[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9887-S9897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1210. A bill to authorize the acquisition of the geologic 
formation known as the Valles Caldera currently managed by the Baca 
Land and Cattle Co., and to provide for an effective management program 
for this resource within the Department of Agriculture, and consistent 
land management to protect the watershed of the Bandelier National 
Monument; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          VALLE GRANDE VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION LEGISLATION

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this bill that I have just sent to the 
desk, in my view, gives us a chance in this Congress to grasp a 
historic opportunity to make a real difference for the American people 
for generations to come.
  Most Americans can name various geologic treasures and places of 
wonder within our land. Places like Diamond Head in Hawaii, the 
Sawtooth Mountains in Idaho, the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and Rocky 
Mountain National Park in Colorado readily come to mind because our 
people have access to them. However, there is a place in New Mexico 
that rivals these areas in splendor and yet, few people know about, or 
fully appreciate its significance. It is called the Valles Caldera.
  The Valles Caldera is one of the world's greatest volcanic features. 
A large circular crater 12-15 miles in diameter, the views from the rim 
are awe inspiring. As one looks across the vast green valleys and 
mountains that now sit within the ring of the caldera, and realizes 
that they are all merely the cooled workings of a resurgent lava dome, 
one is struck by the sheer magnitude of the natural forces that created 
the Jemez Mountains in north central New Mexico.
  The explosions that created the caldera, some 1.2 million years ago, 
ejected over 100 cubic miles of earth, rock, and lava. It is estimated 
that if the original mountain had come to a peak that it would have 
been taller than Mount Everest.
  However very few people, even in New Mexico, have ever been on this 
land. Since 1860, it has been in private ownership. At that time it was 
granted by the United States to the heirs of Don Luis Maria Cabeza de 
Vaca as part of a settlement of Spanish land grant claims under the 
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and has since been known as the Baca Land 
& Cattle Company.

  It has passed through several owners since 1860, and about once in a 
generation the United States has tried to purchase the land. The first 
time was in the 1930's. Again, in the 1960's the late former Senator 
from New Mexico, Clinton P. Anderson tried to negotiate a deal for the 
land. Finally in 1980, the owner of the land, James ``Pat'' Dunigan, 
was in negotiations with the Government to sell the land when he died a 
premature death. Now, his family has come forward and said they would 
like to fulfill his dream of seeing this land move into public 
ownership.
  Mr. President, this is an opportunity that we cannot let pass us by. 
In 1993, the Forest Service completed a study of this land which lays 
out the tremendous value it could have within public ownership:
  First, the Valles Caldera is the classic example of a resurgent lava 
dome. The study of its features has helped geologists to understand 
volcanic processes throughout the world;
  Second, the recreation potential is enormous. Hiking, camping, cross-
country skiing, photography, horse back riding, hunting, and fishing 
are obvious possibilities.
  The headwaters of the Jemez and San Antonio rivers are located on 
this land, and represent some of the best trout fishing streams in New 
Mexico. There are nearly 27 miles of trout streams on the ranch, most 
of which meander through grass meadows perfect for fly fishing.
  Also over 6,000 elk live on this land, making it ideal for hunting.
  Perhaps the most unique features of this land are the seven enormous 
open grassland valleys that are tailor made for horseback riding.
  Third, finally, and perhaps most important, this land has been well 
preserved. Through careful management of their grazing land, selective 
timbering, and the use of proscribed fire, the current owners have 
maintained the caldera as an ecological jewel. With over 65,000 acres 
of conifer forests mixed with aspen, gamble oak, and broken rock known 
as felsenmeer, and 30,000 acres of lush grasslands, the Caldera 
supports an abundance of wildlife, including black bears and cougars.
  Mr. President, words are a poor substitute for seeing this land, and 
although pictures cannot convey its grandeur, they may provide my 
colleagues with a sense of it:
  First, to give people a sense of location, here is a map of north 
central New Mexico. To the south is Albuquerque and then Santa Fe above 
it. You'll notice that the Baca Ranch is nestled between the Santa Fe 
National Forest, and Bandelier National Monument, which many members of 
the public have visited.
  Second, here is a satellite photo of the volcano. The black outline 
represents the Baca Ranch, approximately 95,000 acres. For perspective, 
on the right side of this photo is Los Alamos, NM, and just below it is 
the Bandelier National Monument. This large yellow spot on the bottom 
right corner of the caldera rim is known as the Valle Grande. It is the 
only part of the Ranch that most people have seen because state highway 
4 comes through on the side, but it is only one of seven valleys on the 
property.
  Third, here's a picture of the Valle Grande, it's about 4 miles wide 
and 6 miles long covering over 17,000 acres.
  Fourth, and here is the upper Jemez river which originates and 
meanders through the Valle Grande.
  Fifth, finally, here is a picture of the Valle Toledo the third 
largest valley on the property, about 4,000 acres.
  Mr. President, the legislation I'm introducing today does two things: 
it gives the Forest Service the authority to start negotiating for the 
purchase of this land in good faith by authorizing appropriations, land 
exchanges, and the acceptance of donations; and it rationalizes the 
boundaries between the Santa Fe National Forest and Bandelier National 
Monument for consistent management of their respective watersheds.
  Acquiring land of this quality and magnitude will not be cheap or 
easy. It will take a lot of work on the part of this body and our 
counterparts on the House, and on the part of the administration. 
However, if we don't close this deal this time, I'm not sure the 
American people will ever forgive us. Although the Dunigan's have been 
great stewards of the land, they want to sell it. Who knows how future 
owners may use this land.
  When Senator Anderson tried to acquire this land for the United 
States 35 years ago, we could have bought this land for less than $5 
million. Now the costs will be much much greater, and if it is ever 
subdivided, the costs will go up exponentially.
  Mr. President, I know that many people will want to argue about the 
management of this land. There are many, many uses that this land could 
be put to, but I would caution my colleagues that now is not the time 
to argue over future use. Let's worry about how we will acquire the 
land first. Management options can be worked out later.
  I think it will take additional time before a full management plan 
can be put in place for the property. It would be an exercise in 
futility for us to try to work all of that out before we move to take 
advantage of this historic opportunity.
  Mr. President, I understand that there is support for this effort to 
bring this property into public ownership by others in the delegation. 
I very much want to work with them and with people in the 
administration to see this happen. It is a very important initiative 
and a very important goal for us to pursue in the second session of 
this Congress. So I hope very much that we can make progress on it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 1212. A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 to clarify that records of arrival or 
departure are not required to be collected for purposes of the 
automated entry-exit control system developed under 110 of such act for 
Canadians who are not otherwise required to possess a visa, passport, 
or border crossing identification card; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

[[Page S9888]]

    the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act 
                  clarification amendment act of 1997

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, approximately 1 year ago the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act became law.
  Next year at this time, September 30, 1998, section 110 of this act 
will be implemented and will adversely--and unintentionally--affect our 
neighbors in Canada. Section 110 requires the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service [INS] to develop an automated entry and exit 
system for the purpose of documenting the entry and departure of every 
alien arriving and leaving the United States. The United States has 
never had such an alien departure management system.
  Unfortunately, section 110 as enacted fails to recognize the decades-
long practice of not requiring most Canadian nationals to fill out INS 
documents--referred to as ``I-94s'' at the border.
  In a December 18, 1996 letter to the Ambassador of Canada at the 
time, Raymond Chretien, Senator Alan Simpson, and Representative Lamar 
Smith, the chairmen of the Senate and the House Judiciary Subcommittees 
on Immigration, respectively, indicated to Ambassador Chretien that it 
was not the intention of the Judiciary Committee to impose any new 
requirements for border crossing cards--so-called I-94's--on Canadians 
who are not presently required to possess such documents.
  The legislation which I am introducing today--which was introduced in 
the House on September 16 by Congressman John LaFalce of New York--
would simply clarify the intent of Congress by exempting from the 
section 110 provisions of the act Canadian nationals who are not now 
required by law to possess a visa, passport, or border-crossing 
identification card to enter the United States.
  There is no logical reason to inhibit the flow of traffic between the 
United States and Canada. If the committee's intention is not 
clarified, and section 110 is implemented at the Canadian border, 
congestion would become intolerable.
  According to U.S. Customs, the port in Pembina, ND, saw 963,665 
individuals cross into North Dakota in fiscal year 1996, averaging 
2,640 people a day. Customs estimates that if the entry/exit system had 
to be implemented on the Canadian border, providing the agent to spend 
just 1 minute per person entering it would take two customs workers a 
nonstop daily shift of 22 hours to process them.
  An estimated 116 million persons cross into the United States at all 
land points on the Canadian border. Of these, 76 million are Canadian 
or United States permanent residents. More than $1 billion in goods and 
services trade crosses the United States/Canadian border each day. I 
urge the Judiciary Committee to consider soon mine or other legislation 
to clarify the intent of the 1996 act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1212

