Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 92 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 92 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6496-S6508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 964. A bill to direct a property conveyance in the State of
California; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

THE WARD VALLEY LAND TRANSFER ACT

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation
designed to end an impasse that we've endured for far too long--the
stalemate over the Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste facility and
efforts to implement an important Federal law--the low level
radioactive waste policy amendments.
I am doing this today because of documents that have recently come to
light under the Freedom of Information Act and due to the continuing
differences between the words spoken under oath by a Presidential
nominee before my committee and his actions to date.
For more than 10 years, the State of California acting in complete
accordance with Federal law and in cooperation with responsible Federal
agencies, has been attempting to open a low-level radioactive waste
repository at a Mojave Desert site in Ward Valley.
The long, tortured process costing more that $40 million has included
a statewide search resulting in the selection of a virtually
unpopulated desert valley; two environmental impact statements under
the National Environmental Policy Act; two biological opinions under
the Endangered Species Act; and judicial review including the
California Supreme Court.

[[Page S6497]]

From the outset, the State has been dogged by the lawsuits and
protests of a small fringe group of activists.
But in the end, California has met every test.
Ward Valley was found to be safe, and the State issued a license
containing more than 130 carefully developed safety and environmental
stipulations.
Consistent with its own independent evaluations, the Department of
the Interior agreed to sell the land to California for the Ward Valley
site in January 1993.
But shortly thereafter, the Department of the Interior abruptly
reversed itself, demanding a series of discretionary studies and
reviews that, 4 years later, still have no end in sight.
Specifically, the Department of the Interior asked the National
Academy of Sciences to review seven technical issues related to the
site.
In May 1995, the Academy's report was released. The report was highly
favorable to the site selection and each of the seven issues. As a
consequence, Interior Secretary Babbitt indicated that he intended to
transfer the site.
Two more months passed.
On July 27, 1995, the President's nominee to be the Deputy Secretary
of the Interior, Mr. John Garamendi, appeared before the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee and testified under oath, that the Ward
Valley issue ``will be satisfactorily culminated shortly * * * and I
believe it should be.''
With that testimony in mind, I recently reviewed documents made
available under the Freedom of Information Act.
With the benefit of those documents and other evidence of the
systematic delay fostered by the Department of the Interior to block
Ward Valley, I have reached the sad conclusion that Congress must
intervene to end this stalemate.
Before I go into the disturbing history of this issue and the content
of the documents uncovered by the Freedom of Information Act request,
some background is important.
There is a tremendous difference between low level radioactive waste
and the spent fuel issue the Senate has been debating over the past 2
weeks.
Spent fuel, of course, is the high level waste from nuclear power
reactors.
Low level radioactive waste, on the other hand, is composed of items
such as medical gowns, biomedical wastes, filters, resins and similar
wastes generated from cancer treatment, biomedical research, and other
activities.
Low level radioactive waste is generated during cutting-edge research
that may help us find a cure for AIDS.
Low level radioactive waste is generated from the development of new
drugs and cancer therapies.
Low level radioactive waste is generated by the high tech and biotech
industry in the quest for new products and services that will be at the
foundation of our 21st century economy.
While it also includes waste from nuclear power production, Congress
wisely placed specific limits on the levels which are a State
responsibility.
When the Senate was debating the fate of high-level spent fuel, we
clearly had a situation where the State of Nevada opposed a repository.
The Governor of Nevada opposed it.
But the low level waste issue is vastly different. Governor Wilson of
California supports Ward Valley.
The State of California has been working on plans open a low level
waste repository in California for the past decade.
They have done so in complete accordance with Federal law, which
assigns responsibility for disposal of a specified portion of low level
radioactive waste to the States.
Governor Wilson understands that thousands of jobs in California,
particularly among the high-tech and biotech industries, absolutely
depend on having dependable access to a safe, secure facility for low
level radioactive waste.
Governor Wilson understands that countless lives might be saved
through the cancer breakthrough or AIDS cure that the use of
radioactive materials might bring.
Governor Wilson also understands that low level radioactive waste is
currently being stored at hundreds of urban locations all across
California.
It's being stored in basements and in parking lot trailers.
It's being stored in warehouses and temporary shelters.
It's on college campuses, in residential neighborhoods, and in
hospitals.
And as long as the waste is in these temporary locations in populated
areas, it is subject to accidental radioactive releases from fire,
earthquakes, and floods.
Governor Wilson is understandably concerned about the health and
safety of Californians. He is frustrated by the delays California has
faced in trying to get this facility open.
So am I.
I am frustrated by the fact that the President's nominee to be the
Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Mr. John Garamendi, appeared before
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on July 27, 1995 and
testified under oath, that the Ward Valley issue should and would be
quickly resolved.
After that testimony, seven months passed.
Nothing happened.
On February 15, 1996, Deputy Secretary Garamendi indicated that ``new
information'' related to a different low-level radioactive waste site
at Beatty, Nevada, required further testing at the Ward Valley site and
the preparation of yet another Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS).

Literally one day before his announcement, the Director of the U.S.
Geological Survey said that linkages between the Beatty site and Ward
Valley were ``too tenuous to have much scientific value.''
But the Deputy Secretary ignored the Director's scientific advice. In
a public news conference, Deputy Secretary Garimendi indicated that the
additional testing would take about four months, and that the
preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
would take about a year.
On August 5, 1996, months after we expected the testing to be
complete, an official of the lab Interior selected to perform the
testing said, ``Interior Department officials have yet to submit a work
plan . . . on the testing they want done.''
During this same time frame, Interior Department officials were
distributing documents to the public containing factually incorrect
information taken verbatim from Ward Valley opponents, even though
accurate information was readily available from the Department of
Energy.
It now appears that Interior made no effort to check the facts with
DOE with respect to the veracity of the information it was providing to
the public.
Recently, the Governor of California made me aware of documents he
obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. These
documents reveal the following:
Despite the understandable lack of radiological expertise resident in
the Department of the Interior, the Department has made no effort to
communicate with the federal agency with primary expertise and
jurisdiction in the matter--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The professional, non-political, radiological experts of the
Department of Energy have indicated that: ``Interior's concern that the
[Ward Valley] facility lacks an environmental monitoring system has no
basis in fact;'' the Department of the Interior is attempting to
subvert the National Academy of Sciences recommendations with respect
to the timing of the tests and nature of the tests to be performed; the
Department of the Interior has understated the costs and the time
required for the conduct of the tests; and the tests the Department of
the Interior has outlined will result in additional litigation
regardless of their outcome.

Mr. President, these documents are plain on their face.
But they are particularly troubling since they show the vast
difference between the words spoken by Mr. Garamendi in his
confirmation hearing, and the actions he has taken since his
confirmation.
Let's again review the facts:
Deputy Secretary Garamendi testified under oath that the Ward Valley
issue would be, and should be, quickly resolved.
He then called for additional testing that did not conform to the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, creating a false
linkage in the public's mind between the

[[Page S6498]]

