[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 86 (Thursday, June 19, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6000-S6005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MACK (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 937. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
provide for the cancellation of 6 existing leases and to ban all new 
leasing activities in the area off the coast of Florida, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                      FLORIDA COAST PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Graham, to introduce the Florida Coast Protection Act. This legislation 
will cancel the six oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf 
closest to Florida's coast. Representative Scarborough is leading a 
similar effort in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. President, Floridians have always been justifiably concerned 
about the prospect of oil and gas exploration in the waters off our 
State. We are well aware of the risk this activity poses to our 
environment and our economy.
  Throughout my tenure in the Senate I have opposed exploration and 
drilling off Florida's coasts. My goal--and the goal the entire Florida 
congressional delegation--is to permanently remove this threat from our 
coastlines. In recent years, we have stood together in opposition to 
drilling and have successfully extended the annual moratorium on all 
new leasing activities on Florida's continental shelf.
  The reason for our concern is simple, Mr. President. In Florida, a 
healthy environment means a healthy economy. Millions of people come to 
our State each year to enjoy the climate, the coastlines, and our fine 
quality of life. It would only take one disaster to end Florida's good 
standing as America's vacationland and we cannot afford to let that 
happen.
  Mr. President, if the current exploration plan runs its course, there 
is the potential for the operation of up to 400 drill rigs off 
Florida's panhandle. A recent permit report from the Environmental 
Protection Agency states that a typical rig can be expected to 
discharge between 6,500 and 13,000 barrels of waste. This presents a 
huge potential for damage to our near-shore coastal waters and beaches. 
The report warns of further harmful impact on marine mammal 
populations, fish populations, and air quality. We cannot afford these 
risks in Florida and we do not want these risks in Florida.
  But while the opposition of Floridians to oil drilling is well 
documented, the reality remains that leases have been let, potential 
drilling sites have been explored and it is likely that actual 
extraction of resources will take place 17 miles off the coast of 
Florida. Mr. President, if this is allowed to happen, the drill rigs 
will be within the line of sight from vacationers in Pensacola. This 
Congress must not allow that to happen.
  The legislation we are introducing today is very simple. It provides 
for cancellation of the lease tract 17 miles off Pensacola. Under the 
OCS Lands Act, Mr. President, the current holders of these leases would 
be entitled to fair compensation for their investment. This is only 
fair. The bill also makes permanent the moratorium on any new leasing 
activity in order to ensure the past mistake of leasing in the OCS off 
Florida is not repeated.
  If the threat of oil and gas exploration is to be permanently removed 
from our shores, it will require responsible leadership from the 
Congress. This legislation, in my view, is absolutely necessary to 
protect our state's economic and environmental well-being.
  I urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile effort.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague 
Senator Mack in introducing the Florida Coast Protection Act today. It 
represents the next step in the State of Florida's long battle to 
preserve our beautiful coastal and marine ecosystem.
  Floridians oppose offshore oil drilling because of the threat it 
presents to the State's greatest natural and economic resource: our 
coastal environment. Florida's beaches, fisheries, and wildlife draw 
millions of tourists each year from around the globe, supporting our 
State's largest industry. Tourism supports, directly or indirectly, 
millions of jobs all across Florida, and the industry generates 
billions of dollars every year.
  The Florida coastline boasts some of the richest estuarine areas in 
the world. These brackish waters, with their mangrove forests and 
seagrass beds, provide an irreplaceable link in the life cycle of many 
species, both marine and terrestrial. Florida's commercial fishing 
industry relies on these estuaries because they support the nurseries 
for the most commercially harvested fish. Perhaps the most 
environmentally delicate regions in the gulf, estuaries could be 
damaged beyond repair by a relatively small oil spill.
  Over the years, we have met with some success in our effort to 
protect Florida's OCS. In 1995, the lawsuit surrounding the 
cancellation of the leases around the Florida Keys was settled, 
removing the immediate threat of oil and gas drilling from what is an 
extremely sensitive area. While I believe strongly that a long-term 
strategy is needed for the entire Florida coastline, the legislation we 
are introducing today focuses on a more near-term goal: to cancel six 
leases in an area 17 miles off the coast from Pensacola. The bill 
provides a mechanism for leaseholders to seek compensation under 
section 5 of the OCS Lands Act. Both Senator Mack and I believe the 
leaseholders have the absolute right to just compensation from the 
Federal Government in order to recover their investment.
  As the member of the Florida delegation who serves on the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee--the committee with jurisdiction over this 
issue--I anticipate a difficult and precarious road to enactment. But 
the Florida delegation as a whole has no other choice than to pursue 
with all our combined abilities the goal we envision: to take another 
major step toward ensuring the wellbeing of the Outer Continental Shelf 
offshore the State of Florida.
  In addition to introducing this legislation today, Senator Mack and I 
intend to write to Chairman Frank Murkowski of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee to request a hearing on this bill as soon as 
possible. Floridians will have our very best effort to make the Florida 
Coast Protection Act Federal law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND (for himself and Mr. Bumpers):
  S. 938. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
surveillance, research, and services aimed at the prevention and 
cessation of prenatal and postnatal smoking, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