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

     SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ALIENS FROM ENTRY-EXIT 
                   CONTROL SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Section 110(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1221 note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) System.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 
     2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Attorney General shall develop an automated entry and exit 
     control system that will--
       ``(A) collect a record of departure for every alien 
     departing the United States and match the records of 
     departure with the record of the alien's arrival in the 
     United States; and
       ``(B) enable the Attorney General to identify, through on-
     line searching procedures, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants 
     who remain in the United States beyond the period authorized 
     by the Attorney General.
       ``(2) Exemption for certain aliens.--The system under 
     paragraph (1) shall not collect a record of arrival or 
     departure for an alien--
       ``(A) who is--
       ``(i) a Canadian national; or
       ``(ii) an alien having a common nationality with Canadian 
     nationals and who has his or her residence in Canada; and
       ``(B) who is not otherwise required by law to be in 
     possession, for purposes of establishing eligibility for 
     admission into the United States, of--
       ``(i) a visa;
       ``(ii) a passport; or
       ``(iii) a border crossing identification card.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe, 
        Mr. Inouye, Mr. Breaux, Mr. McCain, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Mr. Biden, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Murkowski):
  S. 1213. A bill to establish a National Ocean Council, a Commission 
on Ocean Policy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                         the oceans act of 1997

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oceans Act 
of 1997. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senators 
Stevens, Kerry, Snowe, Breaux, McCain, Inouye, Kennedy, Boxer, Biden, 
Lautenberg, Akaka, and Murkowski. Mr. President, plainly and simply, 
this bill calls for a plan of action for the 21st century to explore, 
protect, and use our oceans and coasts.
  This is not the first time we have faced the need for a national 
ocean policy. Three decades ago, our Nation roared into space, 
investing tens of billions of dollars to investigate the Moon and the 
Sea of Tranquility. During that golden era of science, some of us also 
recognized the importance of exploring the seas on our own planet. In 
1966, Congress enacted the Marine Resources and Engineering Development 
Act in order to define national objectives and programs with respect to 
the oceans. That legislation laid the foundation for U.S. ocean and 
coastal policy and programs and has guided their development for three 
decades. I was elected to the Senate just 3 months after the 1966 act 
was enacted into law, but I am pleased that both Senators Inouye and 
Kennedy, the two cosponsors of the 1966 act still serving in the 
Senate, have agreed to join me today in introducing the Oceans Act.
  One of the central elements of the 1966 act was establishment of a 
Presidential commission to develop a plan for national action in the 
oceans and atmosphere. Dr. Julius A. Stratton, a former president of 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and then-chairman of the Ford 
Foundation, led the Commission on an unprecedented, and since 
unrepeated, investigation of this Nation's relationship with the oceans 
and the atmosphere. The Stratton Commission and its congressional 
advisers--including Senators Warren G. Magnuson and Norris Cotton--
worked together in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, the Commission was 
established and carried out its mandate in the Democratic 
administration of Lyndon Johnson and saw its findings implemented by 
the Republicans under President Richard Nixon. With a staff of 35 
people, the commissioners heard and consulted over 1,000 people, 
visited every coastal area of this country, and submitted some 126 
recommendations in a 1969 report to Congress entitled ``Our Nation and 
the Sea.'' Those recommendations led directly to the creation of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1970, laid the 
groundwork for enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA] in 
1972, and established priorities for Federal ocean activities that have 
guided this Nation for almost 30 years.
  While the Stratton Commission performed its job with vision and 
integrity, the world has changed since 1966. Today, half of the U.S. 
population lives within 50 miles of our shores and more than 30 percent 
of the gross domestic product is generated in the coastal zone. Ocean 
and coastal resources once considered inexhaustible are severely 
depleted, and wetlands and other marine habitats are threatened by 
pollution and human activities. In addition, the U.S. regulatory and 
legal framework has developed over the years with the passage of a 
number of statutes in addition to CZMA. These include the Endangered 
Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Marine Protection, 
Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and 
the

[[Page S9889]]

Oil Pollution Act. Finally, the United Nations has declared 1998 to be 
the International Year of the Ocean, focusing global attention on the 
state of the world's oceans. In short, it is time to reexamine our 
Nation's relationship to the sea.
  The Oceans Act is vital to the continued health of the oceans and 
prosperity of our coasts. It is patterned after and would replace the 
1966 act. Like that act, it is comprised of three major elements:
  First, the bill calls for development and implementation of a 
coherent national ocean and coastal policy to conserve and sustainably 
use fisheries and other ocean and coastal resources, protect the marine 
environment and human safety, explore ocean frontiers, create marine 
technologies and economic opportunities, and preserve U.S. leadership 
on ocean and coastal issues.
  Second, the bill establishes a 15-member Commission, similar to the 
Stratton Commission, to examine ocean and coastal activities and report 
within 18 months on recommendations for a national policy. Commission 
members would be appointed by the President and the Congress. In 
developing its recommendations, the Commission would assess Federal 
programs and funding priorities, ocean-related infrastructure 
requirements, conflicts among marine users, and technological 
opportunities. The bill authorizes appropriations of $6 million over 2 
years to support Commission activities.
  Third, the bill creates a high-level Federal interagency Council that 
is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and includes the heads of the 
Departments of Navy, State, Transportation, and the Interior, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and 
Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the National Economic 
Council. This new Council will advise the President and serve as a 
forum for developing and implementing an ocean and coastal policy, will 
provide for coordination of Federal budgets and programs, and will work 
with non-Federal and international organizations.
  By establishing an action plan for ocean and coastal activities, the 
Oceans Act should contribute substantially to national goals and 
objectives in the areas of education and research, economic 
development, and public safety. With respect to education and research, 
our view of the oceans 30 years ago was based on a remarkably small 
amount of information. When Jack Kennedy was in the White House, we 
were just beginning to develop the capability for exploring the oceans, 
and the driving factor was the military need to hide our submarines 
from the Soviets during the cold war. What we knew of the oceans at 
that time was based as much on what fishermen brought up in their nets 
as it was on reliable scientific investigation.

  Today, we still have explored only a tiny fraction of the sea, but 
with the use of new technologies what we have found is truly 
incredible. For example, hydrothermal vents, hot water geysers on the 
deep ocean floor, were discovered just 20 years ago by oceanographers 
trying to understand the formation of the earth's crust. Now this 
discovery has led to the identification of nearly 300 new types of 
marine animals with untold pharmaceutical and biomedical potential.
  Many of our marine research efforts could have profound impacts on 
our economic well-being. For example, research on coastal ocean 
currents and other processes that affect shoreline erosion is critical 
to effective management of the shoreline. Oceanographers are working 
with Federal, State, and local managers to use this new understanding 
in protecting beachfront property and the lives of those who reside and 
work in coastal communities.
  Development of underwater cameras and sonar, begun in the 1940's for 
the U.S. Navy, has led to major strides not only for military uses, but 
for marine archaeologists and scientists exploring unknown stretches of 
sea floor. Consumers have benefited from the technology now used in 
video cameras. Sonar has broad applications in both the military and 
commercial sector.
  Finally, marine biotechnology research is thought to be one of the 
greatest remaining technological and industrial frontiers. Among the 
opportunities which it may offer are to: restore and protect marine 
ecosystems; monitor human health and treat disease; increase food 
supplies through aquaculture; enhance seafood safety and quality; 
provide new types and sources of industrial materials and processes; 
and understand biological and geochemical processes in the world ocean.
  In addition to the economic opportunities offered by our marine 
research investment, traditional marine activities play an important 
role in our national economic outlook. Ninety-five percent of our 
international trade is shipped on the ocean and each year products 
valued at more than $220 billion are shipped within the United States 
via the water. In 1996, commercial fishermen in the United States 
landed almost 10 billion pounds of fish with a value of $3.5 billion. 
Their fishing-related activities contributed over $42 billion to the 
U.S. economy. During the same period, marine anglers contributed 
another $20 billion. Travel and tourism also contribute over $700 
billion to our economy, much of which is generated in coastal areas. 
Last year, in South Carolina alone, the total impact of tourism in 
coastal areas was almost $6 billion. With a sound national ocean and 
coastal policy and effective marine resource management, these numbers 
have nowhere to go but up.
  With respect to public safety, it is particularly important to 
develop ocean and coastal priorities that reflect the changes we have 
seen in recent years. Before World War II, most of the U.S. shoreline 
was sparsely populated. There were long, wild stretches of coast, 
dotted with an occasional port city, fishing village, or sleepy resort. 
Most barrier islands had few residents or were uninhabited. After the 
war, people began pouring in, and coastal development began a period of 
explosive growth. In my State of South Carolina, our beaches attract 
millions of visitors every year, and more and more people are choosing 
to move to the coast--making the coastal counties the fastest growing 
ones in the State. Seventeen of the 20 fastest growing states in the 
Nation are coastal states--which compounds the situation that the most 
densely populated regions already border the ocean. With population 
growth comes the demand for highways, shopping centers, schools, and 
sewers that permanently alter the landscape. If people are to continue 
to live and work on the coast, we must do a better job of planning how 
we impact the very regions in which we all want to live.
  There is no better example of how our ocean and coastal policies 
affect public safety, than to look at the effects of hurricanes. 
Throughout the 1920's, hurricanes killed 2,122 Americans while causing 
about $1.8 billion in property damages. By contrast, in the first 5 
years of the 1990's, hurricanes killed 111 Americans, and resulted in 
damages of about $35 billion. While we have made notable advances in 
early warning and evacuation systems to protect human lives, the risk 
of property loss continues to escalate and coastal inhabitants are more 
vulnerable to major storms than they ever have been. In 1989, Hurricane 
Hugo came ashore in South Carolina, leaving more than $6 billion in 
damages. Of that total from Hugo, the Federal Government paid out more 
than $2.8 billion in disaster assistance and more than $400 million 
from the National Flood Insurance Program. The payments from private 
insurance companies were equally staggering. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew 
struck southern Florida and slammed into low-lying areas of Louisiana, 
forever changing the lives of more than a quarter of a million people 
and causing an estimated $25 to $30 billion in damage. Hurricanes 
demonstrate that the human desire to live near the oceans and along the 
coast comes with both a responsibility and a cost.
  The oceans are part of our culture, part of our heritage, part of our 
economy, and part of our future. Therefore, we need to be smart about 
ocean policy--we need the best minds to come together and take a look 
at what the real challenges are. It is not enough to sit back and 
assume the role of caretakers. We must be proactive and develop a plan 
for the future.
  Mr. President, Members who doubt the need for this legislation need 
only pick up a newspaper and they will be

