[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.''.

                          ____________________