             THE MOTHERS AND INFANTS HEALTH PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mothers and 
Infants Health Protection Act on behalf of myself and Senator Bumpers. 
First, I express my sincere thanks to my colleagues in the Senate last 
week for having passed the Birth Defects Prevention Act. That act was a 
tremendous step forward in protecting the health of our Nation's most 
vulnerable population and in saving families from the economic and 
emotional hardships associated with birth defects.

[[Page S6001]]

  However, we must keep moving forward. After having had numerous 
discussions with the Centers for Disease Control and child advocacy 
organizations about the adverse birth outcomes and infant health 
problems connected with smoking during and after pregnancy, I decided 
we would introduce this legislation here today to carry the next step 
in our battle against birth defects.
  The main purpose of the measure introduced today is to provide 
surveillance, research, and services aimed at the prevention and 
cessation of smoking, both during and after pregnancy. The CDC, along 
with the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, is meeting 
today here in Washington to highlight that although the overall smoking 
rate for pregnant women is slowly declining, the smoking rate for 
pregnant teens is increasing. That is bad news. For black teenagers 
specifically, the rate rose 6 percent, the first increase since this 
information first became available in 1989. And even with this 
increase, smoking rates for white teenagers are still four to five 
times the rate for black teenagers. Furthermore, the smoking rate for 
those between the ages of 15 and 24 is 23 percent higher than the 
smoking rate among all pregnant women.
  In my home State of Missouri, this public health program is even more 
dramatic: 20 percent of all pregnant women in Missouri admit to 
smoking. This is 44 percent higher than the national average. This, 
unfortunately, may be connected to the fact that our incidence of birth 
defects and infant mortality is 50 percent higher than the national 
average.
  The consequences of smoking during and after pregnancy are downright 
horrifying. Recent studies show that this activity is a problem. 
Increases in maternal and fetal risk causes 20 to 30 percent of low 
birth rates and 10 percent of fetal and infant deaths in the United 
States.
  Smoking triples the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Smoking 
elevates the risk of a child being born with a birth defect. Smoking 
increases the risk of spontaneous abortion, premature rupture of 
membranes, and the delivery of a stillborn infant. Smoking may impede 
the growth of a fetus and increase the likelihood of mental retardation 
by 50 percent, and smoking increases the risk of respiratory illness in 
infants and children.
  Adding to this devastating problem, the proportion of women who quit 
smoking during pregnancy but then relapse at 6 months postpartum is 
nearly 63 percent, thereby exposing their infants to passive smoke and 
increasing their risk for SIDS and other health-related problems.
  These are just a few of the problems related to smoking during and 
after pregnancy. But in addition to the risks for the fetus and infant, 
smoking is associated with a wide variety of hazards for pregnant 
women, such as infertility and ectopic pregnancy.
  There is no question that smoking during and after pregnancy is a 
compelling public health problem. These facts clearly underscore the 
necessity for smoking prevention and cessation programs aimed 
specifically for pregnant women. This legislation aims to reverse these 
devastating outcomes on several fronts.
  First, the CDC is directed to foster coordination between all 
governmental levels, other public entities, and private voluntary 
organizations that conduct or support prenatal and postnatal smoking 
research, prevention, and surveillance.
  Second, the bill provides grants to state and local health 
departments, community health centers, other public entities, and non-
profit organizations for the development of community-based public 
awareness campaigns aimed at the prevention and cessation of smoking 
during and after pregnancy.
  Third, monies would be made available to the groups just mentioned 
for the purpose of coordinating and conducting basic and applied 
research concerning prenatal and postnatal smoking and its effects on 
fetuses and newborns.
  Fourth, the bill calls for a procedure for the dissemination of 
