportion the amount determined under subparagraph 
     (A) in accordance with subsection (b)(1).
       ``(b) Method of Apportionment.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the amount 
     determined under subsection (a)(2) shall be apportioned as 
     follows:
       ``(A) 60 percent of the amount shall be added to the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year for the 
     National Highway System under section 101(1) of the Surface 
     Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act.
       ``(B) 40 percent of the amount shall be added to the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year for the 
     surface transportation program under section 101(2) of that 
     Act.
       ``(2) Apportionment adjustment program.--After making the 
     apportionment under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make 
     such additional apportionments as are necessary under section 
     157.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this 
     section such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 1999 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``162. Effective use of additional highway user taxes.''.

     SEC. 103. APPORTIONMENT OF PROGRAM FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 104(b) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) National highway system.--
       ``(A) Apportionment.--For the National Highway System, as 
     follows:
       ``(i) Interstate lane miles.--20 percent in the ratio that 
     lane miles on Interstate routes in each State bears to the 
     total of all such lane miles in all States.
       ``(ii) Interstate vehicle miles traveled.--25 percent in 
     the ratio that vehicle miles traveled on Interstate routes in 
     each State bears to the total of all such vehicle miles in 
     all States.
       ``(iii) National highway system lane miles.--30 percent in 
     the ratio that lane miles on National Highway System routes 
     in each State bears to the total of all such lane miles in 
     all States.

[[Page S2907]]

       ``(iv) National highway system vehicle miles traveled.--10 
     percent in the ratio that vehicle miles traveled on the 
     National Highway System in each State bears to the total of 
     all such vehicle miles in all States.
       ``(v) Special fuel.--15 percent in the ratio that special 
     fuels volume for each State bears to the total special fuels 
     volume for all States.
       ``(B) Use of data.--In making the calculations for this 
     paragraph, for paragraph (3), and for section 157, the 
     Secretary shall use the most recent calendar or fiscal year 
     for which data are available as of the first day of the 
     fiscal year for which the apportionment is to be made.
       ``(C) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Lane miles on interstate routes.--The term `lane 
     miles on Interstate routes' shall have the meaning used by 
     the Secretary in developing Highway Statistics Table HM-60.
       ``(ii) Lane miles on national highway system routes.--The 
     term `lane miles on National Highway System routes' shall 
     have the meaning used by the Secretary in developing Highway 
     Statistics Table HM-48.
       ``(iii) Special fuels volume.--The term `special fuels 
     volume' shall have the meaning used by the Secretary in 
     developing column 8 of Highway Statistics Table MF-2.
       ``(iv) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States 
     and the District of Columbia.
       ``(v) Vehicle miles traveled.--The terms `vehicle miles 
     traveled on Interstate routes' and `vehicle miles traveled on 
     the National Highway System' shall have the meanings used by 
     the Secretary in developing Highway Statistics Table VM-3.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2);
       (3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Surface transportation program.--For the surface 
     transportation program, as follows:
       ``(A) Federal-aid highway lane miles.--25 percent in the 
     ratio that lane miles on Federal-aid highways in each State 
     bears to the total of all such lane miles in all States.
       ``(B) Federal-aid highway vehicle miles traveled.--53 
     percent in the ratio that vehicle miles traveled on Federal-
     aid highways in each State bears to the total of all such 
     vehicle miles in all States.
       ``(C) Bridge deck surface area.--10 percent in the ratio 
     that the square footage of bridge deck surface in each State, 
     including such square footage with respect to bridges not on 
     Federal-aid highways, bears to the total of such square 
     footage in all States, except that, in this subparagraph, the 
     term `bridge' includes only structures of at least 20 feet in 
     length.
       ``(D) Air quality.--4 percent in accordance with the 
     following table:

``State                                                      Percentage
    Alabama...................................................0.41 ....

    Alaska....................................................0.00 ....

    Arizona...................................................1.50 ....

    Arkansas..................................................0.00 ....

    California...............................................23.02 ....

    Colorado..................................................0.00 ....

    Connecticut...............................................2.63 ....

    Delaware..................................................0.45 ....

    District of Columbia......................................0.48 ....

    Florida...................................................3.34 ....

    Georgia...................................................1.73 ....

    Hawaii....................................................0.00 ....

    Idaho.....................................................0.00 ....

    Illinois..................................................5.48 ....

    Indiana...................................................1.26 ....

    Iowa......................................................0.00 ....

    Kansas....................................................0.00 ....

    Kentucky..................................................0.82 ....

    Louisiana.................................................0.47 ....

    Maine.....................................................0.48 ....

    Maryland..................................................3.47 ....

    Massachusetts.............................................4.60 ....

    Michigan..................................................3.25 ....

    Minnesota.................................................0.00 ....

    Mississippi...............................................0.00 ....

    Missouri..................................................1.11 ....

    Montana...................................................0.00 ....

    Nebraska..................................................0.00 ....

    Nevada....................................................0.17 ....

    New Hampshire.............................................0.43 ....

    New Jersey................................................6.45 ....

    New Mexico................................................0.00 ....

    New York.................................................10.96 ....

    North Carolina............................................1.38 ....

    North Dakota..............................................0.00 ....

    Ohio......................................................4.91 ....

    Oklahoma..................................................0.00 ....

    Oregon....................................................0.66 ....

    Pennsylvania..............................................6.76 ....

    Rhode Island..............................................0.65 ....

    South Carolina............................................0.00 ....

    South Dakota..............................................0.00 ....

    Tennessee.................................................1.25 ....

    Texas.....................................................5.47 ....

    Utah......................................................0.55 ....

    Vermont...................................................0.00 ....

    Virginia..................................................2.38 ....

    Washington................................................1.78 ....

    West Virginia.............................................0.30 ....

    Wisconsin.................................................1.40 ....

    Wyoming...................................................0.00.....

       ``(E) Population in relation to lane miles.--2 percent, as 
     follows: The Secretary shall (i) divide the total population 
     of all States by the total number of lane miles on Federal-
     aid highways in all States; (ii) for each State divide the 
     State's population by the number of lane miles on Federal-aid 
     highways within its borders; (iii) for each State divide the 
     number determined by (ii) into the number determined by (i); 
     (iv) add together the number determined under (iii) for every 
     State; and (v) divide the number for each State under (iii) 
     by the number for all States determined under (iv). The 
     Secretary shall apportion to each State, of the funds 
     apportioned under this subparagraph, the percentage equal to 
     the number determined under (v).
       ``(F) Federal lands.--5 percent as follows: The Secretary, 
     after consultation with the General Services Administration, 
     the Department of the Interior, and other agencies as 
     appropriate, shall (i) determine the percentage of the total 
     land in each State represented by the sum of the percentage 
     of land owned by the Federal Government in the State and the 
     percentage of land in the State held in trust by the Federal 
     Government; (ii) add together the individual State 
     percentages determined under clause (i) for all States; and 
     (iii) divide the amount for each State under clause (i) by 
     the amount for all States under clause (ii). The 5 percent 
     shall be apportioned among the States in accord with each 
     State's percentage under clause (iii).
       ``(G) Freeze-thaw.--1 percent, to be apportioned among the 
     States in accordance with the table set forth in clause (i), 
     or in accordance with clause (ii).
       ``(i) Table.--

``State                                                      Percentage
    Alabama....................................................1.2 ....

    Alaska.....................................................2.4 ....

    Arizona....................................................1.0 ....

    Arkansas...................................................1.4 ....

    California.................................................0.8 ....

    Colorado...................................................3.3 ....

    Connecticut................................................2.3 ....

    Delaware...................................................1.8 ....

    District of Columbia.......................................1.9 ....

    Florida....................................................0.2 ....

    Georgia....................................................1.1 ....

    Hawaii.....................................................0.0 ....

    Idaho......................................................2.9 ....

    Illinois...................................................1.9 ....

    Indiana....................................................1.9 ....

    Iowa.......................................................2.1 ....

    Kansas.....................................................2.1 ....

    Kentucky...................................................1.9 ....

    Louisiana..................................................0.7 ....

    Maine......................................................2.5 ....

    Maryland...................................................2.0 ....

    Massachusetts..............................................2.4 ....

    Michigan...................................................2.2 ....

    Minnesota..................................................2.0 ....

    Mississippi................................................1.1 ....

    Missouri...................................................2.0 ....

    Montana....................................................3.0 ....

    Nebraska...................................................2.4 ....

    Nevada.....................................................2.2 ....

    New Hampshire..............................................2.0 ....

    New Jersey.................................................2.6 ....

    New Mexico.................................................2.1 ....

    New York...................................................2.9 ....

    North Carolina.............................................2.3 ....

    North Dakota...............................................2.2 ....

    Ohio.......................................................2.1 ....

    Oklahoma...................................................1.6 ....

    Oregon.....................................................1.6 ....

    Pennsylvania...............................................2.3 ....

    Rhode Island...............................................2.1 ....

    South Carolina.............................................1.4 ....

    South Dakota...............................................2.5 ....

    Tennessee..................................................1.8 ....

    Texas......................................................1.1 ....

    Utah.......................................................3.2 ....

    Vermont....................................................2.0 ....

    Virginia...................................................1.9 ....

    Washington.................................................1.8 ....

    West Virginia..............................................2.2 ....

    Wisconsin..................................................2.1 ....

    Wyoming....................................................3.5.....

       ``(ii) Alternate approach.--Notwithstanding section 315, 
     the Secretary may, through notice and comment rulemaking, 
     adopt an approach in lieu of the table set forth in clause 
     (i) in order to apportion funds subject to this subparagraph 
     among the States in a manner that reflects the relative 
     frequency of freeze-thaw cycles within the States. The 
     Secretary may use that alternate approach to apportioning 
     funds for a fiscal year only if a final rule, adopted after 
     notice and comment, is in effect prior to the beginning of 
     that fiscal year.
       ``(H) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Lane miles on federal-aid highways.--The term `lane 
     miles on Federal-aid highways' shall have the meaning used by 
     the Secretary in developing Highway Statistics Table HM-60.
       ``(ii) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States 
     and the District of Columbia.
       ``(iii) Vehicle miles traveled on federal-aid highways.--
     The term `vehicle miles traveled on Federal-aid highways' 
     shall have the meaning used by the Secretary in developing 
     Highway Statistics Table VM-2.'';
       (4) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(A) Except as 
     provided in subparagraph (B)--''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (5) by striking paragraph (6).
       (b) Population Determinations.--Section 104 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(k) Population Determinations.--For the purposes of 
     subsection (b)(3) and section 157, population shall be 
     determined on the basis of the most recent estimates prepared 
     by the Secretary of Commerce.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 104(b) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``paragraph (5)(A) of this subsection'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (5)''.
       (2) Section 137(f)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``section 104(b)(5)(B) of this title'' 
     and inserting ``section 104(b)(1)''.
       (3) Section 139 of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``sections

[[Page S2908]]

     104(b)(1) and 104(b)(5)(B) of this title'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``section 104(b)(1)''.
       (4) Section 142(c) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``section 104(b)(5)(A)'' and inserting 
     ``section 104(b)(5)''.
       (5) Section 159(b) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``section 104(b)(5)(A)'' and 
     inserting ``section 104(b)(5)(A) (as in effect on the day 
     before the date of enactment of the Surface Transportation 
     Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act)''; and
       (ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``section 104(b)(5)(B)'' 
     and inserting ``section 104(b)(5)(B) (as in effect on the day 
     before the date of enactment of the Surface Transportation 
     Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act)'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 
     104(b)(5)(A)'' and inserting ``section 104(b)(5)(A) (as in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Surface 
     Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining 
     Act)'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(5)(B)'' and 
     inserting ``(5)(B) (as in effect on the day before the date 
     of enactment of the Surface Transportation Authorization and 
     Regulatory Streamlining Act)''; and
       (iii) in the last sentence, by striking ``section 
     104(b)(5)'' and inserting ``section 104(b)(5) (as in effect 
     on the day before the date of enactment of the Surface 
     Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining 
     Act)''; and
       (C) in paragraph (4), by striking ``section 104(b)(5)'' and 
     inserting ``section 104(b)(5) (as in effect on the day before 
     the date of enactment of the Surface Transportation 
     Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act)''.
       (6) Section 161(a) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``paragraphs (1), (3), and (5)(B) of 
     section 104(b)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 104(b)''.
       (7) Section 1009 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 119 note; 105 Stat. 1933) 
     is amended by striking subsection (c).

     SEC. 104. APPORTIONMENT ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 157 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 157. Apportionment adjustment program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Low-density state.--The term `low-density State' 
     means a State that is listed in the table in paragraph (4) 
     and that has an average population density of 20 individuals 
     or fewer per square mile.
       ``(2) Small state.--The term `small State' means a State 
     that is listed in the table in paragraph (4) and that has a 
     population of 1,500,000 individuals or fewer and a land area 
     of 10,000 square miles or less.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States 
     and the District of Columbia.
       ``(4) Stated percentage.--The term `stated percentage', 
     with respect to a State, means the percentage listed for the 
     State in the following table:

``State                                                      Percentage
    Alaska....................................................1.25 ....

    Delaware..................................................0.40 ....

    Hawaii....................................................0.55 ....

    Idaho.....................................................0.70 ....

    Montana...................................................0.95 ....

    Nevada....................................................0.67 ....

    New Hampshire.............................................0.48 ....

    New Mexico................................................1.05 ....

    North Dakota..............................................0.63 ....

    Rhode Island..............................................0.55 ....

    South Dakota..............................................0.70 ....

    Vermont...................................................0.43 ....

    Wyoming...................................................0.66.....

       ``(b) Program.--On October 1 (or as soon as possible 
     thereafter) of each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 
     1997, the Secretary shall apportion among the States, in 
     addition to amounts apportioned under paragraphs (1) and (3) 
     of section 104(b), and section 104(f)(2), the amounts 
     required by this section.
       ``(c) Additional Apportionments and Sequence of Calculating 
     Additional Apportionments.--
       ``(1) First calculation.--The Secretary shall apportion 
     $95,000,000 to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(2) Second calculation.--For each low-density State and 
     each small State, the Secretary shall calculate the total 
     amount obtained by multiplying the stated percentage for the 
     State by the total amount of funds apportioned to all States 
     under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 104(b) and section 
     104(f)(2) plus the amount apportioned under paragraph (1). 
     For any low-density or small State that received, under 
     paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 104(b) and section 
     104(f)(2) combined, apportionments less than the amount for 
     the State determined pursuant to the first sentence of this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall apportion to the State such 
     additional amount as is required to make up that difference.
       ``(3) Third calculation.--In addition to any amount 
     required to be apportioned by paragraph (2) for a fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall make additional apportionments so 
     that no State receives an amount that is less than the amount 
     determined by multiplying (A) the percentage that is 95 
     percent of the percentage of estimated tax payments 
     attributable to highway users in the State paid into the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) in 
     the latest fiscal year for which data are available by (B) 
     the total amount of funds apportioned to all States 
     immediately after the Secretary has made any additional 
     apportionments required by paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Fourth calculation.--The Secretary shall determine 
     for each State the percentage apportioned to that State of 
     the total amount of funds apportioned to all States under 
     paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 104(b). The Secretary shall 
     calculate, for each State, the total amount obtained by 
     multiplying (A) the percentage for that State under the first 
     sentence of this paragraph by (B) the total amount of funds 
     apportioned to all States after the apportionment made by 
     paragraph (3). If the amount for a State under the 
     calculation made under the preceding sentence, minus the 
     total amount apportioned to that State after the 
     apportionments made by paragraph (3), is greater than zero, 
     the Secretary shall make an additional apportionment, equal 
     to that amount, to that State.
       ``(5) Fifth calculation.--For each low-density State and 
     each small State, the Secretary shall calculate the total 
     amount obtained by multiplying the stated percentage for the 
     State by the total amount of funds apportioned to all States 
     after the apportionment made by paragraph (4). For any low-
     density or small State that receives, after the apportionment 
     made by paragraph (4), total apportionments less than the 
     amount for the State determined pursuant to the first 
     sentence of this paragraph, the Secretary shall apportion to 
     the State such additional amount as is required to make up 
     that difference.
       ``(d) Terms and Conditions.--Amounts apportioned in 
     accordance with subsection (c), and amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 101(4) of the Surface 
     Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining 
     Act--
       ``(1) shall be available for obligation, when allocated, 
     for the year authorized and the 3 following fiscal years;
       ``(2) shall be subject to this title; and
       ``(3) may be obligated for National Highway System projects 
     under section 103, surface transportation program projects 
     under section 133, or any other purpose authorized under this 
     title.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this 
     section such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 1998 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 157 and inserting the following:

``157. Apportionment adjustment program.''.

       (c) Repeal of Certain Apportionment Adjustment Programs.--
       (1) Reimbursement for segments of the interstate system 
     constructed without federal assistance.--
       (A) In general.--Section 160 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 160.
       (2) Donor state bonus amounts.--Section 1013 of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 
     U.S.C. 157 note; 105 Stat. 1940) is amended by striking 
     subsection (c).
       (3) Hold harmless apportionment adjustment.--Section 1015 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991 (23 U.S.C. 104 note; 105 Stat. 1943) is amended by 
     striking subsection (a).
       (4) 90 percent of payments adjustment.--Section 1015 of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 
     U.S.C. 104 note; 105 Stat. 1944) is amended by striking 
     subsection (b).

     SEC. 105. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION, RESEARCH, AND PLANNING 
                   FUNDS.

