[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 131 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10055-S10067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 1223. A bill to protect personal employment information reported 
to the National Directory of New Hires; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page S10056]]

            the employee information protection act of 1997

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Employee 
Information Protection Act of 1997. This bill will correct a serious 
problem with the 1996 welfare reform law that threatens the privacy of 
every American.
  I do not know how many of my colleagues are aware of the fact that 
the new welfare reform law created a national new hire directory, which 
requires States to collect the name, address, and Social Security 
number of all newly hired employees and send this information to 
Washington, DC. This new hire directory will be housed at the Social 
Security Administration, under agreement with the Office of Child 
Support Enforcement, and the data will be checked against a registry of 
child support cases to detect overdue payments.
  Concerns with this new hire directory nearly killed the welfare 
reform bill in the Montana Legislature and in several other State 
legislatures, but folks inside the Beltway do not seem too concerned. 
But I am concerned, and I will tell you why.
  I am all for tracking down deadbeat parents and recovering overdue 
child support. But this new directory covers every new hire in every 
State and does not distinguish between deadbeats and nondeadbeats. 
What's more, the new law puts no limits on how long employee data may 
remain in the national new hire directory, and the Office of Child 
Support Enforcement has not developed any limits. It is especially 
alarming to me that in addition to the Office of Child Support 
Enforcement and the Social Security Administration, the Treasury 
Department has access to the directory and the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services has the discretion to provide researchers access to the 
directory. With the revelations this week at the Finance Committee 
hearings of abuse of taxpayer information at the IRS, it is urgent that 
we take measures to protect personal information from abuse.
  The Employee Information Protection Act is simple--in fact it is only 
one sentence long, not counting the findings. That sentence reads: 
``Information entered into such database shall be deleted 6 months 
after the date of entry.'' That is it. This 6-month limit on retention 
of new hire data would give the Child Support Office sufficient time to 
check employee data against the child support case registry and start 
collection efforts on the deadbeats. At the same time, it will provide 
some protection for the personal information of the vast majority of 
Americans who do not owe child support.
  I urge my colleagues to take a good look at this situation and if you 
have concerns as I do, join me in sponsoring the Employee Information 
Protection Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that Monday's New York 
Times article on the new hire directory be inserted into the Record.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1223

       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 ``Employee Information 
     Protection Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 
     2105) requires Federal and State child support enforcement 
     agencies to implement new programs to collect overdue child 
     support payment, thereby reducing the burden on taxpayers by 
     lowering welfare payments.
       (2) Among the new programs created under such Act and the 
     amendments made by such Act, is the National Directory of New 
     Hires, to be administered by the Social Security 
     Administration, under agreement with the Office of Child 
     Support Enforcement of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services. Under this program, States are required to develop 
     a reporting system whereby employers must report to their 
     respective States the name, address, and social security 
     number of all newly hired employees. States must forward the 
     new hire data within 3 days of receipt to the National 
     Directory of New Hires, where the data will be checked 
     against the Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders to 
     detect overdue child support.
       (3) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 does not limit how long employee 
     data may remain in the National Directory of New Hires, and 
     the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services has not developed any such limits 
     as of September 15, 1997. In addition to the Office of Child 
     Support Enforcement of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services and the Social Security Administration, the 
     Department of the Treasury has access to the directory and 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the discretion 
     to provide researchers access to the directory.
       (4) The overwhelming majority of newly hired individuals do 
     not have child support orders entered against them, yet their 
     personal data can be viewed by Federal agencies without such 
     individuals' knowledge or consent.
       (5) Recent disclosures of unauthorized viewing of taxpayer 
     information by officials of the Internal Revenue Service 
     highlight the potential for abuse of such information and the 
     need for safeguarding measures.
       (6) Several States with new hire reporting programs have 
     time limits on data retention ranging from 6 to 9 months.
       (7) A 6-month limit on retention of new hire data in the 
     National Directory of New Hires, from the date such data is 
     entered, would allow sufficient time to check the data 
     against the Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders and 
     to initiate action against individuals with overdue child 
     support, and would reduce the potential for abuse and misuse 
     of the data.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to safeguard 
     personal information concerning employees who do not have 
     child support orders pending against them by placing a 
     reasonable time limit on the retention of new hire data 
     reported to the National Directory of New Hires.

     SEC. 3. LIMIT ON NEW HIRE DATA RETENTION.

       (a) Requirement To Delete Data After 6 Months.--Section 
     453(i)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653(i)(2)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``Information 
     entered into such database shall be deleted 6 months after 
     the date of entry.''.
       [(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of title 
     III of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 
     2198).]
                                  ____


               [From the New York Times, Sept. 22, 1997]

           U.S. Inaugurating a Vast Database of All New Hires

                            (By Robert Pear)

       Washington, Sept. 20.--Enforcement of child support 
     obligations enters a new era on Oct. 1, when the Federal 
     Government will start operating a computerized directory 
     showing every person newly hired by every employer in the 
     country so Federal and state investigators can track down 
     parents who owe money to their children.
       States will be able to use the directory to locate parents 
     and dun them, typically by securing court orders to employers 
     to deduct child support from wages and salaries.
       Keeping track of parents who move from state to state is 
     one of the most difficult tasks in collecting child support, 
     officials say. More than 30 percent of the 19 million child 
     support cases involve parents who do not live in the same 
     state as their children.
       President Clinton will soon announce the National Directory 
     of New Hires, which is required by the 1996 welfare law. But 
     the director is not just for welfare recipients. It will 
     record basic information, including names, addresses, Social 
     Security numbers and wages, for everyone hired after Oct. 1 
     for a full- or part-time job by an employer of any size.
       It will be one of the largest, most up-to-date files of 
     personal information kept by the Government. Michael Kharfen, 
     a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     said the Government expected to receive data on 60 million 
     newly hired employees a year. Wages must be reported every 
     three months; the Government expects to receive 160 million 
     wage reports each quarter.
       The size and scope of the database have raised concerns 
     about the potential for intrusions on privacy.
       Federal and state officials predict that the new Federal 
     directory, combined with similar directories in all states, 
     will produce billions of dollars in new child support 
     payments. States like New York, Virginia, Texas and Missouri, 
     which have required the reporting of newly hired workers in 
     the last few years, say the procedure has been extremely 
     helpful in locating absent parents.
       In New York, Daniel D. Hogan, a spokesman for the state's 
     Department of Family Assistance, said that three million 
     people had been hired in the last year and that more than 5 
     percent of them had been found, through matching of computer 
     files, to owe child support.
       When people change jobs, Mr. Hogan said, New York officials 
     inform the new employers of any child support obligations so 
     the money can immediately be withheld from wages.
       ``We don't give them an opportunity to become deadbeats,'' 
     Mr. Hogan said. ``The biggest problem facing us in child 
     support enforcement is people who move out of state. The best 
     part of the Federal reform is that it will allow us to break 
     down barriers state to state.''
       Health and Human Services will maintain a separate register 
     listing everyone who

[[Page S10057]]

     owes or is owed child support. It will check each new 
     employee against the list of child support orders to see if 
     the worker owes any money.
       Thomas D. Neal, a child support specialist in the Texas 
     Attorney General's office, said: ``The national directory 
     will tremendously enhance our ability to locate absent 
     parents and collect child support. Before now, we did not 
     have a good mechanism to know that another state was looking 
     for an individual who might be working in Texas.''
       Virginia has required the reporting of all newly hired 
     employees since 1993. Patricia Addison, manager of operations 
     for the state's child support program, said, ``We've found it 
     an invaluable tool.''
       The State of Virginia is routinely informed whenever a 
     person takes a new job. By contrast, Ms. Addison said, in the 
     past, ``the only way we found out that the father had changed 
     jobs is that the child support payments stopped.''
       Despite the enthusiasm of state officials, Robert M. 
     Gellman, an expert on privacy and information policy, 
     expressed concern that the new data would be misused.
       ``The Government is creating a gigantic new database with 
     very broad uses and very little attention paid to the 
     protection of personal privacy,'' he said. ``Private 
     detectives will find a friend in the police department or a 
     child welfare office to give them access to information in 
     the directory of new hires. That already happens with 
     criminal, medical and credit records.''
       Mr. Gellman predicted that Congress would increase the 
     number of people authorized to use the new directory, just as 
     it has expanded the list of officials with access to Federal 
     tax return information over the years.
       Under Federal law, state welfare and child support 
     officials will have access to the new national directory. The 
     Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration 
     and the Justice Department will also have access for some 
     purposes.
       A parent living with a child will be able to use the 
     directory to get information about an absent parent who owes 
     child support. For example, a mother with custody of a child 
     will be able to ascertain the father's home address, the name 
     and address of his employer and the amount of the father's 
     income, assets and debts. Using such information, the mother 
     may ask a local court to modify the child's support order if 
     the father's earnings have increased.
       In Missouri, child support collections rose 17 percent, to 
     $279 million, in 1996 after the state required reporting of 
     newly hired workers. Teresa L. Kaiser, director of the 
     Missouri program, said, ``We had a big increase in 
     collections from `job jumpers,' parents who want work in one 
     place for a few months, then move to another job before we 
     could get a wage-withholding order.''
       States say the reporting of new employees not only 
     increases child support collections, but also saves money in 
     other programs. State officials can often reduce or eliminate 
     payments for welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance and 
     Medicaid after learning that the recipients of such aid have 
     been hired.
       Under Federal law, the hiring of a new employee must be 
     reported within 20 days to state authorities, who then have 8 
     days to send the data to Washington. States may establish 
     tighter deadlines for employers, and many have done so.
       Collections through the Federal child support program 
     increased last year by 50 percent, to $12 billion, from $8 
     billion in 1992. But nationwide, only half of the families 
     with child support orders receive the full amount due, and 
     millions get nothing.
       Here is how the new program will work:
       Employers may file information by mail or magnetic tape. 
     States may also take the information over the telephone, by 
     fax or through the Internet.
       An employer who fails to report new employees may be fined 
     $25 for each newly hired worker. An employer who conspires 
     with an employee to flout the reporting requirements may be 
     fined $500.
       A multistate employer may file a report with one state 
     listing all of its hiring across the country. Or, it may file 
     a separate report for each new employee in the state where 
     the person works.
       The Federal Government will require only six items of 
     information: the name, address and Social Security number of 
     each newly hired employee, the employer's name and address 
     and the identification number assigned to the employer by the 
     Government.
       But many states are requiring employers to file additional 
     information, like telephone numbers, dates of birth, driver's 
     license number and details of health insurance coverage 
     provided to new employers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 1224. A bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to ensure full Federal 
compliance with that Act; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