[[Page S9890]]

face to face with pressing ocean and coastal issues: fish covered with 
lesions in the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina; a powerful El Nino 
brewing in the Pacific; condemnation of vacation homes as the beaches 
beneath them erode; U.S. ships held hostage over fishing disputes; and 
the list could go on. Deciding how to manage these problems and use the 
seas is one of the most complicated tasks we can tackle. There are no 
boundaries at sea, no national borders with fences and checkpoints. The 
resources of the sea are a common heritage, shared by all. While our 
coastal waters are governed by the United States for all of us, there 
are few rules on the high seas and progress relies primarily on 
international cooperation.
  The United Nations has declared 1998 to the be the Year of the Ocean. 
One reason for launching the International Year of the Ocean is to wake 
up the governments and the public so we pay adequate attention to the 
need to protect the marine environment and to ensure a healthy ocean. 
This is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate and enhance what has 
been accomplished in understanding and managing the ocean.
  The Stratton Commission stated in 1969: ``How fully and wisely the 
United States uses the sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly 
its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing demands for 
food and raw materials, its position and influence in the world 
community, and the quality of the environment in which its people 
live.'' Those words are as true today as they were 30 years ago.
  Mr. President, it is time to look toward the next 30 years. This bill 
offers us the vision and understanding needed to establish sound ocean 
and coastal policies for the 21st century. I thank the cosponsors of 
the legislation for joining with me in recognizing its significance and 
trust that this body will work quickly to enact it into law. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1213

       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 ``Ocean Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS; PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Covering more than two-thirds of the Earth's surface, 
     the oceans and Great Lakes play a critical role in the global 
     water cycle and in regulating climate, sustain a large part 
     of Earth's biodiversity, provide an important source of food 
     and a wealth of other natural products, act as a frontier to 
     scientific exploration, are critical to national security, 
     and provide a vital means of transportation. The coasts, 
     transition between land and open ocean, are regions of 
     remarkably high biological productivity, contribute more than 
     30 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, and are of 
     considerable importance for recreation, waste disposal, and 
     mineral exploration.
       (2) Ocean and coastal resources are susceptible to change 
     as a direct and indirect result of human activities, and such 
     changes can significantly impact the ability of the oceans 
     and Great Lakes to provide the benefits upon which the Nation 
     depends. Changes in ocean and coastal processes could affect 
     global climate patterns, marine productivity and 
     biodiversity, environmental quality, national security, 
     economic competitiveness, availability of energy, 
     vulnerability to natural hazards, and transportation safety 
     and efficiency.
       (3) Ocean and coastal resources are not infinite, and human 
     pressure on them is increasing. One half of the Nation's 
     population lives within 50 miles of the coast, ocean and 
     coastal resources once considered inexhaustible are now 
     threatened with depletion, and if population trends continue 
     as expected, pressure on and conflicting demands for ocean 
     and coastal resources will increase further as will 
     vulnerability to coastal hazards.
       (4) Marine technologies hold tremendous promise for 
     expanding the range and increasing the utility of products 
     from the oceans and Great Lakes, improving the stewardship of 
     ocean and coastal resources, and contributing to business and 
     manufacturing innovations and the creation of new jobs.
       (5) Marine research has uncovered the link between oceanic 
     and atmospheric processes and improved understanding of world 
     climate patterns and forecasts. Important new advances, 
     including availability of military technology, have made 
     feasible the exploration of large areas of the ocean which 
     were inaccessible several years ago. In designating 1998 as 
     ``The Year of the Ocean'', the United Nations highlights the 
     value of increasing our knowledge of the oceans.
       (6) It has been 30 years since the Commission on Marine 
     Science, Engineering, and Resources (known as the Stratton 
     Commission) conducted a comprehensive examination of ocean 
     and coastal activities that led to enactment of major 
     legislation and the establishment of key oceanic and 
     atmospheric institutions.
       (7) A review of existing activities is essential to respond 
     to the changes that have occurred over the past three decades 
     and to develop an effective new policy for the twenty-first 
     century to conserve and use sustainable ocean and coastal 
     resources, protect the marine environment, explore ocean 
     frontiers, protect human safety, and create marine 
     technologies and economic opportunities.
       (8) While significant Federal ocean and coastal programs 
     are underway, those programs would benefit from a coherent 
     national ocean and coastal policy that reflects the need for 
     cost-effective allocation of fiscal resources, improved 
     interagency coordination, and strengthened partnerships with 
     State, private, and international entities engaged in ocean 
     and coastal activities.
       (b) Purpose and Objectives.--The purpose of this Act is to 
     develop and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive, and long-
     range national policy with respect to ocean and coastal 
     activities that will assist the Nation in meeting the 
     following objectives:
       (1) The protection of life and property against natural and 
     manmade hazards.
       (2) Responsible stewardship, including use, of fishery 
     resources and other ocean and coastal resources.
       (3) The protection of the marine environment and prevention 
     of marine pollution.
       (4) The enhancement of marine-related commerce, 
     transportation, and national security, and the resolution of 
     conflicts among users of the marine environment.
       (5) The expansion of human knowledge of the marine 
     environment including the role of the oceans in climate and 
     global environmental change and the advancement of education 
     and training in fields related to ocean and coastal 
     activities.
       (6) The continued investment in and development and 
     improvement of the capabilities, performance, use, and 
     efficiency of technologies for use in ocean and coastal 
     activities.
       (7) Close cooperation among all government agencies and 
     departments to ensure--
       (A) coherent regulation of ocean and coastal activities;
       (B) availability and appropriate allocation of Federal 
     funding, personnel, facilities, and equipment for such 
     activities; and
       (C) cost-effective and efficient operation of Federal 
     departments, agencies, and programs involved in ocean and 
     coastal activities.
       (8) The preservation of the role of the United States as a 
     leader in ocean and coastal activities, and, when it is in 
     the national interest, the cooperation by the United States 
     with other nations and international organizations in ocean 
     and coastal activities.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) The term ``Commission'' means the Commission on Ocean 
     Policy.
       (2) The term ``Council'' means the National Ocean Council.
       (3) The term ``marine research'' means scientific 
     exploration, including basic science, engineering, mapping, 
     surveying, monitoring, assessment, and information 
     management, of the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes--
       (A) to describe and advance understanding of--
       (i) the role of the oceans, coasts and Great Lakes in 
     weather and climate, natural hazards, and the processes that 
     regulate the marine environment; and
       (ii) the manner in which such role, processes, and 
     environment are affected by human actions;
       (B) for the conservation, management and sustainable use of 
     living and nonliving resources; and
       (C) to develop and implement new technologies related to 
     sustainable use of the marine environment.
       (4) The term ``marine environment'' includes--
       (A) the oceans, including coastal and offshore waters and 
     the adjacent shore lands;
       (B) the continental shelf;
       (C) the Great Lakes; and
       (D) the ocean and coastal resources thereof.
       (5) The term ``ocean and coastal activities'' includes 
     activities related to marine research, fisheries and other 
     ocean and coastal resource stewardship and use, marine 
     aquaculture, energy and mineral resource extraction, national 
     security, marine transportation, recreation and tourism, 
     waste management, pollution mitigation and prevention, and 
     natural hazard reduction.
       (6) The term ``ocean and coastal resource'' means, with 
     respect to the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, any living or 
     non-living natural resource (including all forms of animal 
     and plant life found in the marine environment, habitat, 
     biodiversity, water quality, minerals, oil, and gas) and any 
     significant historic, cultural or aesthetic resource.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL OCEAN AND COASTAL POLICY.

