[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 107 (Friday, July 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8153-S8156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Faircloth, and 
        Mr. Nickles):
  S. 1068. A bill to amend section 353 of the Public Health Service Act 
to exempt physician office laboratories from the clinical laboratories 
requirements of that section; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


       THE CLINICAL LABORATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that is critically needed to reduce the regulatory burdens on our 
doctor's offices today.
  In 1988, Congress passed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act as a 
reaction to reports about laboratories that inaccurately analyzed PAP 
smears. CLIA 1988 was intended to address the quality of laboratory 
test performance. Unfortunately, the regulations enacted as a result of 
the CLIA 1988 legislation did not reflect the intent of the act. What 
in effect happened following the passage of CLIA 1988 was a series of 
regulations that substantially increased the amount of paperwork to be 
performed in physician offices and now ultimately increases the cost of 
health care to the patients. There has been little, if any, 
documentation that the CLIA 1988 reforms resulted in an improvement in 
patient care.
  In fact, a Texas Medical Association study showed that the annual 
cost of the labor and administrative overhead added by CLIA averages 
$4,435 per physician. This is in addition to the cost of registration, 
controls, proficiency testing, and inspection or accreditation. At a 
time when the entire health care industry is under pressure to control 
health care costs, the CLIA regulations not only subject physicians to 
increased administrative costs but also decrease the amount of time 
devoted to patient care.
  One Texas physician describes his CLIA inspection as being left with 
a feeling that nothing of any real value was accomplished. Dr. McBrayer 
from the Texas Panhandle relates the inspection:

       We were written up for such monumental things as the fact 
     that I had not signed the procedure manual for one of our lab 
     machines. Therefore, everything done on that machine, 
     including the training, was out of compliance. The fact that 
     the manufacturer's rep had come and trained the staff was to 
     no avail. Everything was out of compliance because I didn't 
     sign it. It didn't matter that they had learned how to use 
     it. That was irrelevant.

  The CLIA amendments I am introducing will reduce the burdens on 
physicians who perform laboratory tests in their offices and thereby 
free up resources and time to dedicate to patient care. In Texas alone, 
of the physicians who provided testing services in their offices prior 
to CLIA, 27 percent have closed their office labs, and another 31 
percent have discounted some type of testing, as a direct result of the 
CLIA 1988 reforms. This has resulted in some areas of Texas 
experiencing physician shortages. Many physicians are concerned about 
the possible consequences to patients caused by the decreased access to 
testing or the delay in obtaining results. In the wake of the health 
care reform debate, it is important to promote quality-driven cost-
effective ways of delivery care.
  Mr. President, the CLIA 1997 amendments will not jeopardize the 
quality of laboratory testing. This bill will exempt physician office 
lab tests from the CLIA 1988 restrictions that have caused many 
physicians to discontinue simple laboratory tests due to the excessive 
amounts of regulation involved in the performance of these tests. The 
CLIA 1997 amendments that I am introducing today in the Senate will 
have the narrow purpose of ensuring that essential laboratory testing 
performed by physicians remain a viable diagnostic option for 
physicians and their patients without the excessive rules and 
administratively complex requirements that currently exist, and, most 
importantly, eliminate the strain the CLIA 1988 legislation is placing 
on patients in rural areas who are losing access to necessary testing 
and care.
  I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
legislation, which will reduce health care costs and improve the 
ability of patients to receive laboratory tests in a timely fashion 
while providing the much needed regulatory relief to physicians all 
over the country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Warner):
  S. 1069. A bill entitled the ``National Discovery Trails Act of 
1997''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