       (a) Program Administration.--Section 104 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence--
       (i) by striking ``an apportionment is made of the sums 
     authorized to be appropriated for expenditure on the surface 
     transportation program, the congestion mitigation and air 
     quality improvement program, the National Highway System, and 
     the Interstate System'' and inserting ``apportionments are 
     made pursuant to this section and section 157''; and
       (ii) by striking ``not to exceed 3\3/4\ per centum of all 
     sums so authorized'' and inserting ``not to exceed 2 percent 
     of the total of the apportionments'';
       (B) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``For the purpose of calculating apportionments referred to 
     in the preceding sentence, the deductions made under this 
     subsection shall be made only after the completion of all 
     other aspects of calculating the apportionments and from 
     amounts calculated without taking into account the 
     deductions.''; and
       (C) in the third sentence (after the amendment made by 
     subparagraph (B)), by striking ``such determination'' and 
     inserting ``the determination described in the first 
     sentence''; and
       (2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) of subsection 
     (b), by striking ``, after making the deduction'' and all 
     that follows through

[[Page S2909]]

     the colon and inserting ``shall make apportionments for the 
     fiscal year in the following manner:''.
       (b) Metropolitan Planning.--Section 104(f) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``(f)(1)'' and all 
     that follows through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(f) Metropolitan Planning.--
       ``(1) Set aside.--On October 1 of each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall set aside to carry out section 134 not to 
     exceed 1 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
     for the National Highway System under section 103 and the 
     surface transportation program under section 133.''.
       (c) Research and Planning.--Section 307 of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections 
     (i) and (j), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) Freeze-Thaw Research.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of the Surface Transportation 
     Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act, the Secretary 
     shall undertake an enhanced level of research to determine 
     means of reducing the long-term and short-term costs of 
     constructing and maintaining asphalt pavement in areas with 
     severe or frequent freeze-thaw cycles.
       ``(h) Consideration of Rural Issues in Transportation 
     Research, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and Technology 
     Programs.--In selecting topics for research, allocating funds 
     among contractors and State and local governments for 
     research, and researching, developing, testing, and promoting 
     intelligent transportation systems and other technological 
     applications, the Secretary shall give careful consideration 
     to the national interest in--
       ``(1) understanding transportation issues that affect rural 
     areas;
       ``(2) developing a scientific and technological 
     infrastructure in rural areas; and
       ``(3) permitting rural as well as metropolitan areas to 
     benefit from the deployment of modern transportation 
     technology.''.

     SEC. 106. RECREATIONAL TRAILS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account) to carry out the recreational 
     trails program under part B of title I of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (16 U.S.C. 1261 
     et seq.) $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2003.
       (b) Apportionment Formula.--
       (1) Administrative costs.--Whenever an apportionment is 
     made of the sums authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     section 1302 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (16 U.S.C. 1261), the Secretary shall 
     deduct an amount, not to exceed 3 percent of the sums 
     authorized, to cover the cost to the Secretary for 
     administration of and research under the recreational trails 
     program and for administration of the National Recreational 
     Trails Advisory Committee. The Secretary may enter into 
     contracts, partnerships, or cooperative agreements with other 
     government agencies, institutions of higher learning, or 
     nonprofit organizations, and may enter into contracts with 
     for-profit organizations, to carry out the administration and 
     research described in the preceding sentence.
       (2) Appropriation to the states.--After making the 
     deduction authorized by paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     apportion the remainder of the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated for expenditure on the recreational trails 
     program for each fiscal year among the States in the 
     following manner:
       (A) Equal amounts.--Fifty percent of that amount shall be 
     apportioned equally among eligible States (as defined in 
     section 1302(g)(1) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (16 U.S.C. 1261(g)(1))).
       (B) Amounts proportionate to nonhighway recreational fuel 
     use.--Fifty percent of that amount shall be apportioned among 
     eligible States (as defined in section 1302(g)(1) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (16 
     U.S.C. 1261(g)(1))) in amounts proportionate to the degree of 
     nonhighway recreational fuel use in each of those States 
     during the preceding year.
       (c) Contract Authority.--Funds authorized by this section 
     shall be available for obligation in the same manner as if 
     the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, except that the Federal share of the cost 
     of any recreational trails project shall be determined in 
     accordance with subsection (d).
       (d) Federal Share Payable.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), 
     (4), and (5), the Federal share payable on account of a 
     recreational trails project shall not exceed 80 percent.
       (2) Federal agency project sponsor.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, a Federal agency sponsoring a project 
     under this section may contribute Federal funds toward a 
     project's cost, if the share attributable to the Secretary of 
     Transportation does not exceed 50 percent and the share 
     attributable to the Secretary and the Federal agency jointly 
     does not exceed 80 percent.
       (3) Allowable match from federal grant programs.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following 
     Federal grant programs may be used to contribute Federal 
     funds toward a project's cost and may be accounted for as 
     contributing to the non-Federal share:
       (A) The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 
     (Public Law 92-512).
       (B) Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
       (C) The Public Works Employment Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6701 
     et seq.).
       (D) The Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National 
     Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; 102 Stat. 
     4552).
       (E) The Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et 
     seq.).
       (F) The National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12501 et seq.).
       (G) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193).
       (4) Programmatic non-federal share.--A State may allow 
     adjustments of the non-Federal share of individual projects 
     if the total Federal share payable for all projects within 
     the State under this program for a Federal fiscal year's 
     apportionment does not exceed 80 percent. A project funded 
     under paragraph (2) or (3) may not be included in the 
     calculation of the programmatic non-Federal share.
       (5) State administrative costs.--The Federal share payable 
     on account of the administrative costs of a State, incurred 
     in administering this program and carrying out statewide 
     trail planning, shall be determined in accordance with 
     section 120(b) of title 23, United States Code.

     SEC. 107. RULES FOR ANY LIMITATIONS ON OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) None Established.--Nothing in this Act establishes a 
     limitation on the total of all obligations for any fiscal 
     year for Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction 
     programs.
       (b) Rules for Obligation Authority Limits.--Chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code (as amended by section 102(a)), 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 163. Rules for any limitations on obligations

       ``(a) In General.--Any provision of a statute enacted 
     before or after the date of enactment of this section that 
     establishes a limitation on obligations for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal 
     year 1998, or any fiscal year thereafter, shall be in 
     accordance with this section (as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this section) or stated as an amendment to this 
     section.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Certain Limitations.--Obligations 
     under section 125, for Federal lands highway investments, and 
     for recreational trails under part B of title I of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (16 
     U.S.C. 1261 et seq.), shall not be subject to any limitation 
     on obligation authority.
       ``(c) Distribution of Obligation Limitations.--
       ``(1) In general.--If, with respect to fiscal year 1998 or 
     any fiscal year thereafter, a provision of a statute 
     establishes a limitation on obligations for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs, paragraphs 
     (2) through (4) shall apply.
       ``(2) Distribution formula.--For a fiscal year, any 
     limitation described in paragraph (1) shall be distributed 
     among the States by allocation in the ratio that--
       ``(A) the total of the amounts apportioned to each State 
     under sections 104, 157, and 162 for the fiscal year; bears 
     to
       ``(B) the total of the amounts apportioned to all States 
     under those sections for the fiscal year.
       ``(3) Redistribution of unused obligation authority.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any limitation described 
     in paragraph (1), for each fiscal year, the Secretary--
       ``(i) shall provide each State with authority sufficient to 
     prevent lapses of sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     that have been apportioned or allocated to the State, except 
     in those cases in which the State indicates its intention to 
     lapse sums apportioned to the State;
       ``(ii) after August 1 of the fiscal year--

       ``(I) shall revise a distribution of the funds made 
     available under the limitation described in paragraph (1) for 
     the fiscal year if a State will not obligate the amount 
     distributed during the fiscal year; and
       ``(II) shall redistribute sufficient amounts to States able 
     to obligate amounts in addition to the amounts previously 
     distributed for the fiscal year, giving priority to those 
     States that have unobligated balances of funds apportioned 
     that are relatively large when compared to the amount of 
     funds apportioned to those States under sections 104 and 157 
     for the fiscal year; and

       ``(iii) shall not distribute amounts authorized for 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(B) State infrastructure banks.--For the purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(ii), funds made available and placed in a 
     State infrastructure bank approved by the Secretary but not 
     obligated out of the bank shall be considered to be not 
     obligated.
       ``(4) Additional obligation authority.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), a State that 
     after August 1 and on or before September 30 of a fiscal year 
     obligates the amount distributed to the State for the fiscal 
     year under paragraph (2) may obligate for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs on or 
     before September 30 of the fiscal year an additional amount 
     not to exceed 5 percent of the aggregate amount of funds 
     apportioned or allocated to the State under sections 104 and 
     157

[[Page S2910]]

     that are not obligated on the date on which the State 
     completes obligation of the amount so distributed.
       ``(B) Limitation on additional obligation authority.--
     During the period August 2 through September 30 of each 
     fiscal year, the aggregate amount that may be obligated by 
     all States under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed 2.5 
     percent of the aggregate amount of funds apportioned or 
     allocated to all States under sections 104 and 157 that would 
     not be obligated in the fiscal year if the total amount of 
     obligation authority provided for the fiscal year were used.
       ``(C) Limitation on applicability.--In the case of a fiscal 
     year, subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that on 
     or after August 1 of the fiscal year has the amount 
     distributed to the State under a limitation for the fiscal 
     year reduced under paragraph (3).
       ``(d) Maintenance of Overall Program Balance.--If a 
     limitation on obligations is established for a fiscal year--
       ``(1) the Secretary shall determine the percentage by which 
     the limitation reduces the amount of funds that otherwise 
     would be available for obligation by each State; and
       ``(2) notwithstanding sections 133, 144, and 149, for the 
     fiscal year, the amounts that are required to be made 
     available for use in the State under paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     of section 133(d), the amounts that the State is required to 
     reserve under section 144, and the amounts subject to section 
     149, shall be reduced by the percentage determined by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (1).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code (as amended by section 102(b)), 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

``163. Rules for limitations on obligation authority.''.
                     TITLE II--PROGRAM STREAMLINING

     SEC. 201. PLANNING-BASED EXPENDITURES ON ELEMENTS OF 
                   TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.

       (a) Bridge Expenditures.--
       (1) In general.--Section 144 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Certification by the State.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the end of each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 
     1998, each State shall certify to the Secretary, either 
     that--
       ``(1) the State has reserved, from funds apportioned to the 
     State for the preceding fiscal year, to carry out bridge 
     projects eligible under section 133(b), an amount that is not 
     less than the amount apportioned to the State under this 
     section for fiscal year 1997; or
       ``(2) the amount that the State will reserve, from funds 
     apportioned to the State for the period consisting of fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2003, to carry out bridge projects 
     eligible under section 133(b), will be not less than 6 times 
     the amount apportioned to the State under this section for 
     fiscal year 1997.
       ``(b) Set Asides.--
       ``(1) Discretionary bridge program.--
       ``(A) In general.--On October 1 of each fiscal year 
     beginning with fiscal year 1998, before making any 
     apportionment under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 104(b), 
     the Secretary shall set aside--
       ``(i) $36,300,000 from the amount available for 
     apportionments under section 104(b)(1); and
       ``(ii) $24,200,000 from the amount available for 
     apportionments under section 104(b)(3).
       ``(B) Use of set aside.--The amounts set aside under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be available for obligation in the 
     same manner and to the same extent as sums apportioned under 
     section 104(b)(3), except that the amounts shall be obligated 
     at the discretion of the Secretary, in accordance with 
     procedures to be established by the Secretary, for bridge 
     projects eligible under section 133(b).'';
       (B) by striking subsections (c) through (f) and (h) through 
     (p);
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection 
     (g) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively, of subsection 
     (b);
       (D) by striking subsection (g);
       (E) in subsection (q), by striking ``(q) As used in'' and 
     inserting ``(c) Definition of Rehabilitate.--In''; and
       (F) in subsection (b) (as amended by subparagraph (C))--
       (i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``apportioned to each 
     State in each of fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 
     1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997,'' and inserting 
     ``reserved by each State under subsection (a) for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2003''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) in the first sentence, by striking ``apportioned to'' 
     and inserting ``reserved under subsection (a) by''; and
       (II) in the second sentence, by striking ``a State bridge 
     apportionment and before transferring funds to the States,'' 
     and inserting ``the amount to be reserved under subsection 
     (a) for a fiscal year by a State described in the preceding 
     sentence,''.

       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 104(g) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (i) in the first sentence--

       (I) by striking ``apportioned'' and inserting ``reserved'';
       (II) by striking ``to each State in accordance with'' and 
     inserting ``by each State for the purposes of''; and
       (III) by striking ``apportionment'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``amount reserved'';

       (ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``apportionment'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``amount reserved''; and
       (iii) in the third sentence, by striking ``State's 
     apportionment'' and inserting ``amount reserved by the 
     State''.
       (B) Section 115(c) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``144,,''.
       (C) Section 120(e) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended in the last sentence by striking ``and in section 144 
     of this title''.
       (D) Section 140(b) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended in the last sentence by striking ``and the bridge 
     program under section 144''.
       (E) Section 151(d) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``section 104(a), section 307(a), and 
     section 144 of this title'' and inserting ``sections 104(a) 
     and 307(a)''.
       (F) Section 307(c)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``sections 104 and 144 of this title'' 
     and inserting ``section 104''.
       (b) Safety Programs.--
       (1) Surface transportation program.--Section 133(d) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Safety programs.--
       ``(A) Required set-aside.--With respect to funds 
     apportioned for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003--
       ``(i) an amount equal to 2.5 percent of the amount 
     apportioned to a State under section 104(b)(3) for fiscal 
     year 1997 shall be available only to carry out activities 
     eligible under section 130;
       ``(ii) an amount equal to the amount described in clause 
     (i) shall be available only to carry out activities eligible 
     under section 152; and
       ``(iii) an amount equal to 5 percent of the amount 
     apportioned to a State under section 104(b)(3) for fiscal 
     year 1997 shall be available only to carry out activities 
     eligible under section 130 or 152.
       ``(B) Waiver.--For a fiscal year, the Secretary shall waive 
     the set-aside required under clause (i) or (ii) of 
     subparagraph (A), and permit the amount of the set-aside to 
     be used in accordance with subparagraph (A)(iii), upon 
     receipt of a certification by the State that the amount that 
     will be made available for the purpose of the waived set-
     aside for that fiscal year, when combined with the amount 
     made available for that purpose for the preceding fiscal 
     year, or the amount to be made available for that purpose for 
     the following fiscal year, will average, per fiscal year, not 
     less than 2.5 percent of the amount apportioned to the State 
     under section 104(b)(3) for fiscal year 1997.''.
       (2) Program improvements.--Title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in section 130--
       (i) in subsection (e), by striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``Funds authorized for or expended 
     under this section may be used for the installation of 
     protective devices at railway-highway crossings.''; and
       (ii) in subsection (f), by striking ``Apportionment'' and 
     all that follows through the first sentence and inserting 
     ``Federal Share.--''; and
       (B) in section 152--
       (i) in subsection (c), by striking ``(other than a highway 
     on the Interstate System)''; and
       (ii) in subsection (e), by striking the first sentence.
       (c) Transportation Enhancement Activities.--Section 133(d) 
     of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Transportation enhancement activities.--With respect 
     to funds apportioned for each of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2003, an amount equal to 5 percent of the amount apportioned 
     to a State under section 104(b)(3) shall be available only to 
     carry out transportation enhancement activities.''.
       (d) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
     Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Section 149 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``program'' and 
     inserting ``activities'';
       (B) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Use of Funds.--Funds apportioned to a State under 
     section 104(b)(3)(D) may be used only in accordance with this 
     section.'';
       (C) in subsection (b), by striking ``Except'' and all that 
     follows through ``program only'' and inserting ``Funds 
     described in subsection (a) may be used only''; and
       (D) in subsection (c), by striking ``section 104(b)(2)'' 
     and inserting ``section 104(b)(3)(D)''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 149 
     and inserting the following:

``149. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement activities.''.
       (B) Section 115(a) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (i) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Congestion 
     Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement,''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (1)(A)(i), by striking ``104(b)(2),''.
       (C) Section 146(a) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended in the first sentence by striking ``104(b)(2),'' and 
     inserting ``104(b)(3)(D),''.
       (D) Section 217 of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)--

[[Page S2911]]

       (I) in the subsection heading, by striking ``STP and 
     Congestion Mitigation Program'' and inserting ``Surface 
     Transportation Program''; and
       (II) by striking ``sections 104(b)(2) and 104(b)(3) of this 
     title'' and inserting ``section 104(b)(3)''; and

       (ii) in subsection (d), by striking ``sections 104(b)(2) 
     and 104(b)(3) of this title'' and inserting ``section 
     104(b)(3)''.

     SEC. 202. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

       (a) Definition of National Highway System.--Section 101(a) 
     of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
     undesignated paragraph defining ``National Highway System'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``The term `National Highway System' means the Federal-aid 
     highway system established under section 103(b).''.
       (b) Program Specifications.--Section 103 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the section designation and heading and 
     inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 103. National Highway System''

       (2) by striking subsections (g) and (h); and
       (3) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (c) and 
     moving the subsection to appear after subsection (b).
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 103 and inserting the following:

``103. National Highway System.''.

     SEC. 203. INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Funding of Activities.--Section 119 of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``program'' and 
     inserting ``activities'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence--
       (i) by striking ``sections 103 and 139(c) of this title and 
     routes on the Interstate System designated before the date of 
     enactment of this sentence under section 139(a) and (b) of''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``subsection (e)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (d)''; and
       (B) by striking the second sentence;
       (3) by striking subsections (d), (f), and (g); and
       (4) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 119 
     and inserting the following:

``119. Interstate maintenance activities.''

       (2) Sections 134(i)(4) and 135(f)(3) of title 23, United 
     States Code, are amended--
       (A) by striking ``and pursuant to the bridge and Interstate 
     maintenance programs'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``, pursuant to the bridge program under section 144, and as 
     Interstate maintenance activities under section 119''; and
       (B) by striking ``or pursuant to the bridge and Interstate 
     maintenance programs'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``, pursuant to the bridge program under section 144, or as 
     Interstate maintenance activities under section 119''.