effective prevention and cessation strategies and the diagnostic 
criteria for infants suffering the effects of exposure to intrauterine 
and passive tobacco smoke to health care professionals.
  Finally, this measure authorizes a modest appropriation of $10 
million to achieve these goals.
  Similar to the Birth Defects Prevention Act, this is another stride 
in improving the health of our children and in reducing infant 
mortality and morbidity.
  Fetuses, newborns, and children are too vulnerable and cannot protect 
themselves. We must therefore have a coordinated effort among 
government, nonprofit groups and local communities to get the message 
out on the devastating outcomes associated with pre and post natal 
smoking as well as information on effective prevention and cessation 
opportunities.
  Again, it is important to note that overall, fewer pregnant women are 
smoking now that they know the health risks for themselves and for 
their babies. The bad news is that not everyone has gotten the 
message--in particular those between the ages of 15 and 24. They are 
moving directly against the trend.
  This is the generation coming up; and these women are likely to go on 
having more children. If they are smoking more, that does not bode well 
for their future health, or for that of their children.
  Many people still do not understand that there is a link between 
adverse birth outcomes and prenatal and postnatal smoking. Part of the 
reason is that not all women have adequate access to prenatal care.
  Thus, it is my firm belief that this legislation will ensure that all 
mothers will receive information on the potential tragedies of smoking 
during and after pregnancy and the much needed assistance in quitting 
their habit.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me first extend my sincere and 
profound gratitude to Senator Bond for creating and being the 
originator of this legislation. I am honored he has asked me to be his 
chief cosponsor.
  I just want to say for the Record and for those who may be watching, 
I remember when I was Governor of my State and my wife, Betty, was 
first lady. She had spent 2 years laying the groundwork for a statewide 
immunization program. It was a howling success. We immunized 300,000 
children one Saturday without a single reaction. That evening I said, 
``Betty, you ought to take great pride in what you just accomplished 
today.'' She said, ``I do. Of course, this is good for your political 
career and it is good for the babies who were immunized today, but it 
is certainly no final solution because we will lapse right back into 
the lethargy we have experienced and watched for years with low 
immunization rates among children who are yet to be born.'' She said 
until we institutionalize a program that can track each child's 
immunizations from birth through early childhood we will not have 
succeeded. Thanks to her efforts and many others, including Rosalynn 
Carter, and the program Every Child By Two, immunization levels in this 
country are now at an all-time high.
  The same principle applies in this case. Once we get this bill 
passed, and we will get it passed, it is imperative that we follow it 
up year after year after year so we do not lapse into the condition we 
are in right now where the rate of smoking among teenage women, 
pregnant teenage women, is going up. We got it down to 14 percent and 
now it is back up to 17 percent.
  If you ask that same teenage mother, what and whom do you love most, 
she loves mostly that fetus that lies inside her womb, and when that 
baby is born, she loves that baby above everything under the shining 
sun--above all else.
  So ask yourself, why would a woman, or why would parents smoke during 
pregnancy, and why would parents smoke after the baby is born? Every 
pediatrician in the country will tell you horror stories about sending 
children home after asthma attacks, only to see them come back with 
another asthma attack because people are smoking in the household.
  Senator Bond and I are asking for $10 million for this new 
initiative, an infinitesimal sum when compared to the savings it will 
produce. Hubert Humphrey stood at that desk right there. I never will 
forget the speech he made. ``We don't have national health insurance. 
What we have is national sick insurance. It isn't worth anything until 
you get sick.'' He told me about preventive programs that Ford Motor 
Company had instituted among all their employees and how much they