               THE NATIONAL DISCOVERY TRAILS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today for the purpose of 
introducing legislation that I think is most significant. This 
legislation will particularly appeal to those who are inclined to enjoy 
the outdoors because it will establish our Nation's first coast-to-
coast multiuse hiking trail. Take a moment and think about that. You 
will be able to hike from coast to coast on a hiking trail. That means 
off the highways, away from the roads, behind the freeways. A true 
outdoor experience.
  Trails are one of America's most popular recreation resources. 
Millions of Americans hike, they ski, they jog, they bike, they ride 
horses, they drive snow machines and all-terrain vehicles, they observe 
nature, commute, and relax on trails throughout the country.
  A variety of trails are provided nationwide, including urban bike 
paths, bridle paths, community greenways, historic trails, motorized 
trails, and long-distance hiking trails. This legislation will 
establish the American Discovery Trail, or ADT as it is commonly 
called. The ADT is a continuous coast-to-coast trail to link the 
Nation's principal north-south trails and east-west historic trails 
with shorter local and regional trails into a nationwide network.
  Mr. President, by establishing a system of discovery trails, this new 
category will recognize that using and enjoying trails close to home is 
equally as important as traversing remote wilderness trails, of which 
we have many in my State of Alaska. Long-distance

[[Page S8154]]

trails are used mostly by people living close to the trail and by 
weekenders. Backpacking excursions are normally a few days to a couple 
of weeks. As an example, of the estimated 4 million users of the 
Appalachian Trail, each year it is estimated that only about 100 to 150 
walk the entire trail annually. This will be true of the American 
Discovery Trail as well, especially because of its proximity to urban 
locations throughout the country.
  The ADT, the first of the discovery trails, will connect 6 of the 
national scenic trails, 10 of the national historic trails, 23 of the 
national recreation trails, and hundreds of other local and regional 
trails. Until now, the element that has been missing in order to create 
a national system of connected trails is that the existing trails, for 
the most part, are simply not connectable. With the ADT that will no 
longer be the case.

  The ADT is about access. The trails will connect people to larger 
cities, small towns, urban areas and to mountains, forests, deserts and 
natural areas, incorporating regional, local, and national trails 
together.
  What makes this so exciting is the way it has already brought people 
together. More than 100 organizations along the trail's 6,000 miles 
support the effort. Each State the trail passes through already has a 
volunteer coordination effort, and coordinators who lead an active ADT 
committee. A strong grassroots effort along with financial support from 
Backpacker magazine, Eco USA, The Coleman Companies and others, have 
helped make the ADT move from a dream to a reality.
  Only one very more important step on the trail needs to be taken. 
Congress needs to authorize the trail as part of our national trail 
system. I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort.
  The American Discovery Trail begins, or ends, when your two feet go 
into the Pacific at Point Reyes National Seashore, just north of San 
Francisco. Next are Berkeley and Sacramento before the climb to the 
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail in Lake Tahoe in the middle of the 
Sierra Nevada Mountains.
  Nevada offers historic Virginia City, home of the Comstock Lode, the 
Pony Express National Historic Trail, Great Basin National Park with 
Lehman Caves and Wheeler Peak.
  Utah provides national forests and parks along with spectacular red 
rock country, which leads into Colorado offering Colorado National 
Monument with its 20,445 acres of sandstone monoliths and canyons. Then 
there is the Grand Mesa over Scofield Pass and Crested Butte, in the 
heart of the ski country as you follow the Colorado and Continental 
Divide Trails into Evergreen. I wish I was there myself this afternoon.
  At Denver, the ADT divides and becomes the northern and southern 
Midwest routes. The northern Midwest route winds through Nebraska, 
Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; the southern Midwest route leaves 
Colorado and the Air Force Academy and follows the tracks and wagon 
wheel ruts of thousands of early pioneers through Kansas and Missouri 
as well as settlements and historic places in Illinois, Indiana, 
Kentucky until the trail joins the northern route in Cincinnati.
  West Virginia is next, then Maryland and the C&O Canal. This leads to 
Washington, DC, where the trail passes The Mall, the White House, the 
Capitol, and then heads on to Annapolis. Finally, in Delaware, the 
trail reaches the eastern terminus at Cape Henlopen State Park and the 
Atlantic Ocean.
  Between the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, one will experience the most 
spectacular scenery in the world, thousands of historic sites, lakes, 
rivers and streams of every size. The trail offers an opportunity to 
discovery America from small towns, to rural countryside, to large 
metropolitan areas.
  When the President signs the legislation into law, a 10-year effort 
will have been achieved. The American Discovery Trail will become a 
reality. The more people who use it, the better.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1069

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Discovery Trails 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT AMENDMENTS.