     SEC. 204. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.

       Section 133 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) With respect to each area of a State that is a 
     nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
     seq.) for ozone or carbon monoxide, or for PM-10 resulting 
     from transportation activities, or for any combination of 
     these substances, also for any congestion mitigation and air 
     quality improvement project or program without regard to any 
     limitation of the Department of Transportation relating to 
     the type of ambient air quality standard addressed by the 
     project or program. For the purpose of this paragraph, an 
     area that has been designated as nonattainment for carbon 
     monoxide under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7407(d)) shall be considered to be a nonattainment area 
     regardless of whether the area has been `classified' under 
     subpart 3 of part D of title I of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 et 
     seq.).
       ``(13) Placement of funds in a State infrastructure bank 
     approved by the Secretary.'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``unless such roads are 
     on a Federal-aid highway system on January 1, 1991, and'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(3)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) General rule.--
       ``(i) Urban areas.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     for each fiscal year, a State shall allocate for use in each 
     area of the State with an urbanized area population of over 
     200,000 individuals an amount of the funds apportioned under 
     section 104(b)(3) for the fiscal year obtained by 
     multiplying--

       ``(I)(aa) if funds were allocated for use in the area under 
     the surface transportation program for fiscal year 1997, the 
     amount of such funds required to be allocated for use in the 
     area for that year; or
       ``(bb) if funds were not allocated for use in the area 
     under the surface transportation program for fiscal year 
     1997, the amount of such funds that would have been required 
     to be allocated for use in the area for fiscal year 1997 if 
     the area had had an urbanized area population of 200,001 
     individuals as of October 1, 1996; by
       ``(II) the amount obtained by dividing--

       ``(aa) all funds apportioned or allocated to the State for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     for the fiscal year; by
       ``(bb) all funds apportioned or allocated to the State for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     for fiscal year 1997.
       ``(ii) Other areas.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (C), for each fiscal year, a State shall allocate for use in 
     each area of the State that is not an area described in 
     clause (i) an amount of the funds apportioned under section 
     104(b)(3) for the fiscal year obtained by multiplying--

       ``(I) the amount of funds required to be allocated for use 
     in the area under the surface transportation program for 
     fiscal year 1997; by
       ``(II) the amount obtained by dividing--

       ``(aa) all funds apportioned or allocated to the State for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     for the fiscal year; by
       ``(bb) all funds apportioned or allocated to the State for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     for fiscal year 1997.'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``subparagraph 
     (A)(ii)'' and inserting ``this section'';
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) Special rule for certain states.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply in the case of a State that is noncontiguous 
     with the continental United States.'';
       (D) by striking subparagraph (D);
       (E) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (F) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by striking ``obligate'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``allocate'';
       (ii) by striking ``(A)(i)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(A)''; and
       (iii) by striking ``obligated'' and inserting 
     ``allocated'';
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Certification.--Before the beginning of each fiscal 
     year, the Governor of each State shall certify to the 
     Secretary that the State will meet all the requirements of 
     this section and shall notify the Secretary that the amount 
     of obligations expected to be incurred for surface 
     transportation program projects during the fiscal year is in 
     accordance with the surveys, plans, specifications, and 
     estimates for each proposed project included in the surface 
     transportation program category in the transportation 
     improvement program of the State developed under section 135 
     for the fiscal year. A State may request an adjustment to an 
     obligation amount referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii) later 
     in the fiscal year. Acceptance by the Secretary of the 
     notification and certification shall be deemed to be a 
     contractual obligation of the United States to pay the 
     Federal share of costs incurred by the State for projects not 
     subject to review by the Secretary under this chapter.''; and
       (5) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by striking ``6-fiscal year period 1992 through 1997'' 
     and inserting ``6-fiscal-year period 1998 through 2003''; and
       (B) by striking ``obligate in'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``allocate to''.

     SEC. 205. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Operation Lifesaver.--Section 104 of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking subsection (d) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(d) Operation Lifesaver.--From administrative funds 
     deducted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall expend 
     $500,000 for each fiscal year to carry out a public 
     information and education program to help prevent and reduce 
     motor vehicle accidents, injuries, and fatalities and to 
     improve driver performance at railway-highway crossings.''.
       (b) Repeal of Set-Asides for the Interstate and National 
     Highway System Discretionary Programs.--Section 118 of title 
     23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively.

     SEC. 206. COOPERATIVE FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 205 the following:

     ``SEC. 206. COOPERATIVE FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Findings and Purpose.--
       ``(1) Findings.--Congress finds that public roads owned by 
     States--
       ``(A) can provide valuable assistance to the Federal 
     Government in ensuring adequate and safe transportation to, 
     in, and across federally owned land and Indian reservations; 
     and
       ``(B) supplement the efforts of the Federal Government in 
     developing and maintaining roads to serve federally owned 
     land and Indian reservations.
       ``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to further 
     the Federal interest in State-owned or State-maintained roads 
     that provide transportation to, in, or across federally owned 
     land or Indian reservations by establishing the Cooperative 
     Federal Lands Transportation Program.
       ``(b) Program.--There is established the Cooperative 
     Federal Lands Transportation Program (referred to in this 
     section as the `program'). Funds available for the program 
     may be used for projects, or portions of projects, on State-
     owned or State-maintained highways that cross, are adjacent 
     to,

[[Page S2912]]

     or lead to federally owned land or Indian reservations, as 
     determined by the State. Such projects shall be proposed by a 
     State and selected by the Secretary. A project proposed by a 
     State under this section shall be on a highway owned or 
     maintained by the State and may be a highway construction or 
     maintenance project eligible under this title or any project 
     of a type described in section 204(h).
       ``(c) Distribution of Funds for Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary--
       ``(i) after consultation with the Administrator of General 
     Services, the Secretary of the Interior, and other agencies 
     as appropriate, shall determine the percentage of the total 
     land in each State that is owned by the Federal Government or 
     that is held by the Federal Government in trust;
       ``(ii) shall determine the sum of the percentages 
     determined under clause (i) for States with respect to which 
     the percentage is 4.5 or greater; and
       ``(iii) shall determine for each State included in the 
     determination under clause (ii) the percentage obtained by 
     dividing--

       ``(I) the percentage for the State determined under clause 
     (i); by
       ``(II) the sum determined under clause (ii).

       ``(B) Adjustment.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) reduce any percentage determined under subparagraph 
     (A)(iii) that is greater than 7.5 percent to 7.5 percent; and
       ``(ii) redistribute the percentage points equal to any 
     reduction under clause (i) among other States included in the 
     determination under subparagraph (A)(ii) in proportion to the 
     percentages for those States determined under subparagraph 
     (A)(iii).
       ``(2) Availability to states.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make 
     funds available to carry out eligible projects in a State in 
     an amount equal to the amount obtained by multiplying--
       ``(A) the percentage for the State, if any, determined 
     under paragraph (1); by
       ``(B) the funds made available for the program for the 
     fiscal year.
       ``(3) Selection of projects.--The Secretary may establish 
     deadlines for States to submit proposed projects for funding 
     under this section, except that in the case of fiscal year 
     1998 the deadline may not be earlier than January 1, 1998. 
     For each fiscal year, if a State does not have pending, by 
     that deadline, applications for projects with an estimated 
     cost equal to at least 3 times the amount for the State 
     determined under paragraph (2), the Secretary may distribute, 
     to 1 or more other States, at the Secretary's discretion, \1/
     3\ of the amount by which the estimated cost of the State's 
     applications is less than 3 times the amount for the State 
     determined under paragraph (2).
       ``(d) Transfers.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a State and the Secretary may agree to transfer amounts 
     made available to a State under this section for use in 
     carrying out projects on any Federal lands highway that is 
     located in the State.
       ``(2) Special rule.--This paragraph applies to a State that 
     contains a national park that was visited by more than 
     2,500,000 people in 1996 and comprises more than 3,000 square 
     miles of land area, including surface water, that is located 
     in the State. For such a State, 50 percent of the amount that 
     would otherwise be made available to the State for each 
     fiscal year under the program shall be made available only 
     for eligible highway uses in the national park and within the 
     borders of the State. For the purpose of making allocations 
     under section 202(c), the Secretary may not take into account 
     the past or future availability, for use on park roads and 
     parkways in a national park, of funds made available for use 
     in a national park by this paragraph.''.
       (b) Definition of Federal Lands Highway Investment.--
     Section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following:
       ``The term `Federal lands highway investment' means funds 
     authorized for the Federal lands highways program or the 
     Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program under 
     chapter 2.''; and
       (2) by reordering the undesignated paragraphs so that they 
     are in alphabetical order.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 2 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 205 the following:

``206. Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program.''.
                   TITLE III--REDUCTION OF REGULATION

     SEC. 301. PERIODIC REVIEW OF AGENCY RULES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     carry out a periodic review of all significant rules issued 
     by the Department of Transportation and shall determine which 
     of the rules should be amended, rescinded, or continued 
     without change, based on a consideration of--
       (1) the continued need for each rule; and
       (2) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or 
     conflicts with other Federal rules.
       (b) Plan.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and 
     publish in the Federal Register a plan for the periodic 
     review of all significant rules issued by the Department of 
     Transportation.

     SEC. 302. PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING.

       Section 135 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Continuation of Current Review Practice.--Since plans 
     and programs described in this section are subject to a 
     reasonable opportunity for public comment, since individual 
     projects included in the plans and programs are subject to 
     review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and since decisions by the 
     Secretary concerning plans and programs described in this 
     section have not been reviewed under that Act as of January 
     1, 1997, any decision by the Secretary concerning a plan or 
     program described in this section shall not be considered to 
     be a Federal action subject to review under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).''.

     SEC. 303. METRIC CONVERSION AT STATE OPTION.

       Section 205(c)(2) of the National Highway System 
     Designation Act of 1995 (23 U.S.C. 109 note; 109 Stat. 577) 
     is amended by striking ``Before September 30, 2000, the'' and 
     inserting ``The''.
              TITLE IV--EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION RULES.

     SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION RULES.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Funds.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this 
     Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply only to 
     funds authorized to be appropriated or made available after 
     September 30, 1997.
       (c) Unobligated Balances.--Section 118 of title 23, United 
     States Code (as amended by section 205(b)), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Unobligated Balances as of October 1, 1997.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided by law, 
     unobligated balances of funds apportioned or allocated to a 
     State before October 1, 1997, under this title, the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 102-240), or other law concerning Federal-aid 
     highways, shall be available for obligation in the State 
     under the law (including regulations, policies, and 
     procedures) relating to the obligation and expenditure of the 
     funds in effect on September 30, 1997.
       ``(2) Transferability.--
       ``(A) Interstate construction and interstate maintenance 
     programs.--A State may transfer unobligated balances of funds 
     apportioned to the State before October 1, 1997, for the 
     Interstate construction program under section 104(b)(5)(A) 
     (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this 
     subsection) or the Interstate maintenance program under 
     section 104(b)(5)(B) (as in effect on the day before the date 
     of enactment of this subsection), to the apportionment of the 
     State under section 104(b)(1).
       ``(B) Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--A 
     State may transfer unobligated balances of funds apportioned 
     to the State before October 1, 1997, for the bridge 
     replacement and rehabilitation program under section 144 (as 
     in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this 
     subsection) to the apportionment of the State under paragraph 
     (1) or (3) of section 104(b) (or both).
       ``(C) Surface transportation program.--A State may transfer 
     unobligated balances of funds apportioned to the State before 
     October 1, 1997, for the surface transportation program under 
     section 104(b)(3) (as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of this subsection) to the apportionment of the 
     State under section 104(b)(3).
       ``(D) Other programs.--A State may transfer unobligated 
     balances of funds apportioned or allocated to the State 
     before October 1, 1997, under sections 157 and 160 (as in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of this 
     subsection), and sections 1013(c) and 1015(b) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 102-240) (as in effect on the day before the date 
     of enactment of this subsection), to the apportionment of the 
     State under section 104(b)(3).
       ``(E) Applicability of certain laws.--Funds transferred 
     under this paragraph shall be subject to the laws (including 
     regulations, policies, and procedures) relating to the 
     apportionment to which the funds are transferred as the laws 
     are in effect after the date of enactment of this subsection, 
     except that a transfer of funds permitted under this 
     paragraph shall not extend the time period within which the 
     transferred funds either must be obligated or lapse.
       ``(F) Effect on certain determinations.--A decision by a 
     State to transfer funds under this paragraph shall have no 
     effect on any determination of the apportionments or 
     obligation authority of the State.''.
                                                                    ____


                Summary of Key Provisions of STARS 2000

       STARS 2000 is a six-year transportation reauthorization 
     proposal.


                             FUNDING LEVELS

       The Department of Transportation estimates that the Highway 
     Account of the Highway Trust Fund could sustain annual 
     funding levels of $27 billion into the next century. This 
     figure includes annual revenue, interest accumulated from 
     unobligated balances, and the gradual spend-down of 
     unobligated balances.
       STARS 2000 funding levels are approximately $27 billion 
     annually.
       The breakdown is as follows:

[[Page S2913]]

       National Highway System--$14.163 billion
       Surface Transportation Program--$9.442 billion
       Equity programs--approximately $2.8 billion
       Federal lands programs
       1. Indian reservation roads--$191 million
       2. Public lands highways--$172 million
       3. Parks and Parkways--$84 million
       Cooperative Federal Lands Transportation Program (new)--
     $155 million
       Territories--$35 million
       Recreational Trails--$30 million


                            FUNDING FORMULAS

       STARS 2000 funding formulas are based heavily on the extent 
     and use of a State's highway system. Interstate lane miles 
     and vmt, NHS lane miles and vmt, federal-aid lane miles and 
     vmt, square footage of bridges, diesel sales and 4 other 
     formula factors consisting of air quality, federal land 
     ownership, population in relation to lane miles and freeze/
     thaw cycles.
       STARS 2000 also includes a 95% minimum allocation equity 
     account.


                          STREAMLINED PROGRAM

       Under STARS 2000, the federal program is streamlined in 
     order to allow the program to be highly flexible. This 
     enables different States to choose projects that meet their 
     transportation priorities. Projects such as highway 
     reconstruction, safety improvements, transit, bridges, 
     enhancements, CMAQ projects or other eligible investments.


                        national highway system

       Funding for the National Highway System represents sixty 
     percent of the core formula program under STARS 2000. Funds 
     may be used for Interstate maintenance activities, bridge 
     improvements and other uses eligible under today's current 
     NHS program.


                     surface transportation program

       Funding for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) 
     represents forty percent of the core formula program under 
     STARS 2000. Under this flexible program, funds may be used 
     for projects eligible under today's Surface Transportation 
     Program and projects eligible under today's Congestion 
     Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program.


                              enhancements

       STARS 2000 retains the transportation enhancement program. 
     Today, the core of the enhancement program is a 10% set-aside 
     of the $4 billion STP program--$400 million. STARS 2000 
     requires 5% of the new $9.44 billion STP program be set-aside 
     annually--approximately $480 million. Eligibility under the 
     enhancement program is not changed.


                            safety programs

       Current law requires a 10% set-aside of STP funds for 
     railway crossing elimination and hazard elimination programs.
       STARS 2000 retains this set-aside (10% of what a State 
     received under the STP category in 1997), but gives States 
     additional flexibility in meeting this requirement. States 
     must spend at least 2.5% of the requirement on railway-
     highway crossing projects, at least 2.5% of the requirement 
     on hazard elimination projects and the remaining 5% may be 
     used for either program at the discretion of the State.


                             bridge program

       STARS 2000 eliminates the bridge program as a separate 
     category. However, STARS 2000 retains the national commitment 
     to bridges repairs by requiring every State to spend at least 
     as much on bridges as it does today, using National Highway 
     System or Surface Transportation Program funds.
       The bridge discretionary program is also retained at FY 
     1997 levels--$60.5 million annually to be funded from the NHS 
     and STP program.


                 congestion mitigation and air quality

       STARS 2000 eliminates the CMAQ program as a separate 
     category. However, included in the Surface Transportation 
     Program funding formula is an ``air quality'' factor. States 
     that receive funds under the air quality factor--which are 
     those States that receive CMAQ funds under today's CMAQ 
     formula for their nonattainment areas--would be required to 
     spend such funds in their nonattainment areas for CMAQ 
     eligible projects. This provision translates into a $380 
     million air quality program.


                          recreational trails

       STARS 2000 proposes a $30 million annual funding level for 
     the National Recreational Trails program. Funds are to be 
     used for both motorized and nonmotorized trails, consistent 
     with current law. The matching requirement has been adjusted 
     from today's 50/50 matching ratio to a new 80/20 matching 
     ratio.


                             federal lands

       STARS 2000 retains the current federal lands categories--
     public lands, Indian reservation roads, parks and parkways. 
     Current funding levels are retained as well.
       A new Federal lands category, the Cooperative Federal Lands 
     Transportation Program is also proposed at $155 million 
     annually. These funds are to be used by States to improve 
     State-owned or maintained roads that lead to, are adjacent to 
     or pass through Federal lands or reservations.