       (a) Executive Responsibilities.--The President, with the 
     assistance of the Council and the advice of the Commission, 
     shall--
       (1) develop and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive, and 
     long-range national policy with respect to ocean and coastal 
     activities; and

[[Page S9891]]

       (2) with regard to Federal agencies and departments--
       (A) review significant ocean and coastal activities, 
     including plans, priorities, accomplishments, and 
     infrastructure requirements;
       (B) plan and implement an integrated and cost-effective 
     program of ocean and coastal activities including, but not 
     limited to, marine research, stewardship of ocean and coastal 
     resources, protection of the marine environment, maritime 
     transportation safety and efficiency, the marine aspects of 
     national security, marine recreation and tourism, and marine 
     aspects of weather, climate, and natural hazards;
       (C) designate responsibility for funding and conducting 
     ocean and coastal activities; and
       (D) ensure cooperation and resolve differences arising from 
     laws and regulations applicable to ocean and coastal 
     activities which result in conflicts among participants in 
     such activities.
       (b) Cooperation and Consultation.--In carrying out 
     responsibilities under this Act, the President and the 
     Council may use such staff, interagency, and advisory 
     arrangements as they find necessary and appropriate and shall 
     consult with non-Federal organizations and individuals 
     involved in ocean and coastal activities.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL OCEAN COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment.--The President shall establish a 
     National Ocean Council which shall consist of--
       (1) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall be Chairman of the 
     Council;
       (2) the Secretary of the Navy;
       (3) the Secretary of State;
       (4) the Secretary of Transportation;
       (5) the Secretary of the Interior;
       (6) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (7) the Director of the National Science Foundation;
       (8) the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy;
       (9) the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality;
       (10) the Chairman of the National Economic Council;
       (11) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; 
     and
       (12) such other Federal officers and officials as the 
     President considers appropriate.
       (b) Administration.--
       (1) The President or the Chairman of the Council may from 
     time to time designate one of the members of the Council to 
     preside over meetings of the Council during the absence or 
     unavailability of such Chairman.
       (2) Each member of the Council may designate an officer of 
     his or her agency or department appointed with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate to serve on the Council as an alternate 
     in the event of the unavoidable absence of such member.
       (3) An executive secretary shall be appointed by the 
     Chairman of the Council, with the approval of the Council. 
     The executive secretary shall be a permanent employee of one 
     of the agencies or departments represented on the Council and 
     shall remain in the employ of such agency or department.
       (4) For the purpose of carrying out the functions of the 
     Council, each Federal agency or department represented on the 
     Council shall furnish necessary assistance to the Council. 
     Such assistance may include--
       (A) detailing employees to the Council to perform such 
     functions, consistent with the purposes of this section, as 
     the Chairman of the Council may assign to them; and
       (B) undertaking, upon request of the Chairman of the 
     Council, such special studies for the Council as are 
     necessary to carry out its functions.
       (5) The Chairman of the Council shall have the authority to 
     make personnel decisions regarding any employees detailed to 
     the Council.
       (c) Functions.--The Council shall--
       (1) serve as the forum for developing an ocean and coastal 
     policy and program, taking into consideration the Commission 
     report, and for overseeing implementation of such policy and 
     program;
       (2) improve coordination and cooperation, and eliminate 
     duplication, among Federal agencies and departments with 
     respect to ocean and coastal activities;
       (3) work with academic, State, industry, public interest, 
     and other groups involved in ocean and coastal activities to 
     provide for periodic review of the Nation's ocean and coastal 
     policy;
       (4) cooperate with the Secretary of State in--
       (A) providing representation at international meetings and 
     conferences on ocean and coastal activities in which the 
     United States participates; and
       (B) coordinating the Federal activities of the United 
     States with programs of other nations; and
       (5) report at least biennially on Federal ocean and coastal 
     programs, priorities, and accomplishments and provide 
     budgetary advice as specified in section 7.

     SEC. 6. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) The President shall, within 90 days of the enactment of 
     this Act, establish a Commission on Ocean Policy. The 
     Commission shall be composed of 15 members including 
     individuals drawn from Federal and State governments, 
     industry, academic and technical institutions, and public 
     interest organizations involved with ocean and coastal 
     activities. Members shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission as follows:
       (A) 7 shall be appointed by the President of the United 
     States, no more than 3 of whom may be from the executive 
     branch of the Government.
       (B) 2 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate in consultation with the Chairman of the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       (C) 2 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate in consultation with the Ranking Member of the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       (D) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives in consultation with the Chairman of the 
     House Committee on Resources and the Chairman of the House 
     Committee on Science.
       (E) 2 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives in consultation with the Ranking 
     Member of the House Committee on Resources and the Ranking 
     Member of the House Committee on Science.
       (2) Chairman.--The President shall select a Chairman and 
     Vice Chairman from Among such 15 members.
       (3) Advisory members to the commission.--The President 
     shall appoint 4 advisory members from among the Members of 
     the Senate and House of Representatives as follows:
       (A) Two Members, one from each party, selected from the 
     Senate.
       (B) Two Members, one from each party, selected from the 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Findings and Recommendations.--The Commission shall 
     report to the President and the Congress on a comprehensive 
     national ocean and coastal policy to carry out the purpose 
     and objectives of this Act. In developing the findings and 
     recommendations of the report, the Commission shall--
       (1) review and suggest any necessary modifications to 
     United States laws, regulations, and practices necessary to 
     define and implement such policy;
       (2) assess the condition and adequacy of investment in 
     existing and planned facilities and equipment associated with 
     ocean and coastal activities including human resources, 
     vessels, computers, satellites, and other appropriate 
     technologies and platforms;
       (3) review existing and planned ocean and coastal 
     activities of Federal agencies and departments, assess the 
     contribution of such activities to development of an 
     integrated long-range program for marine research, ocean and 
     coastal resource management, and protection of the marine 
     environment, and identify any such activities in need of 
     reform to improve efficiency and effectiveness;
       (4) examine and suggest mechanisms to address the 
     interrelationships among ocean and coastal activities, the 
     legal and regulatory framework in which they occur, and their 
     inter-connected and cumulative effects on the marine 
     environment, ocean and coastal resources, and marine 
     productivity and biodiversity;
       (5) review the known and anticipated demands for ocean and 
     coastal resources, including an examination of opportunities 
     and limitations with respect to the use of ocean and coastal 
     resources within the exclusive economic zone, projected 
     impacts in coastal areas, and the adequacy of existing 
     efforts to manage such use and minimize user conflicts;
       (6) evaluate relationships among Federal, State, and local 
     governments and the private sector for planning and carrying 
     out ocean and coastal activities and address the most 
     appropriate division of responsibility for such activities;
       (7) identify opportunities for the development of or 
     investment in new products, technologies, or markets that 
     could contribute to the objectives of this Act;
       (8) consider the relationship of the ocean and coastal 
     policy of the United States to the United Nations Convention 
     on the Law of the Sea and other international agreements, and 
     actions available to the United States to effect 
     collaborations between the United States and other nations, 
     including the development of cooperative international 
     programs for marine research, protection of the marine 
     environment, and ocean and coastal resource management; and
       (9) engage in any other preparatory work deemed necessary 
     to carry out the duties of the Commission pursuant to this 
     Act.
       (c) Duties of Chairman.--In carrying out the provisions of 
     this subsection, the Chairman of the Commission shall be 
     responsible for--
       (1) the assignment of duties and responsibilities among 
     staff personnel and their continuing supervision; and
       (2) the use and expenditures of funds available to the 
     Commission.
       (d) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     or whose compensation is not precluded by a State, local, or 
     Native American tribal government position, shall be 
     compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate payable for Level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each 
     day (including travel time) during which such member is 
     engaged in the performance of the duties of the Commission. 
     All members of the Commission who are officers or employees 
     of the United States shall serve without compensation in 
     addition to that received for their services as officers or 
     employees of the United States.
       (e) Staff.--
       (1) The Chairman of the Commission may, without regard to 
     the civil service laws and