       Section 3(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1242(a)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the 
     following:
       ``(5) National discovery trails, established as provided in 
     section 5, which will be extended, continuous, interstate 
     trails so located as to provide for outstanding outdoor 
     recreation and travel and to connect representative examples 
     of America's trails and communities. National discovery 
     trails should provide for the conservation and enjoyment of 
     significant natural, cultural, and historic resources 
     associated with each trail and should be so located as to 
     represent metropolitan, urban, rural, and back country 
     regions of the Nation.''. Any such trail may be designated on 
     federal lands and, with the consent of the owner thereof, on 
     any non federal lands: Provided, that such consent may be 
     revoked at any time. The Congress does not intend for the 
     establishment of a National Discovery Trail to lead to the 
     creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones adjacent to 
     a National Discovery Trail. The fact that there may be 
     activities or uses on lands adjacent to the trail that would 
     not be permitted on the trail shall not preclude such 
     activities or uses on such lands adjacent to the trail to the 
     extent consistent with other applicable law.
       (2) Feasibility Requirements; Cooperative Management 
     Requirement.--Section 5 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1244) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g)(1) For purposes of subsection (b), a trail shall not 
     be considered feasible and desirable for designation as a 
     national discovery trail unless it meets all of the following 
     criteria:
       ``(A) the trail must link one or more areas within the 
     boundaries of a metropolitan area (as those boundaries are 
     determined under section 134(c) of title 23, United States 
     Code). It should also join with other trails, connecting the 
     National Trails System to significant recreation and 
     resources areas.
       ``(B) The trail must be supported by a competent trailwide 
     nonprofit organization. Each trail should have extensive 
     local and trailwide support by the public, by user groups, 
     and by affected State and local governments.
       ``(C) The trail must be extended and pass through more than 
     one State. At a minimum, it should be a continuous, walkable 
     route not including any non-federal property for which the 
     owner had not provided consent for inclusion and use.
       ``(2) The appropriate Secretary for each national discovery 
     trail shall administer the trail in cooperation with a 
     competent trailwide nonprofit organization.''.
       (b) Designation of the American Discovery Trail as a 
     National Discovery Trail.--Section 5(a) of such Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1244(a)) is amended--
       (1) by re-designating the paragraph relating to the 
     California National Historic Trail as paragraph (18);
       (2) by re-designating the paragraph relating to the Pony 
     Express National Historic Trail as paragraph (19); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) The American Discovery Trail, a trail of 
     approximately 6,000 miles extending from Cape Henlopen State 
     Park in Delaware to Point Reyes National Seashore in 
     California, extending westward through Delaware, Maryland, 
     the District of Columbia, West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky, 
     where near Cincinnati it splits into two routes. The Northern 
     Midwest route traverses Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, 
     Nebraska, and Colorado, and the Southern Midwest route 
     traverses Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, and Colorado. 
     After the two routes rejoin in Denver, Colorado, the route 
     continues through Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California. The 
     trail is generally described in Volume 2 of the National 
     Park Service feasibility study dated June 1995 which shall 
     be on file and available for public inspection in the 
     office of the Director of the National Park Service, 
     Department of the Interior, the District of Columbia. The 
     American Discovery Trail shall be administered by the 
     Secretary of the Interior in cooperation with a competent 
     trailwide nonprofit organization and other affected land 
     managing agencies. No lands or interests outside the 
     exterior boundaries of federally administered areas may be 
     acquired by the Federal Government solely for the American 
     Discovery Trail. This trail is specifically exempted from 
     the provisions of sections 7(e), 7(f), and 7(g).''.
       (c) Comprensive National Discovery Trail Plan.--Section 5 
     of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1244) is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Within three complete fiscal years after the date of 
     enactment of any law designating a national discovery trail, 
     the administering Federal agency shall, in cooperation with a 
     competent trailwide nonprofit organization, submit a 
     comprehensive plan for the protection, management, 
     development, and use of the federal portions of the trail, 
     and provide technical assistance to states and local units of 
     government and private landowners, as requested, for non-
     federal portions of the trail, to the Committee on Resources 
     of the United States House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United 
     States Senate. The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     comprehensive plan for the entire trail does not conflict 
     with any existing