[[Page S6002]]

were saving on health care costs through preventive medicine.
  Here we are now with a chance to save 10 to 100 times more than the 
paltry $10 million we will spend educating pregnant women in this 
country and telling them the consequences of asthma and low-birthweight 
babies. After the baby is born, one of the biggest single problems is 
sudden infant death syndrome. One of its causes is smoking around 
newborn babies.
  Mr. President, I am honored to join my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Bond, in pushing this. I hope we will be able to get hearings 
on this very shortly. Incidentally, I hope that the Centers for Disease 
Control will not just conduct outreach and education among pregnant 
women. I hope they will also work to educate the College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics. 
Sometimes the very best professionals neglect and forget to tell 
pregnant women how to conduct themselves during pregnancy. I do not 
think that is a big problem, but I do think providers must be made 
acutely aware that they have this grave responsibility to at least tell 
pregnant women what they are up against and tell women what they must 
do when they go home from the hospital with a newborn.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN:
  S. 939. A bill to establish a National Panel on Early Reading 
Research and Effective Reading Instruction; to the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources.


          THE SUCCESSFUL READING RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION ACT

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Successful 
Reading Research and Instruction Act. It establishes a panel that will 
include parents, scientists, and educators to conduct a study of the 
research relevant to reading development and advise the Congress of its 
recommendations for disseminating its findings and instruction 
suggestions to those who would like to have them.
  Reading is the skill students must master to meet life challenges in 
a confident and successful manner. For a child, breaking the code of 
written language not only opens academic opportunities; it is a 
cornerstone to building high self esteem. Both reading and self esteem 
affect the knowledge and experiences that form a child's character and 
future.
  Teaching children to read is the highest priority in education today. 
Many teachers and parents I've talked with are frustrated and confused 
about what method of reading instruction is best. Every American should 
be concerned that 40 to 60 percent of elementary school children are 
not reading proficiently. Even more disturbing is research that shows 
fewer than one child in eight who is failing to read by the end of 
first grade ever catches up to grade level.
  Success in reading is essential if one is to progress socially and 
economically. In fact, most of the federally funded literacy programs 
are targeted to helping adults learn to read because the education 
system failed them, and more than likely, failed them at an early age.
  This indicates that we need to start solving the problem of poor 
readers at the beginning, instead of working backward. It seems to me 
that the first step to finding a solution is to seriously analyze 
sound, rigorous research on the subject.
  Mr. President, at a hearing on April 16, of the Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, I 
brought to the attention of the Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, 
research by the National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985, and 
asked that he use such research in the development of federally 
supported reading programs. This research is ongoing, in a 
collaborative network with multidisciplinary research programs to study 
genetics, brain pathology, developmental process and phonetic 
acquisition. NICHD has spent over $100 million over the past 15 years, 
and has studied approximately ten thousand children.

  On June 11 of this year, when officials from the National Institutes 
of Health came before the same appropriations subcommittee, I asked Dr. 
Duane Alexander, the Director of NICHD, about this study. Dr. 
Alexander's testimony about the research confirmed what I suspect most 
teachers already know--at least 20 percent of children have difficulty 
learning to read. But the research also suggests that 90 to 95 percent 
of these can be brought up to average reading level.
  As a result of this research, techniques for early identification of 
those with reading problems and intervention strategies are now known. 
But administrators, teachers, tutors and parents are not aware of the 
key principles of effective reading instruction. The NICHD findings 
underscore the need to do a better job of teacher training, as 
researchers found fewer than 10 percent of teachers actually know how 
to teach reading to children who don't learn reading automatically.
  I am surprised that the Department of Education hasn't looked to this 
study and found a way to effectively get the information to teachers, 
schools, parents, and most importantly, teacher colleges.
  What scientists have learned from their studies of reading hasn't 
been passed on to the teachers who are teaching, so parents are telling 
us their kids aren't reading. It is time we put all this experience 
together; come up with suggestions for dealing with the problems and, 
if schools, teachers, parents or higher education institutions want the 
information, let's make it available.
  This is a proposal to develop answers that are based on scientific, 
model based research. I think it can be a helpful beginning for 
successful reading instruction.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Dr. Duane Alexander's 
testimony and a copy of my bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 939