                           regulatory review

       The Department of Transportation is required to review all 
     significant rules it has issued. Any rules that are obsolete, 
     overlapping, duplicative or conflict with other Federal rules 
     shall be either amended, rescinded or continued without 
     change after such periodic review.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the 
reauthorization of the Federal highway bill. I am very pleased to join 
with Senators Baucus and Kempthorne in the introduction of the Surface 
Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act for the 
Next Century, STARS 2000. I am also pleased that there will be 14 
original cosponsors in support of this important legislation.
  This is the time for the reauthorization of the Federal highway bill, 
called ISTEA, that has been in place for the past 6 years and has made 
a very important contribution to this country and its transportation. 
It has made some important changes in our surface transportation 
policies, but as we move into the 21st century, we need to update the 
law and make it more flexible and more efficient in order to meet the 
transportation challenges of the new century. I believe STARS 2000, 
achieves this goal. It will create new rules of the road to help us to 
build the highways and bridges to the 21st century.
  With respect to the gas tax, it is a user fee, of course, that each 
of us pay as we buy gas wherever we are in this country. American 
taxpayers have been shortchanged with regard to the benefits they are 
getting from the gas tax. Not all of the gas taxes have been used for 
surface transportation. We need to get back to a user-fee system where 
the taxes paid, in this case by the users of highways, are used then 
for surface transportation. STARS 2000 addresses this problem by 
restoring the integrity of the fee system by spending as much out of 
the highway fee system as it can sustain. We have been spending less 
than $20 billion annually. STARS 2000 raises the authorization to $27 
billion. We believe those dollars ought to go into the highway system.
  In addition, it provides a framework for any additional revenues such 
as the 4.3 cents that currently goes to deficit reduction. Should these 
user fees be transferred to the highway trust fund, they would be 
distributed according to the bill's formula. STARS 2000 will help my 
State and many States maintain a national system.
  If you are going to go from Washington to California, you obviously 
have to go throughout the whole country and therefore it is key to have 
a Federal system. In my State, a small State in terms of population but 
large in terms of space, we pay more per capita than any other State, 
nearly $200 for every person in our State for highway gas taxes, and 
yet we have deteriorating bridges and roads, as do many States.
  In addition, the Federal Government owns 50 percent of Wyoming. One 
of the principle authors of this bill and my friend, Senator 
Kempthorne, his State of Idaho has even larger holdings. In Nevada, it 
is 86 percent federally owned so we have to take Federal lands into 
account as we talk about a Federal system.
  In fact, Yellowstone Park, located in Wyoming, has a backlog of 
nearly $250 million in road repairs and maintenance that needs to be 
considered. Unfortunately, we are not meeting these needs. For example, 
the Clinton administration admits that this country only invests 70 
percent of what needs to be invested just to maintain our 
transportation infrastructure. These shortfalls hurt all taxpayers, of 
course. The STARS 2000 coalition States are bridge States--people and 
goods cross these States to other destinations. A set of efficient and 
well maintained roads are as important to the cities that export goods 
across the country and around the world as they are to people in our 
States. These transactions contribute to the Nation's economy and its 
job creation. STARS 2000 will make a smooth flow of people and goods 
across the country a reality.
  One of the keys to the highway program is that each State knows best 
what it should be doing with the resources it has, and its priorities 
are. Clearly, the highways and roads in New York City are quite 
different than those in Wyoming or Nevada, so we need to have the 
flexibility for State and local officials to make the decisions there. 
STARS 2000 does that by significantly increasing the surface 
transportation program, the STP portion, and puts the decisionmaking 
authority for how this money is allocated into the hands of state and 
local people.

  Unfortunately, the administration bill, NEXTEA, is advertised as 
building

[[Page S2914]]

a bridge to the 21st century. Unfortunately, it is my belief that in 
its present form that bridge will collapse. NEXTEA does not restore the 
integrity of the trust fund, so for the American taxpayer, there is no 
trust in the trust fund. It does not streamline the program. It does 
not make the kinds of changes that are needed. It hangs on to what we 
have done in the past. It also handcuffs local authorities in terms of 
making decisions. NEXTEA adds regulations. God knows, we need to move 
away from regulations and allow the highway program to be more 
efficient.
  STARS 2000 emphasizes the Federal component of our program and 
achieves a fair and equitable method of distribution. Based on a 
percentage share of the Federal highway program, 37 States do better 
and 1 tied compared to NEXTEA; 33 States do better than under the 
current law; 25 States higher, 6 the same compared to STEP 21. In 
addition, STARS 2000 addresses the donor/donee issue by creating a 95 
percent minimum allocation to all States. That means all States will 
get at least 95 percent of what they put into the highway trust fund.
  The STARS 2000 coalition will be a significant factor in the ISTEA 
reauthorization debate. Without our coalition, without our States, you 
cannot get there from here--physically or politically. STARS 2000 is 
more than a marker. It is a coalition of States that are needed to make 
an interstate map to the 21st century.
  Quite often, in my experience in the House, the highway money flows 
where the votes are. But that really does not work in a transportation 
program. You have to have one that covers the country and is, indeed, a 
Federal program. The funding formulas under STARS 2000 are based on the 
transportation needs of the country.
  STARS 2000 maintains the integrity of the original ISTEA. It improves 
it by a smarter investment of taxpayers' money. It meets our growing 
infrastructure needs. It increases job and economic growth and 
increases flexibility and efficiency. We get more bang for the buck.
  So we are emphasizing the National Highway System, allowing more 
decisions to be made closer to home, and I certainly would submit to my 
fellow Members of the Senate this is a bill that we can all support and 
will provide a better infrastructure for highway surface 
transportation.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I thank Senators Kempthorne and 
Baucus for their hard work on this legislation and look forward to 
working with them in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, may I commend my colleague from 
Wyoming, Senator Thomas, for giving an excellent view as to the bill 
that we are submitting to Congress today, the Surface Transportation 
Authorization and Streamlining Act, or STARS 2000.
  I appreciate the fact that Senator Thomas and Senator Baucus of 
Montana and I will be able to form this partnership, with many more 
partners in the Senate joining our effort, including the Senator from 
Kansas, who will be joining us. I also want to recognize that I 
appreciate Senator John Warner, who is the chairman of this particular 
subcommittee dealing with this issue of the national highway bill, for 
holding a hearing in the State of Idaho, for coming to Idaho so that 
the western perspective could be made part of the public record. Also, 
Senator Baucus, who came to that hearing in Idaho--I appreciate my 
neighbor from Montana coming over and making that effort; it was an 
excellent hearing--and, too, acknowledging Senator Chafee, the chairman 
of the full committee, making that hearing in the West a reality. So, 
again, it demonstrates that all of us, while we may be coming at this 
from slightly different views, are working together. That is important 
and significant.
  With STARS 2000, I believe, as Senator Thomas has pointed out, we are 
going to restore the integrity of what a trust fund is: a trust fund. 
So the money that is gathered for that dedicated purpose ought to be 
used for that dedicated purpose. Doesn't that sound amazing that we 
would have to even say that? But it is not happening. Currently we only 
authorize about $18 billion that are to be used on the national highway 
program. The full amount that could be used, the maximum, is $27 
billion. So this legislation by Senator Baucus and Senator Thomas and 
myself would authorize the full $27 billion to be used for the highways 
of this country, because that is why we have been collecting this 
highway tax.
  It provides a fair distribution throughout the United States, and it 
is going to address the very key issues, such as extent and usage of 
the highways; the lane miles that are there; the poor air quality in 
some regions of the country, some of the cities that are having 
difficulty with poor air quality; the tax-exempt Federal lands, as have 
been referenced. In the State of Idaho we are 67 percent federally 
owned. In the State of Texas--I do not believe there is any federally 
owned land in the State of Texas. So you can see we come at this from 
different perspectives. Low population density--Idaho is the 13th 
State, as far as ranking in landmass, yet we rank 41st in population. 
So you can see there are not a lot of folks. Take the District of 
Columbia, for example, this city right here around Capitol Hill. It has 
a little over one-half-million people. The State of Idaho has 1 million 
people in the entire State, versus one-half-million in just this city.
  It also authorizes full funding for the National Recreational Trails 
Act, $30 million annually, something that had been talked about and was 
to have occurred years ago. It has not done so. We are going to do 
right by that.
  We also know there is this issue of the donor/donee States. Some 
States put in their share, and they get more than they put in. Other 
States put in their share, and they get less back than they put in. We 
address that head on by increasing the minimum allocation program from 
90 percent up to 95 percent. Under STARS 2000 formulas and proposed 
increased funding levels, it would result in 47 States receiving 
greater funding than they do under the current ISTEA program. Mr. 
President, 47 States will actually receive more funds.

  Again, as has been pointed out, we really do provide for the 
streamlining, for greater flexibility, so those programs, such as the 
Surface Transportation Act--in essence, we double the funds in that 
account. We double that, and then we say to the States and the local 
communities: Now, with that additional funding, you make the decisions 
of where you think your priorities are in your State, rather than 
people back in Washington, DC, who may never have been to your State 
determining how it should be spent.
  This is the national highway bill that we are talking about. I want 
to underscore national, because it is to apply to all 50 States. That 
is how we are going to have good interstate commerce. The 
administration says they understand the needs of rural America. If they 
understand the needs of rural America, I question why the 
administration's proposed reauthorization of the highway bill cuts 
funding to eight of the most rural States in the country.
  What is this question of rural and urban? Let me give an example, if 
I may, Mr. President. Here is the State of Idaho. I would use as an 
example highway 95 that runs, in essence, from the Canadian border 
virtually down to the Nevada border, a little over 500 miles. Again, 
the State of Idaho, population of 1 million people. Let us take 
relatively the same distance, and let us go from right here, 
Washington, DC, and if we drive to Boston, it is 463 miles--about the 
same distance. So I am making it a good comparison. The difference is, 
here you have one million people to support systems such as this. In 
this area, where you actually go through seven States, not one State 
and the District of Columbia, you have virtually 43 million people as a 
tax base to support that infrastructure. It just shows you that in the 
less densely populated areas we do need to have assistance.
  Do you know there are trucking firms that enter the State of Idaho at 
Eastport to go through customs? Then they immediately exit the State of 
Idaho and they travel the Canadian highways heading toward Seattle, for 
example, and then reenter the United States. Why do they do that? As 
one trucking company, Swift Transportation, testified at our hearing 
out in Idaho, they have 5,000 trucks that run throughout the United 
States, but they said there are so many significantly unsafe portions 
of, for example, highway 95, they do not allow their truck

[[Page S2915]]

drivers to go on highway 95 because of safety considerations. They said 
that is the only stretch of highway that they really have that sort of 
restriction on anywhere in the United States.
  Yet this is a national highway bill. It is not the national and 
Canadian highway bill. So we need to address this, and that is what 
this does. But it is not parochial. Certainly I am trying to look out 
for rural America, but I reiterate, this legislation does better for 47 
States than under the current program that is in existence today.
  So I believe we have something here that is good for the country. It 
is going to put the faith back into what a trust fund is supposed to 
be. It is going to give greater flexibility for those of us who believe 
in States rights, the 10th amendment; that folks in those 50 States can 
make just as good if not better decisions than we do at the Federal 
level. So it has so much to offer to so many.
  Again, I am proud to be part of this, and I thank Senator Thomas and 
Senator Baucus for their efforts in this partnership.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the 
Surface Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act. 
As I do, Mr. President, I want to emphasize my belief that the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], has in large 
part been a great success for our Nation. ISTEA has been a 
revolutionary effort to distribute transportation funding to assist 
States in major highway, bridge, environmental, research, and safety 
projects. After 6 years, however, we have learned that there are areas 
of ISTEA in which we can make significant improvement. STARS 2000 is 
the best mechanism so far by which we can do that.
  I am cosponsoring STARS 2000 because it reemphasizes the national 
interest in a national transportation system. Mr. President, each State 
is a vital part of the national system; without one part the whole 
system fails. The highway system in New Mexico for instance, serves not 
just its resident and industrial traffic needs, but its highways also 
serve as a vital link for commerce between the Pacific coast and the 
eastern seaboard, and between Mexico and Canada. The system of highways 
crossing New Mexico is also crucial for the movement of manpower, 
equipment, and supplies in support of our Nation's defense. STARS 2000 
offers a balanced, sensible approach so that all the States continue to 
play a central role to the overriding national goals.
  Just as importantly, STARS 2000 effectively addresses the unique 
character of western, rural States and their importance to our national 
system of highway. New Mexico, for example, has only six-tenths of 1 
percent of the total U.S. population. However, it must maintain 2 
percent, 3,000 miles, of the National Highway System. Many people do 
not realize that road travel takes on a different meaning in the West. 
For instance, a trip from Farmington, NM, to Hobbs, NM, is 513 miles, 
and there are few options other than driving to make that tip. By 
contrast, that same distance would take you from Washington, DC, to 
Detroit, MI.
  STARTS 2000 also builds on the successes of ISTEA. For instance, the 
Surface Transportation Program maintains Federal support for the bride 
replacement and rehabilitation program. STARS 2000 also maintains 
support for Federal lands roads, a program that is vital to States in 
the West where a vast majority of our Nation's Federal lands are 
located. Forty percent of New Mexico, for example, is Federal land. 
STARS 2000 eliminates the old system that penalizes a State for using 
Federal funds on roads located on Federal lands and Indian 
reservations. This is a step in the right direction and it is 
desperately needed in the West. I am concerned that STARS proposes only 
level funding for the Indian reservation road program. Although I am 
supporting S. 437, the American Indian Transportation Improvement Act, 
I will continue to try to increase funding for roads and bridges on 
Indian reservations.
  STARS 2000 also includes a program that addresses congestion 
management and air quality. I am concerned, however, with the degree to 
which resources for this activity have been cut and the fact that it is 
eliminated as a separate category within STARS. CMAQ has been a 
significant reason cities like Albuquerque have attained and are 
maintaining clear air standards, and I hope we will find ways to keep 
this program working.
  Additionally, STARS 2000 addresses the need to maintain our Nation's 
current system of roads and bridges. Unless the current system is 
sufficiently maintained, we will inevitably have to spend many more 
dollars to rebuild the system, something we can ill-afford. In New 
Mexico, like most other States, maintenance costs overwhelm the State's 
total highway budget. To its credit, New Mexico applies much of its 
highway funding to maintenance. Nevertheless, if the entire New Mexico 
road budget were applied to maintenance alone, only 7,500 of the 
State's 11,600 miles of highways could be adequately maintained. As 
many as 5,800 miles of New Mexico's roads have deteriorated to the 
point that they must be replaced at a cost of $1.15 million per mile. 
As a result, New Mexico, like most other States in the West, is unable 
to fund other critical transportation objects.
  As we continue to recommit ourselves to maintaining and improving our 
Nation's transportation system, let me say that it is also incumbent 
upon the individual States to share in this ever-increasing 
responsibility. Clearly, there is a strong national transportation 
interest, but the States must recognize its own obligations. We are 
doing our part at the Federal level, and States must do the same.
  Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I commend my 
esteemed colleagues, Senators Baucus, Kempthorne, and Thomas, for 
working diligently to assemble this legislation. I believe that STARS 
is a measure that will eventually lead to a better, more efficient 
transportation system in our country and ultimately a stronger economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 533. A bill to exempt persons engaged in the fishing industry from 
certain Federal antitrust laws; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  The Fishing Industry Bargaining Act

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens and 
myself, I am reintroducing the Fishing Industry Bargaining Act, a bill 
to allow antitrust immunity for certain cooperative activities 
involving domestic fishermen and processors.
  This bill will allow collective agreement between fishermen and 
processors. It is patterned after legislation adopted by the Alaska 
State Legislature, but which requires congressional action to fully 
take effect.
  Under existing law, fishermen are able to form associations for the 
purpose of collective bargaining with individual processors. This bill 
will allow them to work with similar associations of processors to 
establish first-wholesale purchase prices--that is, the prices paid to 
the processors for fish products, and ex-vessel prices paid to the 
fishermen.
  This is intended to counter the fact that prices currently are all 
too often set by first-wholesale buyers rather than producers. As a 
result, processors forced to accept a price set by their buyers are in 
turn forced to set ex-vessel prices based on the buyers' offer, rather 
than prices that respond fully to other market forces.
  I want to make it clear that this bill in no way would allow 
processors to associate solely amongst themselves to set either ex-
vessel or wholesale prices. That is the kind of activity our current 
antitrust law is primarily designed to prevent, and this bill will 
leave that unchanged. Processors would continue to be prohibited from 
agreeing on prices unless fishermen participated in and were party to 
any agreement.
  What the bill will accomplish is to strengthen the position of the 
United States seafood industry generally--fishermen and processors 
together. In this, it would apply to fishermen and fish processors in 
all parts of the country, not just in Alaska.
  We look forward to a hearing which will air the views of the Alaska 
fishing industry and the fishing industry in other parts of the 
country, and urge prompt action by this Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S2916]]

                                 S. 533

       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 ``Fishing Industry Bargaining 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS.