             the facility superfund compliance act of 1997

  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, today, I am introducing, with the 
Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden, legislation to ensure that Federal 
agencies comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act.
  This same legislation has been introduced in the House of 
Representatives for several years by my home State colleague, Dan 
Schaefer. His leadership in this area has been very important.
  This legislation is very important to the country, but particularly 
to Colorado, where we have had several problems with the Federal 
Government applying one standard for themselves, and a different higher 
standard on private parties. I think this is unfair and should be 
changed. I've always believed that Superfund reform would be easier if 
all parties were in the same bathtub with the same scrub brush.
  I've tried to address Colorado's problems with EPA, but unfortunately 
I've had little success in getting their attention. One example I have 
brought to their attention was a former research institute at the 
Colorado School of Mines in Golden, CO. The research institute at 
Golden was shut down in the late 1980's after years of research had 
been done by the School of Mines, private entities, and several 
agencies of the Federal Government, including the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA].
  After the site ceased doing research various environmental 
contaminants were found at the site and in 1992 there was an accident 
that resulted in the contents of a holding pond spilling into Clear 
Creek. While there was no contamination found in Clear Creek, the EPA 
had an emergency response cleanup contractor remove approximately 
22,000 cubic yards of material from the pond and had it placed in a 
temporary stockpile. The EPA then issued a unilateral administrative 
order [UAO] for its disposal. Despite the fact that EPA, the Department 
of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Bureau of Mines did 
research at the site none of them were the subject of the UAO, even 
though the Bureau of Mines was identified as a potentially responsible 
party [PRP]. Only the State of Colorado, the Colorado School of Mines, 
and the private parties were subject to the UAO. To put it plainly, the 
EPA stuck everyone but their sister agencies with a bill for millions 
on cleanup.
  In the case of the State of Colorado, they have appropriated a total 
of $7.465 million for cleanup to cover their costs and the costs the 
Federal Government should be paying. It's my view that this money could 
be spent much better, or not spent at all. However, to have the State 
spend it because EPA won't enforce and Federal agencies won't be 
responsible is unacceptable. There is also another case in Colorado 
involving a Superfund site in Leadville. Leadville is a small town that 
was the home of Baby Doe Tabor and formerly was the site of a large 
amount of mining. While there is still some mining that occurs in 
Leadville, they are also beginning to rely more on tourism dollars.
  Unfortunately, the city has a stigma attached to it; it is a 
Superfund site. All the homes are a Superfund site, all the schools are 
a Superfund site, all the restaurants are a Superfund site, all the 
businesses on the main street are a Superfund site. They've been told 
that because of various mounds of old tailings laying around, the 
entire city has to be on the national priority list. It's interesting 
to note though, that the safety concerns of EPA seem to stop short when 
it comes to Federal responsibility. This story is one of two water 
treatment plants, one Federal, one private. The private plant, because 
it's on the Superfund site was built at much greater cost than the 
Federal plant, which is conveniently just outside the Superfund site. 
This is despite the fact that the level of contamination is basically 
equal at both locations. While the EPA disputes this claim, the people 
who live in Leadville and work at the cleanup site know the difference.
  In case I'm accused of relying on anecdotes for this legislation let 
me describe two documents that found their way into my office. Let me 
describe them in reverse chronological order, the first is an August 2, 
1996, memorandum which subject is, ``Documentation of Reason(s) for Not 
Issuing CERCLA 106 UAO's to All Identified PRP's.'' I want to quote a 
footnote in this document; it states that, ``Pursuant to the applicable 
procedures, DOJ must concur with any EPA decision to issue a UAO under 
CERCLA section 106

[[Page S10058]]

to a Federal agency.'' So if DOJ doesn't concur EPA won't act. So it is 
revealing to note that a December 15, 1994, letter from a region VIII 
attorney stated that, ``It is my understanding, however, that DOJ has 
never approved of the issuance of a unilateral order to a Federal 
agency.''
  By the Federal Government's own admission they will not enforce 
against a sister agency. Since there is no environmental ``cop on the 
beat'' for Federal agencies, the Federal Government should be relieved 
of their immunity against lawsuits and be treated the same as any 
private party. That includes having to comply with laws that elected 
State legislatures enact. This is what this legislation does. It is my 
intention to see it enacted into law as quickly as possible.
  I want to thank the Senator from Oregon for joining me in this 
effort.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in 1992, Congress enacted the Federal 
Facilities Compliance Act, which requires Federal facilities to obey 
key environmental laws including the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act and State hazardous waste laws.
  However, subsequent Federal court decisions threaten to undermine the 
important principle that Federal Government facilities must comply with 
the same environmental laws that govern the private sector. In fact, 
one court decision that covers the Hanford Nuclear Reservation would 
allow Hanford to poison the water, pollute the air and contaminate the 
soil for decades, and be immunized for any violations that occur before 
the Hanford cleanup is completed sometime in the next century.
  This court ruling allowed the interagency agreement among the Energy 
Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington 
Department of Ecology that governs the Hanford cleanup to be used as a 
shield to block an enforcement action against the Energy Department for 
violations of the Clean Water Act.
  The Energy Department's use of interagency agreement to bar 
enforcement of environmental laws not only undermines the Federal 
Facilities Compliance Act but also puts at risk the health of citizens 
who live downstream or downwind from Hanford, and near other Federal 
facilities around the country.
  Madam President, we also have a double standard here. The Superfund 
law only authorizes interagency agreements for Federal facilities; 
there is no comparable provision and no comparable immunity from 
enforcement for private sector sites.
  Today, Senator Allard and I are introducing the Federal Facilities 
Superfund Compliance Act to put an end to this double standard. Our 
legislation makes clear that Federal Government facilities are subject 
to the same environmental cleanup laws that apply to the private 
sector. And they are subject to the law now, not sometime off in the 
future.
  Under this legislation, an interagency agreement, such as the Hanford 
Tri-Party Agreement, can no longer be used as a means to evade other 
environmental requirements.
  Our legislation also makes clear that if Federal facilities fail to 
meet their obligations, States and affected citizens will be able to 
enforce against the Federal Government for these violations just as 
they would be able to enforce against private parties for violations of 
environmental laws at a private sector Superfund site.
  Our citizens who live in the shadow of contaminated Federal 
facilities should not have to wait years or decades to obtain the 
health and environmental protections our laws are supposed to provide. 
I urge all our colleagues to support this important legislation to 
provide citizens who live downwind or downstream from Federal 
facilities equal protection under our environmental laws.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hagel, 
        Mr. Allard, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. 
        Gramm):


               the department of commerce dismantling act

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, for 3 years now, the Department of 
Commerce has been the target of critics in Congress and around the 
country. With the completion of the Balanced Budget Act and the tight 
discretionary budgets mandated by that law, I believe it is time once 
again to raise the question of Commerce's ongoing existence.
  Is it necessary to have our Nation's weather and mapping services 
housed in the same department as our trade promotion activities, or 
would the American people be better served by smaller, tighter agencies 
with more clearly defined objectives? I suggest that through 
comprehensive restructuring we can both better serve the American 
people and help keep the budget within the spending targets that are 
now law.
  Why terminate the Department of Commerce? The debate over the past 3 
years has provided us with a simple answer: It's the least defensible 
department in a Government littered with wasteful, unnecessary 
departments. Its bureaucracy is bloated, its infrastructure is in 
disrepair, and its resources are strained to encompass numerous 
activities that have absolutely nothing to do with commerce or trade. 
Former Commerce Department officials, the General Accounting Office, 
and the inspector general have repeatedly testified before Congress 
that the Department of Commerce suffers from mismanagement, 
duplication, and a general lack of accountability. Confronted with this 
weight of evidence, I believe that the Commerce Department cannot be 
reinvented. Instead, the only responsible action is dismantle the 
Department to better serve the Congress and the American people.
  Today, I am introducing a bill along with Senators Brownback, Kyl, 
Faircloth, Gramm, Nickles, Allard, Hutchinson, and Hagel which targets 
this waste and duplication. It transfers those functions that can be 
better served elsewhere, consolidates duplicative agencies, and 
eliminates the remaining unnecessary or wasteful programs. Preliminary 
estimates indicate the bill will save about $2.5 billion over the next 
5 years. How does it achieve these savings?
  First, it eliminates unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful programs 
such as the Minority Business Development Agency, the U.S. Travel and 
Tourism Administration, the Technology Administration, and the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration.
  Second, it takes NOAA--which comprises the lion's share of the 
Department's activities--out from under the Department umbrella. Many 
of the functions under NOAA, including the Nation's weather service, 
are vital activities that all observers agree should be carried on. As 
an independent agency, NOAA will have the opportunity to focus on these 
core functions, free to achieve the savings necessary to fulfill its 
responsibilities.
  Third, it rationalizes U.S. trade policy by consolidating the 
International Trade Administration, the Bureau of Export 
Administration, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative within 
the U.S. Trade Administration. Currently, 19 Federal agencies are 
charged with promoting trade, but only 8 percent of total Federal 
spending on trade promotion is directed by Commerce. The bill before us 
takes a dramatic step toward consolidating our existing trade 
activities, achieving the administrative savings necessary to 
rationalize our trade promotion efforts and make them more effective.
  Finally, the bill establishes a new Federal Statistical Service by 
combining the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis 
with the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the Department of Labor. It 
also creates within the service a Federal Council on Statistical Policy 
to advise the service and Congress on statistical issues. Once again, 
the goal is to consolidate functions of the Federal Government that 
have been dispersed across the Federal Government. It's a more 
rational, efficient means of accomplishing these tasks.
  Mr. President, some have argued that this effort will handicap 
American businesses by depriving them of their chief advocate in 
Washington. That's nonsense. Businessmen and women across this country 
understand what's necessary to promote economic growth and jobs--and 
it's not another Government handout.
  As Jim Barrett, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce stated: 
``Of all the priorities that the Congress can set to assist Michigan 
business, keeping the Commerce Department is not even on the radar 
screen.