Beatty site and the Ward Valley site, despite the fact that his own
USGS Director said that such a linkage could not be justified by the
science.
Deputy Secretary Garamendi spread misinformation about the
composition of the radioactive waste stream in Department press
materials supplied by project opponents, making no effort to check
their veracity with the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or any other agency with expertise in such matters.
Deputy Secretary Garamendi persistently failed to get the testing
underway, which he later blamed on the threats of a lawsuit that were
not, in fact, made until long after the time he said the tests would be
complete.
Indeed, the Department of the Interior has designed a process
specifically intended to foster further delay.
Mr. President, over the past month or so there has been a new twist
that is frankly the straw that breaks the camel's back.
The State of California, in its continuing efforts to achieve a
compromise, has agreed to perform additional testing pursuant to the
National Academy of Sciences guidelines prior to the federal land
transfer.
Let me make this clear: California has always agreed to do the
additional testing . . . the issue of dispute is that Interior insisted
the testing be done prior to the land transfer, while California and
the National Academy of Sciences said the testing would be best
accomplished after the land transfer.
So California has now agreed to perform additional testing prior to
the land transfer. They have clearly made efforts to compromise.
I received a letter from Deputy Secretary Garamendi, dated February
27, 1997, which exclaimed that the delays at Ward Valley have gone on
long enough, and that welcomed the decision by the State of California
to undertake additional testing.
When I saw that letter. I thought to myself: Finally, this issue will
be resolved.
I was shocked by what happened next:
The BLM produced an administrative determination, allegedly two years
old that nobody had ever seen, that will not permit California to
undertake the testing that Interior insists must be undertaken prior to
the land transfer! They have California in a ``Catch-22.''
BLM informed the California Department of Health Services that they
could not proceed with the testing without a new permit from the BLM
and yet another biological consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service with respect to the Desert Tortoise.
The BLM based this requirement for a new permit on an
``administrative determination,'' allegedly issued two years ago, which
limits surface disturbance associated with pre-construction testing.
But further examination revealed several points about this document:
This old administrative determination was unknown to the California
Department of Health Services, U.S. Ecology, and even the local BLM
District Office until weeks ago.
The local BLM office is unable to provide any evidence that this
``administrative determination'' was provided to any of the parties
whose actions it supposedly limits.
The administrative determination is absurd on its face. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has determined that the 90 acres of surface
disturbance associated with the construction and operation of the Ward
Valley facility will not jeopardize the desert tortoise or its habitat.
Moreover, under current BLM guidelines, ten acre mining operations on
other BLM land would not trigger the need for a biological consultation
if certain desert tortoise protection measures were incorporated into
the plan submitted to BLM. Indeed, five acre mining operations would
not even require the applicant to submit a tortoise protection plan for
approval. Yet, it is BLM's sudden contention that less than 5 acres of
surface disturbance associated with testing will require yet another
full biological consultation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Clearly, Mr. President, this latest obstruction, and the reasons
cited for it, make no sense in the context of the various other permits
and administrative determinations that have been previously granted at
the site.
The fact that this administrative decision suddenly surfaced in the
midst of state planning to undertake the new tests is highly unusual--
perhaps even worthy of investigation by the Inspector General.
Mr. President, earlier this year I asked the General Accounting
Office to investigate this matter. That investigation is now underway.
At this very moment, GAO auditors are reviewing documents in the
District BLM office in California and at Department of Interior
headquarters here in Washington.
The GAO report will not be complete until July 15, but let me simply
say that their preliminary findings appear to agree with my
understanding of the facts.
What we are seeing at the Department of the Interior is a blatant
display of bad faith and obstructionism with regard to California's
efforts to implement Federal law through development of the Ward Valley
site.
I am particularly distressed by this, particularly in light of the
words spoken by Mr. Garamendi at his confirmation hearing.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would convey
the BLM land at Ward Valley to California as soon as a check for the
fair market value of the land plus $100 is tendered to the Secretary of
the Treasury, after the State of California formally tenders a promise
to conduct the additional testing as outlined by the National Academy
of Sciences.
It's a simple bill. California agrees to do the testing outlined by
the National Academy of Sciences, California gets its site, and the
taxpayer gets fair market value for the land.
I am willing to consider alternative approaches, but my bottom line
is a quick and satisfactory resolution to this issue by qualified
experts rather than political activists.
I am willing to entertain negotiated compromises.
I am willing to entertain alternative legislative approaches.
I am not willing to entertain further delay.
In closing, Mr. President, let me share a story that I find
particularly rich in irony:
Interior Secretary Babbitt, while the Governor of Arizona, was deeply
concerned about the difficulty of the Federal Government to provide for
adequate low-level radioactive waste disposal sites. He was asked by
the National Governors' Association to chair a task force to look into
the problem.
The Babbitt task force recommended that the responsibility for low-
level radioactive waste management be given to the States. In 1981,
Governor Babbitt wrote that ``the siting of a low level nuclear waste
facility involves primarily state and local issues that are best
resolved at the government level closest to those affected.''
There was another Governor at the time who was active in the National
Governor's Association and supported this approach: The Governor of
Arkansas. His name was Bill Clinton.
Congress listened to these Governors, and passed the Low Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Act which gave the States the responsibility
for low level radioactive waste management.
California is the first State to license a facility under the Low
Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act.
And who are the Federal authorities who are today frustrating
California's attempt to follow the law and open its site?
None other than Mr. Babbitt and his Deputy at the Department of the
Interior, himself a former California state official.
What an irony that former State officials would declare a State
unworthy of trust in carrying out its congressionally assigned duties
and responsibilities.
What a difference a few years in Washington can make.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 965. A bill to amend title II of the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996
to extend an authorization contained therein, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

authorization extension legislation

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I offer a very simple bill with
the hope that it can receive expedited consideration in the Senate and
be sent over to the House of Representatives for further consideration.

[[Page S6499]]

Last year Congress authorized a program to explore the feasibility of
integrating hydrogen fuel cells with systems to produce hydrogen from
photovoltaic production or solid waste through gasification or steam
reforming. This program is outlined in title II of Public Law 104-271,
the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996.
The program was originally authorized through 1997 and 1998, with
funds to remain available until 1999.
It has since become clear that the program will require a longer
period of time to put into place. Accordingly, this bill simply extends
the authorization through fiscal year 2001, with funds to remain
available until September 30, 2002.
For those who are unfamiliar with the promise of hydrogen energy
systems, let me simply add that hydrogen is widely regarded as an
important potential energy carrier with the potential to join
electricity as a key component of a future sustainable energy system.
Unlike coal, oil, or gas, hydrogen cannot be directly mined or
produced--it must be extracted from hydrogen-rich materials such as
natural gas, biomass, or even water. While there are significant
technical and economic barriers that prevent the near-term, widespread
use of hydrogen as an energy carrier, the eventual promise of hydrogen
is compelling. Thus, Congress and the Department of Energy has placed a
high priority on hydrogen energy research and development.
I urge that my colleagues support the bill.
______

By Mr. BREAUX:
S. 966. A bill to provide legal standards and procedures for
suppliers of raw materials and component parts for medical devices and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

the biomaterials access assurance and health safety act of 1997

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Biomaterials
Access Assurance and Health Safety act of 1997. While other legislation
has been introduced that is intended to protect suppliers of raw
materials used in the construction of important medical implants from
liability, I believe that my legislation strikes the proper balance
between the legitimate concerns of these suppliers and the health
insurance and legal rights of patients.
The legislation I am introducing today is similar to biomaterials
legislation that has been introduced independently by Senator Lieberman
and as a part of S. 5, the Product Liability Fairness Act. It does,
however, differ on several important points. First, this bill would not
immunize negligent suppliers or supplies who fail to warn of the
harmful effects of their products. Second, this bill would be limited
to the protection of suppliers of raw materials. Other biomaterials
bills, while speaking only of the need to protect suppliers of raw
materials, use overly broad language that immunizes a whole host of
product manufacturers. Third, unlike the legislation sent to the
President last year, this bill would not cover suppliers of materials
used in breast implants.
Mr. President, there are two other important differences between this
legislation and other biomaterials liability legislation that has been
introduced. I believe that this bill can be passed by Congress. I'm not
sure that other biomaterials bills can. We know too well that the
larger product liability bill will be controversial, and that its
passage and enactment are uncertain at best. This biomaterials bill has
been introduced as a stand-alone measure and can move independently of
the product liability bill.
I also believe that this legislation can be signed into law by
President Clinton, and I'm not too sure that other biomaterials
liability legislation can. When the President vetoed the product
liability bill sent to him by the 104th Congress, H.R. 965, which
included biomaterials language similar to that in Senator Lieberman's
bill, he noted that he wanted to enact fair and balanced biomaterials
liability legislation. However, he felt that the language before him
went too far, particularly because it immunized negligent biomaterials
suppliers. I believe the President will find the provisions of my bill
acceptable.
Mr. President, I think that this bill is the best hope we have of
passing fair and meaningful biomaterials legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in support of its passage. I ask unanimous
consent that the entire text of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 966

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Biomaterials Access
Assurance Act of 1997.''

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) each year millions of citizens of the United States
depend on the availability of lifesaving or life enhancing
medical devices, many of which are permanently implantable
within the human body;
(2) a continued supply of raw materials and component parts
is necessary for the invention, development, improvement, and
maintenance of the supply of the devices;
(3) most of the medical devices are made with raw materials
and component parts that--
(A) are not designed or manufactured specifically for use
in medical devices; and
(B) come in contact with internal human tissue;
(4) the raw materials and component parts also are used in
a variety of nonmedical products;
(5) because small quantities of the raw materials and
component parts are used for medical devices, sales of raw
materials and component parts for medical devices constitute
an extremely small portion of the overall market for the raw
materials and medical devices;
(6) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.), manufacturers of medical devices are
required to demonstrate that the medical devices are safe and
effective, including demonstrating that the products are
properly designed and have adequate warnings or instructions;
(7) notwithstanding the fact that raw materials and
component parts suppliers do not design, produce, or test a
final medical device, the suppliers have been the subject of
actions alleging adequate--
(A) design and testing of medical devices manufactured with
materials or parts supplied by the suppliers; or
(B) warnings related to the use of such medical devices;
(8) even though suppliers of raw materials and component
parts have very rarely been held liable in such actions, such
suppliers have ceased supplying certain raw materials and
component parts for use in medical devices because the costs
associated with litigation in order to ensure a favorable
judgment for the suppliers far exceeds the total potential
sales revenues from sales by such suppliers to the medical
device industry;
(9) unless alternate sources of supply can be found, the
unavailability of raw materials and component parts for
medical devices will lead to unavailability of lifesaving and
life-enhancing medical devices;
(10) because other suppliers of the raw materials and
component parts in foreign nations are refusing to sell raw
materials or component parts for use in manufacturing certain
medical devices in the United States, the prospects for
development of new sources of supply for the full range of
threatened raw materials and component parts for medical
devices are remote;
(11) it is unlikely that the small market for such raw
materials and component parts in the United States could
support the large investment needed to develop new suppliers
of such raw materials and component parts;
(12) attempts to develop such new suppliers would raise the
cost of medical devices;
(13) courts that have considered the duties of the
suppliers of the raw materials and component parts have
generally found that the suppliers do not have a duty--
(A) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the use of a raw
material or component part in a medical device; and
(B) to warn consumers concerning the safety and
effectiveness of a medical device;
(14) attempts to impose the duties referred to in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (13) on suppliers of
the raw materials and component parts would cause more harm
than good by driving the suppliers to cease supplying
manufacturers of medical devices; and
(15) in order to safeguard the availability of a wide
variety of lifesaving and life-enhancing medical devices,
immediate action is needed--
(A) to clarify the permissible bases of liability for
suppliers of raw materials and component parts for medical
devices; and
(B) to provide expeditious procedures to dispose of
unwarranted suits against the suppliers in such manner as to
minimize litigation costs.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As use in this Act:
(1) Biomaterials supplier.--
(A) In general.--The term ``biomaterials supplier'' means
an entity that directly or indirectly supplies raw material
for use in the manufacture of an implant.
(B) Persons included.--Such term includes any person who--
(i) has submitted master files to the Secretary for
purposes of premarket approval of a medical device; or