[[Page S8155]]

     agency direction and that the nonprofit organization consults 
     with affected land managing agencies, the Governors of the 
     affected States, county and local political jurisdictions, 
     and local organizations maintaining components of the trail. 
     Mandatory components of the comprehensive plan include--
       ``(1) specific objectives and practices to be observed in 
     the administration and management of the trail, including the 
     identification of all significant natural, historical, and 
     cultural resources to be preserved, model agreements 
     necessary for joint trail administration among and between 
     interested parties, and an identified carrying capacity of 
     the trail and a plan for its implementation;
       ``(2) general and site-specific development plans including 
     anticipated costs; and
       ``(3) the process to be followed by the nonprofit 
     organization, in cooperation with the appropriate Secretary, 
     to implement the trail marking authorities in section 7(c) 
     conforming to approved trail logo or emblem requirements.''. 
     Nothing in this Act may be construed to impose or permit the 
     imposition of any landowner on the use of any non federal 
     lands without the consent of the owner thereof, which consent 
     may be revoked at any time. Neither the designation of a 
     National Discovery Trail nor any plan relating thereto shall 
     affect or be considered in the granting or denial of a right 
     of way or any conditions relating thereto.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       The National Trails System Act is amended--
       (1) in section 2(b) (16 U.S.C. 1241(b)), by striking 
     ``scenic and historic'' and inserting ``scenic, historic, and 
     discovery'';
       (2) in the section heading to section 5 (16 U.S.C. 1244), 
     by striking ``AND NATIONAL HISTORIC'' and inserting ``, 
     NATIONAL HISTORIC, AND NATIONAL DISCOVERY'';
       (3) in section 5(a) (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)), in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``and national historic'' and inserting ``, 
     national historic, and national discovery''; and
       (B) by striking ``and National Historic'' and inserting ``, 
     National Historic, and National Discovery'';
       (4) in section 5(b) (16 U.S.C. 1244(b)), in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or national historic'' 
     and inserting ``, national historic, or national discovery'';
       (5) in section 5(b)(3) (16 U.S.C. 1244(b)(3)), by striking 
     ``or national historic'' and inserting ``, national historic, 
     or national discovery'';
       (6) in section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1246(a)(2)), by striking 
     ``and national historic'' and inserting ``, national 
     historic, and national discovery'';
       (7) in section 7(b) (16 U.S.C. 1246(b)), by striking ``or 
     national historic'' each place such term appears and 
     inserting ``, national historic, or national discovery'';
       (8) in section 7(c) (16 U.S.C. 1246(c))--
       (A) by striking ``scenic or national historic'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``scenic, national historic, or 
     national discovery'';
       (B) in the second proviso, by striking ``scenic, or 
     national historic'' and inserting ``scenic, national 
     historic, or national discovery''; and
       (C) by striking ``, and national historic'' and inserting 
     ``, national historic, and national discovery'';
       (9) in section 7(d) (16 U.S.C. 1246(d)), by striking ``or 
     national historic'' and inserting ``national historic, or 
     national discovery'';
       (10) in section 7(e) (16 U.S.C. 1246(e)), by striking ``or 
     national historic'' each place such term appears and 
     inserting ``, national historic, or national discovery'';
       (11) in section 7(f)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1246(f)(2)), by striking 
     ``National Scenic or Historic'' and inserting ``national 
     scenic, historic, or discovery trail'';
       (12) in section 7(h)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1246(h)(1)), by striking 
     ``or national historic'' and inserting ``national historic, 
     or national discovery''; and
       (13) in section 7(i) (16 U.S.C. 1246(i)), by striking ``or 
     national historic'' and inserting ``national historic, or 
     national discovery''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS:
  S. 1070. A bill to provide for a regional education and workforce 
training system in the metropolitan Washington area, to improve the 
school facilities of the District of Columbia, and to fund such 
activities in part by an income tax on nonresident workers in the 
District of Columbia; to the Committee on Finance.