[[Page S10059]]

* * * A balanced budget with lower interest rates will do much more 
than the Department of Commerce as it is presently structured ever 
could.''
  A poll conducted by the Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce indicates 
Mr. Barrett wasn't just speaking for himself. Forty-seven percent of 
those polled support eliminating the Department of Commerce--while only 
6 percent were opposed. That is a ratio of almost 8 to 1 in favor of 
eliminating the Department of Commerce.
  The lesson of the Commerce Department is simple. Absent clearly 
defined responsibilities and goals, the Department has become the 
resting place for the odds and ends of the Federal Government. In the 
process, it has provided shelter for numerous programs that do not 
serve the American people well.
  This legislation targets those programs, unburdening the taxpayer 
from being forced to continue their subsidy, while freeing the more 
worthy programs to better accomplish their jobs. This legislation is an 
exercise in good government, and I hope my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         The Department of Commerce Dismantling Act--Highlights

       Terminates unnecessary department agencies: Eliminates the 
     Technology Administration, the Minority Business Development 
     Administration, the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration, and the Economic Development 
     Administration.
       Eliminates wasteful department programs: Eliminates the 
     Office of Technology Policy, the Advanced Technology Program, 
     the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, the Federal 
     Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, the Metric 
     Program, the NOAA Corps, the NOAA Fleet, grant programs under 
     the National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration, and ocean and atmospheric grant programs.
       Consolidates trade functions: Rationalizes U.S. trade 
     policy by consolidating the International Trade 
     Administration, the Bureau of Export Administration, the 
     Office of the United States Trade Representative, and 
     spectrum management within the United States Trade 
     Administration.
       Consolidates oceanographic, atmospheric and scientific 
     functions within a newly independent National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration: Consolidates the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration, the National Bureau of 
     Standards (formerly the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology), spectrum research and analysis functions of the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
     and the Office of Space Commerce. Core functions of NOAA, 
     such as fisheries management and the National Weather 
     Service, are preserved.
       Consolidates statistical functions: Establishes a new 
     Federal Statistical Service by combining the Bureau of the 
     Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis with the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics from the Department of Labor. Also creates 
     within the Service a Federal Council on Statistical Policy to 
     advise the Service and Congress on statistical issues.
       Corporatizes the Patent and Trademark Office: Establishes a 
     fee-funded, wholly owned government corporation, based on 
     legislation reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
     this year.


                                summary

       The terminations, transfers and consolidations called for 
     by this bill are to be completed over a thirty-six month 
     period under the direction of the Office of Management and 
     Budget.

                        Administrative functions

       The office of the Secretary, General Counsel, Inspector 
     General, and other administrative functions are terminated 
     six months after enactment of this bill.

                  Economic Development Administration

       The EDA provides grants and assistance to loosely-defined 
     ``economically depressed'' regions. EDA's functions are 
     duplicated by numerous other federal agencies including the 
     Departments of Agriculture, HUD, and Interior, the Small 
     Business Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority and 
     the Appalachian Regional Commission. The parochial nature of 
     the program often targets EDA grants to locations with 
     healthy economies which do not need federal assistance. The 
     EDA is terminated within this bill.

                 National Technical Information Service

       The National Technical Information Service is transferred 
     to the Office of Budget and Management for privatization. If 
     an appropriate arrangement for the privatization of functions 
     of the NTIS is not made within 18 months, then the Service is 
     transferred to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration and OMB is directed to provide legislation to 
     Congress that would transform NTIS into a government-owned 
     corporation.

              Bureaus of the Census and economic analysis

       The Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis would 
     be transferred, along with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to 
     the newly created Federal Statistical Service, beginning the 
     process of consolidating the federal government's statistical 
     functions. The bill then requires the President to study and 
     propose legislation to further the consolidation of these 
     functions.

                  Minority Business Development Agency

       Although MBDA has spent hundreds of millions on management 
     assistance--not capital assistance--since 1971, the program 
     has never been formally authorized by Congress. The MBDA's 
     stated mission, to help minority-owned businesses get 
     government contracts, is duplicated by such agencies and 
     programs as the Small Business Administration, and Small 
     Business Development Centers, along with the private sector. 
     The MBDA would be terminated.

                       Technology Administration

       The Technology Administration currently works with industry 
     to promote the use and development of new technology. The 
     federal government is poorly equipped to ``pick winners and 
     losers'' in the marketplace. This agency is terminated, 
     including the Offices of Technology Policy, Technology 
     Commercialization, and Technology Evaluation and Assessment.

             National Institute of Standards and Technology

       The National Institute of Standards and Technology is 
     redesignated as the National Bureau of Standards and 
     transferred to the newly independent NOAA. The Advanced 
     Technology Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnerships are terminated; these programs are often cited 
     as prime examples of corporate welfare, wherein the federal 
     government invests in applied research and product 
     development programs which should be conducted in the private 
     sector.

       National Telecommunications and Information Administration

       The NTIA, an advisory body on national telecommunications 
     policy, would be terminated, including its grant programs. 
     Federal spectrum research and analysis functions would be 
     transferred to the National Bureau of Standards while federal 
     spectrum management functions would be made an independent 
     arm of the Federal Communications Commission. Finally, NTIA's 
     laboratories would be moved to the OMB for privatization. If 
     a suitable arrangement is not made within 18 months, they 
     would be moved to NOAA.

                      Patent and Trademark Office

       Providing for patents and trademarks is a constitutionally-
     mandated government function. This bill would establish the 
     PTO as a government-owned corporation and require the PTO to 
     be supported completely through fee collection. This text is 
     the same as S. 507 reported by the Senate Committee on the 
     Judiciary earlier this year.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

       The bill establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration as an independent agency. Consolidated within 
     the newly independent National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration are the National Bureau of Standards (formerly 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology), spectrum 
     research and analysis functions of the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the 
     Office of Space Commerce.
       Core functions of NOAA, such as fisheries management and 
     the National Weather Service, are preserved, while outdated 
     programs like the NOAA Corps, NOAA Fleet, and 30 other 
     atmospheric programs are terminated.

                   United States Trade Administration

       The Department of Commerce claims to be the lead in U.S. 
     Trade policy, but actually only plays a small part. Five 
     percent of Commerce's budget is dedicated to trade promotion, 
     and it comprises only 8 percent of total federal spending on 
     trade promotion. Furthermore, nineteen different federal 
     agencies have trade responsibilities.
       Our legislation would begin the process of consolidating 
     and rationalizing federal trade policy by combining the 
     Bureau of Export Administration, the International Trade 
     Administration, and the United States Trade Representative 
     under the same roof, the United States Trade Administration. 
     The U.S. Trade Representative would retain its current 
     Cabinet and Ambassador status.
       In an additional attempt to make our trade policies more 
     coherent, the USTR would serve as a member of the Board of 
     Directors of the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation. Finally, the bill requires the 
     President to transmit a plan to Congress to consolidate other 
     federal export promotion activities and export financing 
     activities and how to transfer those functions to the USTA.

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Department 
of Commerce Dismantling Act as an original cosponsor. This legislation 
continues the battle to do away with unneeded government and wasteful 
spending. Over a 3-year period the Department of Commerce would be 
dismantled. Certain programs would be transferred or consolidated into 
agencies or departments that are better suited to handle them. Other 
programs and agencies would be terminated altogether. Unnecessary 
agencies and several tiers of bureaucracy would be

[[Page S10060]]

eliminated. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
abolishment of the Department of Commerce would save taxpayers more 
than $2 billion over 4 years. I commend Senator Brownback for his 
leadership in crafting this legislation to abolish the Department of 
Commerce.
  Today the Department of Commerce is a 31,000 person department 
costing American taxpayers $4 billion annually. Sixty of these 
employees have the rank of deputy assistant secretary or higher and 
have annual salaries of at least $96,000 each.
  During my campaign, I ran on the ideals of less government, lower 
taxes, fewer Federal regulations and more personal responsibility. To 
obtain such goals, I called for the abolishment of four Federal 
departments including the Departments of Commerce, and Energy. Earlier 
this year I signed on as an original cosponsor to legislation to 
abolish the Department of Energy, sponsored by Senator Rod Grams.
  The Department of Commerce, as we know it today, was created in 1913 
during the Woodrow Wilson administration to help promote American 
businesses around the world. Today, only 5 percent of the Department's 
nearly $4 billion budget is dedicated to trade promotion. By comparison 
$2 billion is spent annually out of the Department's budget on the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Additionally, there 
are 19 other Federal agencies that hold some jurisdiction over trade. 
Trade is now a small part of the Department of Commerce.
  America's future lies in trade, but the Department of Commerce's 
bureaucracy is a relic of the past. This legislation attempts to 
correct that by consolidating trade functions under a single agency, 
the United States Trade Administration, and eliminating the waste, 
bureaucracy, and duplication we have today in the Department of 
Commerce.
  The time has come to abolish the Department of Commerce. We cannot 
continue to waste tax payers' dollars on outdated inefficient, and 
redundant programs. Taxpayers deserve better.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Abraham in 
introducing the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act. This 
legislation was completed after months of research and hearings in 
which we investigated the many costly structural, managerial, and 
programmatic problems confronting the Department. We have concluded 
that these problems are so severe and systemic that the department 
cannot be reinvented. To provide American taxpayers with the services 
they require at the level of efficiency and quality they demand, the 
Department of Commerce must be dismantled.
  The Department of Commerce is a hodgepodge of unrelated functions and 
missions ranging from antidumping investigations to zebra mussel 
research. It is comprised of 11 unrelated agencies, overseeing more 
than 100 programs, catering to more than 1,000 customer bases, and 
overlapping the work of 71 other Government offices and agencies. This 
entire agglomeration is unmanageable, and diminishes the quality of 
those Commerce functions which must be provided by the Federal 
Government.
  For example, historically, Secretaries of Commerce have focused their 
attention almost exclusively on the Department's trade functions. 
However, trade activities only account for 8 percent of the 
Department's budget, and Commerce accounts for less than 6 percent of 
total Federal spending on trade. Commerce is just one of 19 Federal 
agencies involved in trade issues, and isn't even regarded as the lead 
trade agency--the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is.
  However, while Secretaries of Commerce travel abroad on foreign trade 
missions, serious management problems have languished at Commerce 
headquarters. For example, in 1992 the General Accounting Office 
indicated that the National Weather Service modernization program and 
the Decennial Census--two important functions--were both experiencing 
severe management failures. Today, 5 years later, both of these 
programs remain on GAO's list of high-risk government management 
problems. This year, before the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
Subcommittee on Government Management, which I chair, the Department of 
Commerce's inspector general testified ``I think it is fair to say that 
there is little Departmental leadership or oversight in key 
administrative areas.''
  Mr. President, in part as a result of this lack of leadership, the 
Department has also initiated or continued to perform functions which 
are not just mismanaged, but are unnecessary. In fact, in many 
instances, the Department which professes to be the advocate for 
America's business has gone into competition with them. In testimony 
before the Subcommittee on Government Management, representatives from 
the private mapping, weather forecasting and venture capital industries 
stated that the Department of Commerce routinely competes with 
companies in their fields. Because taxpayers unknowingly subsidize the 
Departments commercial ventures, Commerce is a formidable competitor 
for small businesses. By going into business, Commerce also misuses 
taxpayer resources that should be devoted to truly governmental 
functions.
  Other functions performed in the Department of Commerce are just a 
waste of taxpayer dollars. For example, the Advanced Technology Program 
provides handouts to America's largest and wealthiest corporations to 
do product development research. This program is corporate welfare, 
plain and simple, and should be terminated. The Economic Development 
Administration duplicates the efforts of dozens of other economic 
development programs around the Federal Government.
  And finally, the Department of Commerce has become entirely too 
politicized. Most employees at Commerce are dedicated public servants. 
However, too many of their leaders obtained their jobs when political 
connections prevailed over the public good.
  The Department of Commerce began in 1902 and has evolved over the 
past 94 years into an agency which has no clear mission or 
responsibility, and is too unmanageable to reform. I believe the 
Department of Commerce Dismantling Act is the next necessary step in 
that evolution. The Commerce Department Dismantling Act would retain 
the important functions which are performed in Commerce, it 
consolidates many important functions with those performed elsewhere in 
the Federal Government, and it eliminates the waste. I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 1228. A bill to provide for a 10-year circulating commemorative 
coin program to commemorate each of the 50 States, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