       (a) The Act of June 25, 1934 (48 Stat. 1213 and 1214, 
     chapter 742; 15 U.S.C. 521 and 522) is amended--
       (1) in section 2, by striking ``If the Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to section 3, if the Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 3. PRICING.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 2, a price paid 
     pursuant to a collective agreement entered into under 
     subsection (b) shall not constitute a monopolization or 
     restraint of trade in interstate or foreign commerce.
       ``(b) Collective Agreement.--Persons described in the first 
     undesignated paragraph of section 1, acting through one or 
     more associations described in that section, may enter into a 
     collective agreement with fish processors, including fish 
     processors acting though an association of fish processors, 
     that establishes--
       ``(1) the price to be paid to those persons by fish 
     processors for an aquatic product; and
       ``(2) the minimum price that a fish processor may accept 
     for the sale of an aquatic product.
       ``(c) Rules of Construction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section is intended to 
     permit fish processors to collectively agree with other fish 
     processors on a price referred to in subsection (b)(1) 
     without entering into an agreement under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Federal antitrust laws.--The establishment and 
     implementation of a collective agreement under subsection (b) 
     shall not be construed to be a violation of any of the 
     Federal antitrust laws, including--
       ``(A) the Act of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the 
     `Sherman Act' (26 Stat. 209 et seq., chapter 647; 15 U.S.C. 1 
     et seq.);
       ``(B) the Act of October 15, 1914, commonly known as the 
     `Clayton Act' (38 Stat. 730 et seq., chapter 323; 25 U.S.C. 
     12 et seq.);
       ``(C) the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et 
     seq.); and
       ``(D) the Act of June 19, 1936, commonly known as the 
     `Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act' (49 Stat. 1526 et 
     seq., chapter 592; 15 U.S.C. 13, 13a, 13b, 13c, and 21a).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 534. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
to improve the safety of handguns; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                       HANDGUN SAFETY ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the need for increased 
attention to gun safety. Increasingly, children are gaining access to 
loaded and unlocked guns with fatal consequences. Recently, an 8-year-
old girl in Bridgeport, CT, took a gun that was left behind a couch and 
shot and killed her 10-year-old sister.
  These tragedies happen far too frequently. A report from the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention notes that nearly 1.2 million latch-
key children have access to loaded and unlocked firearms each day. 
Children cause over 10,000 unintentional shootings each year in which 
800 people die.
  This violence is not limited to the home. The Connecticut Department 
of Health recently completed a survey of 12,000 Connecticut teenagers 
called the Voice of Connecticut Youth. More than one-third of boys in 
9th and 11th grades said they either had a gun or could get one in less 
than a day. When you consider intentional and unintentional shootings, 
16 children are killed with firearms every day in this country.
  We must put an end to the tragedy of gun violence. We need to take 
steps to ensure that gun owners are storing their guns safely--
unloaded, locked, and out of the reach of children. That is why I am 
cosponsoring Senator Kohl's legislation, S. 428, which requires 
licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers to sell handguns with a 
child safety or locking device. The bill also requires a warning that 
the improper locking or storage of a handgun may result in civil or 
criminal penalties.
  Today I am also introducing a separate measure that would simply add 
another section to Senator Kohl's bill. The section would authorize the 
National Institute of Justice to conduct a study on possible standards 
for gun locks. As we move to have greater use of gun locks, we ought to 
make sure that those locks are high quality.
  These small steps forward could save thousands of lives. They will 
not affect responsible gun owners who are already doing the right 
thing, but they will remind careless gun owners of the need for 
increased safety.
  My home State of Connecticut is out in front on this issue. One of 
our State laws requires locks on handguns, another State law requires 
that guns be stored away from children. But one State can only do so 
much. A gun bought outside our State can become an instrument of 
tragedy within our State. And we also need to make kids across the 
Nation safer. In many ways, this issue is simple--if we require safety 
caps on medicine to protect kids, we should clearly require safety 
locks on guns.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me and Senator Kohl in support of 
these gun safety measures.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill, the 
Handgun Safety Act of 1997, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 534

       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 ``Handgun Safety Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. HANDGUN SAFETY.

       (a) Definition of Locking Device.--Section 921(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(34) The term `locking device' means--
       ``(A) a device that, if installed on a firearm and secured 
     by means of a key or a mechanically-, electronically-, or 
     electromechanically-operated combination lock, prevents the 
     firearm from being discharged without first deactivating or 
     removing the device by means of a key or mechanically-, 
     electronically-, or electromechanically-operated combination 
     lock; or
       ``(B) a locking mechanism incorporated into the design of a 
     firearm that prevents discharge of the firearm by any person 
     who does not have access to the key or other device designed 
     to unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the 
     firearm.''.
       (b) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (x) the 
     following:
       ``(y) Locking Devices and Warnings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     beginning 90 days after the date of enactment of the Handgun 
     Safety Act of 1997, it shall be unlawful for any licensed 
     manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer to sell, 
     deliver, or transfer any handgun--
       ``(A) to any person other than a licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee 
     is provided with a locking device for that handgun; or
       ``(B) to any person, unless the handgun is accompanied by 
     the following warning, which shall appear in conspicuous and 
     legible type in capital letters, and which shall be printed 
     on a label affixed to the gun and on a separate sheet of 
     paper included within the packaging enclosing the handgun:
     `` `THE USE OF A LOCKING DEVICE OR SAFETY LOCK IS ONLY ONE 
     ASPECT OF RESPONSIBLE FIREARM STORAGE. FIREARMS SHOULD BE 
     STORED UNLOADED AND LOCKED IN A LOCATION THAT IS BOTH 
     SEPARATE FROM THEIR AMMUNITION AND INACCESSIBLE TO CHILDREN.

     `FAILURE TO PROPERLY LOCK AND STORE YOUR FIREARM MAY RESULT 
     IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER STATE LAW. IN ADDITION, 
     FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS THE POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN BY A MINOR 
     IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES.'
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) the--
       ``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the 
     United States or a State or a department or agency of the 
     United States, or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
       ``(iii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law 
     enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in 
     clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether 
     on or off-duty); or
       ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of 
     a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off-
     duty).''.
       (c) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating to Locking Devices and Warnings.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of subparagraph 
     (A) or (B) of section 922(y)(1) by a licensee, the Secretary 
     may, after notice and opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee 
     under this chapter; or

[[Page S2917]]

       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $10,000.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 3. STUDY ON STANDARDS FOR LOCKING DEVICES.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the National Institute of Justice shall--
       (1) conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
     developing minimum quality standards for locking devices (as 
     that term is defined in section 921(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code (as amended by this Act)); and
       (2) submit to the Attorney General of the United States and 
     the Secretary of the Treasury a report, which shall include 
     the results of the study under paragraph (1) and any 
     recommendations for legislative or regulatory action.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Glenn, Mr. 
        Cochran, Mr. Burns, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        Leahy, Mr. Bond, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
        Torricelli, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Robb, 
        Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Ford, Mr. 
        D'Amato, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Faircloth, 
        Mr. Levin, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Santorum, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 535. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the establishment of a program for research and training with respect 
to Parkinson's disease; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


   the morris k. udall parkinson's research and education act of 1997

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I proudly reintroduce the Morris K. 
Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act of 1997. This legislation 
addresses the importance of Parkinson's research by authorizing $1 
million for Parkinson's research.

  Approximately 1 million people in this country are afflicted with 
Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's disease is a debilitating, 
degenerative disease which is caused when nerve centers in an 
individual's brain lose their ability to regulate body movements. 
People afflicted by this disease experience tremors, loss of balance 
and repeated falls, loss of memory, confusion, and depression. 
Ultimately, this disease results in total incapacity for an individual 
including the inability to speak. This disease knows no boundaries, 
does not discriminate, and strikes without warning.
  This important piece of legislation honors Mo Udall, a dear friend of 
mine who served as a dedicated Congressman from Arizona for 30 years. 
Mo is remembered most for his warmth, compassion, integrity, and his 
wit. He was a champion of civil rights, political reform, and a 
protector of the environment. In 1980, Congressman Mo Udall was 
diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and he began his valiant battle 
against this disastrous disease. Mo was forced to resign from Congress 
in 1991, his exemplary career prematurely ended by Parkinson's.
  I was fortunate enough to have not only worked with Mo Udall as a 
Representative from Arizona, but to have Mo as a mentor and a close, 
personal friend. Mo's stewardship and integrity would not allow him to 
become involved in partisan politics. When I arrived in Washington, DC, 
as a freshman Congressman from Arizona, Mo reached across the aisle, 
took me under his wing and provided me with guidance, leadership, 
humor, and, most importantly, friendship. I can never begin to 
adequately thank Mo for all that he provided me and his profound impact 
on my early years as a Member of Congress. In some way, I hope that my 
efforts on his behalf and the millions of others with Parkinson's can 
be a token of appreciation for all that Mo has given me and our 
country.
  Personally, I have witnessed the devastating effects and personal 
tolls which Parkinson's disease has on its victims, as I have watched 
this horrible disease wreck havoc on my dear friend, Mo. I have watched 
Mo, his family, and friends wage a daily battle against this painful 
disease. Every day, Mo and millions like him throughout the country 
face a disease which is physically crippling and financially 
devastating. I can truly empathize with the fear and frustration that 
Mo and others like him must be feeling as they become prisoners within 
their own bodies, clinging to the hope that a scientific breakthrough 
may soon be discovered and they will be liberated from their personal 
prison.
  The Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act provides 
the hope Mo and millions like him are looking for. This bill will help 
us make significant scientific progress by increasing the Federal 
Government's financial investment in Parkinson's research for fiscal 
year 1998 by authorizing $1 million.
  An important component of this legislation will be the establishment 
of up to 10 Morris K. Udall Centers for Research on Parkinson's Disease 
throughout the Nation. These centers will be responsible for conducting 
basic and clinical research in addition to delivering care to 
Parkinson's patients. Uniting these three areas will assure that 
research developments will be coordinated and the care delivered to 
patients will be effective, high quality services based upon the most 
recent research developments. The Morris K. Udall Centers will be 
structural in a manner which allows them to become a source for 
developing teaching programs for health care professionals and 
disseminating information for public use.
  In addition, this bill will create a national Parkinson's Disease 
Information Clearinghouse to gather and store pertinent data on 
Parkinson's patients and their families. This collected data will 
facilitate and enhance knowledge and understanding of Parkinson's 
disease.
  This bill will establish a Morris K. Udall Excellence Award to 
recognize publicly the investigators with a proven record of excellence 
and innovation in Parkinson's research and whose work has demonstrated 
significant potential for the diagnosis or treatment of the disease.
  I am heartened by the tremendous progress scientists are making in 
Parkinson's research. There is significant scientific evidence 
indicating that there is very strong potential for major breakthroughs 
in the cause and treatment of Parkinson's in this decade. According to 
a wide array of experts, we are on the verge of substantial, ground-
breaking scientific discoveries regarding the cause and potential cure 
of Parkinson's disease. We need to seize this rare opportunity to 
discover the cause, treatment, and a potential cure for one of the 
Nation's most disabling diseases. It is imperative that we give our 
scientific researchers the necessary funding and support to combat this 
and other neurological diseases, and to improve the lives of many 
Americans.
  This is why we must enact the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research 
and Education Act of 1997. We can't allow this opportunity to make 
significant progress in the area of Parkinson's research slip away 
because of a lack of support for our Nation's scientific researchers.
  Finally, I would like to thank the hundreds of individuals who have 
written or called my office in support of this measure. These 
individuals are committed to seeing this legislation enacted this year 
and are hopeful that Parkinson's research will finally receive a fair 
and justifiable investment from the Federal Government.
  I ask unanimous consent that a small sampling of the many letters I 
have received in support of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's bill from 
actual Parkinson's patients, family, and friends of Parkinson's 
patients, advocate groups, scientists, and physicians be included in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                       Phoenix, AZ, April 1, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: My friend Richard and I first met in 
     the lobby of St. Joseph's Hospital Barrows Neurological 
     Institute in Phoenix Arizona. I was in my late thirties, he 
     was in his early fifties, we had both been diagnosed with 
     Young-Onset-Parkinsons Disease. We were both afraid.
       We became friends as we vowed to fight this disease which 
     was trying to imprison us

[[Page S2918]]

     in our own bodies. We had just learned about the ``Udall 
     Bill.'' We had just learned that scientists promised a cure 
     within three to five years if they received sufficient 
     funding. The ``Udall bill'' could make that happen. We saw 
     the promise of a miracle.
       We talked about it in depth. We knew we had been marked for 
     a slow death and we shared with each other how we feared for 
     our families. I raised my three children as a single parent, 
     and my kids were struggling under the weight that my illness 
     had brought us. Richards' wife had just told him that she 
     couldn't stand living with him as he slowly became a freak to 
     observers and she couldn't stand the strain having to care 
     for him through the pain and slow death. So she left him. He 
     felt it wasn't her fault.
       We knew the enemy. The worst thing of this disease was it's 
     slow tortuous progression. We preferred death rather than the 
     years of Hell we were facing. But it was not a choice. With 
     the Udall bill, we might make it. We still had the will to 
     fight. We grasped at hope. We hoped that we could stand the 
     side effects of our medication and hold out until the bill 
     was passed. Once it did, we knew it would take three years 
     for significant improvement in care--but we grasped at the 
     hope. We dedicated the only functioning time we thought we 
     might have left to getting the bill passed.
       We wrote letters, we visited our representatives, we put up 
     flyers, we scrimped and saved to mail letters to friends and 
     to travel to other states to tell them about the bill, but 
     Richard's disease progressed very quickly. Within a year he 
     had to have an attendant at home to feed him, bathe him, 
     dress him. Then he had to go to a nursing home. He was barely 
     able to whisper, unable to walk, unable to sit up without 
     being tied to his chair--his head hung over and his eyes 
     reflected his suffering--He was fully aware of what was 
     happening every minute of his torture.
       I continued my advocacy efforts, including three trips from 
     Arizona to Washington DC to try to help our Representatives 
     to understand why they should pass the bill. And I would go 
     to the nursing home and report to Richard. Last year we came 
     very close, but we didn't make it. I told Richard and his 
     face and neck were wet with tears as I told him to try to 
     just `hang in there' one more year. I had told him that the 
     year before. We both cried. We were afraid. We were alone. 
     Richard whispered that he knew he'd never hold his 
     grandchildren, but he'd not go down without knowing we'd 
     ``kick Parkinsons in the ass'' first. Richard died of 
     Parkinsons Disease last month.
       I'm 44 years now, I have difficulty walking short distances 
     and my strength struggles for me to sit up. Although my 
     medication's losing effectiveness and side effects don't 
     cease, I'm still here. Still holding on. With your help, I 
     will see the passage of the ``Udall bill for Parkinsons''.
       Thank you for doing all that you are, to help us ``kick 
     Parkinsons in the ass''.
     Maryhelen Davila.
                                                                    ____

                                      Kingwood, TX, April 8, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you so much for your support and 
     concern for the Parkinson's disease community. I have 
     suffered with PD for 22 years. My hopes for a cure have been 
     raised and dashed on several occasions. Without adequate 
     funding PD will dash the hopes of millions of American as the 
     baby boomer generation approaches the age when PD typically 
     strikes.
       Unless you experience if you can't know how awful this 
     disease is. Day after day it takes away the very fiber of who 
     you are, what you might be and what you might do for society 
     your family and yourself. At the age of 52 I can no longer be 
     counted on to perform even the basic duties of life for 
     myself. Wheelchairs, walkers, hospital beds combined with 
     hundreds of dollars of medicine each month are what I count 
     on for mobility. While my husband and family and our support 
     group have been my heroes through these 22 years, their 
     resources are exhausted. The Udall bill gives us all the hope 
     that we need to combat this lousy disease one day at a time 
     until a cure if found.
       Again, thank you for your support for this disease which 
     has been so neglected for so long. In 1817 James Parkinson 
     wrote his paper describing the most prevalent symptoms of 
     this disease. This work 180 years later is still used today 
     to describe in disease. Let 1997 be the year that we change 
     all that. Let it be the year we raise the consciousness of 
     all Americans about the devastation caused by PD and 
     neurological disorders. Let this decade of the brain unravel 
     the mysteries of neurological disorders and let our leaders 
     in Washington pave the way for the cure.
       Do it for Mo, and do it for me. Thanks for listening. This 
     letter was typed by my husband Bob.
           Original signed by,
     Nancy Martone.
                                                                    ____

                                       Manlius, NY, April 1, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for your support and 
     leadership on behalf of people with Parkinson's Disease.
       At the age of forty-nine I was stricken with Parkinson's 
     Disease. I managed to continue working till I retired last 
     year at the age of fifty-six. I was earning about $165,000.00 
     per year as a trial attorney.
       My disability and those with early onset of the disease 
     place a heavy financial burden on the Government and the 
     private sector. I am applying for Social Security Disability 
     plus private disability plans. My medical costs are 
     $18,000.00 plus per year and in two years my medical costs 
     will be another burden on the Social Security trust funds. I 
     estimate that the cost of my illness to society will exceed 
     $1,100,000 if I live to age sixty-seven when I would normally 
     retire.
       I also notice on the internet that Parkinson's Disease is 
     striking younger and younger people and that the mean age of 
     diagnosis is now fifty-seven years old. If this trend 
     continues, more people will be receiving Social Security 
     Trust Funds at an early age and fewer people than expected 
     making contributions.
       As I attend support group meetings, I see many people 
     drained of energy, strength and who are unable to articulate 
     their plight. Scientists and researchers express the 
     possibility of new medicines and a cure if more research 
     dollars are invested as proposed by the Parkinson's Bill. 
     Let's apply more research funds to keep people with 
     Parkinson's Disease working longer and leading a healthier 
     life.
       For those who no longer speak for themselves and myself, I 
     wish to thank you for your support.
           Very truly yours,
     A. Dale Severance.
                                                                    ____

                                     Berkeley, CA, March 20, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I am writing to you regarding the 
     Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Bill which 
     is going to be reintroduced in the Senate next month. As you 
     remember the Udall Bill passed the Senate but stalled in the 
     House in 1996. May I take a minute of your time to explain 
     why the Udall Bill is so important to me?
       My wife Frances, now 57, was diagnosed with Parkinson's 
     Disease nine years ago. She is a clinical psychologist and 
     Jungian analyst who still manages to work, but most people 
     stricken with Parkinson's are not so lucky. Unfortunately 40% 
     of the newly diagnosed cases are people under 60 years of 
     age--this disease of the elderly is hitting middle aged 
     people with disastrous results. The disease is incurable and 
     progressive forcing doctors, lawyers, professors, business 
     people, teachers and artists to give up productive lives. I 
     have seen the devastation of families and careers first hand 
     among the many Parkinson's patients I have met. And I have 
     also seen unbelievable courage, intelligence and absolute 
     brilliance as people try to find a way to live with the 
     disease.
       Without further research there is no hope to cure the 
     disease. The current medications mask the symptoms and that 
     is all. The present national research effort is a joke. There 
     is no unified research agenda and the 30 million dollars 
     allotted to the disease (compared 217 million dollars for 
     Alzheimer's and one and a half billion dollars for AIDS) is 
     not nearly enough. There is terrific research potential but 
     no money. The Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Bill 
     will provide the coordination, the research agenda, and the 
     money. Please help us by cosponsoring the bill, or if you 
     cannot cosponsor it, could you at least vote for it? We 
     desperately need your help!
       I would very much like to talk with you about the Bill if 
     you have any questions (510-527-0966 or 
     [email protected]).
           Thanks so much for your help.