[[Page S9892]]

     regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director who 
     is knowledgeable in administrative management and ocean and 
     coastal policy and such other additional personnel as may be 
     necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties. The 
     employment and termination of an executive director shall be 
     subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the 
     Commission.
       (2) The executive director shall be compensated at a rate 
     not to exceed the rate payable for Level V of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code. 
     The Chairman may fix the compensation of other personnel 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that the rate of pay for such personnel may not exceed 
     the rate payable for GS-15, step 7, of the General Schedule 
     under section 5332 of such title.
       (3) Upon request of the Chairman of the Commission, the 
     head of any Federal Agency shall detail appropriate personnel 
     of the agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in 
     carrying out its functions under this Act. Federal Government 
     employees detailed to the Commission shall serve without 
     reimbursement from the Commission, and such detailee shall 
     retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her 
     regular employment without interruption.
       (4) The Commission may accept and use the services of 
     volunteers serving without compensation, and to reimburse 
     volunteers for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code. Except for the purposes of chapter 81 of title 
     5, United States Code, relating to compensation for work 
     injuries, and chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, 
     relating to tort claims, a volunteer under this section may 
     not be considered to be an employee of the United States for 
     any purpose.
       (5) The Commission is authorized to procure the temporary 
     and intermittent services of experts and consultants in 
     accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     but at rates not to exceed the daily rate payable for GS-15, 
     step 7, of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 
     5, United States Code.
       (f) Administration.--
       (1) All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the 
     public, except when the Chairman of the Commission or a 
     majority of the members of the Commission determine that the 
     meeting or any portion of it may be closed to the public. 
     Interested persons shall be permitted to appear at open 
     meetings and present oral or written statements on the 
     subject matter of the meeting. The Commission may administer 
     oaths or affirmations to any person appearing before it.
       (2) All open meetings of the Commission shall be preceded 
     by timely public notice in the Federal Register of the time, 
     place, and subject to the meeting.
       (3) Minutes of each meeting shall be kept and shall contain 
     a record of the people present, a description of the 
     discussion that occurred, and copies of all statements filed. 
     Subject to section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the 
     minutes and records of all meetings and other documents that 
     were made available to or prepared for the Commission shall 
     be available for public inspection and copying at a single 
     location in the offices of the Commission.
       (4) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does 
     not apply to the Commission.
       (g) Cooperation With Other Agencies.--
       (1) The Commission is authorized to secure directly from 
     any Federal agency or department any information it deems 
     necessary to carry out its functions under this Act. Each 
     such agency or department is authorized to cooperate with the 
     Commission and, to the extent permitted by law, to furnish 
     such information to the Commission, upon the request of the 
     Chairman of the Commission.
       (2) The Commission may use the United States mails in the 
     same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       (3) The General Services Administration shall provide to 
     the Commission on a reimbursable basis the administrative 
     support services that the Commission may request.
       (4) The Commission may enter into contracts with Federal 
     and State agencies, private firms, institutions, and 
     individuals to assist the Commission in carrying out its 
     duties. The Commission may purchase and contract without 
     regard to section 303 of the Federal Property and 
     Administration Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253), section 
     18 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     416), and section 8 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     637), pertaining to competition and publication requirements, 
     and may arrange for printing without regard to the provisions 
     of title 44, United States Code. The contracting authority of 
     the Commission under this Act is effective only to the extent 
     that appropriations are available for contracting purposes.
       (h) Report.--The Commission shall submit to the President, 
     via the Council, and to the Congress not later than 18 months 
     after the establishment of the Commission, a final report of 
     its findings and recommendations. The Commission shall cease 
     to exist 30 days after it has submitted its final report.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to support the activities of the 
     Commission a total of $6,000,000 for fiscal years 1998 and 
     1999. Any sums appropriated shall remain available without 
     fiscal year limitation until expended.

     SEC. 7. REPORT AND BUDGET COORDINATION.

       (a) Biennial Report.--Beginning in January, 1999, the 
     President, through the Council, shall transmit to the 
     Congress biennially a report, which shall include--
       (1) a comprehensive description of the ocean and coastal 
     activities and related accomplishments of all agencies and 
     departments of the United States during the preceding two 
     fiscal years; and
       (2) an evaluation of such activities and accomplishments in 
     terms of the purpose and objectives of this Act. Reports made 
     under this section shall contain such recommendations for 
     legislation as the President may consider necessary or 
     desirable.
       (b) Budget Coordination.--
       (1) Each year the Council shall provide general guidance to 
     each Federal agency or department involved in ocean or 
     coastal activities with respect to the preparation of 
     requests for appropriations.
       (2) Working in conjunction with the Council, each agency or 
     department involved in such activities shall include with its 
     annual request for appropriations a report which--
       (A) identifies significant elements of the proposed agency 
     or department budget relating to ocean and coastal 
     activities; and
       (B) specifies how each such element contributes to the 
     implementation of a national ocean and coastal policy.
       (3) Each agency or department that submits a report under 
     paragraph (1) shall submit such report simultaneously to the 
     Council.
       (4) The President shall, in a timely fashion, provide the 
     Council with an opportunity to review and comment on the 
     budget estimate of each such agency or department.
       (5) The President shall identify in each annual budget 
     submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of title 31, 
     United States Code, those elements of agency or department 
     budget that contribute to the implementation of a national 
     ocean and coastal policy.

     SEC. 8. REPEAL OR 1966 STATUTE.

       The Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 
     1966 (33 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is repealed.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am pleased to be an original 
cosponsor of Senator Hollings' bill to require a wholesale review of 
the Nation's oceans and coastal policies to prepare for the 21st 
century. We have not done this since the 1960's, and the time has come.
  The bill has three important components: First, it calls for the 
development of a coherent national ocean and coastal policy; second, it 
establishes a 15-member commission similar to the Stratton Commission 
to make recommendations within 18 months on this national ocean and 
coastal policy; and third, it creates an interagency council of all the 
Federal agencies involved in oceans and coastal matters, chaired by the 
Secretary of Commerce, to coordinate the implementation of the national 
policy.
  I applaud Senator Hollings for developing this legislation. As has 
been pointed out, over half of the U.S. population lives within 50 
miles of our shores. In my State, the oceans employ more people in the 
private sector than any other industry. The demands on our oceans and 
coastal resources continues to grow, and we must be prepared to meet 
these demands in the 21st century.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of my 
esteemed colleagues, particularly the ranking member of the Commerce 
Committee, Senator Hollings, and the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Stevens, and to cosponsor the Oceans Act of 1997. I 
have great respect for Senators Hollings and Stevens and their 
stewardship of our ocean and coastal resources.
  Since the day I first arrived in the Senate nearly 12 years ago, I 
have worked hard to address the many challenges confronting our common 
ocean and coastal resources. I have led this effort principally through 
my participation and leadership on the Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee, and particularly as ranking member on the 
Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee and as cochair of its predecessor, 
the national ocean policy study [NOPS].
  Over the last 25 years, Congress has worked to develop innovative 
policy solutions to enable the long-term protection, conservation, 
utilization, and management of our vulnerable marine resources. We have 
acted to ensure strong coastal economies in Massachusetts and a clean, 
healthy coastal environment from the Gulf of Maine to the Gulf of 
Alaska.
  In that vein therefore, I believe that it is time for us, like the 
Stratton Commission did over 30 years ago, to