[[Page S6500]]

(ii) licenses a biomaterials supplier to produce raw
materials.
(2) Claimant.--
(A) In general.--The term ``claimant'' means any person who
brings a civil action, or on whose behalf a civil action is
brought, arising from harm allegedly caused directly or
indirectly by an implant, including a person other than the
individual into whose body, or in contact with whose blood or
tissue, the implant is placed, who claims to have suffered
harm as a result of the implant.
(B) Action brought on behalf of an estate.--With respect to
an action brought on behalf of or through the estate of an
individual into whose body, or in contact with whose blood or
tissue the implant is placed, such term includes the decedent
that is the subject of the action.
(C) Action brought on behalf of a minor or incompetent.--
With respect to an action brought on behalf of or through a
minor or incompetent, such term includes the parent or
guardian of the minor or incompetent.
(D) Exclusions.--Such term does not include--
(i) a provider of professional health care services, in any
case in which--
(I) the sale or use of an implant is incidental to the
transaction; and
(II) the essence of the transaction is the furnishing of
judgment, skill, or services;
(ii) a person acting in the capacity of a manufacturer,
seller, or biomaterials supplier; or
(iii) a person alleging harm caused by a breast implant.
(3) Harm.--
(A) In general.--The term ``harm'' means--
(i) any injury to or damage suffered by an individual;
(ii) any illness, disease, or death of that individual
resulting from that injury or damage; and
(iii) any loss to that individual or any other individual
resulting from that injury or damage;
(B) Commercial loss.--The term includes any commercial loss
or loss of or damage to an implant.
(4) Implant.--The term ``implant'' means--
(A) a medical device that is intended by the manufacturer
of the device--
(i) to be placed into a surgically or naturally formed or
existing cavity of the body for a period of at least 30 days;
or
(ii) to remain in contact with bodily fluids or internal
human tissue through a surgically produced opening for a
period of less than 30 days; and
(A) suture materials used in implant procedures.
(5) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means any
person who, with respect to an implant--
(A) is engaged in the manufacture, preparation,
propagation, compounding, or processing (as defined in
section 510(a)(1)) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 360)(a)(1)) of the implant; and
(B) is required--
(i) to register with the Secretary pursuant to section 510
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360)
and the regulations issued under such section; and
(ii) to include the implant on a list of devices filed with
the Secretary pursuant to section 510(j) of such Act (21
U.S.C. 360(j) and the regulations issued under such section.
(6) Medical device.--The term ``medical device'' means a
device, as defined in section 1(a) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)) and includes any device
component of any combination product as that term is used in
section 503(g) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 353(g))
(7) Raw material.--The term ``raw material'' means a
substance or product that--
(A) has a generic use; and
(B) may be used in an application other than an implant.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(9) Seller.--
(A) In General.--The term ``seller'' means a person who, in
the course of a business conducted for that purpose, sells,
distributes, leases, packages, labels, or otherwise places an
implant in the stream of commerce.
(B) Exclusions.--the term does not include--
(i) a seller or lessor of real property;
(ii) a provider of professional services, in any case in
which the sale or use of an implant is incidental to the
transaction and the essence of the transaction is the
furnishing of judgment, skill, or services; or
(iii) any person who acts in only a financial capacity with
respect to the sale of an implant.

SEC. 4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: APPLICABILITY; PREEMPTION.

(a) General Requirements.--
(1) In General.--In any civil action covered by this Act, a
biomaterials supplier may raise any defense set forth in
section 5.
(A) Procedures.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Federal or State court in which a civil action
covered by this Act is pending shall, in connection with a
motion for dismissal or judgment based on a defense described
in paragraph (1), use the procedures set forth in section 6.
(b) Applicability.--
(1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
notwithstanding any other provision of law, this Act applies
to any civil action brought by a claimant, whether in a
Federal or State court, against a manufacturer, seller, or
biomaterials supplier, on the basis of any legal theory, for
harm allegedly caused by an implant.
(2) Exclusion.--A civil action brought by a purchaser of a
medical device for use in providing professional services
against a manufacturer, seller, or biomaterials supplier for
loss or damage to an implant or for commercial loss to the
purchaser--
(A) shall not be considered an action that is subject to
this Act; and
(B) shall be governed by applicable commercial or contract
law.
(c) Scope of Preemption.--
(1) In general.--This title supersedes any State law
regarding recovery for harm caused by an implant and any rule
of procedure applicable to a civil action to recover damages
for such harm only to the extent that this Act establishes a
rule of law applicable to the recovery of such damages.
(2) Applicability of other laws.--Any issue that arises
under this Act and that is not governed by a rule of law
applicable to the recovery of damages described in paragraph
(1) shall be governed by applicable Federal or State law.
(d) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to create a cause of action or Federal court
jurisdiction pursuant to section 1331 or 1337 of title 28,
United States Code, that otherwise would not exist under
applicable Federal or State law.

SEC. 5. LIABILITY OF BIOMATERIALS SUPPLIERS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Exclusion from liability.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), a biomaterials supplier shall not be liable
for harm to a claimant caused by an implant.
(2) Liability.--A biomaterials suppler that--
(A) is a manufacturer may be liable for harm to a claimant
described in subsection (b);
(B) is a seller may be liable for harm to a claimant
described in subsection (c);
(C) furnishes raw materials that fail to meet applicable
contractual requirements or specifications may be liable for
a harm to a claimant described in subsection (d).
(D) knows, or through reasonable inquiry could have known:
(i) of the application to which the raw material is to be
put;
(ii) of the risks attendant to such use; and
(iii) that the buyer or user of the raw material is
ignorant of such risks, but failed to warn such buyer or user
of such risks, may be liable for harm to a claimant described
in subsection (e); and
(E) furnishes raw materials that are defective may be
liable for harm to a claimant as described in subsection (f).
(b) Liability Manufacturer.--
(1) In general.--A biomaterials supplier may, to the extent
required and permitted by any other applicable law, be liable
for harm to a claimant caused by an implant if the
biomaterials supplier is the manufacturer of the implant.
(2) Grounds for liability.--
(A) The biomaterials supplier may be considered the
manufacturer of the implant that allegedly caused harm to a
claimant only if the biomaterials supplier--
(i) has registered with the Secretary pursuant to section
510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
360) and the regulations issued under such section; and
(ii) included the implant on a list of devices filed with
the Secretary pursuant to section 510(f) of such Act (21
U.S.C. 360(f)) and the regulations issued under such section;
(B) is the subject of a declaration issued by the Secretary
pursuant to paragraph (3) that states that the supplier, with
respect to the implant that allegedly caused harm to the
claimant, was required to--
(i) register with the Secretary under section 510 of such
Act (21 U.S.C. 360), and the regulations issued under such
section, but failed to do so; or
(ii) include the implant on a list of devices filed with
the Secretary pursuant to section 510(j) of such Act (21
U.S.C. 360(j)) and the regulations issued under such section,
but failed to do so; or
(C) is related by common ownership or control to a person
meeting all the requirements described in subparagraph (A) or
(B), if the court deciding a motion to dismiss in accordance
with section 6(c)(3)(B)(i) finds, on the basis of affidavits
submitted in accordance with section 6, that it is necessary
to impose liability on the biomaterials supplier as a
manufacturer because the related manufacturer meeting the
requirements of a subparagraph (A) or (B) lacks sufficient
financial resources to satisfy any judgment that the court
feels it is likely to enter should the claimant prevail.
(3) Administrative procedures.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may issue a declaration
described in paragraph (2)(B) on the motion of the Secretary
or on petition by any person, after providing--
(i) notice to the affected persons; and
(ii) an opportunity for an informal hearing.
(B) Docketing and final decision.--Immediately upon receipt
of a petition filed pursuant to this paragraph, the Secretary
shall docket the petition. Not later than 180 days after the
petition is filed, the Secretary shall issue a final decision
on the petition.
(C) Applicability of statute of limitations.--Any
applicable statute of limitations shall toll during the
period during which a claimant has filed a petition with the
Secretary under this paragraph.
(c) Liability as Seller.--A biomaterials supplier may, to
the extent required and permitted by any other applicable law
be liable