  The Metropolitan Washington Education and Workforce Training Act of 
                                  1997

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today, 
pursuant to many recent discussions about the rescue plan for the 
District of Columbia, that reaffirms my strong belief that education 
must be the keystone of that plan and that fair and ready funding is 
available with no cost to the Federal Government.
  Every Washington area citizen should keep a careful watch on what 
Congress is doing to rescue the Capital from its present plight. The 
chorus resounds, ``we must get people to move back into the Capital! 
Its future depends on it!'' But if we examine the present congressional 
and administration plans and overlay them onto the root causes for the 
plight, serious questions arise as to their effectiveness.
  Studies indicate that the two leading causes, by far, that cause 
people to leave the District and keep them from living in the city are 
poor schools and high incidents of crime. Let's examine the plans that 
Congress has before it.
  Only the Senate plan as currently outlined even mentions education 
and that is basically a symbolic gesture to help repair the crumbling 
school infrastructure. The administration does consider the crime 
problem, but only at the end game of taking over the prison system. The 
administration's plan has no mention of repairing the failing D.C. 
educational system; a system which is among the worst in the Nation.
  The central administrative problem of the District's school system is 
not money, it is management chaos. But money is a serious concern in 
the area of school infrastructure, and D.C. has one of the worst school 
infrastructures in the Nation. In fairness to General Becton, the new 
chief executive officer for the schools, he is trying valiantly to 
upgrade overall standards but too much of his time is spent dealing 
with emergency school infrastructure repairs. Again this September, 43 
schools will be threatened with closure at the outset of the academic 
year. Over $2 billion are needed just to fix building code violations.
  Crime in the District is directly related to the public school 
system. Some 40 percent of D.C. children drop out of school between 
grades 7 and 12. National studies show that about 80 percent of prison 
inmates are school drop-outs. A plan to help D.C. must have a strong 
component to improve education. As will be shown below, this need not 
carry a significant dollar cost to the Federal Treasury. In fact it 
will save millions.
  The President wants to be known as the Education President. Congress 
wants to be known as the Education Congress. Wouldn't the best 
demonstration of that intent be to start by improving the education 
system of the Nation's Capital?
  The present plans for enhancing a middle-class tax base in the 
District are based on business tax incentives. But if you are a middle-
class taxpayer with school-age children you currently have to factor in 
approximately $10,000 a year in private education fees to feel 
comfortable with the level of education and safety you are providing to 
your family--$10,000 a year, per child, is a huge barrier for most 
middle-class families.
  The plans currently being considered in Congress that exclude 
discussion of schools may well create jobs. But jobs for whom? Even the 
promoters of those plans recognize that those jobs would primarily go 
to non-residents of the District. Projections show that two out of 
three jobs will go to non-residents. This will leave the District with 
more infrastructure demands and less money to deal with them--the exact 
status of the problems at present.
  As stated in the recent Brookings Institution study on D.C. entitled 
``The Orphan Capital'' taxing metropolitan area residents where they 
live instead of where they work creates a revenue boon for Maryland and 
Virginia and a revenue disaster for the District. D.C. is the only city 
in a multi-State configuration in the country that has an income tax 
but is not able to tax its non-resident workers. This situation has 
also led D.C. to have the highest income tax rate on its residents in 
the area. That income tax rate is another barrier to the middle-class 
return to the city.
  The result is that $20 billion in wages leaves the District each year 
without being taxed, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars 
flowing each year to the treasuries of Maryland and Virginia. Only 1 
percent of this amount goes in the other direction--from D.C. residents 
working in the suburbs back in to D.C. This is a huge inequity that no 
other major city suffers.
  The history of the tax inequity began in 1973 when D.C. was given 
home rule. An astute Virginia representative convinced Congress to 
prohibit the non-resident tax from being enacted. A brilliant move, 
perhaps justified at the time, but it is unjust now, particularly to 
the children of D.C. It is not unexpected that the Maryland and 
Virginia Senators object violently when changing this situation is 
suggested.