              THE 50 STATES COMMEMORATIVE COIN PROGRAM ACT

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce legislation 
with Senator D'Amato, chairman of the Banking Committee, to create a 
circulating commemorative quarter representing each of the 50 states. 
Last year, legislation was enacted which instructed the Secretary of 
the Treasury to study the feasibility of a circulating commemorative 
coin. That study found that there is considerable public interest in 
the circulating commemorative quarter and that collecting such coins 
would produce significant earnings. The bill that I am introducing 
today will implement this program. Identical legislation has been 
introduced in the House.
  As we all know, the circulating quarters in use today are Washington/
Eagle quarters, that is they have a bust of George Washington on one 
side and an eagle on the reverse side. Under this legislation, 
beginning in 1999, the Mint would strike only statehood quarters until 
all 50 states were represented. Only the design on the back of quarters 
would change. There would be no changes whatsoever to the physical 
size, weight, or other specifications of quarters. This uniformity is 
necessary to ensure that these new quarters will continue to work in 
vending machines, telephones, parking meters, and for other similar 
transactions.
  This program would operate for 10 years, with the Mint producing five 
different statehood coins per year. The order in which States will be 
represented is based on the order in which States ratified the 
Constitution and

[[Page S10061]]

joined the Union. If a new state joins the Union during the life of the 
program, it will be extended in order to ensure that the new State is 
represented.
  The design for each State will be selected by the Secretary of the 
Treasury in consultation with the Governor, the Commission on Fine 
Arts, and the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee. Each 
State will nominate a design to the Secretary.
  It is my hope that this proposal will spark interest in every State 
across our Nation. I hope that school children begin to study the 
history of their States in search of an appropriate individual or 
emblem to represent their States on the reverse side of these quarters. 
I hope that artists, coin collectors, historians, and scholars debate 
and ultimately join together to suggest an appropriate representation 
for their State.
  I know that there are a wide range of appealing options for my own 
State of Rhode Island. Of course there is the founder of Rhode Island, 
Roger Williams or Anne Hutchinson, who, like Roger Williams, dedicated 
her life to the principle of religious freedom and tolerance. There is 
the Anchor of Hope, which is our State motto and is represented on our 
flag. Rhode Island is the Ocean State, so a seascape would be an 
interesting proposal, as would be a lighthouse or a gull.
  I am delighted to have Senator D'Amato's support in introducing this 
bill. I am sure that he agrees that the point of this new program is to 
honor all 50 States, and to encourage an interest in the unique history 
of each State. This program creates a program through which we can 
celebrate our diverse heritage.
  I send a bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral.
  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. 1228

       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 ``50 States Commemorative Coin 
     Program Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) it is appropriate and timely--
       (A) to honor the unique Federal republic of 50 States that 
     comprise the United States; and
       (B) to promote the diffusion of knowledge among the youth 
     of the United States about the individual States, their 
     history and geography, and the rich diversity of the national 
     heritage;
       (2) the circulating coinage of the United States has not 
     been modernized during the 25-year period preceding the date 
     of enactment of this Act;
       (3) a circulating commemorative 25-cent coin program could 
     produce earnings of $110,000,000 from the sale of silver 
     proof coins and sets over the 10-year period of issuance, and 
     would produce indirect earnings of an estimated 
     $2,600,000,000 to $5,100,000,000 to the United States 
     Treasury, money that will replace borrowing to fund the 
     national debt to at least that extent; and
       (4) it is appropriate to launch a commemorative circulating 
     coin program that encourages young people and their families 
     to collect memorable tokens of all of the States for the face 
     value of the coins.

     SEC. 3. ISSUANCE OF REDESIGNED QUARTER DOLLARS OVER 10-YEAR 
                   PERIOD COMMEMORATING EACH OF THE 50 STATES.

       Section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (k) the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Redesign and Issuance of Quarter Dollar in 
     Commemoration of Each of the 50 States.--
       ``(1) Redesign beginning in 1999.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the fourth sentence of 
     subsection (d)(1) and subsection (d)(2), quarter dollar coins 
     issued during the 10-year period beginning in 1999, shall 
     have designs on the reverse side selected in accordance with 
     this subsection which are emblematic of the 50 States.
       ``(B) Transition provision.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary may continue to mint and issue quarter 
     dollars in 1999 which bear the design in effect before the 
     redesign required under this subsection and an inscription of 
     the year `1998' as required to ensure a smooth transition 
     into the 10-year program under this subsection.
       ``(2) Single state designs.--The design on the reverse side 
     of each quarter dollar issued during the 10-year period 
     referred to in paragraph (1) shall be emblematic of 1 of the 
     50 States.
       ``(3) Issuance of coins commemorating 5 states during each 
     of the 10 years.--
       ``(A) In general.--The designs for the quarter dollar coins 
     issued during each year of the 10-year period referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be emblematic of 5 States selected in the 
     order in which such States ratified the Constitution of the 
     United States or were admitted into the Union, as the case 
     may be.
       ``(B) Number of each of 5 coin designs in each year.--Of 
     the quarter dollar coins issued during each year of the 10-
     year period referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary of 
     the Treasury shall prescribe, on the basis of such factors as 
     the Secretary determines to be appropriate, the number of 
     quarter dollars which shall be issued with each of the 5 
     designs selected for such year.
       ``(4) Selection of design.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each of the 50 designs required under 
     this subsection for quarter dollars shall be--
       ``(i) selected by the Secretary after consultation with--

       ``(I) the Governor of the State being commemorated, or such 
     other State officials or group as the State may designate for 
     such purpose; and
       ``(II) the Commission of Fine Arts; and

       ``(ii) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory 
     Committee.
       ``(B) Selection and approval process.--Designs for quarter 
     dollars may be submitted in accordance with the design 
     selection and approval process developed by the Secretary in 
     the sole discretion of the Secretary.
       ``(C) Participation.--The Secretary may include 
     participation by State officials, artists from the States, 
     engravers of the United States Mint, and members of the 
     general public.
       ``(D) Standards.--Because it is important that the Nation's 
     coinage and currency bear dignified designs of which the 
     citizens of the United States can be proud, the Secretary 
     shall not select any frivolous or inappropriate design for 
     any quarter dollar minted under this subsection.
       ``(E) Prohibition on certain representations.--No head and 
     shoulders portrait or bust of any person, living or dead, and 
     no portrait of a living person may be included in the design 
     of any quarter dollar under this subsection.
       ``(5) Treatment as numismatic items.--For purposes of 
     sections 5134 and 5136, all coins minted under this 
     subsection shall be considered to be numismatic items.
       ``(6) Issuance.--
       ``(A) Quality of coins.--The Secretary may mint and issue 
     such number of quarter dollars of each design selected under 
     paragraph (4) in uncirculated and proof qualities as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       ``(B) Silver coins.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), the 
     Secretary may mint and issue such number of quarter dollars 
     of each design selected under paragraph (4) as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate, with a content of 90 percent 
     silver and 10 percent copper.
       ``(C) Sources of bullion.--The Secretary shall obtain 
     silver for minting coins under subparagraph (B) from 
     available resources, including stockpiles established under 
     the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.
       ``(7) Application in event of the admission of additional 
     states.--If any additional State is admitted into the Union 
     before the end of the 10-year period referred to in paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary of the Treasury may issue quarter dollar 
     coins, in accordance with this subsection, with a design 
     which is emblematic of such State during any 1 year of such 
     10-year period, in addition to the quarter dollar coins 
     issued during such year in accordance with paragraph 
     (3)(A).''.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from Rhode 
Island, Senator Chafee, to introduce a bill which will authorize the 50 
States Circulating Commemorative Coin Program.
  This program, which allows for a temporary change to the reverse side 
of our quarters starting in the year 1999, has my complete and 
enthusiastic support.
  Mr. President, I feel it is appropriate as we enter the new 
millennium to embark on a decade-long celebration honoring each of our 
50 States in the order in which they ratified the Constitution and 
joined the Union. All States shall submit, for final selection by the 
Secretary of the Treasury, a design befitting the motto or symbol of 
each State.
  The benefits of this program in promoting State pride on a national 
level and educating our citizens about our States' unique character and 
history are substantial.
  In the year 1999, our Nation will be 223 years old. Before our next 
big celebration marking the tricentennial in the year 2076, we should 
take time to commemorate the attributes of every State in this Union.
  Through this circulating coin program, we will be giving American 
youth an opportunity to cultivate an interest in the rich history that 
formed these United States. These coins will provide our teachers with 
a tangible tool to instill this interest.