       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 ``Successful Reading Research 
     and Instruction Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) At least 20 percent, and in some States 50 to 60 
     percent, of children in elementary school cannot read at 
     basic levels. The children cannot read fluently and do not 
     understand what they read.
       (2) Research suggests that the majority of the children, at 
     least 90 to 95 percent, can be brought up to average reading 
     skills if--
       (A) children at risk for reading failure are identified 
     during the kindergarten and first grade years; and
       (B) early intervention programs that combine instruction in 
     phonological awareness, phonics, and reading comprehension 
     are provided by well-trained teachers.
       (3) If the early intervention programs described in 
     paragraph (2)(B) are delayed until the children reach 9 years 
     of age (the time that most children are identified), 
     approximately 75 percent of the children will continue to 
     have reading difficulties through high school.
       (4) While older children and adults can be taught to read, 
     the time and expense of doing so is enormous.
       (b) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to conduct an assessment of research and knowledge 
     relevant to early reading development, and instruction in 
     early reading, to determine the readiness of the research and 
     knowledge for application in the Nation's classrooms; and
       (2) if appropriate, to develop a national strategy for the 
     rapid dissemination of the research and knowledge to teachers 
     and schools throughout the United States as a means of 
     facilitating effective early reading instruction; and
       (3) to develop a plan for additional research regarding 
     early reading development, and instruction in early reading, 
     if the additional research is warranted.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL PANEL.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Education, or the 
     Secretary's designee, and the Director of the National 
     Institute of Child Health and Human Development, or the 
     Director's designee, jointly shall--
       (1) establish a National Panel on Early Reading Research 
     and Effective Reading Instruction;
       (2) establish the membership of the panel in accordance 
     with subsection (b);
       (3) select a chairperson of the panel;
       (4) provide the staff and support necessary for the panel 
     to carry out the panel's duties; and
       (5) prepare and submit to Congress a report regarding the 
     findings and recommendations of the panel.
       (b) Membership.--The panel shall be composed of 15 
     individuals, who are not officers

[[Page S6003]]

     or employees of the Federal Government. The panel shall 
     include leading scientists in reading research, 
     representatives of colleges of education, reading teachers, 
     educational administrators, and parents.
       (c) Duties.--The panel shall--
       (1) conduct a thorough study of the research and knowledge 
     relevant to early reading development, and instruction in 
     early reading, including research described in section 9 of 
     the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 281 
     note);
       (2) determine which research findings and what knowledge 
     are available for application in the Nation's classrooms; and
       (3) determine how to disseminate the research findings and 
     knowledge to the Nation's schools and classrooms.
       (d) Termination.--The panel shall terminate 9 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