[[Page S9893]]

take an inventory of where our Nation has been and where we are going 
regarding the great responsibility of stewardship of our coastal 
resources. The Oceans Act of 1997 will provide the framework for that 
effort.
  The bill contains three major provisions. First, it calls for 
development of a national ocean and coastal policy to provide for 
protection from natural hazards, stewardship of fisheries and coastal 
resources, protection of the marine environment, enhanced marine 
transportation and security, continued investment in marine 
technologies, ocean monitoring and exploration, Government cooperation 
and coordination, and continued U.S. international leadership. Second, 
it establishes a Commission on Ocean Policy to complete an 18-month 
examination and evaluation of ocean and coastal activities and provide 
recommendations for national policy. Third, it creates an interagency 
National Ocean Council, headed by the Secretary of Commerce to advise 
the President and serve as a forum for developing and implementing 
ocean and coastal policy programs, designate funding responsibilities, 
provide coordination of Federal budgets, and work with non-Federal 
organizations to periodically review the Nation's ocean and coastal 
policy.
  The time for this legislation is now, the world population will 
double to over 10 billion by the middle of the next century. Today over 
50 percent of world population resides in coastal areas. The United 
States and its insular areas have more than 95,000 miles of coastline 
and the offshore U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ] encompasses more 
than 3.4 million square miles, nearly equal to the land area of the 
United States.
  Over the last 30 years the coastal area populations have increased 
from 80 to over 110 million and is projected to reach 127 million by 
2010. If these trends continue, much heavier demands will be placed on 
ocean and coastal resources, that is, need for food from the sea for 
world protein requirements and energy and mineral production from 
offshore deposits. Ocean threats from this vast expansion include; 
sewage, chemical, and garbage disposal, runoff from agricultural and 
forested lands, exploitation of fisheries resources, development of 
energy and mineral resources, and coastal infrastructure development. 
Moreover, recent years have yielded a degradation of coastal water 
quality, loss of wetlands, closure of beach and recreational areas, 
pollution of fishery and shellfish management resources that diminish 
the resource base, contaminate seafood, and endanger human health. In 
fact over 70 percent of U.S. commercial and recreational fish and 
shellfish depend on estuaries at some point in their life cycle.
  Toxic chemicals and sewage dumped have contaminated the Nation's 
harbors and waterways. More than 20,000 combined sewer overflows 
[CSO's], sewers that combine storm water and sanitary flows empty 
directly into rivers and coastal waters. In 1992 heavy rains and 
flooding caused severe CSO overflows in Los Angeles which forced the 
temporary closing of over 70 miles of adjacent coastal areas. Coastal 
area real estate development has accelerated to the point that over 50 
percent of annual U.S. residential construction during the past two 
decades has occurred in coastal areas. This trend is expected to 
continue and is expected to stress coastal ecosystems even further 
mostly in California and Florida, two of the Nation's most productive 
coastal areas. This also increases risk to life and property due to 
hurricanes and other major storms. For example the price tag for 
Hurricane Andrew, one of the largest storms in history, was estimated 
to be $25 to $30 billion. Further sea level rise from global warming 
will exacerbate this already growing problem.
  Further, as the world population grows, we will become more and more 
dependent on food from the sea. Since 1977 total fish harvest from the 
EEZ increased more than 325 percent to a peak of 6.65 billion pounds 
annually in 1986-88, but has subsequently declined--only 6.32 in 1993. 
Alaska pollock and Gulf of Mexico shrimp were the leading fisheries in 
1993. Imported seafood comprised 57 percent of U.S. consumption during 
1996, a 3 percent increase from 1995.
  Many problems exist however in the way we manage the world's 
fisheries. A Time magazine article of August 11, 1997, on the world 
overfishing problem, stated that ``fish of all kinds are being hauled 
from the sea faster than they can reproduce.'' We addressed many of 
those concerns with the passage of ``Sustainable Fisheries Act'' last 
year. With a focus on overfishing, we established National goals to 
rebuild most currently overfished stocks in 10 years, provided for the 
protection of fish habitats and Pacific Insular Areas, established a 
by-catch reduction program, and encouraged the development of 
underutilized species.
  However, more can be done, particularly on an international level. 
Fish stocks migrate across jurisdictions. Nations approach fisheries 
conservation and manage differently. Development of conversation 
objectives of nations harvesting common fish stocks often clash, and 
overcapitalized fleets are over-harvesting the available resources in 
many areas.
  Again, much work remains and we must be vigilant in our duty to 
preserve and protect the oceans and coastal resources as we start the 
next century.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the ranking member of 
the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, in the introduction of the 
Oceans Act of 1997. This bill will establish a commission like the 
Stratton Commission of 1966 to review the many ocean and coastal issues 
facing the United States, and to develop a comprehensive, coordinated, 
national ocean and coastal policy.
  Prior to introduction, I raised a few concerns with Senator Hollings 
on some provisions of the draft bill. Basically, I had recommended some 
language that made it clear that as we develop a new ocean and coastal 
policy for the Nation, we keep in mind the facts that our fiscal 
resources are limited, and that our Federal investments in ocean and 
coastal resources must be spent efficiently and wisely. I also raised 
some concerns about the fact that the original draft had the President 
appointing all of the members of this important commission.
  Mr. President, Senator Hollings has graciously agreed to make some 
changes to the bill pursuant to my recommendations. For instance, the 
bill now authorizes the Congress to appoint more than half of the 
commission members, and the commission is directed to identify 
opportunities to reform Federal ocean programs to improve efficiency 
and effectiveness. I commend Senator Hollings for his willingness to 
work with me and other Republican Senators before introduction of the 
bill. After introduction, I look forward to working with the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, a Senator who worked on the 
original Stratton Commission bill 30 years ago and who is a true 
champion of ocean protection, in the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee 
on any further refinements along these lines that might be 
constructive.
  Again, I thank Senator Hollings and commend him upon introduction of 
this bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to join as a 
sponsor of the Oceans Act of 1997. Our goal in this legislation is to 
deal more effectively with one of the most important aspects of our 
overall policy for the environment--our efforts to preserve and protect 
our management ocean and coastal resources.
  I commend Senator Hollings for his leadership on this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 1214. A bill to amend the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996 to eliminate 
the requirement that a Federal budget deficit must exist in order for 
the President to use the line-item veto authority; to the Committee on 
the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant 
to the order of August 4, 1977, as modified by the order of April 11, 
1986, with instructions that if one committee reports, the other 
committee have 30 days to report or be discharged.


              legislation to strengthen the line-item veto

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 
legislation that will strengthen the recently enacted line-item veto.
  Currently, the line-item veto can only be exercised by the President

[[Page S9894]]

when there is a deficit. This legislation would eliminate that 
restriction and provide for line-item veto authority whether there is a 
deficit or a surplus.
  Mr. President, the purpose of the line-item veto should be to reduce 
wasteful Government programs, as well as reduce deficits.
  Last year the Congress approved legislation that granted the 
President line-item veto authority beginning in 1997. The Congress did 
this out of principle. Members did not wait to see which candidate won 
the election before deciding whether to grant the new authority, and in 
August history was made when President Clinton became the first 
President to exercise the line-item veto.
  While some Members of Congress may not agree with the specific 
provisions that the President selected to line-item veto, the important 
point is that any President should have this power as a check on narrow 
special interest spending and tax provisions. If Congress wishes to 
restore a vetoed provision it can do so with the requisite two-thirds 
vote.
  I have long been a supporter of line-item veto authority for the 
President. In my view it will serve as a powerful check on Congress' 
ability to load up bills with wasteful provisions.
  I think it is safe to say that the President's use of the line-item 
veto has created an environment in which narrow spending and tax 
provisions are going to be scrutinized much more carefully before they 
are loaded onto legislation.
  I recognize that there have been court challenges concerning the 
constitutionality of the statutory line-item veto. I believe that this 
authority is constitutional and I certainly hope that the Supreme Court 
comes down on that side. However, this issue is important enough that 
we should amend the Constitution if necessary. That is why earlier this 
year I introduced a line-item veto constitutional amendment.
  Today, however we should focus on the line-item veto that is before 
us and look for ways to improve that law. That is the purpose of this 
legislation.
  In the last several years our economy has been very healthy and tax 
revenues have come in at much higher levels than previously forecast. 
This has created a situation where we may actually see a budget surplus 
at some point in the next several years. Does this mean we should 
rescind the line-item veto authority we have given the President? Of 
course not, but that would be the result as the law was drafted in 
1996.
  My view is that the line-item veto should be used in both deficit and 
surplus times. While we may have some surplus years on the horizon, it 
is clear that without entitlement reform massive deficits will return 
just after the turn of the century. This means that we must be 
constantly working to eliminate wasteful Government programs. A line-
item veto is one way to help do that.
  Mr. President, I cast my vote for a permanent line-item veto. The 
President and Congress cannot afford to take a vacation from the battle 
against wasteful Government programs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 1215. A bill to prohibit spending Federal education funds on 
national testing; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                      National Testing Legislation