[[Page S6501]]

as seller for harm to a claimant caused by an implant if--
(1) the biomaterials supplier--
(A) held little to the implant that allegedly caused harm
to the claimant as a result of purchasing the implant after--
(i) the manufacture of the implant and
(ii) the entrance of the implant in the stream of commerce;
and
(B) subsequently resold the implant; or
(2) the biomaterials supplier is related by common
ownership or control to a person meeting all the requirements
described in paragraph (1), if a court deciding a motion to
dismiss in accordance with section 6(c)(3)(B)(ii) finds on
the basis of affidavits submitted in accordance with section
6 that is necessary to impose liability on the biomaterials
supplier as a seller because the related seller meeting the
requirements of paragraph (1) lacks sufficient financial
resources to satisfy any judgment that the court feels it is
likely to enter should the claimant prevail.
(d) Liability for Violating Contractual Requirements or
Specifications.--A biomaterials supplier may, to the extent
required and permitted by any other applicable law, be liable
for harm to a claimant caused by an implant, if the claimant
in an action shows, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that--
(1) the raw materials or component parts delivered by the
biomaterials supplier either--
(A) did not constitute the product described in the
contract between the biomaterials supplier and the person who
contracted for delivery of the product; or
(B) failed to meet any specifications that were--
(i) provided to the biomaterials supplier and not expressly
repudiated by the biomaterials supplier prior to acceptance
of delivery of the raw materials or component parts;
(I) published by the biomaterials supplier;
(II) provided to the manufacturer by the biomaterials
supplier; or
(III) contained in a master file that was submitted by the
biomaterials supplier to the Secretary and that is currently
maintained by the biomaterials supplier for purposes of
premarket approval of medical devices; or
(ii) included in the submissions for purposes of premarket
approval or review by the Secretary under section 510, 513,
515, or 520 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 360, 360c, 360e, or 360j), and received clearance from
the Secretary if such specifications were provided by the
manufacturer to the biomaterials supplier and were not
expressly repudiated by the biomaterials supplier prior to
the acceptance by the manufacturer of delivery of the raw
materials or component parts; and
(2) such conduct was an actual and proximate cause of the
harm to the claimant.
(e) Liability for Failure to Warn.--A biomaterials supplier
may, to the extent required or permitted by any other
applicable law, be liable for harm caused by an implant if
the biomaterials supplier--
(1) knew, or through reasonable inquiry could have known;
(A) of the application to which the raw material was to be
put;
(B) of the risks attendant to such use;
(C) that the buyer or user of the raw material was ignorant
of such risks; and
(2) failed to warn such buyer or user of such risks.
(f) Liability for Defective Material.--A biomaterials
supplier may, to the extent permitted by any other applicable
law, be liable for harm caused by an implant if the harm was
in whole or in part caused by a defect in the raw material
supplied by the biomaterials supplier.

SEC. 6. PROCEDURES FOR DISMISSAL OF CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST
BIOMATERIALS SUPPLIERS.

(a) Motion to Dismiss.--In any action that is subject to
this Act, a biomaterials supplier who is a defendant in such
action may, at any time during which a motion to dismiss may
be filed under an applicable law, move to dismiss the action
against it on the grounds that--
(1) the defendant is a biomaterials supplier; and
(2)(A) the defendant should not, for the purposes of--
(i) section 5(b), be considered to be a manufacturer of the
implant that is subject to such section; or
(ii) section 5(c), be considered to be a seller of the
implant that allegedly caused harm to the claimant;
(iii) section 5(e), be found to have failed to warn the
buyer or user of the raw material of its known risks;
(iv) section 5(f), be found to have supplied defective
material; or
(B)(i) the claimant has failed to establish pursuant to
section 5(d), that the supplier furnished raw materials or
component parts in violation of contractual requirements or
specifications; or
(ii) the claimant has failed to comply with the procedural
requirements of subsection (b).
(b) Proceeding on Motion To Dismiss.--The following rules
shall apply to any proceeding on a motion to dismiss filed
under this section:
(1) Affidavits relating to listing and declarations.--
(A) In general.--The defendant in the action may submit an
affidavit demonstrating that defendant has not included the
implant on a list, if any, filed with Secretary pursuant to
section 510(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 360(j)).
(B) Response to motion to dismiss.--In response to the
motion to dismiss, the claimant may submit an affidavit
demonstrating that--
(i) the Secretary has, with respect to the defendant and
the implant that allegedly caused harm to the claimant,
issued a declaration pursuant to section 5(b)(2)(B); or
(ii) the defendant who filed the motion to dismiss is a
seller of the implant who is liable under section 5(c).
(2) Effect of motion to dismiss on discovery.--
(A) In general.--If a defendant files a motion to dismiss
under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), no discovery
shall be permitted connection to the action that is subject
of the motion, other than discovery necessary to determine a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, until such time
as the court rules on the motion to dismiss in accordance
with the affidavits submitted the parties in accordance with
section.
(B) Discovery.--If a defendant files a motion to dismiss
under subsection (a)(2)(B)(i) on the grounds that the
biomaterials supplier did not furnish raw materials or
component parts in violation of contractual requirements or
specifications, the court may permit discovery, as ordered by
the court. The discovery conducted pursuant to this
subparagraph shall be limited to issues that are directly
relevant to--
(i) the pending motion to dismiss; or
(ii) the jurisdiction of the court.
(3) Affidavits relating states of defendant.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in clauses (i) and (ii)
of subparagraph (B), the court shall consider a defendant to
be a biomaterials supplier who is not subject to an action
for harm to a claimant caused by an implant, other than an
action relating to liability for a violation of contractual
requirements or specifications described in subsection (d).
(B) Responses to motion to dismiss.--The court shall grant
a motion to dismiss any action that asserts liability of the
defendant under subsection (b) or (c) of section 5 on the
grounds that the defendant is not a manufacturer subject to
such section 5(b) or seller subject to section 5(c), unless
the claimant submits a valid affidavit that demonstrates
that--
(i) with respect to a motion to dismiss contending the
defendant is not a manufacturer, the defendant meets the
applicable requirements for liability as a manufacturer under
section 5(b); or
(ii) with respect to a motion to dismiss contending that
the defendant is not a seller, the defendant meets the
applicable requirements for liability as a seller under
section 5(c).
(4) Basis of ruling on motion to dismiss.--
(A) In general.--The court shall rule on a motion to
dismiss filed under subsection (a) solely on the basis of the
pleadings of the parties made pursuant to this section and
any affidavits submitted by the parties pursuant to this
section.
(B) Motion for summary judgement.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, if the court determines that the
pleadings and affidavits made by parties pursuant to this
section raise genuine issues as concerning material facts
with respect to a motion to dismiss to be a motion for
summary judgment made pursuant to subsection (c).
(c) Summary Judgment.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Basis for entry of judgment.--A biomaterials supplier
shall be entitled to entry of judgment without trial if the
court finds there is a no genuine issue as concerning any
material fact for each applicable element set forth in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 5(d).
(B) Issues of material fact.--With respect to a finding
made under subparagraph (A), the court shall consider a
genuine issue of material fact to exist only if the evidence
submitted by claimant would be sufficient to allow a
reasonable jury to reach a verdict for the claimant if the
jury found the evidence to be credible.
(2) Discovery made prior to a ruling on a motion for
summary judgment.--If, under applicable rules, the court
permits discovery prior to a ruling on a motion for summary
judgment made pursuant to this subsection, such discovery
shall be limited solely to establishing whether a genuine
issue of material fact exists as to the applicable elements
set forth in paragraphs (1) and (92) of section 5(9)(d).
(3) Discovery with respect to a biomaterials supplier.--A
biomaterials supplier shall be subject to discovery in
connection with a motion seeking dismissal or summary
judgment on the basis of the inapplicability of section 5(d)
or the failure to establish the applicable elements of
section 5(d) solely to the extent permitted by the applicable
Federal or State rules for discovery against nonparties.
(d) Stay Pending Petition for Declaration.--If a claimant
has filed a petition for a declaration pursuant to section
5(b)(3)(A) with respect to a defendant, and the Secretary has
not issued a final decision on the petition, the court shall
stay all proceedings with respect to that defendant until
such time as the Secretary has issued a final decision on the
petition.
(a) Attorney Fees.--The court shall require the claimant to
compensate the biomaterials supplier for a manufacturer
appearing in lieu of a supplier pursuant to subsection (f)
for attorney fees and costs, if
(1) the claimant named or joined the biomaterials supplier;
and

[[Page S6502]]

(2) the court found the claim against the biolmaterials
supplier was clearly without merit and frivolous at the time
the claim was brought.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 967. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to benefit Alaska
Natives and rural residents, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.

Technical Changes to ANCSA and ANILCA

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation
on behalf of Alaska Natives and residents of rural Alaska. This
legislation makes technical changes to both the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act [ANCSA] and the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act [ANILCA]. Most of the provisions are similar to those
contained in H.R. 2505 passed by the House last year. These changes are
the direct result of more than three days of hearings consisting of 14
panels and more than 155 witnesses, the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources held throughout Alaska during the last Congress.