[[Page S8156]]

  However, a win-win proposal for all D.C. metropolitan residents is 
possible. It will create high-paying job opportunities for high-school 
graduates through improved skill training. It will provide the needed 
repairs to the D.C. school infrastructure. It will provide funds to 
improve schools and other area training institutions.
  A recent report issued by the Greater Washington Board of Trade 
indicates that there are approximately 50,000 high-paying jobs 
requiring information technology skills in the Washington metropolitan 
area. These jobs pay on average $40,000 a year. By filling these jobs 
the Board of Trade estimates an additional $3.5 billion annually would 
be injected into the economy of what we call `the golden crescent'--the 
Washington metropolitan region that stretches from Annapolis, Maryland 
to Winchester, Virginia.
  But actually, this labor market shortage is a national problem. There 
are an estimated 190,000 information technology jobs going begging in 
the Nation for lack of skilled workers. Congress is presently trying to 
pass legislation to revamp our workforce training laws. We have at this 
time a prime opportunity to solve the D.C. metropolitan problem and 
provide a national model to help correct the serious national skill 
training deficiencies. I am introducing legislation today to accomplish 
this ``win-win'' structure.
  If the Washington metropolitan area were to become a model for the 
rest of the country we could jump start the rest of the country in 
solving this serious national problem. And this could be done with no 
additional Federal cost. But, of course, there is a hitch.
  My plan would require a 3-percent non-resident income tax on D.C. 
commuter wages. But remember, it would cost the commuters nothing 
because of laws requiring mutual offsetting tax credits. There would be 
an offset against the State income taxes of Maryland and Virginia. This 
would allow the commuter dollars to stay within the metropolitan region 
instead of going to Richmond and Annapolis with the hope of it coming 
back.
  One percent of this new revenue would be used to repair the D.C. 
school infrastructure. Bonds could then be amortized for the $2 billion 
needed. The other two percent would fund a trust overseen by metro-area 
school and business leaders to provide funding for regional skill 
training.
  Benefits to the regional economy should more than offset any losses 
to the States. It is hard to argue against growing the local Maryland 
and Virginia metro-area economies by $3.5 billion a year. This and 
future gains would more than offset the 1 percent going solely to D.C.
  And finally, this bill results in hundreds of millions of dollars in 
savings to the Federal Government; hundreds of millions of dollars of 
help to the suburbs surrounding the capital; the repair of the D.C. 
school system and the overall improvement of the regional school 
system; and potential revenue gains to Maryland and Virginia. Most 
importantly, it would make the congressional and administration plans 
sensible instead of senseless. We must not miss this opportunity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. D'AMATO (by request):
  S. 1071. A bill to facilitate the effective and efficient management 
of the homeless assistance programs of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, including the merger of such programs into one 
performance fund, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs


     the homelessness assistance and management reform act of 1997

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs, I introduce the Homelessness Assistance and 
Management Reform Act of 1997 at the request of the Secretary of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Honorable Andrew M. 
Cuomo.

                          ____________________