                    Testimony of Dr. Duane Alexander

       Thank you Senator Cochran:
       I think that it is important to point out that our 
     intensive research efforts in reading development and 
     disorders is motivated to a great extent by our seeing 
     difficulties learning to read as not only an educational 
     problem, but also a major public health issue. Simply put, if 
     a youngster does not learn to read, he or she will simply not 
     likely to make it in life. Our longitudinal studies that 
     study children from age five through their high school years 
     have shown us how tender these kids are with respect to their 
     own response to reading failure. By the end of the first 
     grade, we begin to notice substantial decreases in the 
     children's self-esteem, self-concept, and motivation to learn 
     to read if they have not been able to master reading skills 
     and keep up with their age-mates. As we follow them through 
     elementary and middle school these problems compound, and in 
     many cases very bright youngsters are deprived of the wonders 
     of literature, history, science, and mathematics because they 
     can not read the grade-level textbooks. By high school, these 
     children's potential for entering college has decreased to 
     almost nil, with few choices available to them with respect 
     to occupational and vocational opportunities.
       In studying approximately 10 thousand children over the 
     past 15 years, we have learned the following:
       (1) At least 20%, and in some states 50 to 60%, of children 
     in the elementary grades can not read at basic levels. They 
     can not read fluently and they do not understand what they 
     read.
       (2) However, the majority of these children--at least 90 to 
     95%--can be brought up to average reading skills IF:
       (A) children at-risk for reading failure are identified 
     during the kindergarten and first grade years and,
       (B) early intervention programs that combine instruction in 
     phonological awareness, phonics, and reading comprehension 
     are provided by well trained teachers. If we delay 
     intervention until nine-years-of-age (the time that most 
     children are currently identified), approximately 75% of the 
     children will continue to have reading difficulties through 
     high school. While older children and adults CAN be taught to 
     read, the time and expense of doing so is enormous.
       (3) We have learned that phonological awareness--the 
     understanding that words are made up of sound segments called 
     phonemes--plans a casual role in reading acquisition, and 
     that it is a good predictor because it is a foundational 
     ability underlying basic reading skills.
       (4) We have learned how to measure phonological skills as 
     early as the beginning of kindergarten with tasks that take 
     only 15 minutes to administer--and over the past decade we 
     have refined these tasks so that we can predict with 92% 
     accuracy who will have difficulties learning to read.
       (5) The average cost of assessing each child during 
     kindergarten or first grade with the predictive measures is 
     between $15 to $20 depending upon the skill level of the 
     person conducting the assessment. This includes the costs of 
     the assessment materials. If applied on a larger scale, 
     these costs may be further decreased.
       (6) We have learned that just as many girls as boys have 
     difficulties learning to read. The conventional wisdom has 
     been that many more boys than girls have such difficulties. 
     Now females should have equal access to screening and 
     intervention programs.
       (7) We have begun to understand how genetics are involved 
     in learning to read, and this knowledge may ultimately 
     contribute to our prevention efforts through assessment of 
     family reading histories.
       (8) We are entering very exciting frontiers in 
     understanding how early brain development can provide us a 
     window on how reading develops. Likewise, we are conducting 
     studies to help us understand how specific teaching methods 
     change reading behavior and how the brain changes as reading 
     develops.
       (9) Very importantly, we continue to find that teaching 
     approaches that specifically target the development of a 
     combination of phonological skills, phonics skills, and 
     reading comprehension skills in an integrated format are the 
     most effective ways to improve reading abilities.
       At the present time, we have held several meetings with 
     officials from the USDOE and have discussed how these 
     findings can be used across the two agencies. As an example 
     of this collaboration, NICHD and USDOE have been developing a 
     preliminary plan to determine which scientific findings are 
     ready for immediate application in the classroom and how to 
     best disseminate that information to the Nation's schools and 
     teachers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain and 
        Mr. Murkowski):
  S. 940. A bill to provide for a study of the establishment of Midway 
Atoll as a national memorial to the Battle of Midway, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


               THE BATTLE OF MIDWAY NATIONAL MEMORIAL ACT

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, on July 31, 1995, Senator Dole and I 
introduced S. 1098, the Battle of Midway Memorial Act. Today I am proud 
to offer an updated version of S. 1098 on behalf of the majority 
leader, Mr. Lott, the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski.
  This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to study the 
feasibility and advisability of establishing Midway Atoll as a national 
memorial to the Battle of Midway. It goes without saying that the 
sponsors of this bill strongly believe that this should be done without 
delay. I am confident that the Interior Secretary will agree.
  Mr. President, it was on June 4, 1942, that courageous American 
sailors, soldiers, and airmen stationed on Midway Atoll, and aboard 29 
warships, clashed with 350 warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy in 
what became known as the Battle of Midway. When the smoke cleared, the 
small American force, under the overall command of Admiral Nimitz, had 
soundly defeated the Imperial Japanese Navy in one of the most 
spectacular and historically significant naval battles of all time, and 
a turning point in the Pacific theater in World War II.
  There is no reason to delay further the establishment of Midway Atoll 
as a national memorial to honor the American heros who fought and died 
there in defense of our liberties. Approval of this bill will be the 
first step in recognizing what those gallant Americans did in 1942--and 
that recognition is in fact long overdue.
  Mr. President, on April 25, 1996, the Energy Committee's Subcommittee 
on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation held an extensive 
hearing on S. 1098, the predecessor to the bill we introduce today. 
Chairman Nighthorse Campbell received testimony from my treasured 
friend, Adm. Tom Moorer, who in my judgment, was the greatest Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ever to serve in that post--and a veteran 
of the Pacific theater of World War II, and Dr. James D'Angelo, 
president of the International Midway Memorial Foundation.
  If the committee chooses to have another hearing on this issue, I 
hope Chairman Murkowski and Chairman Nighthorse Campbell will ask 
whether any historic structures on Midway Atoll have been destroyed, 
and if so, why. If this has occurred, I will support modifying the bill 
to prohibit explicitly any further destruction of any historic 
structure on Midway Atoll.
  Mr. President, Adm. James W. (Bud) Nance, chief of staff of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, Esther Kia'aina of Sen. Akaka's staff, and 
Jim O'Toole with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee deserve 
special thanks. When Midway Atoll becomes a national memorial, it will 
in large part be due to their tireless efforts.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 940