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
prohibit the Federal Government from developing and/or imposing new 
national individualized tests on students across the country.
  During his State of the Union Address this year, President Clinton 
announced his intentions to establish national tests for students in 
fourth grade reading and eighth grade mathematics. Without waiting for 
congressional authority, the Department of Education surged ahead and 
began development of uniform national tests, with plans to administer 
them starting in 1999. In August, the Department announced the award of 
a $13 million contract for its national testing initiative, and plans 
to spend an estimated $50.6 million under the contract from fiscal year 
1998 through fiscal year 2001, including $12.3 million for fiscal year 
1998.
  In response, Representative Bill Goodling, chairman of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce, offered an amendment in the House which 
prohibits the expenditure of fiscal year 1998 funds for a new national 
testing program. While the Senate failed to consider fully and vote on 
the Goodling approach during its debate of the Labor-HHS appropriations 
bill, the House embraced the Goodling amendment, approving it by a 
resounding vote of 295 to 125.
  The House vote sends a clear and strong signal that Congress should 
prohibit Federal funds for national testing in education. In fact, the 
alliance of members from both sides of the political spectrum 
demonstrates the universal concern that the administration's proposal 
is besieged by problems. Here are just a few of the many reasons why 
national tests should be opposed:
  First, education experts such as Dr. Donald J. Senese, former 
Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement during the 
Reagan administration, warn that national testing will lead to a 
national curriculum.
  Second, Lynne Cheney, former chairperson of the National Endowment 
for the Humanities, reminds us that Federal efforts to set standards 
and tests have been disastrous. She points to the politically correct 
Federal history standards and the English-language arts standards, 
which were such an ill-considered muddle that even the Clinton 
Department of Education cut off funding for them after having spent 
more than $1 million in taxpayer funds.
  Third, the proposed math test is steeped in the new, unproven whole 
math or fuzzy math philosophy, which encourages students to rely on 
calculators, discourages basic math skills, and has resulted in 
declines in math performance. For example, the median percentile 
computation scores on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills taken by 
more than 37,000 DODDS students one year after the Defense Department 
introduced whole math dropped 9 points for third graders, 12 for fourth 
graders, 11 for fifth graders, 10 for sixth graders, 10 for seventh 
graders, and 4 for eighth graders.
  Finally, Federal testing takes away local control and parental 
involvement. The Federal Government should not impose its will on 
school boards, parents, and teachers about the education of their 
children. Rather, education should be controlled by school boards in 
local communities, where parents have the greatest opportunity to be 
involved in the education of their child, by participating in the 
development of school curriculum and testing. After all, research 
confirms that parental involvement is the single most important element 
in educating our children.
  Mr. President, the big losers from national tests will be students, 
parents, teachers, and local school boards. Once Federal exams are in 
place, teachers and schools will teach the test. In other words, they 
will change their classes to fit the Federal tests, in order to get 
higher scores. Textbooks and instructional materials will follow suit, 
even in areas that attempt to avoid national tests. As a result, 
Washington bureaucrats who design the tests will shape local curriculum 
decisions. National control of curriculum is absolutely unacceptable to 
me. Once the Federal Government is using tests to shape curriculum, 
parental control through local school boards will be doomed.
  Who should control local education? I believe our schools should 
remain under the control of parents, teachers, and school boards, in 
cooperation with the States. The flawed whole math approach which 
brought major losses in computation test scores demonstrates the 
central threat in national control: When the bureaucrats make a 
mistake, everybody pays, from coast to coast.
  Parents are looking to Congress to protect their right and their 
ability to shape the education of their children. A national testing 
system would deprive parents of this vital opportunity. As Members of 
Congress, we can show our support for education by saying ``no'' to 
national testing and ``yes'' to parental control of their children's 
learning.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S9895]]

                                S. 1215

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON NATIONAL TESTING.

       Part C of the General Education Provision Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1231 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 447. PROHIBITION ON NATIONAL TESTING.

       ``(a) General Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of Federal law, funds provided to the Department or 
     for an applicable program may not be used to develop, plan, 
     implement, or administer any national testing program.
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     following:
       ``(1) The National Assessment of Educational Progress 
     carried out under section 411 of the National Education 
     Statistics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9010).
       ``(2) The Third International Mathematics and Science Study 
     (TIMSS).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 1217. A bill for the relief of Olga Gorgiladze; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


                       PRIVATE RELIEF LEGISLATION

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that will 
grant permanent residency in the United States to Olga Gorgiladze.

  I serve as the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that 
has jurisdiction and oversight over both the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 
I can tell you that with respect to Mrs. Gorgiladze's case--they have 
missed the mark. They have done this woman an injustice. It is a wrong 
that this Senate and this Congress should make right.
  Olga Gorgiladze's case is a special situation that involves the 
turmoil and changes that came with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the 
collapse of the Soviet Union. In September 1991, Mrs. Gorgiladze came 
to the United States to stay with her lifelong friend, Merilyn Hodgson. 
Three months later the Soviet Union was dissolved and civil and ethnic 
war broke out in Georgia, the Soviet Republic where Mrs. Gorgiladze's 
husband was from. She applied for asylum in this country in March 1992. 
INS and the Executive Office of Immigration Review finally got to her 
case in late 1995 and turned down her request. They instructed Mrs. 
Gorgiladze to obtain Georgian citizenship and to leave for that 
country. The irony, of course, is that Olga Gorgiladze is not now and 
never has been a Georgian citizen. In fact, quite the contrary she 
fears for her safety should she be forced to go to that nation. She 
loves the United States. She loves our democratic society that protects 
freedom of speech and religion. Most importantly, she feels safe in a 
nation that has racial and ethnic diversity. The reality is that Olga 
Gorgiladze wants to become an American, not a Georgian citizen.
  Olga Gorgiladze is not even ethnically Georgian. She is half Chinese 
and half Russian. She was born in China in 1940 to a Russian father and 
a Chinese mother. Her father was a naval officer in the Tsarist navy 
and fought against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution. Her 
mother met Mrs. Gorgiladze's father in Shanghai where he had fled after 
the war. Olga grew up in China, speaking Chinese. But, once again in 
1954, her family had to flee another violent Communist takeover--and 
her father moved the family back to the Soviet Union. They were sent to 
work on the undeveloped desert lands of Kazakhstan. In 1959, after her 
father died of cancer she was given permission by the Soviet 
authorities to move to Sukhami, Georgia, near the Russian border.
  In 1971, Olga graduated from the Teachers College of Foreign 
Languages where she majored in English. However, she was denied a 
teaching position because preference was given to Georgians. She 
finally got a job as a part-time teacher at the college from which she 
graduated, but was later fired when all classes for Russian speaking 
groups were terminated. Despite her advanced education--equivalent to a 
masters degree in this country--she has continually been forced to take 
low-paying clerk positions because of discrimination against her as a 
non-Georgian. Other discriminations displayed against her included 
housing which is controlled by the state and purchasing of food and 
supplies.
  Since 1991, the Caucasus nations have been plagued by ethnic strife 
and warfare. We have all watched the violence and bloodshed in the 
Abkhaszia region of Georgia, between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-
Karabakh, and the war in Chechneya. Less well televised is the 
hostility and persecution of outsiders and ethnic minorities. In 
Georgia, there is hostility to anything or anyone affiliated with 
Russia. As a woman who looks Chinese, speaks only Russian and English, 
Olga Gorgiladze has been subject to countless incidents of verbal, 
physical, and mental abuse. Mrs. Gorgiladze does not and cannot blend 
into the Georgian population. She has been beaten, spit on, verbally 
and physically abused. Her safety and livelihood have always felt 
threatened every minute of every day while living in Georgia. For 
example, while riding the bus, Mrs. Gorgiladze has been beaten and 
threatened with knifes, chains, and various other weapons.
  Her husband of 25 years, Malkhaz Gorgiladze, stayed in Georgia and 
warned Olga of the dangers posed to her if she returned to that 
country. He encouraged her to seek asylum in the United States and 
collected evidence for her hearing. He especially worked to document 
police inactivity and the Georgian officials' complicity in attacks on 
non-Georgians by violent nationalist groups. The police warned him to 
stop his efforts. Malkhaz Gorgiladze began to receive anonymous phone 
calls and threats and warnings to stop criticizing the police. In 1996, 
while returning home from a New Year's Eve gathering, his car was 
rammed by a Georgian police car and Olga's husband was killed.
  When asked by the immigration judges at Justice, our State Department 
reported that Georgia is in a state of cease-fire and everybody is 
getting along with each other. Further, the Justice Department 
conjectured that if the Georgian police wanted Olga's husband killed, 
the would have used means other than an auto accident involving a 
police car. The INS and immigration judges down there at the Justice 
Department have used this information and conclusions to deny Mrs. 
Gorgiladze's request for asylum. Yet, there were numerous letters and 
affidavits by witnesses regarding Malkhaz Gorgiladze's murder. And, in 
Georgia, the ultranationalists blame non-Georgians, and in particular 
blame Russians, for all their misfortunes and lack of economic 
development. Friends and relatives of Olga Gorgiladze have warned her 
that she should not return. They tell her that she will never be able 
to get a job and always will be an outcast. They say she will be 
considered a traitor. And, Malkhaz will not be there to try and defend 
her as in the past. In short, they fear for her safety, as do I.
  Mrs. Gorgiladze's case is truly heart-wrenching. And, here is a woman 
I might add--that has worked for the last 5 years at MCI Customer 
Service Representative International Department and turned around and 
paid her taxes to the State of Virginia and the U.S. Government. In my 
view, she has been an outstanding resident in our Nation who serves as 
an example of the American dream. She has never broken any law and has 
never been on welfare or asked the Government for handouts. She has 
followed the immigration rules every step of the way. She is what 
America is all about. What astonishes me is why the Justice Department 
would want to deport this 57-year-old woman.
  Mr. President, I have served in the U.S. Senate over 30 years. Every 
now and then we get an opportunity to stand up for someone who the 
Federal bureaucracy has mistreated. This is one of those times. Olga 
Gorgiladze's situation has touched me. Since her friend brought the 
case to my attention, I can't stop thinking about how unfair it seems. 
I've sat in Senate hearing after hearing on the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service asking why action is not taken to deport illegal 
aliens who got into this country through deception. I have listened to 
this administration try to explain how in 1996 they naturalized 
thousands of aliens with criminal backgrounds. And, I find it 
astonishing, these very same Justice immigration judges have ruled in 
separate cases that homosexuality per se does constitute a legitimate 
claim for asylum. But, in this case we have a woman who came to the 
United States legally, who is not and never has been a citizen of 
Georgia, who had her husband killed by