ANCSA Changes

Mr. President, ANCSA is 25 years old. This legislation is a living,
working document being used to improve the lives of Alaska's Native
residents and the future generations of Alaska Natives. We have amended
this document numerous times with technical changes in order to make it
a more effective piece of legislation.
The changes I am offering to ANCSA today would:
1. Allow Native Regional Corporations the option of retaining mineral
estates of native allotments surrounded by ANCSA 12(a) and 12(b)
selections.
2. Amend section 22(c) of ANCSA to include the Haida Corporation in
the transfer of the administration of certain mining claims.
3. Codify an agreement reached between ANCSA Native corporations
regarding revenue sharing on sales of rock, sand and gravel.
4. Direct the Secretary of Interior to determine the value of certain
Calista Corporation lands and to complete the exchange authorized by
Congress in 1991.
5. Authorize five southeast Alaska Native villages to organize as
Native corporations.
There are two provisions that I would like to single out here in my
remarks today.
Mr. President, section 5 of this legislation implements a land
exchange with the Calista Corporation, an Alaska Native regional
corporation organized under the authority of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act. This exchange, originally authorized in 1991, by Public
Law 102-172, would provide for the United States to acquire
approximately 225,000 acres of Calista and village corporation lands
and interests in lands within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge
in southwestern Alaska.
The Refuge serves as important habitat and breeding and nesting
grounds for a variety of fish and wildlife, including numerous species
of migratory birds and waterfowl. As a result, the Calista exchange
will enhance the conservation and protection of these vital habitats
and thereby further the purpose of ANCSA and the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act.
In addition to conservation benefits, this exchange will also render
much needed economic benefits to the Yupik Eskimo people of
southwestern Alaska. The Calista region is burdened by some of the
harshest economic and social conditions in the Nation. As a result of
this exchange, the Calista Corporation will be better able to make the
kind of investments that will improve the region's economy and the
lives of the Yupik people. In this regard, this provision furthers and
carries out the underlying purposes of ANCSA.
This provision is, in part, the result of discussions by the various
interested parties. As a result of those discussions, a number of
modifications were made to the original package of lands offered for
exchange. Chief among these were the addition of another 27,000 acres
of surface estate (fee and conservation casements) of village
corporation lands, as well as the Calista subsurface estate lying
underneath those lands, and the removal of the Tuluksak mineralized
parcel from the exchange.
In a last minute agreement to move the bill through the House last
year, the total value of the exchange package was reduced by 25% to $30
million. Such a reduction was unwarranted and seriously undermined the
utility and benefit of the provision for the public and for Calista and
the twelve village corporations involved. This legislation I introduce
today restores the value to the Calista exchange portion of this bill.
Mr. President, it is time to move forward with this exchange.
Section 8 of this legislation provides long-overdue authorization to
the Southeast Alaska Villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg,
Tenakee, and Wrangell, Alaska that will permit them to establish Native
Corporations under ANCSA. The history of these five villages clearly
shows that the Alaska Natives who enrolled in them and their heirs have
been inadvertently and wrongly denied the financial and cultural
benefits of enrollment in a Village, Urban, or Group Corporation.
This section simply amends ANCSA to provide authorization for each of
the five Unrecognized Communities to form a Native Corporation pursuant
to ANCSA, and directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation
with the Secretary of Agriculture, to submit to Congress a report
regarding lands and other compensation that should be provided to the
Corporations formed pursuant to this section. This section specifically
requires further Congressional action to provide compensation for these
communities.

ANILCA Changes

This legislation also addresses changes that need to be made to
ANILCA to ensure that the Federal agencies are fairly implementing this
legislation consistent with its written provisions and promises. These
changes will ensure that its implementation is consistent with the
intent of Congress. These are simple changes that among other things:
1. Require all public land managers in Alaska or in a region
containing Alaska to take a training course in ANILCA.
2. Authorize continuation of traditional subsistence activities in
Glacier Bay subject to reasonable regulations by NPS.
3. Protect traditional and inholder access in and across ANILCA
lands.
4. Protect property owners from having to relinquish ownership
interests in cabins and possessions within them on ANILCA lands.
Mr. President, seventeen years ago, Congress enacted the ANILCA.
Despite the opposition of many Alaskans, over 100 million acres of land
was set aside in a series of vast Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and
Wilderness units. Much of the concern about the Act was the impact of
these Federal units, and related management restrictions, on
traditional activities and lifestyles.
To allay these concerns, ANILCA included a series of unique
provisions designed to ensure that traditional activities and
lifestyles would continue, that Alaskans would not be subjected to a
``permit lifestyle'', and that the agencies would be required to
recognize the crucial distinction between managing small units
surrounded by millions of people in the lower 48 and vast multi-million
acre units encompassing a relative handful of individuals and
communities in Alaska. The sponsors of ANILCA issued repeated
assurances that the establishment of these units would in fact protect
traditional activities and lifestyles and not place them in jeopardy.
Early implementation of the Act closely reflected these promises.
However, as the years have passed, many of the Federal managers seem to
have lost sight of these important representations to the people of
Alaska. Agency personnel, trained primarily in lower 48 circumstances,
have brought the mentality of restriction and regulation to Alaska. The
critical distinctions between management of Parks, Refuges and
Wilderness areas in the 49th State and the lower 48 have blurred. The
result is the spread of restriction and regulation and the creation of
the exact ``permit lifestyle'' which we were promised would never
happen.

[[Page S6503]]

I have become increasingly aware of this disturbing trend. In my
conversations with Alaskans, I hear many complaints about ever
increasing restraints on traditional activities and requirements for
more and more paperwork and permits. A whole new ``industry'' has
sprung up to help Alaskans navigate the bureaucratic shoals that have
built up during the past few years.
Let me cite a few of the incidents that have come to my attention.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decides it wants to establish a
``wilderness management'' regime and eliminate motorboat use on a
river. It proceeds with the plan until protests cause the Regional
Solicitor to advise the Service that its plan violates Section 1110(a)
of ANILCA. Owners of cabins built, occupied, and used long before
ANILCA are told they must give up their interests in the cabins
although Section 1303 expressly enables cabin owners to retain their
possessory interests in their cabins. Visitor services contracts are
awarded and then revoked because the agencies failed to adhere to the
requirements of Section 1307. Small landowners of inholdings seek to
secure access to their property and are informed that they must file
for a right-of-way as a transportation and utility system and pay the
U.S. hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare a totally unnecessary
environmental impact statement. An outfitter spends substantial time
and money responding to a request for proposals, submits an apparently
winning proposal, and has the agency arbitrarily change its mind and
decide to withdraw its request--it does not offer to compensate the
outfitter for his efforts.
Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today will ensure that
agencies are fairly implementing ANILCA consistent with its written
provisions and promises. These technical corrections to ANILCA will
ensure that its implementation is consistent with the intent of
Congress.
Mr. President, conditions have changed in the 17 years since the
passage of ANILCA and we have all had a great deal of experience with
the Act's implementation. It is time to make the law clearer and to
make the federal manager's job easier.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

REVISED CALISTA LANDS PACKAGE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per acre Total exchange
Parcel name Interest to be conveyed Acreage value value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dall Lake................... Fee--Surface............................ 10,000 $325 $3,250,000
Hamilton.................... Fee--Surface............................ 7,135 325 2,318,875
Section 14(h)(8) entitlement Fee--Surface and Subsurface............. 10,000 704 7,040,000
Hooper Bay.................. Subsurface.............................. 27,034 90 2,433,060
Scammon Bay................. Subsurface.............................. 87,052 90 7,834,680
Kusilvak.................... Subsurface.............................. 57,284 90 5,155,560
Calista subsurface on TKC Subsurface.............................. 17,000 90 1,530,000
surface.
Calista subsurface on NIMA Subsurface.............................. 10,000 90 900,000
surface.
TKC......................... Conservation easement................... 17,000 243 4,131,000
NIMA........................ Surface................................. 10,000 325 3,250,000
Calista subsurface on Subsurface.............................. 7,135 90 642,150
Hamilton surface.
Calista subsurface on Dall Subsurface.............................. 10,000 90 900,000
Lake surface.

VALUATION SUMMARY

NIMA lands.................. Surface................................. 20,000 ........... $6,500,000
Hamilton lands.............. Surface................................. 7,135 ........... 2,318,875
TKC lands................... Surface................................. 17,000 ........... 4,131,000
Total village surface. ........................................ 44,135 ........... 12,949,875
Calista..................... Surface and subsurface, all parcels..... 225,505 ........... 26,435,450
Total exchange value.. ........................................ ........... ........... 39,385,325
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Mr. MACK:

S. 968. A bill to provide for special immigrant status for certain
aliens working as journalists in Hong Kong; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

The Hong Kong Press Freedom Act

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator
Lieberman, to introduce the Hong Kong Press Freedom Act.
Mr. President, as we consider China and Hong Kong in these final
weeks before Hong Kong reversion, it is important for us to reflect on
the facts, and what drives our behaviors toward China.
We fought the Cold War for freedom and democracy. The war is over,
but we know of 1.2 billion people still wearing the yoke of communism--
or at least nondemocratic oppression. On July 1, we might be forced to
witness that number grow by 6 million as Hong Kong falls under control
of the People's Republic of China. If the defining moment of the 1980s
was the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and the spread of freedom and
democracy, we should not allow this decade to be remembered most by the
victory of totalitarianism over human dignity.
One essential element of freedom is press freedom. Until recently,
Hong Kong enjoyed one of the freest presses in the world. But already,
experts point to instances of self censorship occurring on the island.
All indications are that this freedom will continue to deteriorate
following Hong Kong's reversion.
Today, I am introducing a bill in the Senate to encourage press
freedom in Hong Kong. A similar measure was introduced in the House by
Representative Porter and 27 other members in February. The measure
supports those Hong Kong journalists who chose to remain loyal to the
standards of honest and open reporting. Specifically, this bill
provides special immigration status to journalists and their families
should they be threatened as a result of their reporting. When Senator
Lieberman and I visited Hong Kong earlier this year, we heard several
stories of self-censorship occurring in the Hong Kong press. Many of
the larger papers were losing circulation and the underground and small
papers were growing. It is this free thought and competition which we
seek to preserve.
Without press freedom, what other freedom can survive? While this is
a small and specific measure, its impact can be profound. I urge
immediate consideration and passage of this measure.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague,
Senator Mack, in introducing the Hong Kong Press Freedom Act.
In a very few days, Hong Kong will revert to Chinese sovereignty.
Already, there is evidence that China will not fully honor its
commitment to preserve Hong Kong's democratic institutions and way of
life under the rubric, one country, two systems. Beijing has announced
it will eliminate Hong Kong's democratically elected legislative
council and that it will reimpose several restrictive civil order
statutes, including against certain types of political expression. Even
more disturbing, there are indications that media self-censorship is
replacing freedom of the press.
It is fitting and proper that we introduce this legislation now.
Eight years ago, Chinese authorities, most of whom remain in power
today, brutally massacred students and others who wanted assurances
that their government would become more accountable to the will of the
people. They were seeking democratic progress, not revolutionary
license. Beijing answered them with tanks, and 8 years later, Tiananmen
Square remains a vivid reminder of what autocrats can and will do even
in full view of astonished world opinion.
This bill would not have prevented the evil of Tiananmen Square; and
it is not intended as a warning to China. It is simply principle put
into action. As Americans, we understand how important a free press is
to preserving the rule of law and to protecting the rights and dignity
of individuals against the