                                             Stephen Tobriner,

                               Professor of Architectural History,
     University of California, Berkeley.
                                                                    ____

                                       Orinda, CA, March 29, 1996.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for agreeing to introduce 
     the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act to 
     the House. I am grateful for your efforts on behalf of this 
     bill.
       My closest friend, Frances Tobriner, was diagnosed with 
     Parkinson's Disease when she was 46 years old. She is now 57 
     years old and is courageously managing to work as a 
     psychologist. I have learned that this disease is not limited 
     to the elderly. Young, talented people are vulnerable. There 
     is no cure for this disease and those of us who are able 
     bodied bear helpless witness to the progressive deterioration 
     of those we care about.
       There are many research possibilities that await funding. I 
     believe that the advances in research will help not only the 
     many victims of Parkinson's disease, but other neurological 
     ailments as well. To date there is no unified research agenda 
     and the relatively small amount of money is not enough. The 
     Udall Parkinson's Research and Education Act will help 
     enormously.
       Thank you for your efforts. Know that you have support 
     among constituents.
           Sincerely yours,
     Sue N. Elkind, Ph.D.
                                                                    ____

                                       Merriam, KS, April 3, 1997.
     Re Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research, Assistance, and 
         Education Act of 1997.

     Hon. John McCain
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator McCain: This is to thank you and Sen. Paul 
     Wellstone for taking the

[[Page S2919]]

     lead in reintroducing the Udall bill in the 105th Congress, 
     as well as the many other Senators who are already supporting 
     the bill.
       A stepped-up effort in research and coordination of that 
     research means added hope for me and my family that a 
     possible cure may be found in time to help me. You see, I was 
     diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease at the age of 44, nearly 
     13 years ago. It was only two years after my marriage to my 
     wonderful husband, who has stood by me ``in sickness'' much 
     sooner than we ever imagined. I managed to follow through on 
     a long-term project, as President of a Kansas City group 
     which established a 100,000-watt FM community radio station 
     in 1988 after 11 years of effort. I kept up with the station 
     and other community interests and part-time teaching pretty 
     much full force until 1990, but since then I have had to cut 
     back more and more. You can't imagine how grateful I am for 
     access to the internet (my husband's idea) which re-
     established my ability to connect to the world.
       My husband who is a community college teacher of 29 years 
     has had to take on domestic duties I once did. His daughter, 
     4 when we married, never remembers when I was a normal, 
     active person. And my aging parents help drive me to the 
     doctors, as my right side is too weak most of the time to 
     allow me to push the gas pedal.
       This disease CAN go the way of polio, tuberculosis, small 
     pox and others--GONE. Maybe not for me, but surely for the 
     thousands of millions who don't yet know they are at risk for 
     it.
           Sincerely,
     Barbara Blake-Krebs.
                                                                    ____

                               East Brunswick, NJ, March 31, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for introducing the Morris 
     Udall Bill for Parkinson's Disease Research. I will make a 
     special trip to Washington on April 9, 1997 to be present at 
     your introduction.
       In 1946 my grandfather, Benjamin Miller, died of 
     complications from bedsores and infection as a result of 
     Parkinson's Disease. He was forced to live with 
     uncontrollable tremors, locked rigid muscles, loss of all 
     motor function and eventually the total incapacity to care 
     for himself. The last 10 years of his life he was in a 
     totally rigid state and toward the end he could only move his 
     eyes. Contrary to our religious law, my mother agreed to 
     allow his body to be used for research believing that the 
     help it might provide others would more than make up for this 
     breach of tradition. She often said that because of her 
     decision, her father played a part in the development and 
     refinement of L-dopa.
       As fate would have it, my brother is now diagnosed with 
     Parkinson's and while his lifestyle is somewhat better than 
     it might have been 50 years ago, his hideous fate is sealed 
     unless the research continues until a definitive cure has 
     been found.
       Through your foresight to introduce the Udall Bill in the 
     105th congress there is great potential for a breakthrough in 
     Parkinson's disease treatment and ultimately the discovery of 
     a cure.
       Thank you again.
           Sincerely,
     Mrs. Barbara Schirloff.
                                                                    ____

         Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Rush 
           University--Department of Neurological Sciences, Center 
           for Brain Repair,
                                       Chicago, IL, April 2, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I was very pleased to hear that you 
     have re-introduced the Udall Bill. As a researcher of 
     Parkinson's disease for 25 years, I can assure you that the 
     bill is timely and that the money will be well spent if the 
     bill is passed. I have witnessed the revolution in this field 
     from the early years of levodopa through the discovery of the 
     neurotoxin MPTP, the implantation of adrenal tissue and now 
     pallidotomy and neural grafting. They have been exciting and 
     productive times and quite frankly, it has just plain been 
     fun doing the work and actually seeing it impact the lives of 
     our patients.
       Currently, my laboratory is working on the mechanisms 
     responsible for the neuroprotection that appears to be 
     occurring with the drug pramipexole. Although the drug itself 
     appears to offer the PHD patient a new and very effective 
     addition to the antiparkinson arsenal, the more interesting 
     aspect of our research is that the drug appears to be turning 
     on the production of a new trophic molecule that has the 
     potential to reverse the neurodegenerative process. We are 
     currently trying to isolate this protein so that it can be 
     tested. Our lab has also recently discovered important 
     signals that influence the development of DA neurons (which 
     die in PD). We can now take so-called progenitor cells and 
     convert them into DA cells from grafting. If we are 
     successful at doing this in human cells, we would be able to 
     provide the world with adequate tissue for grafting on demand 
     and thereby totally bypass the abortion issue since cells 
     from only one abortion could be expanded in the lab to serve 
     the needs of all transplant centers. Finally, we are also 
     trying to determine in humans the cause for levodopa induced 
     hallucinations. We know nothing about this phenomenon except 
     that it is the number one cause for patients being placed in 
     nursing homes and once PD patients enter a nursing home they 
     generally die there.
       As you will hopefully recognize, my laboratory is very 
     vested in the treatment and management of PD. Our approach to 
     this disease is, we feel, novel and appropriate to the 
     current status of knowledge in this field. We are not 
     restricted by ideas. We are restricted by lack of funds. I am 
     not at all reluctant to ask the government for money for 
     research. Having been in this business as long as I have, I 
     have come to recognize that we in science actually spend our 
     research dollars in a frugal and effective manner. We have so 
     little of it we have to make it last and work effectively. I 
     can therefore assure you that this will not be a ``pork'' 
     project but will actually result in the desired and intended 
     effects. I therefore thank you for your efforts to increase 
     funding for my field. Even though I don't necessarily agree 
     with the notion of legislative earmarking for research 
     dollars, PD is a disease where throwing adequate funding at 
     it will have a tremendous impact and likely reduce health 
     care costs dramatically.
       If I can ever be of any help to you in your efforts to make 
     this bill a reality or if you simply need background 
     information, please feel free to contact me. Again, thanks 
     for your help.
           Sincerely,
                                             Paul M. Carvey, Ph.D.
         (Associate Professor of Neurological Sciences and 
           Pharmacology Director, Neuropharmacology Research 
           Laboratories).
                                                                    ____



                                              Redwood City, CA

                                                    April 3, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I am so grateful that you are 
     sponsoring the Udall Bill. I pray that it will pass. We (I am 
     a member of the Parkinsn (sic) Listserv) have been asked to 
     catalog our symptoms for you, so here goes: I was diagnosed 
     with Parkinson's 6 years ago after progressive weird symptoms 
     which I did not realize were significant, such as loss of 
     ability to wash my hair with my left hand, difficulty 
     shuffling and holding cards when I play bridge, a couple of 
     episodes of feeling like I was walking underwater, it was so 
     hard to move; I was diagnosed immediately when seen by a 
     neurologist and put on medication which gave me strange 
     twisting motions of one of my feet. We lowered the dosage. 
     The dyskinesia went away, but the medicine supposedly has a 
     tapering off of effectiveness. So far, it works. I can once 
     again wash my hair with my left hand thanks to the medicine. 
     My illness is progressing, not too fast, but the changes I've 
     had to make are accumulating: walk one mile instead of three, 
     cut back on activities (dropped out of a bridge group, buy 
     instead of make pies, etc., don't crochet or paint--doesn't 
     seem worth the effort) great difficulty in doing up buttons, 
     loss of strength, tire easily, not able to `write' legibly, 
     nor be heard by most people when I speak (young people can 
     usually hear me), have difficulty standing up from chairs, 
     usually can't taste or smell, though I can now and then which 
     makes me impatient for THE CURE, knowing that all is 
     apparently not lost, just somehow not available. I am 
     terribly worried about inability to get long term care health 
     insurance. Nobody will take me and I dread the effect on my 
     husband if he has to spend everything to take care of me. I 
     am blessed with a wonderful, caring husband, who never 
     complains about my increasing dependency on him.
       Bless you for what you have given your country.
           Sincerely,
     Mrs. Elizabeth Southwood.
                                                                    ____



                                    The Parkinson's Institute,

                                     Sunnyvale, CA, April 7, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for your unflagging support 
     of the Udall Parkinson's Research bill. I am writing today to 
     explain why this bill is so important to me, to my colleagues 
     in research and clinical care, and to the patients and 
     families who suffer from Parkinson's disease and other 
     movement disorders.
       I have been a practicing neurologist for more than 25 years 
     and have specialized in Parkinson's disease care and research 
     for the last 15 years. As a scientist in close touch with the 
     international research community in the field of 
     neurodegenerative diseases, I see tremendous potential in a 
     dozen scientific directions for finding a cure for 
     Parkinson's disease within the next decade. That is not a 
     statement I make lightly, nor is it a statement that can be 
     applied across the board to the diseases of aging. Instead, 
     it is based on a careful assessment of the technologies that 
     are open now and to the new technologies opening daily to the 
     scientists who specialize in movement disorders.
       As a physician who sees only patients with Parkinson's 
     disease and related movement disorders--some of which are 
     even more devastating--I realize that every patient I see is

[[Page S2920]]

     under a kind of death watch. Their disease is inexorably 
     progressive; there is no cure; and even the gold standard of 
     medications available cannot control symptoms indefinitely. I 
     have learned, as all physicians must learn, to achieve a 
     certain detachment from the inevitability that faces my 
     patients, but it remains a constant trial to look at these 
     individuals and know that my armamentarium is so limited. 
     Part of the way to deal with this challenge, both for 
     physician and patient, is to take comfort in the fact that 
     there is enormous hope through the efforts of the researchers 
     in my own laboratory and in similar institutions around the 
     world.
       What is needed to take advantage of the new technologies 
     and the enormous pool of talented investigators waiting to 
     use them is to make them available to a much larger number of 
     laboratories; to increase the probability that the critical 
     breakthroughs will occur sooner rather than later. No one 
     laboratory can travel every possible avenue of investigation 
     no matter how impressive their equipment and no matter how 
     many bright young postdoctoral fellows are on staff. Rather, 
     we must seek to multiply the approaches to the puzzling 
     problems that still face us by utilizing the different 
     insights, experience, and research philosophies of a variety 
     of laboratories across the country at academic medical 
     centers, at NIH, and in independent research institutes like 
     our own.
       Ultimately, that takes money and that is where we turn to 
     the Congress for help directed specifically to Parkinson's 
     disease. You know, I'm sure, of the discrepancies in research 
     funding per patient between Parkinson's disease and other 
     disorders. The message I want to send to you today is that 
     research dollars for movement disorders will not be thrown 
     into a black hole of hopelessness, but invested in a national 
     program with tremendous hope for the future.
           Sincerely,
                                        J. William Langston, M.D.,
     President.
                                                                    ____

         APDA Parkinson's Disease Information & Referral Center at 
           the University of Arizona,
                                        Tucson, AZ, April 7, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: We are writing to tell you how 
     grateful we are that you have taken on the role of lead 
     republican sponsor in the Senate for the Morris K. Udall bill 
     for Parkinson's Research. There is tremendous support for 
     this bill in Arizona, not only among Parkinson's patients and 
     their family members, but among an ever-widening circle of 
     physicians, scientists and thoughtful members of the general 
     public. It is clear that research holds the key to improved 
     treatments--even a cure--for Parkinson's disease. Only 
     through research will we find a way to reduce the human 
     suffering and economic burden of this terrible illness.
       In Arizona we have taken a special interest in the Udall 
     bill, partly because it is our state which Mo Udall served so 
     well, partly because our state's attractiveness as a 
     ``retirement'' state means we have a higher proportion of 
     residents in the age range most at risk for PD, and partly 
     because several of our state's medical institutions--the 
     University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson, the 
     Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, and the Mayo clinic 
     in Scottsdale--already oversee extensive Parkinson's research 
     programs.
       Members of the Arizona Chapter of the American Parkinson 
     Disease Association (APDA) and the staff of its associated 
     Information & Referral Center at the University of Arizona 
     have worked hard to educate Arizona residents about 
     Parkinson's disease and the promise of Parkinson's research. 
     The recent Agenda 97 symposium at the University of Arizona 
     brought together Parkinson's researchers, advocates and 
     government officials for a public forum. The outstanding 
     efforts of the APDA committee Arizona Parkinson's Advocates, 
     led by Bob Dolezal, have made the Mo Udall bill a popular 
     cause throughout the State.
       We applaud your efforts and support you one hundred 
     percent. Thank you again for leading the way to passage of 
     the Udall bill in 1997.
           Sincerely,
     Erwin B. Montgomery, Jr., MD,
       Medical Director, APDA Information & Referral Center at the 
     University of Arizona.
     Cynthia A. Holmes, PhD,
       Coordinator, APDA Information & Referral Center at the 
     University of Arizona.
                                                                    ____

                                    Princeton, NJ, March 31, 1997.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Your dedication to bring about the 
     reintroduction of the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease 
     Research and Education Act is most appreciated. The bitter 
     sweet partial victory at the end of the 104th Congressional 
     session was difficult to accept.
       To Americans suffering from this hideous disease, the issue 
     is so clearly defined: there are 1 to 1.5 million people 
     struck with a disease that costs the government 6 billion 
     dollars annually to maintain status quo; whereas an annual 
     investment of 100 million dollars for research would yield a 
     net savings of $124,500,000,000 in five years based on the 
     forecast of eminent scientists who predict major advances in 
     the treatment of or even a possible cure for Parkinson's 
     disease.
       It is with this great anticipation that I face my 17th year 
     living with the disease. During the last number of years, 
     managing my daily minimal activities have become more and 
     more difficult. Since I am only 55 years old, I still have a 
     window of opportunity to re-enter the world of participation 
     rather than inaction. Currently my life revolves around 
     frantically attempting to accomplish somethings during the 
     infrequent and much too short periods of time that my 
     medication kicks in.
       I must believe that with your leadership and guidance the 
     Udall bill will make its perileous journey through the Halls 
     of Congress and will gain enough bi-partisan support for 
     passage and thus insure more adequate research and 
     development funding. For those 50,000 People with Parkinson's 
     who received their diagnosis during this past 12 months and 
     for my own salvation, I join you and your staff in an all-out 
     effort to guarantee the passage of the new Udall bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Margaret Tuchman.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Biden, 
        Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cleland, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Hutchinson, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Reid, Mr. Feingold, and Mrs. 
        Murray):
  S. 536. A bill to amend the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 
to establish a program to support and encourage local communities that 
first demonstrate a comprehensive, long-term commitment to reduce 
substance abuse among youth, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


                 the drug-free communities act of 1997

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as you know the issue of drug use by our 
children is very important to me. I believe that we must do whatever we 
can to protect our children from the harmful effects of illegal drugs. 
The survey by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America recently released 
showed that children continue to cite their parents as a reliable 
source of information about the dangers of drugs. This confirms a 1996 
study by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse which showed that 
the extent parents shouldered responsibility for their kids resisting 
drugs was a key indicator of whether or not their child experimented 
with drugs. Not Presidents, not Federal officials, not television, but 
parents and others who play an integral role in a child's life make the 
difference.
  Today, in conjunction with 13 of my fellow Senators, we are 
introducing the Drug Free Communities Act of 1997. This act will take 
funds currently being spent for less productive areas of the Federal 
drug control budget and route them to community coalitions with proven 
track records. Seeking to make the most efficient use of taxpayer 
dollars, Federal grants will match funding efforts from the private 
sector and the local community.
  It will put resources in the hands of those who make a difference; of 
the people that our children say their opinions they respect. It puts 
the resources at the community level, where parents, teachers, coaches, 
and community leaders can use these resources to educate our children 
about the evils of drug use.
  There are four key features to this legislation, features that make 
it different from existing funding opportunities. First, communities 
must take the initiative. In order to receive support, a community 
coalition must demonstrate that there is a long-term commitment to 
address teen-drug use by having a sustainable coalition that includes 
the involvement of representatives from a wide variety of community 
activists.
  In addition, every coalition must show that it will be around for a 
while. Community coalitions must be in existence for at least 6 months 
prior to applying for funds provided for in this bill, and they are 
only eligible to receive support if they can match these donations 
dollar for dollar with non-Federal funding, up to $100,000 per 
coalition.
  The third key feature of this legislation is an assurance that the 
funds for this bill will come from existing legislation. We plan on 
working closely

[[Page S2921]]

with the members of the Appropriations Committee to find appropriate 
off-sets within the current $16 billion Federal drug control budget.
  An advisory commission, consisting of local community leaders, and 
State and National experts in the field of substance abuse, will 
oversee the implementation of the program at the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy. They will insure the funds are directed to 
communities and programs that make a difference in the lives of our 
children.
  At other times I've talked about the statistics--how drug use is up 
again this year among teens, and how emergency room admissions are 
rising after years of decline, and other depressing statistics. But the 
bill we introduce today is in support of organizations that are on the 
front lines, making a difference in the lives of our children. I urge 
my fellow members to join my colleagues and me in supporting this 
legislation for our children.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 536

       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 ``Drug-Free Communities Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The National Narcotics Leadership Act of 
     1988 (21 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by inserting between sections 1001 and 1002 the 
     following:

         ``CHAPTER 1--OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY'';

     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

                   ``CHAPTER 2--DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES

     ``SEC. 1021. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress finds the following:
       ``(1) Substance abuse among youth has more than doubled in 
     the 5-year period preceding 1996, with substantial increases 
     in the use of marijuana, inhalants, cocaine, methamphetamine, 
     LSD, and heroin.
       ``(2) The most dramatic increases in substance abuse has 
     occurred among 13- and 14-year-olds.
       ``(3) Casual or periodic substance abuse by youth of 1997 
     will contribute to hard core or chronic substance abuse by 
     the next generation of adults.
       ``(4) Substance abuse is at the core of other problems, 
     such as rising violent teenage and violent gang crime, 
     increasing health care costs, HIV infections, teenage 
     pregnancy, high school dropouts, and lower economic 
     productivity.
       ``(5) Increases in substance abuse among youth are due in 
     large part to an erosion of understanding by youth of the 
     high risks associated with substance abuse, and to the 
     softening of peer norms against use.
       ``(6)(A) Substance abuse is a preventable behavior and a 
     treatable disease; and
       ``(B)(i) during the 13-year period beginning with 1979, 
     monthly use of illegal drugs among youth 12 to 17 years of 
     age declined by over 70 percent; and
       ``(ii) data suggests that if parents would simply talk to 
     their children regularly about the dangers of substance 
     abuse, use among youth could be expected to decline by as 
     much as 30 percent.
       ``(7) Community anti-drug coalitions throughout the United 
     States are successfully developing and implementing 
     comprehensive, long-term strategies to reduce substance abuse 
     among youth on a sustained basis.
       ``(8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination 
     through national, State, and local or tribal leadership and 
     partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of 
     substance abuse among youth in communities throughout the 
     United States.