[[Page S9896]]

Georgian authorities, who legitimately fears for her safety if sent 
there, who has complied with all the United States immigration laws, 
and who has paid her own way and has not been a burden to taxpayers in 
this country--and this is who the Justice Department wants to deny 
asylum and deport? Maybe I should forgo this bill and simply tell Olga 
to pretend that she is homosexual. This is injustice. This is just 
simply wrong.
  Mr. President, I am introducing this bill today because the system is 
not working. I believe that Olga Gorgiladze has legitimate reasons to 
fear being deported to Georgia. She is not Georgian and does not belong 
in that country. It is ludicrous for the United States Government to be 
ordering her to apply for Georgian citizenship. What she has 
demonstrated is that she does belong in this country. In her case the 
system has failed and I think it is incumbent upon the United States 
Senate to put things right. I am pleased to sponsor this bill. I intend 
to work with the Judiciary Committee, with Senators Abraham, Kennedy, 
Hatch, and Leahy, to ensure that Mrs. Olga Gorgiladze is permitted to 
remain in the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERREY.
  S. 1218. A bill to assure the integrity of information, 
transportation, and telecommunications upon the arrival of the year 
2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                           the millennium act

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, one of the challenges of the 21st century 
is already upon us. It is commonly known as the year 2000 computer 
problem or the millennium bug. At issue is a programming technique that 
could lead to the malfunction of computer systems worldwide on January 
1, 2000. It is essential that government, business, and personal 
computer users take adequate steps to fix this problem in advance of 
December 31, 1999, to ensure that cyberspace enters the next millennium 
without a hitch.
  During the early years of computing, computer storage space was 
incredibly expensive. Storage space that costs only 10 cents per 
megabyte today, cost $36 per megabyte in 1972. In an effort to reduce 
storage costs, computer programmers commonly programmed date 
information using only two digits to indicate the year. For example, 
1999 would be programmed as 99. This clever space saving trick saved 
computer users millions of dollars and became industry practice because 
programmers believed that by the time the year 2000 arrived any code 
they were working on would be obsolete and out of service. 
Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom was wrong and many computer 
systems still use these programs. Computers and computer software 
programmed in this fashion may misinterpret the year 2000 as 1900. This 
electronic confusion could lead to serious malfunction or collapse of 
computers and computer networks around the world.
  Date information plays a significant role in almost all computer 
applications developed over the last 30 years. The year 2000 problem 
has many practical implications from the relatively benign to the very 
serious. Credit cards may be read as invalid, traffic lights may not 
operate, 99 years of bank records could be destroyed or the Nation's 
air traffic control systems could fail. The list of possible failures 
is nearly endless and can be found in systems used by the government, 
the business community, and personal computer users worldwide. Personal 
computers are less susceptible to the problem and in most cases can be 
quickly fixed. However, business and government leaders should be 
working night and day to ensure that the computer systems the country 
depends on are reprogrammed to correctly recognize the date in time for 
the arrival of New Year's Day 2000.
  The time and financial commitment necessary to replace the 
problematic date code is stunning. The Gartner Group estimates that 
costs could exceed $600 billion. Newsweek magazine points out that this 
sum is enough to fund a year's worth of education costs, preschool 
through graduate school. Correcting the problem is technically simple, 
however in order to find the date information the entire program must 
be manually scanned line for line. Often, the programs are written in 
the outdated COBAL programming language and finding programmers skilled 
in older languages to solve the problem is very difficult because the 
demand for their services is sky rocketing. After a competent 
technician is hired and they have analyzed the code and made the 
necessary changes, the programs must go through a time consuming 
testing phase. In sum, it is a very complex task and it is quickly 
becoming too late to begin the reprogramming process.
  Many companies and government offices have already taken steps to 
avert this problem and are well on their way to making their systems 
year 2000 compliant. Unfortunately, many others have not addressed the 
problem and the time needed to analyze, modify, and test the code used 
by these entities is quickly slipping away. I am very concerned that 
further delays will leave the government and many private companies 
unprepared to carry out normal transactions in the early days of the 
next century. In order to address this problem, I have joined Senator 
Moynihan as a cosponsor of S. 22. S. 22 would create a commission that 
would be required to report to the President, by July 3, 1997, with 
proposals for new procedures or regulations to address the year 2000 
computer problem for systems of Federal, State, and local governments 
and would make recommendations for funding levels that might be needed 
to address this problem.

  In addition I am introducing a bill today that would instruct the 
Federal Communications Commission to initiate a proceeding to determine 
the integrity of the telecommunications networks as the year 2000 
arrives. It also requires the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology to review the risks to personal computers and requires the 
Department of Transportation to assure that transportation safety is 
not compromised.
  Inconvenience can be tolerated, but every effort must be taken to 
assure that the health and safety of humans and the security and 
integrity of networks and data are not compromised by what we know to 
be a significant weakness in our computer networks and software.
  In conclusion, I am also very concerned by reports that small and 
midsize businesses are experiencing difficulty in determining if their 
computer systems are year 2000 compliant because some third-party 
systems vendors are not forthcoming with information about their 
products. An already difficult task is further complicated by 
uncooperative third party vendors who fail to help these companies 
understand how the year 2000 problem could affect their businesses. 
These companies have a responsibility to provide their customers with 
the information they need to make their systems year 2000 compliant.
  There is still time to act and prevent dangerous disruptions in 
computer, transportation and computer networks and the loss of valuable 
data. If the private and public sector does that, then Americans can 
party, and not panic when the clock strikes midnight on New Year's eve 
1999. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1218

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be referred to as the ``Millennium Act.''

     SEC. 101. TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS.

       (a) The Federal Communications Commission shall initiate a 
     proceeding to evaluate the potential dangers to the nation's 
     telecommunications networks from to software and systems 
     which are unable to effectively toll the passage of time from 
     December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000.
       (b) The Commission shall make necessary and appropriate 
     regulatory changes within their jurisdiction to ensure the 
     integrity of the nation's telecommunications networks.

     SEC. 102. PERSONAL COMPUTERS.

       The National Institute of Standards and Technology shall 
     evaluate the potential risks to information stored on 
     personal computers from to software and systems which are 
     unable to effectively toll the passage of time from December 
     31, 1999 to January 1, 2000 and shall take necessary and 
     appropriate actions within its jurisdiction to propose 
     solutions and inform the public.

     SEC. 103. TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall initiate a 
     comprehensive plan to assure that

[[Page S9897]]

     computer hardware and software in transportation systems 
     which are unable to effectively toll the passage of time from 
     December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000 do not create a safety 
     risk to transportation workers and the general public. Should 
     a risk to safety be identified, the Department shall take 
     necessary and appropriate measures to assure safety and 
     inform the public of such risks.

                          ____________________