[[Page S6504]]

power of the state. Our action here will help assure that reporters in
hong Kong will not be cowed by the memory of Tiananmen Square. This
bill supports those who choose to put themselves at risk by reporting
honestly and openly what they see and hear when the Chinese flag
replaces the Union Jack. We owe them our gratitude and protection, and
this bill will help us provide it.
Specifically, this measure offers special immigration status to
journalists and their families if they are threatened with reprisal
because of their work. A similar measure was introduced in the House by
Representative Porter and 27 other Members in February. I urge my
Senate colleagues to join this effort and to pass the Hong Kong press
freedom bill.
______

By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Mr. Chafee and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 969. A bill ordering the preparation of a Government report
detailing injustices suffered by Italian Americans during World War II,
and a formal acknowledgement of such injustices by the President; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.

The Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, thousands of Italian-Americans became
innocent victims of wartime fever--a panicked and a paranoid reaction
that all people of foreign extraction linked to belligerent countries
were spies, sabatours and un-American. Fear of fifth columnists and
quisling-type activities led government officials to abridge the civil
rights of Americans who came from warring countries. Patriotic
propaganda villifying the treachery of sneak attacks, blitzkrieg and
totalitarian domination had an effect on the homefront view of Italian,
German and Japanese immigrants as well as naturalized citizens,
inducing discrimination. Initial mistakes were magnified by protective
zeal into wholesale judgements about aliens, which led to the
detainment, internment and harassment of these people.
That is why, Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues
Senator Chafee and Torricelli to right a terrible wrong that happened
in this country over 50 years ago. In a country that so cherishes its
equality among men and women, and boasts its democratic process, the
United States has a dark spot in its history. Most Americans are not
aware of the tragedy experienced by so many fellow citizens over half a
century ago, a tragedy committed by the American government against
people of Italian descent.
In early 1942, 600,000 aliens of Italian descent were deemed to be
``enemy aliens'' and were forced to re-register and carry
identification. Our government restricted their travel to their
neighborhoods and classified normal household items, such as shortwave
radios, cameras, flashlights and weapons as contraband material in
their possession.
On February 19, 1942, an Executive Order was issued giving the
Secretary of War the authority to exclude American citizens as well as
alien enemies, from such areas as the Secretary should designate.
Americans now realize that this provision began a dark period of
American history, authorizing the internment of immigrants residing in
the United States as well as American citizens. While most Americans
are aware of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II,
few are aware that Italians and German legal residents of the United
States were also restricted.
Italian immigrants, Italian-Americans and their families were viewed
as a genuine threat to American security at the beginning of World War
II. Fear and ethnic bias led to the relocation of nearly 10,000 members
of the Italian community from their homes on the West Coast. Hundreds
of people were taken from their homes and brought to guarded army camp
in areas as far east as Minnesota.
And all this effort and anxiety for naught- even by war's end, not a
single act of sabotage was attributable to Italian-Americans. On the
contrary, Italians fought in America's victorious forces in the
European and Asian theater and thousands made the ultimate sacrifice
for our nation's survival.
As one could imagine, the effects on these families were disastrous.
Four men committed suicide. These men (Martini Battistessa, Guiseppe
Micheli, Giovanni Sanguenetti and Stefano Terranova) suffered at the
hands of government officials. Italian American fisherman were
grounded, their livelihood gone.
Several experts have taken a look at the treatment of Italian
Americans during the early 1940's. Stephen Fox wrote a book called The
Unknown Internment: An Oral History of the Relocation of Italian
Americans during World War II. In the preface, Stephen Fox describes
the horrific treatment of people whose only crime was being of Italian
descent in America during World War II.
Salvatore J. LaGumina, Professor of History and Director of the
Center for Italian American Studies at Nassau Community College wrote
an article in the Italian American Review called ``Enemy Alien: Italian
Americans During World War II''. In the article he states:

``A ban on Italian language radio programs affected
stations in New York City and Boston. Various Italian
American newspapers suspended publication at least during
the war years and in some instances ceased publication
permanently. Customary Italian religious feast
celebrations were likewise deferred or significantly
diminished . . . In Westbury, Long Island, most Italian
American organizations suspended their traditional feast
celebrations for the duration of the war except for the
Dell'Assunta Society which insisted it be allowed to march
on the village streets during its festival, on the grounds
that it was a religious not an ethnic celebration.

Robert Masulla, writing for the Italic Way Newsletter, cited that
Italian immigrant fishermen were denied their livelihood and some
``even had their boats impounded by the U.S. government and utilized
for patrol and minesweeping duties''.
It was not until October 12, 1942 that Italian immigrants were
removed from the enemy alien category. Mr. Fox's historical study
indicated that the internment effort was abandoned because the alien
relocation would overly tax the U.S. Army's already over-extended
logistical network, threaten the defense industry and lower civilian
morale.
In 1988, this body finally faced a terrible past that we could no
longer ignore--the internment of immigrants from Japan or Japanese-
Americans. Now it is time to provide recognition and remorsefulness for
the treatment of Italian aliens and Italian Americans who had to endure
the horrific actions of our own government--a government that has stood
for freedom, not oppression.
That is why I have joined with my colleagues in the House of
Representatives, particularly its lead sponsors, Congressmen Engel and
Lazio, to introduce this bill, the ``Wartime Violation of Italian
American Civil Liberties Act''. Its provisions are clear and straight-
forward:
It recognizes the treatment of Italian Americans during World War II.
It calls on the President to formally acknowledge that the civil
liberties of Italian Americans were violated in the United States in
the early 1940's.
It encourages federal agencies to support projects which increase the
public's awareness of the internment of Italians during the Second
World War.
It states that the President and Congress provide direct funding in
order to educate the American public through a film documentary,
particularly to document the testimony of the survivors of the
internment.
It recommends the formation of an advisory committee to assist in the
compilation of historical data, to accurately reflect the incidents
that transpired.
It calls on the Department of Justice to publish a report on the U.S.
Government's role in the internment.
The facts need to be told in order to acknowledge that these events
happened, to remember those who lived through the humiliation and to
discourage any similar injustices from occurring in the future.
______

By LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 971. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
improve the quality of coastal recreation waters, and for other
purposes; to the

[[Page S6505]]

Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health Act of 1997

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Torricelli and
myself, I rise to introduce the Beaches Environmental Assessment,
Closure and Health (BEACH) Act.
Mr. President, coastal tourism generates billions of dollars every
year for local communities nationwide. Moreover, our coastal areas
provide immeasurable recreational benefits for millions of Americans
who want to build sand castles, cool off in the water, take a walk with
that special someone, or just relax. New Jersey's tourism sector is the
second largest revenue-producing industry in the state. Without a
doubt, the lure of my state's beaches generates most of this revenue--
over $7 billion annually.
Mr. President, this heavily used natural resource can actually pose a
threat to human health if it is not properly managed. Studies conducted
during the past two decades show a definite and alarming relationship
between the amount of indicator bacteria in coastal waters and the
incidence of illnesses associated with swimming.
Water-borne viruses are the major cause of swimming-associated
diseases--gastroenteritis and hepatitis are the most common ones
worldwide. And because an individual afflicted with these diseases are
contagious, the risk of sewage-borne illness does not end with the
bather.
Nationwide, state and local governments reported almost 4,000 beach
closings or warnings because of bacteria contamination.
New Jersey has been particularly aggressive in protecting public
health at the beach. New Jersey is one of only a few states to have a
mandatory beach protection program that includes a bacteria standard, a
monitoring program, and mandatory beach closure requirements. The
program is designed to address water quality from both a health and an
environmental perspective. Beaches are closed when bacteria levels
exceed the standard regardless of the pollution source.
Ironically, New Jersey is penalized because it does more to protect
public health than most other states. In past years the annual losses
from beach closures in New Jersey have ranged from $800 million to $1
billion while beaches remain open in competing states that do not
publicize the questionable quality of their water.
I have introduced over this legislation several times over the past
several years. The bill, the Beaches, Environmental Assessment, Closure
and Health Act, is known by the acronym ``BEACH'' bill. The bill will
address the uneven efforts to protect beach goers by establishing
uniform testing and monitoring procedures for pathogens and floatables
in marine recreation waters.
This bill requires the EPA to establish procedures to monitor coastal
waters to detect short-term increases in pathogenicity and to set
minimum standards to protect the public from pathogen contaminated
beach waters. And it will assure that the public is notified when beach
waters exceed the standards and public health may be at risk.
Going to the beach should be a healthy and rejuvenating experience. A
day at the beach shouldn't be followed by a day at the doctor. Whether
they go to the beach in the Carolinas or in California, in New Jersey
or New York--Americans across the country have a right to know when the
water is and is not safe for swimming. Beach goers should be able to
wade or swim in the surf without the fear of getting sick.
I am very pleased that EPA has recognized the seriousness of this
problem and the need for a federal solution. As a result of BEACH bills
that I have introduced, the EPA announced its own Beaches Environmental
Assessment, Closure and Health program. Under this program, EPA has
begun to survey state and local health and environmental directors on
the quality of coastal recreational waters for posting on the Internet
next year. By next summer, the website will serve as a clearinghouse to
provide the public access to health-related information available from
states and other sources on the quality of recreational water. The goal
is to expand the beach public's ``right to know'' on the quality of the
nation's beaches. The aim is to encourage those beaches that keep their
water quality from the public to make that information as readily
available as is done in New Jersey.
However, without mandatory, uniform regulation these EPA programs
will be ineffective. While some states use EPA guidelines, others have
no programs for regularly monitoring their beach water for swimmer
safety. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that only 7
states--New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Hampshire,
Ohio and Indiana --comprehensively monitor their beaches, and a mere 6
states consistently close beaches when bacteria water quality standards
are violated. Additionally, NRDC found that while a high bacteria level
cause beach closures in one state other sates may allow people to swim
despite the identical health risks. This discrepancy threatens public
health. That is why we need to pass this legislation as soon as
possible.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
importance of protecting public health at our nation's beaches by
cosponsoring this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 971