     ``SEC. 1022. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this chapter are--
       ``(1) to reduce substance abuse among youth in communities 
     throughout the United States, and over time, to reduce 
     substance abuse among adults;
       ``(2) to strengthen collaboration among communities, the 
     Federal Government, and State, local, and tribal governments;
       ``(3) to enhance intergovernmental cooperation and 
     coordination on the issue of substance abuse among youth;
       ``(4) to serve as a catalyst for increased citizen 
     participation and greater collaboration among all sectors and 
     organizations of a community that first demonstrates a long-
     term commitment to reducing substance abuse among youth;
       ``(5) to rechannel resources from the fiscal year 1998 
     Federal drug control budget to provide technical assistance, 
     guidance, and financial support to communities that 
     demonstrate a long-term commitment in reducing substance 
     abuse among youth;
       ``(6) to disseminate to communities timely information 
     regarding the state-of-the-art practices and initiatives that 
     have proven to be effective in reducing substance abuse among 
     youth;
       ``(7) to enhance, not supplant, local community initiatives 
     for reducing substance abuse among youth; and
       ``(8) to encourage the creation of and support for 
     community anti-drug coalitions throughout the United States.

     ``SEC. 1023. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator appointed by the Director under section 
     1031(c).
       ``(2) Advisory commission.--The term `Advisory Commission' 
     means the Advisory Commission established under section 1041.
       ``(3) Community.--The term `community' shall have the 
     meaning provided that term by the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Advisory Commission.
       ``(4) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of 
     the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
       ``(5) Eligible coalition.--The term `eligible coalition' 
     means a coalition that meets the applicable criteria under 
     section 1032(a).
       ``(6) Grant recipient.--The term `grant recipient' means 
     the recipient of a grant award under section 1032.
       ``(7) Nonprofit organization.--The term `nonprofit 
     organization' means an organization described under section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt 
     from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       ``(8) Program.--The term `Program' means the program 
     established under section 1031(a).
       ``(9) Substance abuse.--The term `substance abuse' means--
       ``(A) the illegal use or abuse of drugs, including 
     substances listed in schedules I through V of section 112 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812);
       ``(B) the abuses of inhalants; and
       ``(C) the use of alcohol, tobacco, or other related product 
     prohibited by State or local law.
       ``(10) Youth.--The term `youth' shall have the meaning 
     provided that term by the Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Advisory Commission.

     ``SEC. 1024. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to carry out 
     this chapter--
       ``(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(5) $43,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.
       ``(b) Administrative Costs.--Not more than the following 
     percentages of the amounts authorized under subsection (a) 
     may be used to pay administrative costs:
       ``(1) 10 percent for fiscal year 1998.
       ``(2) 6 percent for fiscal year 1999.
       ``(3) 4 percent for fiscal year 2000.
       ``(4) 3 percent for fiscal year 2001.
       ``(5) 3 percent for fiscal year 2002.

         ``Subchapter I--Drug-Free Communities Support Program

     ``SEC. 1031. ESTABLISHMENT OF DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a 
     program to support communities in the development and 
     implementation of comprehensive, long-term plans and programs 
     to prevent and treat substance abuse among youth.
       ``(b) Program.--In carrying out the Program, the Director 
     shall--
       ``(1) make and track grants to grant recipients;
       ``(2) provide for technical assistance and training, data 
     collection, and dissemination of information on state-of-the-
     art practices that the Administrator determines to be 
     effective in reducing substance abuse; and
       ``(3) provide for the general administration of the 
     Program.
       ``(c) Administration.--Not later than 30 days after 
     receiving recommendations from the Advisory Commission under 
     section 1042(a)(1), the Director shall appoint an 
     Administrator to carry out the Program.

     ``SEC. 1032. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.

       ``(a) Grant Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive an 
     initial grant or a renewal grant under this subchapter, a 
     coalition shall meet each of the following criteria:
       ``(1) Application.--The coalition shall submit an 
     application to the Administrator in accordance with section 
     1033(a)(2).
       ``(2) Major sector involvement.--
       ``(A) In general.--The coalition shall consist of 1 or more 
     representatives of each of the following categories:
       ``(i) Youth.
       ``(ii) Parents.
       ``(iii) Businesses.
       ``(iv) The media.
       ``(v) Schools.
       ``(vi) Organizations serving youth.
       ``(vii) Law enforcement.
       ``(viii) Religious organizations.
       ``(ix) Civic and fraternal groups.
       ``(x) Health care professionals.
       ``(xi) State, local, or tribal governmental agencies with 
     expertise in the field of substance abuse (including, if 
     applicable, the State authority with primary authority for 
     substance abuse).
       ``(xii) Other organizations involved in reducing substance 
     abuse.
       ``(B) Elected officials.--If feasible, in addition to 
     representatives from the categories listed in subparagraph 
     (A), the coalition shall have an elected official (or a 
     representative of an elected official) from--

[[Page S2922]]

       ``(i) the Federal Government; and
       ``(ii) the government of the appropriate State and 
     political subdivision thereof or the governing body or an 
     Indian tribe (as that term is defined in section 4(e) of the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e))).
       ``(C) Representation.--An individual who is a member of the 
     coalition may serve on the coalition as a representative of 
     not more than 1 category listed under subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Commitment.--The coalition shall demonstrate, to the 
     satisfaction of the Administrator--
       ``(A) that the representatives of the coalition have worked 
     together on substance abuse reduction initiatives for a 
     period of not less than 6 months, acting through entities 
     such as task forces, subcommittees, or community boards; and
       ``(B) substantial participation from volunteer leaders in 
     the community involved (especially in cooperation with 
     individuals involved with youth such as parents, teachers, 
     coaches, youth workers, and members of the clergy).
       ``(4) Mission and strategies.--The coalition shall, with 
     respect to the community involved--
       ``(A) have as its principal mission the reduction of 
     substance abuse in a comprehensive and long-term manner, with 
     a primary focus on youth in the community;
       ``(B) describe and document the nature and extent of the 
     substance abuse problem in the community;
       ``(C)(i) provide a description of substance abuse 
     prevention and treatment programs and activities in existence 
     at the time of the grant application; and
       ``(ii) identify substance abuse programs and service gaps 
     in the community;
       ``(D) develop a strategic plan to reduce substance abuse 
     among youth in a comprehensive and long-term fashion; and
       ``(E) work to develop a consensus regarding the priorities 
     of the community to combat substance abuse among youth.
       ``(5) Sustainability.--The coalition shall demonstrate that 
     the coalition is an ongoing concern by demonstrating that the 
     coalition--
       ``(A) is--
       ``(i)(I) a nonprofit organization; or
       ``(II) an entity that the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Advisory Commission, determines to be appropriate; 
     or
       ``(ii) part of, or is associated with, an established legal 
     entity;
       ``(B) receives financial support (including, in the 
     discretion of the Administrator, in-kind contributions) from 
     non-Federal sources; and
       ``(C) has a strategy to solicit substantial financial 
     support from non-Federal sources to ensure that the coalition 
     and the programs operated by the coalition are self-
     sustaining.
       ``(6) Accountability.--The coalition shall--
       ``(A) establish a system to measure and report outcomes--
       ``(i) consistent with common indicators and evaluation 
     protocols established by the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Advisory Commission; and
       ``(ii) receives the approval of the Administrator;
        ``(B) conduct--
       ``(i) for an initial grant under this subchapter, an 
     initial benchmark survey of drug use among youth (or use 
     local surveys or performance measures available or accessible 
     in the community at the time of the grant application); and
       ``(ii) biennial surveys (or incorporate local surveys in 
     existence at the time of the evaluation) to measure the 
     progress and effectiveness of the coalition; and
       ``(C) provide assurances that the entity conducting an 
     evaluation under this paragraph, or from which the coalition 
     receives information, has experience--
       ``(i) in gathering data related to substance abuse among 
     youth; or
       ``(ii) in evaluating the effectiveness of community anti-
     drug coalitions.
       ``(b) Grant Amounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Grants.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), for a fiscal 
     year, the Administrator may grant to an eligible coalition 
     under this paragraph, an amount not to exceed the amount of 
     non-Federal funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind 
     contributions, for that fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Renewal grants.--Subject to clause (iii), the 
     Administrator may award a renewal grant to a grant recipient 
     under this subparagraph for each fiscal year following the 
     fiscal year for which an initial grant is awarded, in an 
     amount not to exceed the amount of non-Federal funds raised 
     by the coalition, including in-kind contributions, for that 
     fiscal year, during the 4-year period following the period of 
     the initial grant.
       ``(iii) Limitation.--The amount of a grant award under this 
     subparagraph may not exceed $100,000 for a fiscal year.
       ``(B) Coalition awards.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     Administrator may, with respect to a community, make a grant 
     to 1 eligible coalition that represents that community.
       ``(ii) Exception.--The Administrator may make a grant to 
     more than 1 eligible coalition that represents a community 
     if--

       ``(I) the population of the community exceeds 2,000,000 
     individuals;
       ``(II) the eligible coalitions demonstrate that the 
     coalitions are collaborating with one another; and
       ``(III) each of the coalitions has independently met the 
     requirements set forth in section 1032(a).

       ``(2) Rural coalition grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to awarding grants under 
     paragraph (1), to stimulate the development of coalitions in 
     sparsely populated and rural areas, the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Advisory Commission, may award a grant 
     in accordance with this section to a coalition that 
     represents a county with a population that does not exceed 
     30,000 individuals. In awarding a grant under this paragraph, 
     the Administrator, in consultation with the Advisory 
     Commission, may waive any requirement under subsection (a) if 
     the Administrator, in consultation with the Advisory 
     Commission, considers that waiver to be appropriate.
       ``(ii) Matching requirement.--Subject to subparagraph (C), 
     for a fiscal year, the Administrator may grant to an eligible 
     coalition under this paragraph, an amount not to exceed the 
     amount of non-Federal funds raised by the coalition, 
     including in-kind contributions, for that fiscal year.
       ``(B) Renewal grants.--The Administrator may award a 
     renewal grant to an eligible coalition that is a grant 
     recipient under this paragraph for each fiscal year following 
     the fiscal year for which an initial grant is awarded, in an 
     amount not to exceed the amount of non-Federal funds raised 
     by the coalition, including in-kind contributions, during the 
     4-year period following the period of the initial grant.
       ``(C) Limitations.--
       ``(i) Amount.--The amount of a grant award under this 
     paragraph shall not exceed $50,000 for a fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Awards.--With respect to a county referred to in 
     subparagraph (A), the Administrator may award a grant under 
     this section to not more than 1 eligible coalition that 
     represents the county.

     ``SEC. 1033. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION WITH 
                   RESPECT TO GRANT RECIPIENTS.

       ``(a) Coalition Information.--
       ``(1) General auditing authority.--For the purpose of audit 
     and examination, the Administrator--
       ``(A) shall have access to any books, documents, papers, 
     and records that are pertinent to any grant or grant renewal 
     request under this chapter; and
       ``(B) may periodically request information from a grant 
     recipient to ensure that the grant recipient meets the 
     applicable criteria under section 1032(a).
       ``(2) Application process.--The Administrator shall issue 
     regulations regarding, with respect to the grants awarded 
     under section 1032, the application process, grant renewal, 
     and suspension or withholding of renewal grants. Each 
     application under this paragraph shall be in writing and 
     shall be subject to review by the Administrator.
       ``(3) Reporting.--The Administrator shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable and in a manner consistent with applicable 
     law, minimize reporting requirements by a grant recipient and 
     expedite any application for a renewal grant made under this 
     subchapter.
       ``(b) Data Collection and Dissemination.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator may collect data 
     from--
       ``(A) national substance abuse organizations that work with 
     eligible coalitions, community anti-drug coalitions, 
     departments or agencies of the Federal Government, or State 
     or local governments and the governing bodies of Indian 
     tribes; and
       ``(B) any other entity or organization that carries out 
     activities that relate to the purposes of the Program.
       ``(2) Activities of administrator.--The Administrator may--
       ``(A) evaluate the utility of specific initiatives relating 
     to the purposes of the Program;
       ``(B) engage in research and development activities related 
     to the Program; and
       ``(C) disseminate information described in this subsection 
     to--
       ``(i) eligible coalitions and other substance abuse 
     organizations; and
       ``(ii) the general public.

     ``SEC. 1034. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Technical assistance and agreements.--With respect to 
     any grant recipient or other organization, the Administrator 
     may--
       ``(A) offer technical assistance and training; and
       ``(B) enter into contracts and cooperative agreements.
       ``(2) Coordination of programs.--The Administrator may 
     facilitate the coordination of programs between a grant 
     recipient and other organizations and entities.
       ``(b) Training.--The Administrator may provide training to 
     any representative designated by a grant recipient in--
       ``(1) coalition building;
       ``(2) task force development;
       ``(3) mediation and facilitation, direct service, 
     assessment and evaluation; or
       ``(4) any other activity related to the purposes of the 
     Program.

                  ``Subchapter II--Advisory Commission

     ``SEC. 1041. ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to 
     be known as the `Advisory Commission on Drug-Free 
     Communities'.

[[Page S2923]]

       ``(b) Purpose.--The Advisory Commission shall advise, 
     consult with, and make recommendations to the Administrator 
     concerning matters related to the activities carried out 
     under the Program.

     ``SEC. 1042. DUTIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Advisory Commission--
       ``(1) shall, not later than 30 days after its first 
     meeting, make recommendations to the Director regarding the 
     selection of an Administrator;
       ``(2) may review any grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement proposed to be made by the Program;
       ``(3) may make recommendations to the Administrator 
     regarding the activities of the Program;
       ``(4) may review any policy or criteria established by the 
     Administrator to carry out the Program;
       ``(5) may--
       ``(A) collect, by correspondence or by personal 
     investigation, information concerning initiatives, studies, 
     services, programs, or other activities of coalitions or 
     organizations working in the field of substance abuse in the 
     United States or any other country; and
       ``(B) with the approval of the Administrator, make the 
     information referred to in subparagraph (A) available through 
     appropriate publications or other methods for the benefit of 
     eligible coalitions and the general public; and
       ``(6) may appoint subcommittees and convene workshops and 
     conferences.
       ``(b) Recommendations.--If the Administrator rejects any 
     recommendation of the Advisory Commission under subsection 
     (a)(1), the Administrator shall notify the Advisory 
     Commission and the Director in writing of the reasons for the 
     rejection not later than 15 days after receiving the 
     recommendation.
       ``(c) Conflict of Interest.--A member of the Advisory 
     Commission shall recuse himself or herself from any decision 
     that would constitute a conflict of interest.

     ``SEC. 1043. MEMBERSHIP.

       ``(a) In General.--The President shall appoint 15 members 
     to the Advisory Commission as follows:
       ``(1) 6 members shall be appointed from the general public 
     and shall include leaders--
       ``(A) in fields of youth development, public policy, law, 
     or business; or
       ``(B) of nonprofit organizations or private foundations 
     that fund substance abuse programs.
       ``(2) 6 members shall be appointed from the leading 
     representatives of national substance abuse reduction 
     organizations, of which no fewer than 4 members shall have 
     extensive training or experience in drug prevention.
       ``(3) 3 members shall be appointed from the leading 
     representatives of State substance abuse reduction 
     organizations.
       ``(b) Chairperson.--The Advisory Commission shall elect a 
     chairperson or cochairpersons from among its members.
       ``(c) Ex Officio Members.--The ex officio membership of the 
     Advisory Commission shall consist of any 2 officers or 
     employees of the United States that the Director determines 
     to be necessary for the Advisory Commission to effectively 
     carry out its functions.

     ``SEC. 1044. COMPENSATION.