[[Page S10062]]

  The educational advantage for our children will not only be achieved 
in classrooms, but on playgrounds and in homes around the Nation.
  In addition, Mr. President, I feel that the excitement and 
anticipation of the different coins in this program will also capture 
the interest of adults. Just imagine, receiving a collectible memento 
when you are handed your change.
  And may I point out, Mr. President, while the entire set of 50 
circulating quarters will cost only $12.50, this very affordable 
collection will generate a minimum of $2.6 billion and conceivably as 
much as $5 billion in additional earnings for the Treasury. These off-
budget earnings will be applied directly to reduce borrowing to fund 
the national debt.
  Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my 
colleague, Congressman Michael Castle, who has worked tirelessly to 
promote this great program. Identical legislation Mike Castle sponsored 
passed the House on a record vote of 413 to 6. I am pleased that his 
efforts to create this commemorative coin are about to be realized. His 
outstanding leadership and dedication on this matter has been an 
inspiration to all who have committed their support.
  As chairman of the Banking Committee, I intend to press for prompt 
passage of this broadly supported bill and I am pleased to be a 
cosponsor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1229. A bill to provide for the conduct of a clinical trial 
concerning digital mammography; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


       THE DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY CLINICAL TRIAL CONDUCT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will 
provide for a much needed clinical trial for the benefit of women's 
health. My bill would provide $20 million to the Nation's Office of 
Women's Health to conduct a large-scale clinical trial of digital 
mammography, involving 50,000 women and 20 sites, which could yield 
hard data in as little as a year regarding the potential of this 
technology.

  Digital mammography is our best bet for bringing the fight against 
breast cancer into the 21st century. This technology could answer the 
question of what age a woman should begin seeking annual mammograms. It 
could prevent unnecessary biopsies, as well as catch the countless 
breast masses undetected by conventional mammography. Dr. Martin Yaffe, 
a senior cancer-imaging researcher from Canada, is quoted in the Wall 
Street Journal of March 20, 1997, as drawing this comparison, ``Using a 
conventional x ray mammography to find a tumor in dense breast tissue 
is like trying to find a cotton ball in a cloud. Digital technology 
allows us to improve the quality of the image and avoid missing the 
cancer.''
  While conventional mammography invokes the usual procedure for x 
rays, which views the film of a breast image on a light box, digital 
mammography takes advantage of an advanced x ray source for digital 
image capture, allowing image enhancement, feature recognition, and the 
ability to adjust the display contrast to highlight shadows and 
otherwise undetected signs of breast cancer. Mammography is the only 
means for detecting breast micro-calcifications, typically the earliest 
indicator of nonpalpable breast cancers.
  Many of my Senate colleagues have taken a personal and avid interest 
in combating breast cancer. With good reason. More than 40,000 women 
will lose their battle with breast cancer this year alone, while 
another 2.6 million will continue to live with the disease. Further, 
the rate of diagnosis has been steadily increasing for the last 50 
years. For women aged 40 to 45, breast cancer is the leading cause of 
death. Given these staggering statistics and the fact that women are 
literally defenseless against this disease, it is imperative that we do 
everything possible to promote early detection and treatment.
  On June 3 of this year, 62 U.S. Senators sent a letter to the 
Appropriations Committee, urging funding for the Department of Defense 
Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. This program is world 
renowned and responsible for many of the most important advances in 
breast cancer research. It has even facilitated several small-scale 
trials in digital mammography.
  However, this program has, to date, proven unable to conduct a large-
scale clinical trial of digital mammography. And yet, it is only a 
large-scale trial that can determine definitively the efficacy of this 
technology in saving women's lives. There are two bottom lines here. 
First, the trial would tell women at what age and with what frequency 
they should receive mammograms. Second, the trial would provide the 
Health Care Financing Administration with the data it needs to set a 
reasonable and appropriate cost for a digital mammography. We are all 
familiar with the role HCFA plays in setting not just rates of 
reimbursement but standards for reimbursement of healthcare services; 
the private sector takes its lead from HCFA. Once HCFA acts to make 
digital mammographies available to women, private pay insurers will 
follow suit. Therefore, in the interest of public health, the onus is 
on us to move these trials forward.
  The NIH has an appropriation from the Senate for next year that 
reflects almost a billion dollar boost. Rightly so. But despite that, 
the National Cancer Institute simply does not have the resources to 
fund a clinical trial of this size. Grant dollars are still scarce 
relative to the number of compelling grant applications. The reality 
that NCI is simply unable to dedicate the necessary resources to 
conduct a large-scale trial of digital mammography is unfortunate yet 
understandable. The Senate is aware of this dilemma, and shares the 
frustration of the Nation's breast cancer victims. In explaining its 
fiscal year 1998 allocation for the National Cancer Institute, the 
Appropriations Committee report for Labor, Health and Human Services 
and Education noted that ``the national investment in cancer research 
remains the key to bringing down spiraling heath care costs, as 
treatment, cures, and prevention remain much cheaper than chronic and 
catastrophic diseases, like cancer.''
  As Congress is well aware, the financial cost of breast cancer is 
indeed staggering. We spend over $5 billion annually on healthcare for 
women fighting breast cancer, a figure that is matched in the cost of 
lost productivity to our overall economy. Further, the human cost of 
this disease is felt tenfold by the families and communities whose 
lives it touches.
  I realize this bill breaks with convention, to a certain degree. I am 
not assuming a level of scientific expertise that supplants that of the 
true experts at NIH. I am a firm believer in letting science drive 
where our research dollars are spent. However, I am willing to force 
the issue for the sake of women's health. We have available to us 
cutting edge technology that could yield us a remarkable return in the 
form of women's lives. My bill provides a modest sum to ensure that a 
large-scale clinical trial of digital mammography does not go unfunded 
any longer.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 1230. A bill to amend the Small Reclamation Projects of 1956 to 
provide for Federal cooperation in non-Federal reclamation projects and 
for participation by non-Federal agencies in Federal projects; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


               the small reclamation projects act of 1956

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President. I send to the desk for appropriate 
reference a measure to expand the use and availability of the Small 
Reclamation Projects Act of 1956.
  The Small Reclamation Projects Act has provided important benefits 
throughout the Reclamation West in the 40 years since it was first 
established. Over the past several years there have been various 
discussions on ways to expand the benefits of the program. Last 
Congress I introduced two measures that included some of the 
suggestions that have been made. Neither of the measures would have 
affected ongoing projects.
  One of the measures, S. 1564, dealt with financing. At the present 
time, the Secretary is limited to grants and loans to fulfill the 
objectives of the act. That legislation would have expanded the 
authority of the Secretary to include the use of loan guarantees as a 
way of stretching the limited federal resources. The other measure, S. 
1565,

[[Page S10063]]

revised existing law to expand the purposes for which assistance can be 
received from the Federal Government. Irrigation would have remained an 
authorized purpose, but it would no longer be a required component. The 
purposes would now include the augmentation and management of local 
water supplies, conservation of water and energy, fish and wildlife 
conservation, supplemental water for existing supplies, water quality 
improvements, and flood control. The legislation would have limited the 
application of interest on any loans to those features which are 
currently reimbursable with interest under reclamation law.
  On September 5, 1996, I conducted a hearing on these, and several 
other reclamation measures, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests 
and Public Land Management. Based on the comments that I received at 
the hearing, and subsequent conversations that I have had with 
individuals and groups interested in the potential of the Small 
Reclamation Program, I have combined the two measures and made several 
changes in the sustance. I am introducing the measure today and plan to 
request that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources add this measure to its scheduled hearing 
on October 7, 1997.
  Mr. President, I sincerely hope that once the administration has the 
opportunity to read this measure and reflect on our hearing last year, 
they will change their minds and support this legislation. Quite 
frankly, I do not understand the reasons for the almost knee-jerk 
opposition of the administration to this proposal or their persistent 
efforts to terminate not only the Small Reclamation Project Act, but 
programs such as the Rehabilitation and Betterment loan activity. An 
administration that trumpets its concern for the environment should 
understand that one of the best ways of providing additional water 
supplies for instream uses, as well as for additional consumptive uses, 
is to repair old leaky systems. It may simple be that these programs 
either directly or indirectly help farmers, but I would submit, Mr. 
President, that they also benefit the environment and the economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. 
        Rockefeller):
  S. 1231. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 
1999 for the United States Fire Administration, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


 the u.s. fire administration authorization for fiscal years 1998 and 
                                  1999

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the authorization bill 
for the U.S. Fire Administration for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. I 
would like to thank the cosponsors of this bill, Senator McCain, 
Senator Hollings, and Senator Rockefeller, for their hard work and 
dedication to making this bill a possibility.
  The mission of the U.S. Fire Administration is to enhance the 
Nation's fire prevention and control activities and thereby 
significantly reduce the Nation's loss of life from fire while also 
achieving a reduction in property loss and nonfatal injury due to fire.
  The bill, which authorizes the Fire Administration for $29.6 million 
in fiscal year 1998 and $30.5 million for fiscal year 1999, provides 
for collection, analysis, and dissemination of fire incidence and loss 
data; development and dissemination of public fire education materials; 
development and dissemination of better hazardous materials response 
information for first responders; and support for research and 
development for fire safety technologies.
  With this authorization, our local and State firefighters will 
continue to have assess to the training from the National Fire Academy 
necessary to allow them to better perform their jobs of saving lives 
and protecting property.
  Additionally, a number of amendments have been proposed to the 
legislation that established the National Fallen Firefighters 
Foundation. The Foundation was created by Congress in 1992 to assist 
their families. These proposed amendments offer some major changes to 
the structure of the Foundation. In order to allow for a more thorough 
evaluation of the issues surrounding these amendments, we plan to 
continue our review of these changes along with an examination of the 
Foundation's relationships with the U.S. Fire Administration and the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency next year.
  Therefore, I along with my cosponsors, urge the Members of this body 
to support this bill and allow the U.S. Fire Administration to continue 
the fine job it has been performing for so many years.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1231

       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 ``United States Fire 
     Administration Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998 and 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 17(g)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control 
     Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2216(g)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) $29,664,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1998; and
       ``(H) $30,554,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1999.''.

     SEC. 3. SUCCESSOR FIRE SAFETY STANDARDS.