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 ``Beaches Environmental
Assessment, Closure, and Health Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Nation's beaches are a valuable public resource
used for recreation by millions of people annually;
(2) the beaches of coastal States are hosts to many out-of-
State and international visitors;
(3) tourism in the coastal zone generates billions of
dollars annually;
(4) increased population has contributed to the decline in
the environmental quality of coastal waters;
(5) pollution in coastal waters is not restricted by State
and other political boundaries;
(6) coastal States have different methods of testing the
quality of coastal recreation waters, providing varying
degrees of protection to the public;
(7) the adoption of consistent criteria by coastal States
for monitoring the quality of coastal recreation waters, and
the posting of signs at beaches notifying the public during
periods when the standards are exceeded, would enhance public
health and safety; and
(8) while the adoption of such criteria will enhance public
health and safety, exceedances of such criteria should be
addressed, where feasible, as part of a watershed approach to
effectively identify and eliminate sources of pollution.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to require uniform
criteria and procedures for testing, monitoring, and posting
of coastal recreation waters at beaches open for use by the
public to protect public safety and improve environmental
quality.

SEC. 3. ADOPTION OF COASTAL RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA BY STATES.

(a) General Rule.--A State shall adopt water quality
criteria for coastal recreation waters which, at a minimum,
are consistent with the criteria published by the
Administrator under section 304(a)(1) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(1)) not later than
3\1/2\ years following the date of the enactment of this Act.
Such water quality criteria shall be developed and
promulgated in accordance with the requirements of section
303(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1313(c)). A State shall incorporate such criteria into all
appropriate programs into which such State would incorporate
other water quality criteria adopted under such section
303(c) and revise such criteria not later than 3 years
following the date of publication of revisions by the
Administrator under section 4(b) of this Act.
(b) Failure of States To Adopt.--If a State has not
complied with subsection (a) by the last day of the 3\1/2\-
year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act, the water quality criteria issued by the Administrator
under section 304(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act shall become applicable as the water quality
criteria for coastal recreational waters for the State, and
shall be deemed to have been promulgated by the Administrator
pursuant to section 303(c)(4).

SEC. 4. REVISIONS TO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA.

(a) Studies.--After consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, and local officials, including local health officials,
and other interested persons, but not later than the last day
of the 3-year period beginning on the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Administrator shall conduct, in cooperation
with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, studies to provide

[[Page S6506]]

additional information to the current base of knowledge for
use in developing--
(1) a more complete list of potential health risks,
including effects to the upper respiratory system;
(2) better indicators for directly detecting or predicting
in coastal recreational waters the presence of pathogens
which are harmful to human health; and
(3) more expeditious methods (including predictive models)
for detecting in coastal recreation waters the presence of
pathogens which are harmful to human health.
(b) Revised Criteria.--Based on the results of the studies
conducted under subsection (a), the Administrator, after
consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local
officials, including local health officials, shall issue,
within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act
(and review and revise from time to time thereafter, but in
no event less than once every 5 years) revised water quality
criteria for pathogens in coastal recreation waters that are
harmful to human health, including a revised list of
indicators and testing methods.

SEC. 5. COASTAL BEACH WATER QUALITY MONITORING.

Title IV of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1341-1345) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:

``SEC. 406. COASTAL BEACH WATER QUALITY MONITORING.

``(a) Monitoring.--Within 18 months after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall publish
and revise regulations requiring monitoring of, and
specifying available methods to be used by States to monitor,
coastal recreation waters at beaches open for use by the
public for compliance with applicable water quality criteria
for those waters and protection of the public safety.
Monitoring requirements established pursuant to this
subsection shall, at a minimum--
``(1) specify the frequency of monitoring based on the
periods of recreational use of such waters;
``(2) specify the frequency of monitoring based on the
extent and degree of use during such periods;
``(3) specify the frequency and location of monitoring
based on the proximity of coastal recreation waters to known
or identified point and nonpoint sources of pollution and in
relation to storm events;
``(4) specify methods for detecting levels of pathogens
that are harmful to human health and for identifying short-
term increases in pathogens that are harmful to human health
in coastal recreation waters, including in relation to storm
events; and
``(5) specify the conditions and procedures under which
discrete areas of coastal recreation waters may be exempted
by the Administrator from the monitoring requirements of this
subsection, if the Administrator determines that an exemption
will not impair--
``(A) compliance with the applicable water quality criteria
for those waters; and
``(B) protection of the public safety.
``(b) Notification Requirements.--Regulations published
pursuant to subsection (a) shall require States to provide
prompt notification to local governments and the public of
exceedance of applicable water quality criteria for State
coastal recreation waters or the immediate likelihood of such
an exceedance. Notification pursuant to this subsection shall
include, at a minimum--
``(1) prompt communication of the occurrence, nature, and
extent of such an exceedance, or the immediate likelihood of
such an exceedance based on predictive models to a designated
official of a local government having jurisdiction over land
adjoining the coastal recreation waters for which an
exceedance is identified; and
``(2) posting of signs for the period during which the
exceedance continues, sufficient to give notice to the public
of an exceedance of applicable water quality criteria for
such waters and the potential risks associated with water
contact activities in such waters.
``(c) Floatable Materials Monitoring Procedures.--The
Administrator shall--
``(1) issue guidance on uniform assessment and monitoring
procedures for floatable materials in coastal recreation
waters; and
``(2) specify the conditions under which the presence of
floatable material shall constitute a threat to public health
and safety.
``(d) State Implementation.--A State must implement a
monitoring program that conforms to the regulations issued
pursuant to subsection (a) not later than 3\1/2\ years after
the date of the enactment of this section and revise such
program not later than 2 years following the date of
publication of revisions by the Administrator under
subsection (f).
``(e) Delegation of Responsibility.--Not later than 18
months after the date of the enactment of this section, the
Administrator shall issue guidance for the delegation of
State testing, monitoring, and posting programs under this
section to local government authorities. In the case that
such responsibilities are delegated by a State to a local
government authority, or have been delegated to a local
government authority before such date of enactment, in a
manner that, at a minimum, is consistent with the guidance
issued by the Administrator, State resources shall be made
available to the delegated authority for the purpose of
program implementation.
``(f) Review and Revision of Regulations.--The
Administrator shall review and revise regulations published
pursuant to this section periodically, but in no event less
than once every 5 years.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Coastal recreation waters.--The term `coastal
recreation waters' means Great Lakes and marine coastal
waters (including bays) used by the public for swimming,
bathing, surfing, or other similar water contact activities.
``(2) Floatable materials.--The term `floatable materials'
means any foreign matter that may float or remain suspended
in the water column and includes plastic, aluminum cans,
wood, bottles, and paper products.''.

SEC. 6. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 4 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and periodically thereafter, the Administrator
shall submit to Congress a report including--
(1) recommendations concerning the need for additional
water quality criteria and other actions needed to improve
the quality of coastal recreation waters; and
(2) an evaluation of State efforts to implement this Act,
including the amendments made by this Act.

SEC. 7. GRANTS TO STATES.

(a) Grants.--Subject to subsection (c), the Administrator
may make grants to States for use in fulfilling requirements
established pursuant to section 3 of this Act and section 406
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(b) Cost Sharing.--The total amount of grants to a State
under this section for a fiscal year shall not exceed 50
percent of the cost to the State of implementing requirements
established pursuant to section 3 of this Act and section 406
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(c) Eligible State.--After the last day of the 3\1/2\-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Administrator may make a grant to a State under this
section only if the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that it is implementing its monitoring and
posting program under section 406 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.

SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Coastal recreation waters.--The term ``coastal
recreation waters'' means Great Lakes and marine coastal
waters (including bays) used by the public for swimming,
bathing, surfing, or other similar body contact purposes.
(3) Floatable materials.--The term ``floatable materials''
means any foreign matter that may float or remain suspended
in the water column and includes plastic, aluminum cans,
wood, bottles, and paper products.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator--
(1) for use in making grants to States under section 7 not
more than $4,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1998
through 2002; and
(2) for carrying out the other provisions of this Act not
more than $1,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1998
through 2002.
______

By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Coats, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 972. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit
any deduction for gambling losses; to the Committee on Finance.