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

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited the ``Battle of Midway National 
     Memorial Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) September 2, 1997, marks the 52th anniversary of the 
     United States victory over Japan in World War II.
       (2) The Battle of Midway proved to be the turning point in 
     the war in the Pacific, as United States Navy forces 
     inflicted such severe losses on the Imperial Japanese Navy 
     during the battle that the Imperial Japanese Navy never again 
     took the offensive against United States or allied forces.

[[Page S6004]]

       (3) During the Battle of Midway on June 4, 1942, an 
     outnumbered force of the United States Navy, consisting of 29 
     ships and other units of the Armed Forces under the command 
     of Admiral Nimitz and Admiral Spruance, out-maneuvered and 
     out-fought 350 ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy.
       (4) It is in the public interest to establish Midway Atoll 
     as a national memorial to the Battle of Midway to express the 
     enduring gratitude of the American people for victory in the 
     battle and to inspire future generations of Americans with 
     the heroism and sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces 
     who achieved that victory.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) Midway Atoll and the surrounding seas deserve to be a 
     national memorial;
       (2) the historical significance of the Battle of Midway 
     deserves more recognition;
       (3) the historic structures on Midway Atoll deserve to be 
     protected and maintained;

     SEC. 4. STUDY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MIDWAY ATOLL AS A 
                   NATIONAL MEMORIAL TO THE BATTLE OF MIDWAY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than six months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall, acting through the Director of the National Park 
     Service and in consultation with the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Midway 
     Memorial Foundation, Inc. (hereafter referred to as the 
     `Foundation'), and Midway Phoenix Corporation, carry out a 
     study of the feasibility and advisability of establishing 
     Midway Atoll as a national memorial to the Battle of Midway.
       (b) Considerations.--In studying the establishment of 
     Midway Atoll as a national memorial to the Battle of Midway 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the 
     following:
       (1) Whether, and under what conditions, to lease or 
     otherwise allow the Foundation or another appropriate 
     organization to administer, maintain, and utilize fully for 
     use as a national memorial to the Battle of Midway the lands 
     (including any equipment, facilities, infrastructure, and 
     other improvements) and waters of Midway Atoll.
       (2) Whether, and under what circumstances the needs and 
     requirements of the wildlife refuge should take precedence 
     over the needs and requirements of a national memorial on 
     Midway Atoll.
       (3) Whether, and under what conditions, to permit the use 
     of the facilities on Sand Island for purposes other than a 
     wildlife refuge or a national memorial.
       (4) Whether to impose conditions on public access to Midway 
     Atoll as a national memorial.
       (c) Report.--Upon completion of the study required under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the study, including any recommendations for 
     further legislative action. The report shall also include an 
     inventory of all past and present structures of historic 
     significance on Midway Atoll.

     SEC. 5. RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing under this Act should be construed to delay or 
     inhibit discussions between the Foundation and the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service or any other government 
     entity regarding the future role of the Foundation on Midway 
     Atoll.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Murray, 
        and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 941. A bill to promote the utilization of marine ferry and high-
speed marine ferry services; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                      high-speed marine ferry act