       The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 
     U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 29(a)(1), by inserting ``or any successor 
     standard to that standard'' after ``Association Standard 
     74'';
       (2) in section 29(a)(2), by inserting ``, or any successor 
     standard to that standard'' before ``, whichever is 
     appropriate,'';
       (3) in section 29(b)(2), by inserting ``, or any successor 
     standard to that standard'' after ``Association Standard 13 
     or 13-R'';
       (4) in section 31(c)(2)(B)(i), by inserting ``or any 
     successor standard to that standard'' after ``Life Safety 
     Code)''; and
       (5) in section 31(c)(2)(B)(ii), by inserting ``or any 
     successor standard to that standard'' after ``Association 
     Standard 101''.

     SEC. 4. TERMINATION OR PRIVATIZATION OF FUNCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days before the 
     termination or transfer to a private sector person or entity 
     of any significant function of the United States Fire 
     Administration, as described in subsection (b), the 
     Administrator of the United States Fire Administration shall 
     transmit to Congress a report providing notice of that 
     termination or transfer.
       (b) Covered Terminations and Transfers.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a), a termination or transfer to a person or 
     entity described in that subsection shall be considered to be 
     a termination or transfer of a significant function of the 
     United States Fire Administration if the termination or 
     transfer--
       (1) relates to a function of the Administration that 
     requires the expenditure of more than 5 percent of the total 
     amount of funds made available by appropriations to the 
     Administration; or
       (2) involves the termination of more than 5 percent of the 
     employees of the Administration.

     SEC. 5. NOTICE.

       (a) Major Reorganization Defined.--With respect to the 
     United States Fire Administration, the term ``major 
     reorganization'' means any reorganization of the 
     Administration that involves the reassignment of more than 25 
     percent of the employees of the Administration.
       (b) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds appropriated 
     pursuant to the amendments made by this Act are subject to a 
     reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives, notice of that action shall concurrently 
     be provided to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (c) Notice of Reorganization.--Not later than 15 days 
     before any major reorganization of any program, project, or 
     activity of the United States Fire Administration, the 
     Administrator of the United States Fire Administration shall 
     provide notice to the Committees on Science and 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     Appropriations of the Senate.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM.

       With the year 2000 rapidly approaching, it is the sense of 
     Congress that the Administrator of the United States Fire 
     Administration should--
       (1) give high priority to correcting all 2-digit date-
     related problems in the computer systems of the United States 
     Fire Administration to ensure that those systems continue to 
     operate effectively in the year 2000 and in subsequent years;
       (2) as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, assess the extent of the risk to the operations of 
     the United

[[Page S10064]]

     States Fire Administration posed by the problems referred to 
     in paragraph (1), and plan and budget for achieving 
     compliance for all of the mission-critical systems of the 
     system by the year 2000; and
       (3) develop contingency plans for those systems that the 
     United States Fire Administration is unable to correct by the 
     year 2000.

     SEC. 7. ENHANCEMENT OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the United States Fire Administration.
       (2) Educationally useful federal equipment.--The term 
     ``educationally useful Federal equipment'' means computers 
     and related peripheral tools and research equipment that is 
     appropriate for use in schools.
       (3) School.--The term ``school'' means a public or private 
     educational institution that serves any of the grades of 
     kindergarten through grade 12.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--
       (1) In general.--It is the sense of Congress that the 
     Administrator should, to the greatest extent practicable and 
     in a manner consistent with applicable Federal law (including 
     Executive Order No. 12999), donate educationally useful 
     Federal equipment to schools in order to enhance the science 
     and mathematics programs of those schools.
       (2) Reports.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall prepare and submit to the President a 
     report that meets the requirements of this paragraph. The 
     President shall submit that report to Congress at the same 
     time as the President submits a budget request to Congress 
     under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.
       (B) Contents of report.--The report prepared by the 
     Administrator under this paragraph shall describe any 
     donations of educationally useful Federal equipment to 
     schools made during the period covered by the report.

     SEC. 8. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the United States 
     Fire Administration (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Administrator'') shall prepare and submit to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives a 
     report that meets the requirements of this section.
       (b) Contents of Report.--The report under this section 
     shall--
       (1) examine the risks to firefighters in suppressing fires 
     caused by burning tires;
       (2) address any risks that are uniquely attributable to 
     fires described in paragraph (1), including any risks 
     relating to--
       (A) exposure to toxic substances (as that term is defined 
     by the Administrator);
       (B) personal protection;
       (C) the duration of those fires; and
       (D) site hazards associated with those fires;
       (3) identify any special training that may be necessary for 
     firefighters to suppress those fires; and
       (4) assess how the training referred to in paragraph (3) 
     may be provided by the United States Fire Administration.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Frist's 
authorization bill for the U.S. Fire Administration for fiscal years 
1997 and 1998. I would also like to thank the additional cosponsors, 
Senator Hollings and Senator Rockefeller, for their support of this 
very important legislation.
  As chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, I 
am very pleased to see that the bill represents the bipartisan support 
that is so necessary to move this and other science and technology 
bills before the committee. It would be my hope that this bipartisan 
support would be continued for the many actions before this body, the 
U.S. Senate.
  The United States has one of the highest fire death rates in the 
industrialized world. Fires account for approximately 4,500 deaths and 
30,000 injuries annually. The extent of this problem covers all sectors 
of society and costs American taxpayers approximately $50 billion per 
year.
  With these huge losses, the work of the U.S. Fire Administration 
plays a key role in reducing these numbers. Their work with the 
firefighters, those who are on the front lines in fighting these 
problems, should be commended. Their efforts in collecting data and 
other relevant information play a key role in the prevention of future 
fires.
  The U.S. Fire Administration should continue to educate the public 
against the dangers of fire and how to safely protect ourselves and our 
property against such dangers.
  I, along with my cosponsors, urge the Members of this body to support 
this bill.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, 
Senator Frist, in introducing legislation to reauthorize the programs 
of the U.S. Fire Administration [USFA].
  The United States currently has one of the worst fire records of any 
country in the industrial world. More than 2 million fires are reported 
in the United States every year. Annually, these fires result in 
approximately 4,500 deaths, 30,000 civilian injuries, more than $8 
billion in direct property losses, and more than $50 billion in costs 
to taxpayers. In my State of South Carolina, in 1995, the most recent 
year in which data are available, 12,776 fires were reported resulting 
in 12 deaths, 103 injuries, and over $40 million in property losses. 
Even more disheartening is the fact that over 80 percent of the annual 
deaths and injuries from fires occur in residential fires. In South 
Carolina, while only 3,196 of the fires were residential, those fires 
claimed 8 lives and caused 74 injuries.
  As terrible as these statistics are, they would reflect a far more 
tragic picture were it not for the USFA. The USFA was created under the 
1974 act, pursuant to the recommendation of the National Commission on 
Fire and Control. The USFA is a part of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, and its responsibilities are to administer programs, 
research, and applied engineering projects to assist State and local 
governments in fire prevention and control. The USFA works with State 
and local governments specifically to educate the public in fire safety 
and prevention, control arson, collect and analyze data related to 
fire, conduct research and development in fire suppression, promote 
firefighter health and safety, and conduct fire service training.
  The USFA assists our Nation's fire service which comprises of 
approximately 1.2 million members, 80 percent of whom are volunteers. 
The fire service is one of the most hazardous professions in the 
country. Firefighters not only confront daily the dangers of fire; they 
also are required to respond to other natural disasters, such as 
earthquakes, floods, medical emergencies, and hazardous materials 
spills. The USFA administers the National Fire Academy, which sponsors 
off-campus and on-campus training and management programs for members 
of the fire and rescue services, and allied professionals.
  The effort of the USFA is focused in four areas: First, public 
education and awareness and arson control; second, data collection and 
analysis; third, fire service training; and fourth, technology and 
research and firefighter health and safety.
  Through public education and awareness the USFA seeks to identify and 
educate the groups for whom fire presents the greatest menace. Efforts 
are focused to increase safety and reduce losses. For example, whether 
by accident or on purpose, children start over 100,000 fires per years. 
About 25 percent of the fires that kill young children are started by 
children playing with fire. The USFA through public-private 
partnerships had educated children with initiatives such as the 
``Sesame Street Fire Safety Activity Book for Preschoolers,'' National 
Safe Kids, and various guides for parents and teachers.
  Senior citizens are at the highest risk of being killed in a fire. 
The USFA has targeted this group through public service announcements 
with added focus on the importance of buying and maintaining 
residential smoke detectors.
  Arsonists are responsible for over 500,000 fires every year. Arson is 
the No. 1 cause of all fires. Even though it is the leading cause of 
fire, only 15 percent of arson cases result in arrests with juveniles 
accounting for 55 percent of arrests, and only 2 percent result in 
convictions. It is the second leading cause of fire deaths in 
residences and the leading cause of dollar loss due to fire. In 1994, 
the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available, the 
total number of arson fires in the United States was estimated at 
548,500--accounting for an estimated 560 fire deaths, 3,440 fire 
injuries, and $3.6 billion in property damage.
  Of greater concern are investigators reports that more people are 
choosing to use fire as a weapon. According to the USFA's ``Arson in 
the United

[[Page S10065]]