REPEAL THE GAMBLING LOSS TAX DEDUCTION

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this week the Senate has considered
legislation to fundamentally change Medicare and other programs that
are vital to millions of Americans. I realize that we must make
difficult choices about these valuable initiatives as we move toward a
balanced budget. However, as we seek to invest in our nation's future,
we must also confront loopholes and subsidies that waste our limited
resources.
The tax code contains many such loopholes, which fail to reflect our
nation's true priorities. For example, the United States is subsidizing
thousands of professional gamblers by allowing tax deductions for
gambling losses to the extent of gambling winnings. The Joint Tax
Committee reports that this deduction costs taxpayers $1.43 billion
over five years.
The gambling loss tax deduction is an anomaly for individuals who
frequent an industry that sells itself as providing entertainment. In
general, the tax code does not allow deductions for discretionary
spending on entertainment, and I believe that it is more than
reasonable to hold gambling expenditures to this same standard.
Repealing the gambling loss tax deduction merely increases the cost of
one entertainment option, a factor that gamblers can consider in
determining how to spend their discretionary income. Furthermore, while
most business deductions are for investments--

[[Page S6507]]

and even losses--that could have created needed job opportunities for
our nation's citizens, this is not the case for the losses claimed by
professional gamblers on their personal income taxes.
Perhaps more importantly, the gambling loss tax deduction primarily
benefits professional gamblers and wealthy individuals who spend large
sums on gambling. In 1994 alone, $2.78 billion in gambling losses was
deducted on some 427,000 tax returns. Individuals with adjusted gross
incomes of at least $75,000 claimed nearly 55% of these gambling
losses, and people with adjusted gross incomes of at least $100,000
claimed an astounding 40% of these deductions.
When Congress is cutting essential programs to balance the budget, it
is simply unsound policy to subsidize gamblers. I urge my colleagues to
join me, Senator Chafee, Senator Coats, and Senator Inhofe in
supporting legislation to repeal the gambling loss tax deduction, and
in taking a step to ensure that we balance the budget in a way that
reflects our nation's priorities and invests in our nation's future.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this
legislation to repeal the gambling loss tax deduction be included in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 972

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ANY DEDUCTION FOR GAMBLING LOSSES.

(A) In General.--Section 165(d) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to wagering losses) is amended to read
as follows:
``(d) No Deduction for Wagering Losses.--No deduction shall
be allowed for losses from wagering transactions.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 21,
1997.
______

By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
S. 973. A bill to designate the United States Post Office building
located at 551 Kingstown Road in Wakefield, Rhode Island, as the
``David B. Champagne Post Office Building''; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

the david b. champagne post office act

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Corporal
David B. Champagne, USMC, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of
Honor for service in Korea. In honor of the sacrifice made by this
heroic young man, I am introducing a bill to name the new post office
at 551 Kingstown Road in Wakefield, RI the ``David B. Champagne Post
Office'' with my Rhode Island colleague Senator Chafee.
The son of Mr. and Mrs. Bernard L. Champagne, Corporal Champagne
served in the National Guard before graduating from South Kingstown
High School and enlisting in the Marines in March 1951. He was the only
Rhode Island resident to receive this nation's highest award for valor,
the Medal of Honor, for service in Korea. The citation accompanying the
Medal read:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of
his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a
fire team leader of Company A, First Battalion, Seventh
Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), in action
against enemy aggressor forces in Korea on 28 May 1952.
Advancing with his platoon in the initial assault of the
company against a strongly fortified and heavily defended
hill position, Corporal Champagne skillfully led his fire
team through a veritable hail of intense enemy machine-gun,
small-arms and grenade fire, overrunning trenches and a
series of almost impregnable bunker positions before reaching
the crest of the hill and placing his men in defensive
positions. Suffering a painful leg wound while assisting in
repelling the ensuing hostile counterattack, which was
launched under cover of a murderous hail of mortar and
artillery fire, he steadfastly refused evacuation and
fearlessly continued to control his fire team. When the enemy
counterattack increased in intensity, and a hostile grenade
landed in the midst of the fire team, Corporal Champagne
unhesitating seized the deadly missile and hurled it in the
direction of the approaching enemy. As the grenade left his
hand, it exploded, blowing off his hand and throwing him out
of the trench. Mortally wounded by the enemy mortar fire
while in this exposed position, Corporal Champagne, by his
valiant leadership, fortitude and gallant spirit of self-
sacrifice in the face of almost certain death, undoubtedly
saved the lives of several of his fellow Marines. His heroic
actions served to inspire all who observed him and reflect
the highest credit upon himself and the United States Naval
Service. He gallantly gave his life for his country.

In addition to the Medal of Honor, Corporal Champagne received the
Korean Medal of Honor, the Rhode Island Cross, the Purple Heart, the
National Defense Service Medal, the Korean Service Medal with 3 Battle
Stars, the Korean Presidential Unit Citation, and the United Nation's
Service Medal.
Corporal Champagne is truly an American hero. In the best spirit of
this country, he volunteered to go to a foreign land and fight for
people he had never met, so that they would not be subjected to the
rule of a totalitarian regime.
In my home state of Rhode Island a Korean War Memorial is under
construction at the State Veterans' Cemetery. Carved on that memorial
will be the same words that are inscribed on the Korean War Memorial
dedicated in Washington, DC: ``Freedom Is Not Free.'' Corporal
Champagne understood the meaning of those words. He unhesitatingly paid
the ultimate price to preserve the freedom of South Korea and to save
the lives of his men.
This legislation would pay proper tribute to this remarkable young
man and commemorate his incredible valor for future generations. I ask
my colleagues to join Senator Chafee and me in honoring Corporal David
B. Champagne by supporting this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this
legislation to name the new Wakefield post office after Corporal
Champagne be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 973

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DAVID B. CHAMPAGNE POST OFFICE
BUILDING.

The United States Post Office building located at 551
Kingstown Road in Wakefield, Rhode Island, shall be known and
designated as the ``David B. Champagne Post Office
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the United States
Post Office building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed
to be a reference to the ``David B. Champagne Post Office
Building''.
______

By Mr. REED:
S. 974. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify
the qualifications for a country to be designated as a visa waiver
pilot program country; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

visa waiver program legislation

Mr. REED. Mr. President, for the past 9 years the visa waiver pilot
program has been a resounding success. Today, citizens from twenty-five
countries are able to travel to the United States without the burden of
obtaining a visa from a U.S. embassy before leaving home. Because the
program makes travel so much easier, business has boomed, tourism has
soared, and family members have been able to be with each other on
occasions when it mattered. Cutting the bureaucratic red tape has
strengthened our economic and cultural ties with participating
countries. In addition, streamlining this administrative process has
enabled the State Department to use its resources more efficiently and
effectively, saving the American taxpayers thousands of dollars.
Today, I am introducing a bill which will extend the privilege of the
visa waiver program to additional countries with strong ties to our
Nation. This legislation will slightly modify the criteria that a
country must meet in order to participate in the program. Under these
modifications, one country which will gain admittance to the visa
waiver program is Portugal. Portugal is one of only two members of the
European Union which is not included in the visa waiver program. It is
time for that inequity to be corrected.
The Portuguese were some of the earliest explorers and settlers of
the United States and they have been contributing to our country ever
since. Over one million U.S. citizens claim Portuguese descent and
there are thriving Portuguese communities from New England to Hawaii.
We owe these members of our American community the opportunity to see
family members who live in Portugal when they need them, without the
worry and hassle of obtaining a visa.
Inclusion in the visa waiver program will promote the economic
exchange

[[Page S6508]]

between Portugal and the United States. Portugal is a valued trading
partner and if members of the business community are able to travel to
the U.S. without delaying to obtain a business, their contributions to
this country will only increase. At a time when the U.S. economy is the
wonder of the world and our market is truly global, our country should
seek out and facilitate additional economic opportunities.
In 1974, the citizens of Portugal overthrew a dictatorship and
established a democracy. Their brave actions began a wave of
democratization that spread across the world and is still reverberating
today. No other country reflects the principles of the United States
better than Portugal. We should do everything possible to lower the
barriers and strengthen the exchange between our two countries.
Including Portugal in the visa waiver program is an important first
step in this process.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this
legislation be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 974

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

SECTION 1. QUALIFICATIONS FOR DESIGNATION AS PILOT PROGRAM
COUNTRY.

Section 217(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1187(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Qualifications.--Except as provided in subsection
(g), a country may not be designated as a pilot program
country unless the following requirements are met:
``(A) Low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate.--Either--
``(i) the average number of refusals of nonimmigrant
visitor visas for nationals of that country during--
``(I) the two previous full fiscal years was less than 2.0
percent of the total number of nonimmigrant visitor visas for
nationals of that country which were granted or refused
during those years; and
``(II) either of such two previous full fiscal years was
less than 2.5 percent of the total number of nonimmigrant
visitor visas for nationals of that country which were
granted or refused during that year; or
``(ii) such refusal rate for nationals of that country
during--
``(I) the previous full fiscal year was less than 3.5
percent; and
``(II) the two previous full fiscal years was at least 50
percent less than such refusal rate during fiscal year 1994.
``(B) Machine readable passport program.--The government of
the country certifies that it has or is in the process of
developing a program to issue machine-readable passports to
its citizens.
``(C) Law enforcement interests.--The Attorney General
determines that the United States law enforcement interests
would not be compromised by the designation of the
country.''.

____________________