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
cosponsored by Senators Gorton, Kerry, Murray, and Breaux to promote 
the use of marine ferry and high-speed marine ferry services.
  The marine ferry system of the United States provides an invaluable 
component to the transportation requirements of our Nation. As a 
Senator from an island State, I appreciate the need for passenger/
vehicle ferry services. In general, marine ferries require minimal 
costs as compared to the costs of new infrastructure such as highways, 
bridges, and tunnels. In addition, marine ferries are one of the most 
environmentally friendly modes of transportation.
  In coastal urban centers, marine ferry service can provide low-cost, 
environmentally friendly transportation to areas suffering from 
congestion. In rural coastal areas, such as barrier islands, marine 
ferries have been utilized as the sole source of transportation to 
connect coastal communities to the mainland. While States with marine 
barriers such as rivers or lakes have utilized marine ferries as low-
cost alternatives to highway bridges or additional roadways. Marine 
ferries have also been used to provide transportation in areas 
devastated by natural disasters and floods. Ferries were used in the 
aftermath of the earthquakes in northern California to provide 
transportation across San Francisco Bay.
  States such as Washington, Alaska, North Carolina, and Delaware have 
invested, with great success, in State-run marine ferry services. While 
other States such as New York, New Jersey, and my own State of Hawaii, 
are exploring incentives to induce private ferry operations in order to 
fulfill certain transportation objectives. Private ferry operations and 
high-speed marine passenger vessels used for dinner cruises and tour 
excursions, have contributed to the tourism potential of certain areas 
as well.
  I am particularly hopeful that the Marine Ferry and High-Speed Marine 
Ferry Act will help us to fulfill our Nation's potential for high-speed 
marine technology. In the early 1970's, Boeing Marine pioneered the 
development and construction of commercial passenger hydrofoils capable 
of operating at 45 knots. Boeing built 25 hydrofoils for high-speed use 
on the Hong Kong-Macau route before licensing production to Kawasaki 
Heavy Industries of Japan in the early 1980's, and by 1989, only one 
high-speed marine passenger/vehicle ferry of significant size was in 
operation.
  The international and domestic high-speed marine passenger vessel 
market has recently seen a dramatic expansion, and currently over 60 
high-speed marine passenger/vehicle ferries are in service or under 
construction. Fast ferries, until recently, have been primarily used in 
short sea services on protected routes, but recent advances in design 
and materials have allowed for the construction of larger vessels 
capable of being operated on longer open sea routes. New technologies 
have also opened possibilities for high-speed cargo-carrying 
operations.
  The United States has benefited from a number of recent high-speed 
projects, and from the establishment of a shipyard specifically 
designed for high-speed marine passenger vessel construction. The 
Maritime Administration's ``1996 Outlook for the U.S. Shipbuilding and 
Repair Industry'' indicates:

       New orders for ferries should also continue to provide work 
     for the second-tier shipyards. The enactment of ISTEA 
     continues to provide a significant boost to new ferry 
     projects. In addition, MARAD has a Title XI application 
     pending for the construction of two passenger/vehicle ferries 
     for a foreign owner, valued at more than $171 million. Demand 
     will come from continued promotion of states of ferries for 
     use in their tourist industries, as well as in 
     transportation/commuting, as an alternative to building 
     infrastructure projects such as highways and bridges. The 
     recent award of a $181 million contract to Todd Seattle for 
     three 2,500-passenger ferries and the solicitation for 
     proposals for two additional 350-passenger ferries by the 
     State of Washington, is an added sign that the ferry industry 
     is strong. On the private sector side, there is a demand for 
     the deployment of high-speed, high-tech ferries in the 
     passenger excursion industry.

  The Marine Ferry and High-Speed Marine Ferry Act will build on 
previous enactments aimed at promoting marine ferry operations. The 
bill would reauthorize section 1064 of ISTEA, at levels consistent with 
past years, to allow State-run ferry programs to apply for Federal 
grants for the construction of ferries, and/or related ferry 
infrastructure. The bill would also initiate a new program to help 
provide loan guarantees for private marine ferry operators. A number of 
States have decided not to operate their own ferry vessels, but 
instead, have encouraged the private sector to establish marine ferry 
operations. The provision of loan guarantees to qualified applicants 
will allow private sector operators to contribute to legitimate public 
sector transportation needs by providing favorable financing through 
federally guaranteed loans.
  The bill would also require DOT to report on existing marine ferry 
operations and to make recommendations on areas that could benefit from 
future marine ferry operations, and directs DOT to meet with relevant 
State and local municipal planning agencies to discuss the marine ferry 
program. The bill also directs the Marine Board to study high-speed 
marine technologies, and potential utilization of such technology.
  I hope my colleagues can join in to continue our support of marine 
ferry operations. For a relatively small investment, we can leverage 
State and private operations to address our pressing infrastructure 
demands.

[[Page S6005]]



                          ____________________