States'' report, ``Investigators are becoming more aware of Molotov 
cocktails and pipe bombs being used as incendiary devices. Fires caused 
by explosives or motivated by spite and revenge tend to be more deadly 
because they often target residential structures, in keeping with the 
desire to inflict personal harm.'' In my own State of South Carolina, 
we suffer from the worst record for church burnings--over 30 since 
1991. I visited with Rev. Lester Grant of Shiloh Baptist Church in 
Townville, SC, last month, and we discussed the recent trend of 
targeting churches with this new weapon of hatred and violence. I was 
impressed with how our church communities are rallying and growing 
stronger in the rubble of fires. Church burnings, whether acts of 
hatred or vandalism, have to stop.
  We must do more to assist our church communities in stopping these 
vile efforts. The USFA has initiated several measures to combat this 
crime, including: community grants in high risk areas to hire part-time 
law enforcement officers, and to pay for law enforcement overtime and 
other church arson prevention activities; National Fire Academy 
training courses; additional training and education for arson 
investigators with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; arson 
prevention information for the general public; and juvenile arson 
prevention workshops. Although the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 1997 for arson-fighting activities was reduced, this bill 
restores that funding at last year's level.
  USFA's emphasis on data collection and analysis provides it with the 
necessary tools for identifying problems and forecasting trends. USFA 
use this data to focus efforts in the areas that will most 
significantly reduce casualties and property losses caused by fire. 
National Fire data are published through USFA's National Fire Incident 
Reporting System, the only centralized and uniform collection of fire 
data in the United States.
  Regarding fire service training, Mr. President, and the National Fire 
Academy provides national leadership for fire and emergency medical 
services personnel through education and training. The Academy offers 
training and educational programs at the Emmitsburg campus and at other 
sites throughout the country. The Academy trained 83,000 students in 
1996 and plans to increase this number to 300,000 per year in the 
future. There now are four applicants for each available slot for many 
of the Academy's courses.
  Finally, the USFA conducts research on technology to improve the 
occupational health and safety of firefighters including improvements 
to protective clothing and equipment, lifesaving operational 
technologies and equipment like liquid fire extinguishing agents, and 
equipment used in vehicle extrication and complex rescues.
  Mr. President, the efforts of our Nation's 1.2 million firefighters 
are invaluable; they risk their lives every day to save the lives and 
property of others. The USFA provides the necessary education, data 
analysis, training, and technology needed to ensure that these brave 
individuals do their job as efficiently and safely as possible. We in 
Congress need to do our job: We need to enact this legislation to 
ensure that both firefighters and the USFA get the financial resources 
they need to serve the public. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this bill.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, 
Senator Frist, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings in introducing 
legislation to reauthorize the programs of the U.S. Fire Administration 
[USFA].
  I just want to say a few quick words about this program. The USFA has 
a tough and rewarding mission. As I am sure my colleagues have noted, 
the statistics relating to fires in this country are staggering: 
Approximately 4,500 people die annually, and over 30,000 people are 
injured. In West Virginia, there were over 9,000 fires in 1995 causing 
28 fatalities and 160 injuries. The fact is, Mr. President, these 
numbers would be worse if it were not for the brave men and women 
firefighters who put their lives on the line to save and protect 
others.
  I want to take this moment to commend the 1.2 million members of the 
Nation's fire service of whom 80 percent are volunteers. In 1995, 163 
firefighters were injured in West Virginia in the line of duty. They 
deserve the best training, assistance, and technology available to do 
their job. The USFA provides these invaluable services to these men and 
women in an effort to ensure their safety, their health, and to improve 
their ability to fight fires with the best available technology.
  If there is a Federal program that is worth its value in dollars, it 
is this one--an ounce of prevention is clearly worth a pound of cure. 
In addition to the services the USFA provides firefighters, I want to 
commend this agency for its education and awareness programs, 
particularly those that target young children, and for their use of the 
Internet. Children start over 100,000 fires a year from just playing. 
The USFA has developed an interactive homepage and guide for parents 
clearly demonstrating their awareness of today's tools needed to reach 
today's youth.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague, the 
chairman of the Science Subcommittee, Senator Frist, for his efforts to 
move legislation in a bipartisan manner. This bill is a fine example of 
his efforts to work with Members of both parties to move good 
legislation that benefits the public as a whole. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 1232. A bill to provide for the declassification of the journal 
kept by Glenn T. Seaborg while serving as Chairman of the Atomic Energy 
Commission; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                      DECLASSIFICATION LEGISLATION

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Glenn T. Seaborg is a truly great 
American who for 14 years has suffered outrageous treatment from 
bureaucrats and is in need of our assistance. Dr. Seaborg, codiscoverer 
of plutonium, kept a journal whilst chairman of the Atomic Energy 
Commission from 1961 to 1971. The journal consisted of a diary written 
at home each evening, correspondence, announcements, minutes, and the 
like. He was careful about classified matters; nothing was included 
that could not be made public. Even as he was chairman the portions 
relating to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were microfilmed 
for public access in their respective Presidential libraries. Before 
leaving the AEC, Dr. Seaborg got it all cleared virtually without 
deletion. Then lunacy descended. Or rather, the Atomic Energy 
Commission became the Department of Energy and bureaucracy got going. 
Seaborg writes of all this in an article ``Secrecy Runs Amok'' 
published in Science in 1994. It seems that in 1983 the chief historian 
of the Department asked to borrow one of two sets of the journal, some 
26 volumes in all, for work on a history of the Commission. By the time 
the author got his journal back passage after passage was redacted, 
much of it explicitly public information, such as the published code 
names of nuclear weapons tests, some of it purely personal, as for 
example his description of accompanying his children on a trick or 
treat outing on a Halloween evening. The 26 volumes, ``in expurgated 
form'' as Seaborg puts it, are now available in the Manuscript Division 
of the Library of Congress. But where does one go for sanity? Seaborg 
writes: ``With the beginning of the Reagan administration, the 
government had begun to take a much more severe and rigid position with 
regard to secrecy.'' The balance between the ``right of the public to 
know'' and the ``right of the nation to protect itself'' was simply 
lost as, often apologetic, investigators poured over the papers of the 
great Americans of the time.
  Dr. Seaborg recently came to my office seeking assistance in cutting 
through the bureaucracy. At this stage in his career he should not be 
forced to expend valuable time and energy trying to get back what he 
lent the Department of Energy. I immediately agreed to offer what 
assistance I could, having had experience of such matters as chairman 
of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy.
  Last week, with the energy and water appropriations bill nearly ready 
for conference, I thought there might be a chance to include a 
provision that would require the return of the unedited journal to Dr. 
Seaborg. I wrote to

[[Page S10066]]

the chairman and ranking members of the subcommittee, asking for their 
help. On Tuesday, September 23, the clerk for Senator Reid, the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, reported to my staff that there had been a 
long staff discussion on the matter, that it was agreed the Department 
of Energy had acted inappropriately, that the journal was a valuable 
historical document, and that things looked promising for including the 
provision in the conference report.
  The report was filed today with no mention of the Seaborg journal. 
This afternoon the clerk for Senator Domenici, the chairman, reported 
that the Department of Energy had been consulted and that they had 
raised objections to the return of the unexpurgated journal. And so, 
absent the opportunity for a hearing, the provision was dropped. I 
suppose doing the right thing for Dr. Seaborg in a simple, expedient 
manner was too much to expect. I suppose it was wishful thinking that 
the Department would do its part to rectify the situation. So, Mr. 
President, I am introducing the same provision as a free-standing bill. 
I look forward to a hearing on the matter, which the appropriations 
staff advocates, so that at least this one egregious example of the 
regulation and control of valuable public information can be brought to 
light and, I trust, remedied.
  I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Seaborg's article in Science be 
included in the Record at this point. I send to the desk a bill 
requiring the return of Dr. Seaborg's journal in the original, 
unredacted form in which it was lent to the Department of Energy, and 
ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record and referred to 
the appropriate committee.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1232

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       (1) Whereas Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg is a truly great American 
     who has made indispensable contributions in the development 
     of nuclear energy.
       (2) Whereas Dr. Seaborg is the co-discoverer of plutonium 
     and eight other elements and as a result of these discoveries 
     was awarded the 1951 Nobel Prize for chemistry.
       (3) Whereas while serving as Chairman of the Atomic Energy 
     Commission (AEC), Dr. Seaborg maintained a journal consisting 
     of a diary, correspondence, announcements, minutes of 
     meetings, and other documents of historical value.
       (4) Whereas in preparing the journal, Dr. Seaborg took care 
     to include only information which was not classified and 
     could be made public.
       (5) Whereas before leaving the Atomic Energy Commission, 
     Dr. Seaborg submitted the journal to the AEC's Division of 
     Classification for review.
       (6) Whereas Dr. Seaborg's journal was cleared by the 
     Division of Classification, virtually without deletion.
       (7) Whereas twelve years later, in 1983, the chief 
     historian at the Department of Energy asked to borrow a copy 
     of Dr. Seaborg's journal in order to write a history of the 
     AEC.
       (8) Whereas when the journal was returned to Dr. Seaborg 
     three years later, passage after passage was redacted, 
     including explicitly public information, such as the 
     published code names of nuclear weapons tests, and purely 
     personal material, such as his description of accompanying 
     his children on a ``trick or treat'' outing one Halloween 
     evening.

     SEC. 2. DECLASSIFICATION OF SEABORG JOURNAL.

       The Secretary of Energy shall return to Dr. Glenn T. 
     Seaborg his journal which he prepared while serving as 
     Chairman of the AEC. The journal shall be returned in the 
     original, unredacted form in which it was lent to the 
     Department of Energy in 1983.
                                  ____


                           Secrecy Runs Amok

                         (By Glenn T. Seaborg)