       ``(a) In General.--Members of the Advisory Commission who 
     are officers or employees of the United States shall not 
     receive any additional compensation for service on the 
     Advisory Commission. The remaining members of the Advisory 
     Commission shall receive, for each day (including travel 
     time) that they are engaged in the performance of the 
     functions of the Advisory Commission, compensation at rates 
     not to exceed the daily equivalent to the annual rate of 
     basic pay payable for grade GS-10 of the General Schedule.
       ``(b) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Advisory 
     Commission shall receive travel expenses, including per diem 
     in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 
     5703 of title 5, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 1045. TERMS OF OFFICE.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the term of 
     office of a member of the Advisory Commission shall be 3 
     years, except that, as designated at the time of 
     appointment--
       ``(1) of the initial members appointed under section 
     1043(a)(1), 2 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years;
       ``(2) of the initial members appointed under section 
     1043(a)(2), 2 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years; and
       ``(3) of the initial members appointed under section 
     1043(a)(3), 1 shall be appointed for a term of 1 year.
       ``(b) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy 
     for an unexpired term of a member shall serve for the 
     remainder of the unexpired term. A member of the Advisory 
     Commission may serve after the expiration of such member's 
     term until a successor has been appointed and taken office.

     ``SEC. 1046. MEETINGS.

       ``(a) In General.--After its initial meeting, the Advisory 
     Commission shall meet at the call of the Chairperson (or 
     Cochairpersons) of the Advisory Commission or a majority of 
     its members or upon the request of the Director or 
     Administrator of the Program for which the Advisory 
     Commission is established.
       ``(b) Quorum.--8 members of the Advisory Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum.

     ``SEC. 1047. STAFF.

       ``The Advisory Commission may elect an executive secretary 
     to facilitate the conduct of business of the Advisory 
     Commission. The Administrator shall make available to the 
     Advisory Commission such staff, information, and other 
     assistance permitted by law as the Advisory Commission may 
     reasonably require to carry out the functions of the Advisory 
     Commission.

     ``SEC. 1048. TERMINATION.

       ``The Advisory Commission shall terminate on the date that 
     is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     chapter.''.
       (b) References.--Each reference in Federal law to subtitle 
     A of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, with the exception of 
     section 1001 of such subtitle, in any provision of law that 
     is in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this 
     Act shall be deemed to be a reference to chapter 1 of the 
     National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (as so designated 
     by this section).

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join the Senator from 
Iowa in being an original cosponsor of the drug-free communities 
legislation.
  In the last 5 years, substance abuse by America's young people has 
more than doubled. Even more troubling, it is taking place at younger 
and younger ages.
  We need to turn this around. And this is a challenge that requires 
the involvement of the whole community--young people, their parents, 
schools, businesspeople, the media, law enforcement, religious 
organizations, civic and fraternal groups, as well as professionals in 
the area of drug abuse treatment.
  Community-based antidrug coalitions have proven their worth in the 
fight against drug abuse. I'm thinking of groups like the Madison 
County Prevention Assistance Coalition Team--or PACT--in Madison 
County, OH. PACT was established in a rural area in central Ohio in 
1991, and rapidly inspired over 50 local substance abuse prevention 
initiatives.
  What PACT did was mobilize the community. Middle school students 
acted as mentors and role models for third graders. Teachers in Head 
Start taught their students about drug abuse prevention. A local church 
held a father-son retreat.
  A research team from Miami University found that Madison County's 
alcohol-related crime dropped by 50 percent. And students are reporting 
a decline in the use and availability of alcohol and other drugs.
  The key is mobilizing the community. The bill we're introducing today 
will help tap into this resource--by redirecting Federal funding to 
community coalitions that have developed comprehensive programs to 
educate children about the dangers of drugs. A similar bill was 
introduced in the House by Representatives Portman, Hastert, Rangel, 
and Levin.
  This bill will channel funds from the fiscal year 1998 drug control 
budget--in the form of matching grants--to community coalitions with 
proven track records. It will enhance programs that work, without 
allocating new funds.
  I think this is exactly the type of legislation we need. It's a 
sensible and cost-effective approach to solving a major problem. And I 
will join my colleague from Iowa in working for its enactment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in introducing today 
with Senator Grassley and others the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997. 
This legislation will help take an important step forward toward a goal 
we all share--keeping kids away from drugs and drugs away from kids.
  This 5 year, $140 million authorization to fund local antidrug 
prevention efforts could be an important catalyst to getting local 
groups together to plan, coordinate, and carry out the wide variety of 
drug prevention treatment activities we all know are necessary to 
reverse the rise of drug abuse among our children. By unleashing the 
talents and energy of local coalitions of local businesses, schools, 
law enforcement, religious organizations, doctors, and others we can 
build community-wide and community-based drug prevention efforts.
  For all these reasons, I am pleased to offer my support for the 
concept embodied in this legislation. But, I must offer two important 
conditions to my support for this bill. First, as potentially valuable 
as antidrug coalitions can be, I do not believe it would be wise for us 
to ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' by trying to fund this drug prevention 
effort by cutting funding for other, worthy drug prevention efforts. It 
is my

[[Page S2924]]

understanding that the other sponsors of this legislation in both the 
House and the Senate share this view, and I look forward to working 
with them to find the modest dollars necessary to fund this effort.
  Second, it is also my understanding that the sponsors of this 
legislation are continuing to work with the Drug Director to iron out 
the bureaucratic details of how this effort will be undertaken at the 
Federal level. I am confident that none of the sponsors of this bill 
have any desire to establish any new layers of wasteful bureaucracy, so 
I look forward to working with them to pass the most efficient, 
effective effort possible.
  This bill offers a key example of the bipartisan support for drug 
prevention and drug treatment efforts which exists at the grassroots 
level throughout our Nation. In the weeks and months ahead, I look 
forward to working with my colleagues in the same bipartisan fashion.
  As my colleagues have heard me note on numerous occasions--our Nation 
stands on the edge of the ``baby boomerang''--with 39 million American 
children under the age of 10, the greatest number since the 1960's. We 
must prepare for these 39 million as they enter their teen years when 
they will be at their greatest likelihood of falling prey to drugs and 
crime. If we do not, we will pay for our lack of foresight with what 
could be the most severe epidemic of youth drug abuse, youth violence, 
and youth crime our Nation has ever suffered.
  Preparing each of these 39 million American children means giving 
them the techniques and the desire to stay away from drugs--in short, 
drug prevention. The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 is one of what 
must be many elements of a comprehensive, nationwide drug prevention 
effort. I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation and I look forward 
to passing it into law.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in the introduction 
of the Drug Free Communities Act and urge its passage. This bill 
responds to a distressing increase in teenage drug use by providing 
startup funding and technical assistance to community coalitions that 
work together to prevent drug use.
  According to the University of Michigan's 1996 Monitoring the Future 
study, more than half of all high school students use illicit drugs by 
the time they graduate. The Office of National Drug Control Policy 
cited in their strategy report that nearly 1 in 4 high school seniors 
used marijuana on a past-month basis in 1996.
  The age for which children start using drugs is declining. While the 
number of teenagers using marijuana increased 37 percent from 1994 to 
1995, the age of first use declined from 17.8 years of age in 1987 to 
16.3 years of age in 1994. There was also a drop in age for first use 
of cocaine from 23.3 years to 19 years old. Drug use is starting at an 
early age.
  Drug abuse costs this country approximately $67 billion a year in 
social, health and criminal costs. But the 14,000 drug-related deaths 
each year cannot be calculated in costs. The destruction of lives of 
the drug users, their families, friends, and neighbors is inevitable.
  The need to correct the trend is imperative and it is communities 
that can do it. Community coalitions are essential for an effective 
prevention program. It is the community groups that see the problem 
first hand and know what is needed in that area to stop children from 
using drugs.
  This bill will provide the incentive for community action groups to 
work together for the sole purpose of drug prevention. Groups 
representing youths, parents, businesses, schools, law enforcement, 
religious organizations, health professionals, as well as government 
agencies will be expected to prepare a strategy and implement it--
together. But the community must be organized first, prior to receiving 
grant funds, in order for the coalition to prove a long-term 
commitment.
  The grants will be distributed to organized community coalitions that 
have matching funds and those funds cannot be derived from the Federal 
Government. This requirement ensures that the coalition has support and 
can be sustained after the grant sunsets. This will not be another 
Federal program, but rather a means to support organized coalitions 
that devise and implement a comprehensive antidrug campaign while they 
get off the ground.
  Several groups in my State have already endorsed this proposal 
including the Syracuse Police Department, the mayor of Syracuse and 
agencies in Onondaga County. Respected national organizations that deal 
with drug and alcohol abuse have also endorsed the proposal including 
DARE, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Partnership for a Drug-Free 
America, and Empower America, among others.
  This is a comprehensive strategy to a problem that is best dealt with 
at the local level. I urge my colleagues to closely review the merits 
of this bill and support its passage. Our communities need it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the 
Drug Free Communities Act.
  The objective of this bill is to protect our greatest national 
resource--our children--from the deadly scourge of drug abuse. And it 
protects them in a way that has been proven through the centuries--by 
strengthening communities. This bill gives local communities the 
support they need to keep drugs away from their young people. And it 
allows them to use it in a way that has proven to be effective in their 
community, and not as some Washington bureaucrat dictates.
  Unfortunately, recent studies of drug use in America demonstrate the 
need for a program such as this. The statistics on substance abuse 
among our Nation's children are particularly disturbing:
  According to the University of Michigan's 1996 study ``Monitoring the 
Future,'' half of all high school students have tried some type of 
illicit drug by the time they graduate. Drug use among eighth graders 
has risen 150 percent in the last 5 years. Overall, drug use for 
children between the ages of 12 and 17 has increased more than 100 
percent, from 5.3 percent in 1992 to 10.9 percent in 1995.
  The drug most often used by these children continues to be marijuana. 
More children are smoking marijuana and they are starting to do so at a 
younger age. According to the ``Monitoring the Future'' study, almost 
25 percent of high school seniors had used marijuana during the 
previous month. Between 1994 and 1995, the rate of use among 12- to 17-
year-olds increased 37 percent, from 6 percent to over 8 percent.
  And the use of marijuana often leads to the use of stronger and more 
dangerous drugs. A study completed by Columbia University's Center on 
Addiction and Substance Abuse found that children who smoke marijuana 
are 85 times more likely to try cocaine than children who have never 
tried marijuana.
  The use of cocaine and heroin among our children is also on the 
increase. Among high school seniors in 1996, over 7 percent had tried 
cocaine at some time. And the number of younger children experimenting 
with these drugs is alarming. During the last 5 years, heroin use among 
8th to 12th graders and the number of 8th graders who had tried cocaine 
had doubled.
  So what can we do to help our youth reject the temptation to use 
drugs? We can help families to convince kids that they must never even 
try illegal drugs.
  That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Drug-Free Communities 
Act of 1997, which we are here to introduce today. This bill will help 
communities reduce drug use among youth by providing matching grants of 
up to $100,000 to community coalitions for the establishment of 
programs designed to prevent and treat substance abuse in young people. 
These grants will be used to provide support to local communities who 
have proven their long-term commitment to reducing drug use among 
youth. It includes provisions for an advisory commission of substance 
abuse experts to oversee the program, to ensure that grants go only to 
those programs that have demonstrated success in keeping our children 
and grandchildren off drugs.
  There are several reasons why every Member of Congress should support 
this bill:
  This program helps local communities in a way that is consistent with 
the 1997 strategy of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The 
No. 1 goal of the strategy is to encourage

[[Page S2925]]

America's youth to reject illegal drugs by assisting community 
coalitions to develop programs that will accomplish this goal. The 
grants provided for in the Drug Free Communities Act will establish a 
partnership between the Federal Government and local communities.
  There are safeguards to prevent abuse of the program. Only 
established groups that can provide matching funds will be eligible to 
receive funding. This ensures that only programs that have a proven 
track record of success in fighting drug abuse among our young people 
will receive funding.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill. 
Our children's future depends on keeping them free of drugs, and this 
legislation will help those groups who can make a difference in the 
lives of our youth. There is no greater service that we can provide to 
our country than to keep our children drug-free.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor 
of the Drug Free Communities Act of 1997. This bill will lend a helping 
hand to local coalitions that are leading the fight against substance 
abuse.
  Few would argue that substance abuse, particularly among our youth, 
is a growing problem in communities across our Nation. Drug use among 
teens has increased sharply in recent years. There is reason to 
believe, however, that local coalitions, reflecting a broad cross-
section of the communities they serve, can do much to combat drug use 
among youths as well as adults.
  The Drug Free Communities Act would lend important assistance to 
these coalitions. Specifically, the bill would authorize grants of up 
to $100,000 to local coalitions whose principal mission is the 
reduction of substance abuse. To be eligible for a grant, a coalition 
must include representatives from the religious, business, law 
enforcement, education, parental, and health care communities, as well 
as local government officials, in the geographic region served by the 
coalition. To enhance coalition accountability--and thus to direct 
resources to the most successful coalitions--a participating coalition 
would be required to conduct an initial benchmark survey of drug use in 
its community, followed by biennal surveys. No new funding would be 
needed for the bill, as grant moneys would be drawn from the existing 
budget of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
  In short, Mr. President, this bill recognizes that the efforts of 
local leaders are indispensable in the war on drugs. I am proud to 
support those efforts, and look forward to passage of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mrs. Murray, Ms. 
        Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Mr. Biden, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Ford, Mr. Reid, 
        Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Reed, Mr. Mack, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Levin, Mr. Frist, Mr. Bond, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
        Specter, Mr. Burns, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Coats, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. 
        Lieberman):
  S. 537. A bill to amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to 
revise and extend the mammography quality standards program; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                 the mammography quality standards act

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am honored to be joined by my 
colleagues, both men and women from both sides of the aisle, in 
introducing the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards 
Act [MQSA]. The bill I am introducing today reauthorizes the original 
legislation which passed in 1992 with bipartisan support.

  What MQSA does is require that all facilities that provide mammograms 
meet key safety and quality-assurance standards in the area of 
personnel, equipment, and operating procedures. Before the law passed, 
tests were misread, women were misdiagnosed, and people died as a 
result of sloppy work. Since 1992, MQSA has been successful in bringing 
facilities into compliance with the Federal standards.
  What are these national, uniform quality standards for mammography? 
Well, facilities are required to use equipment designed specifically 
for mammography. Only radiological technologists can perform 
mammography. Only qualified doctors can interpret the results of 
mammography. Facilities must establish a quality assurance and control 
program to ensure reliability, clarity, and accurate interpretation of 
mammograms. Facilities must be inspected annually by qualified 
inspectors. Finally, facilities must be accredited by an accrediting 
body approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  This current reauthorization makes a few minor changes to the law to 
ensure the following: Patients and referring physicians must be advised 
of any mammography facility deficiency. Women are guaranteed the right 
to obtain an original of their mammogram. Finally, both State and local 
government agencies are permitted to have inspection authority.
  I like this law because it has saved lives. The frontline against 
breast cancer is mammography. We know that early detection saves lives. 
But a mammogram is worse than useless if it produces a poor-quality 
image or is misinterpreted. The first rule of all medical treatment is: 
Above all things, do no harm. And a bad mammogram can do real harm by 
leading a woman and her doctor to believe that nothing is wrong when 
something is. The result can be unnecessary suffering or even a death 
that could have been prevented. That is why this legislation is so 
important. This law must be reauthorized so that we don't go back to 
the old days when women's lives were in jeopardy.
  I want to make sure that women's health care needs are met 
comprehensively. It is expected that 180,000 new cases of breast cancer 
will be diagnosed and about 44,000 women will die from the disease in 
1997. This makes breast cancer the most common cancer among women. And 
only lung cancer causes more deaths in women.
  We must aggressively pursue prevention in our war on breast cancer. I 
pledge to fight for new attitudes and find new ways to end the needless 
pain and death that too many American women face. This bill is an 
important step in that direction. On behalf of all the women of the 
Senate, I invite the men of the Senate who have not already cosponsored 
to do so. The women of America are counting on your support.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support, as 
an original cosponsor of the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality 
Standards Act [MQSA].
  I first lent my support to this effort when the MQSA was initially 
introduced and passed in the 102nd Congress. For the past 5 years, this 
critically important legislation has provided women with safe and 
reliable mammography services. As the Mammography Quality Standards Act 
comes up for reauthorization, I urge all of my fellow colleagues to 
once again make a commitment to the health and well being of America's 
women by supporting this legislation.
  Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer to affect women. In 
fact, almost 1 in 9 women will develop breast cancer at some point in 
their lives. Mammography, while not a cure for cancer, provides the 
best detection system for diagnosing this dangerous and deadly disease. 
And, early detection of breast cancer is often the key to effective 
treatment and recovery.
  The Mammography Quality Standards Act ensures that mammography 
service providers comply with Federal requirements. These quality 
standards guard against inaccurate or inconclusive mammography results, 
thereby reducing the costly procedures associated with false positive 
diagnoses.
  Before this legislation was originally enacted, women were often at 
the mercy of their mammography service provider, unaware if these 
providers lacked the necessary equipment, or even adequately trained 
technicians. The MQSA is helping to effectively eliminate concerns of 
substandard mammography and its possibly tragic results by assuring 
that only the correct radiological equipment is used in

[[Page S2926]]

mammography testing. Further, this legislation is assuring women that 
only physicians adequately trained in this medical area are 
interpreting mammograms.
  New to this legislation are some additional requirements which seek 
to further assure women that their mammogram service produces the most 
accurate and timely detection of any irregularities. Mammography 
service providers will now be required to retain women's mammogram 
records so that an accurate medical history is maintained. 
Reauthorization of these quality standards will also ensure that 
patients are notified about substandard mammography facilities.
  I wish to commend Senator Mikulski for her leadership on this crucial 
legislation. Again, it is my pleasure to join my colleagues in ensuring 
that quality mammography service is readily available, and I urge the 
Senate to act quickly and approve this critically important measure for 
American women.

                          ____________________