       Publishing information on scientific projects related to 
     national security requires resolution of the conflicts 
     between the ``right of the public to know'' and the ``right 
     of the nation to protect itself.'' A recent experience of 
     mine in regard to the declassification of historical material 
     may illuminate the problems that can arise.
       During my years as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission 
     (AEC) (1961 to 1971), I maintained a daily journal. The core 
     of the journal was a diary, much of which I wrote at home 
     each evening. (This continued a habit I had started at the 
     age of 14.) The diary was supplemented by copies of 
     correspondence, announcements, minutes of meetings, and other 
     relevant documents that crossed my desk each day. Both in the 
     diary and the supporting documents rigorous attention was 
     given to excluding any subject matter that could be 
     considered classified information under standards of the day. 
     My purpose was to provide for historians and other scholars a 
     record that might not be available elsewhere of what occurred 
     at high levels of government regarding the AEC's important 
     areas of activity.
       Illustrative of the general recognition that my journal was 
     unclassified was the fact that in 1965 the AEC historian 
     microfilmed for public access in the John F. Kennedy and 
     Lyndon B. Johnson libraries portions that correspond to those 
     presidencies. To assure myself further that the journal 
     contained no classified material I had it checked by the AEC 
     Division of Classification during the summer and fall of 
     1971, just before my departure from the AEC. It was cleared, 
     virtually without deletions. (Unfortunately, I received no 
     written confirmation of this action which is perhaps 
     understandable because of the obvious unclassified origin of 
     the material.) A copy, which I will refer to as copy #1, was 
     then transmitted by the AEC to my office at the University of 
     California in Berkeley. Also, at about this time, the AEC 
     tansferrd another copy of the journal, referred to 
     hereinafter as copy #2, first to my Berkeley office, then to 
     the Livermore laboratory, and, soon thereafter, to my home in 
     Lafayette, California. It was known that neither my Berkeley 
     office nor my home had any provision for the protection of 
     classified material, and the fact that the AEC saws fit to 
     ship the journal to those places is a clear indication 
     that the AEC regarded the journal as an unclassified 
     document.
       The office and home copies of the journal remained 
     accessible to scholars for the ensuing 12 years. Then the 
     problems began. In July 1983 the chief historian of the 
     Department of Energy (DOE) asked to borrow a copy for use in 
     the next phase of the History Division's long-term project, 
     the writing of A History of the United States Atomic Energy 
     Commission. Volume IV of the History was to be devoted 
     largely to the years of my chairmanship. The historian 
     promised to return the journal within 3 weeks as soon as 
     copies had been made. I sent him copy #1, the one in my 
     Berkeley office. When the University of California historian, 
     John Heilbron, learned of this transaction, he warned me that 
     the DOE was likely to find classified material in the journal 
     and to hold it indefinitely pending a complete classification 
     review. Relying on past history during which the journal had 
     been treated by the AEC as a wholly unclassified document, I 
     told him I was not worried that this would happen. But, as 
     Heilbron may have been aware from his own experience, times 
     had changed. With the beginning of the Reagan administration, 
     the government had begun to take a new, much more severe and 
     rigid position with regard to secrecy.
       Despite my repeated entreaties, the historian's office did 
     not return the journal in 3 weeks, nor in 3 months, nor in a 
     year-and-a-half. Nor was any explanation ever offered to me 
     for the delay. Finally, just as Heilbron had predicted, I was 
     informed in February 1985 that the journal had indeed been 
     found to contain classified information. Accordingly, DOE 
     ordered its San Francisco Area Office to pick up copy #2, the 
     one that I kept at home, so that it also could be subjected 
     to a classification review. At first I said I would not allow 
     this. But then I was told that, legally, the journal could be 
     seized and that I could be subject to arrest if I resisted. 
     Faced with this disagreeable prospect, I acceded to a 
     compromise plan (the best of several unsatisfactory 
     alternatives) whereby DOE provided me with a locked storage 
     safe, complete with burglar alarm, so that I could continue 
     to have access to the journal, which I was at that time 
     preparing for publication. It was no longer, however, to be 
     available for use by scholars.
       Then in May 1985 I was contacted by DOE's San Francisco 
     Area Manager. He said that he had been instructed by DOE 
     headquarters to institute a classification review of copy 
     #2 at my home. He added that the consequence of my not 
     agreeing to this would be that the FBI would seize the 
     papers under court order. He said that the weakness of my 
     case, if I chose to resist, was that there was no record 
     of the journal ever having been declassified by the AEC. 
     Thus, I could be accused of having illegally removed 
     classified material when I left the AEC. He noted that if 
     legal proceedings were instituted, I could, of course, 
     hire a lawyer to defend myself, but that he knew of no 
     case like this where the government, with all its 
     resources, had lost.
       Under this ultimatum, I agreed to the classification review 
     with the understanding that it would be completed within 10 
     days. The reviewer started work in my home on 9 May 1985, 
     kept at it for several weeks (not the promised 10 days), and 
     came up with 162 deletions of words, phrases, sentences, or 
     paragraphs, affecting 137 documents.
       Then in May 1986 I learned that copy #1, the one borrowed 
     by the DOE historian, was also undergoing a classification 
     review. This review was complete in October 1986 and led to 
     deletions from 327 documents. In addition, 530 documents were 
     removed from the journal entirely pending further review by 
     DOE or by other government agencies.
       At the same time as reviews of my complete journal were 
     being undertaken in DOE and in my home, a further review was 
     taking place in the Bethesda, Maryland, home of Benjamin S. 
     Loeb, who was then collaborating with me in preparation of 
     the book, Stemming the Tide: Arms Control in the Johnson 
     Years, which was to be published in 1987 (1). Copies had been 
     sent to Loeb of just those portions of the journal that 
     related to

[[Page S10067]]

     arms control. Beginning 10 July 1986, as many as six DOE 
     Division of Classification staff members sat around his 
     dining room table for a few days, selecting a large number of 
     documents which they then took with them back to DOE 
     headquarters in Germantown, Maryland. In due course, most of 
     these were returned with deletions, except that a number of 
     documents that required review by U.S. government agencies 
     other than DOE, or by the United Kingdom, were not returned 
     until August 1990.
       But there was more. In October 1986 I was informed that the 
     DOE classification people wanted to perform another review of 
     copy #2, the one in my home, in order to ``sanitize'' it, a 
     euphemism for a further classification review of the already 
     reviewed journal. I was informed that the sanitization 
     procedure would take place at Livermore, that it would last 3 
     to 6 weeks, and that it would involve from 8 to 12 people. 
     Copy #2 was duly picked up at my home and delivered to 
     Livermore on 22 October 1986. When the sanitized version 
     was returned almost 2 months later, it had been subjected, 
     including the prior review, to about 1000 classification 
     actions. These included the entire removal of about 500 
     documents for review by other U.S. agencies or, in a few 
     cases, by the British. Over my objection, an unsightly 
     declassification stamp was placed on every surviving 
     document.
       Finally, the DOE sent to the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory a 
     team of about 12 people to begin a ``catalog,'' that is, an 
     itemized listing, of all the personal correspondence I had 
     brought from the AEC and of the contents of my journal and 
     files for the prior 25 years of my working life before I 
     became AEC chairman. Beginning on 29 April 1987, the team 
     spent about 2 weeks at this task. In March 1988 another DOE 
     group visited me for about a month in order to complete the 
     catalog. The motives of DOE in undertaking this task were not 
     clear. They may well have intended to be helpful to me. 
     Before they finished, however, the two groups uncovered some 
     additional ``secret'' material.
       My grammar and high school and university student papers 
     stored in another part of my home, overlooked by the DOE 
     classification teams, have so far escaped a security review.
       My journal was finally reproduced in January 1989 (2) in 25 
     volumes, averaging about 700 pages each, many of them defaced 
     with classification markings and containing large gaps where 
     deletions had been made. In June 1992 a 26th volume was 
     added. It contained a batch of documents initially taken away 
     for classification review and subsequently returned to me, 
     with many deletions, after the production of the other 25 
     volumes in January 1989. (Many other removed documents have 
     still not been returned.). All 26 volumes are now publicly 
     available in the expurgated form in the Manuscript Division 
     of the Library of Congress.
       This, then, is a summary narrative of the rocky voyage of 
     my daily journal amid the shoals of multiple classification 
     reviews. Those interested in a more detailed account can find 
     it among the daily entries in my journal for the period after 
     I left the AEC. This is available in the Manuscript Division 
     of the Library of Congress, and has fortunately not yet been 
     subjected to classification review.
       What is to be concluded about this sorry tale? One 
     conclusion I have reached is that the security classification 
     of information became in the 1980s an arbitrary, capricious, 
     and frivolous process, almost devoid of objective criteria. 
     Witness the fact that the successive reviews of my journal at 
     different places and by different people resulted in widely 
     varying results in the types and number of deletions made or 
     documents removed. Furthermore, some of the individual 
     classification actions seem utterly ludicrous. These include 
     my description of one of the occasions when I accompanied my 
     children on a ``trick or treat'' outing on a Halloween 
     evening, and my account of my wife Helen's visit to the Lake 
     Country in England. One would have to ask how publication of 
     these bits of family lore would adversely affect the security 
     of the United States. A particular specialty of the reviewers 
     was to delete from the journal many items that were already 
     part of the public record. These included material published 
     in my 1981 book (with Benjamin S. Loeb), ``Kennedy, 
     Khrushchev, and the Test Ban'' (3). Another example concerned 
     the code names of previously conducted nuclear weapons tests. 
     These were deleted almost everywhere they appeared regardless 
     of the fact that in January 1985 the DOE had issued a report 
     listing, with their code names, all ``Announced United States 
     Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through December 1984'' (4). A third 
     category of deletions concerned entries that might have been 
     politically or personally embarrassing to individuals or 
     groups but whose publication would not in any way threaten 
     U.S. national security. In fact, I would go so far as to 
     contend that hardly any of the approximately 1,000 
     classification actions (removals of documents or deletions 
     within document) taken so randomly by the various reviewers 
     could be justified on legitimate national security grounds.
       Consistent with this belief, I have requested repeatedly 
     throughout this difficult time that a copy of my journal as 
     originally prepared, that is, before all the classification 
     reviews, be kept on file somewhere. I had in mind that there 
     might come a day when a more rational approach to secrecy 
     might prevail and permit wider access, especially to 
     historians, of the complete record. There are indications 
     that, especially with the end of the Cold War, such an era 
     may be at hand or rapidly approaching. While the DOE has made 
     no commitment to honor my request. I am informed that DOE's 
     History Division does maintain an unexpurgated copy for 
     its own use. Perforce, it is handled as a classified 
     document.
       I would like to emphasize that I received fine and 
     sympathetic treatment from many in the DOE who made it clear 
     to me that they were not in agreement with the treatment 
     accorded me and my journal during the process recounted 
     above. In fact, more than one person in DOE has told me 
     informally that evidence does indeed exist verifying that my 
     journal did indeed receive a clearance before my departure 
     from the AEC in 1971.
       The problems posed by classification and declassification 
     of sensitive materials are major ones and require wise people 
     who must make sophisticated decisions. It requires a range of 
     individuals who, on the one hand, have vision in regard to 
     the whole range of scientific and national security policies, 
     and on the other hand, have the time to read pages of 
     detailed descriptions in a wide range of areas. Sometimes 
     this complex goal gets derailed by those who see the trees 
     and not the forest. Those in charge of classification should 
     have an appreciation of the need, in our open society, to 
     publish all scientific and political information that has no 
     adverse national security effect (realistically defined).
       Although I have in general received sympathetic treatment, 
     I cannot help but note that this treatment has produced quite 
     different conclusions at different periods in the country's 
     history. Actually, the AEC, from its beginning in 1947, 
     initiated and executed an excellent progressive program of 
     declassification with an enlightened regard for the need of 
     such information in an open, increasingly scientific society. 
     By the 1960s, this program was serving our country well. 
     Unfortunately, during the 1980s the program had retrogressed 
     to the extent of reversing many earlier declassification 
     actions. Fortunately, the present situation is very much 
     improved so we can look forward to the future with 
     considerable optimism.


                               references

       1. G.T. Seaborg and B.S. Loeb. Stemming the Tide: Arms 
     Control in the Johnson Years (Free Press, New York, 1987).
       2. G.T. Seaborg. Lawr. Bork, Lab. Tech. Inf. Dep. Publ. 
     PUB-625 (1989).
       3. G.T. Seaborg and B.S. Loeb. Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the 
     Test Ban (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 1981).
       4. U.S. Dep. Energy Rep. NVO-209 (revision 5) (1985).

                          ____________________