[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11964-S12022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Glenn, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. 
        Faircloth):
  S. 1397. A bill to establish a commission to assist in commemoration 
of the centennial of powered flight and the achievements of the Wright 
brothers; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


               the centennial of flight commemorative act

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I have a bill, S. 1397, at the desk. Now, 
Senators DeWine, Faircloth, Glenn, and I are introducing this 
legislation, and we are naming it the Centennial of Flight 
Commemorative Act. As I indicated, the bill number is S. 1397.
  This significant legislation will establish a commission to assist 
the numerous events that will lead up to and include the celebration of 
the 100th anniversary of powered flight, a feat in all the history 
books, accomplished in my State of North Carolina by the geniuses, two 
brothers, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Ohio brothers who were born and 
raised in Dayton where they operated a bicycle shop.
  I don't know whether you have been to Kitty Hawk, particularly in the 
middle of December, but it is not a comfortable place to be. Wilbur and 
Orville came to the Outer Banks of North Carolina to conduct their 
experiments. The first powered flight occurred at Kitty Hawk, NC, on 
December 17, 1903. In fact, the Wright brothers engaged in four flights 
that day, and with their effort they changed the concept of travel 
forever.
  About noon on that cold and windy December day, at Kitty Hawk, NC, 
the aviation age, the air age, began.
  So, Madam President, the Wright brothers were indisputably the first 
pioneers of powered flight, and they became national heroes, 
justifiably etched in history.
  As for our bill, S. 1397, the able Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, and 
the able Senator from Ohio, Mr. Glenn, did excellent work in drafting 
this legislation.
  Senator Glenn, I am obliged to mention, and I am glad to do so, is a 
man of history himself in terms of powered flight. He was the first 
American, as all of us know, to orbit the Earth. When he walks up and 
down the corridors, I see mamas and daddies pointing to him saying, 
``That's Senator Glenn.'' Senator Glenn and six other pioneers, the 
Mercury astronauts, got America's space program off the ground.
  Madam President, S. 1397--let me say the title again so it will 
register--the Centennial of Flight Commemorative Act--proposes the 
establishment of a commission of 21 individuals to plan for and assist 
in events leading up to and including the commemoration of the 100th 
anniversary of the Wright brothers' flights at Kitty Hawk. The 
commission will be composed of the Secretary of the Interior, the 
Director of the National Air and Space Museum, the Secretary of 
Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, the NASA Administrator, and 
each of these officials can name a designee. Then there will be two 
representatives each from the States of North Carolina and Ohio and 12 
other private citizens.
  Of these 12 private citizens, the President of the United States will 
appoint two from a list recommended by the Senate majority leader in 
consultation with the Senate minority leader, and two from a list 
recommended by the Speaker of the House in consultation with the House 
minority leader. The remaining eight will be chosen based on 
qualifications and/or experience in the fields of history, aerospace, 
science, industry, or other professions that will enhance the work of 
the commission.
  The commission will represent the United States and take a leadership 
role with other nations in recognizing the achievement of the Wright 
brothers and the importance of aviation history.
  The commission's activities will be closely coordinated with the 
First Flight Centennial Commission and the First Flight Centennial 
Foundation of North Carolina and the 2003 Committee of the State of 
Ohio. The commission is allowed to retain an executive director and 
staff that may be required in order to carry out its functions.
  S. 1397 authorizes appropriations of $250,000 for each of the fiscal 
years 1998 to 2004 to fund the work of the commission.
  Additionally, the commission may accept monetary contributions and 
other in kind contributions, volunteer

[[Page S11965]]

services and the like. In order to further defray the expenses of the 
commission, the legislation gives it exclusive right to names, logos, 
emblems, seals, and marks, which may be licensed on which proceeds from 
royalties will be used to offset the operating costs of the commission.
  S. 1397 requires that annual audits of the commission be conducted by 
the Inspector General of the General Services Administration to ensure 
its financial integrity.
  The commission shall be terminated no later than 60 days after the 
submission of the final audit report.
  Senators may ask why establish a Federal commission to commemorate 
this event? The Wright brothers' triumph at Kitty Hawk on that bone-
chilling day of December 17, 1903 has to rank as one of mankind's 
greatest achievement. The world has not been the same since.
  As the development of the airplane progressed so did its uses in 
warfare and civilian aviation. Its development spawned generations of 
aviation trailblazers. Names like Eddie Rickenbacker, Billy Mitchell, 
Charles Lindbergh, Jimmy Doolittle, Chuck Yeager, and the Mercury, 
Gemini, Apollo, and space shuttle astronauts became household words.
  What is even more astonishing is that 66 years later, Neil Armstrong 
of Ohio became the first man to set foot on the moon. That would not 
have been possible without the Wright brothers.
  Because of the Wright brothers you can get on a jet aircraft at 
Dulles Airport and be in London in six or seven hours, far less if you 
are flying the Concorde. You can fly from New York to Tokyo in 14 
hours. On the Concorde, you can travel from New York to London in 3 
hours and 50 minutes.
  We are seeing daily developments in aviation, faster planes, new 
space technologies, all because of the genius of Wilbur and Orville 
Wright.
  I hope the Senate will swiftly approve this legislation.
  Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my 
distinguished colleague from North Carolina.
  I am delighted to join him, as well as Senator Faircloth and Senator 
Glenn, in introducing a bill to create the Centennial of Flight 
Commission.
  In the year 2003, the United States and, indeed, the world will 
celebrate a truly breathtaking anniversary. That date will mark exactly 
100 years of the adventure of human flight. For those of us who are 
from the State of Ohio, it is an especially important anniversary as 
Senator Helms has so ably described--first and foremost because the 
Wright brothers, the very first pioneers of powered flight, were from 
Dayton, OH. It was in Dayton, OH, that they grew up. It was in Dayton, 
OH, that they had a print shop. It was in Dayton, OH, that they had the 
bicycle shop that was referred to a moment ago by Senator Helms.
  It was at Huffman Prairie, in Montgomery County, actually what is now 
enclosed in Wright Patterson Air Force Base, technically in Greene 
County, that the Wright brothers learned to fly. So, those of us from 
Ohio are very proud of the Wright brothers, as this whole country is.
  We are also proud in Ohio that ever since the time of the Wright 
brothers, Ohio has continued to build a proud aviation history. From 
the Wright brothers to World War I flying ace David Ingalls, to John 
Glenn who just walked on to the floor of the Senate, the first man, the 
first American to orbit the Earth, to Neil Armstrong, the first man to 
walk on the Moon, to the incredible research being done right now at 
NASA Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, OH, has continually been a 
part of the great epic of aviation.
  This is, indeed, cause for celebration, and that is what this bill is 
all about. It would create a commission to coordinate the centennial of 
flight celebration in the year 2003. The commission will be composed of 
21 members: the Secretaries of the Interior, Transportation, and 
Defense; the Director of the National Air and Space Museum; the 
Administrator of NASA; two people from North Carolina; the president 
and chairman of the First Flight Centennial Commission; and two people 
from the State of Ohio, the Governor and the chairman of the 2003 
Committee, and 12 additional Presidential appointees.
  Madam President, this commission will help the United States take a 
leadership role in planning international celebrations of the 
centennial of flight, promoting participation and sponsorship by the 
aerospace industry, the commercial aviation industry, educational 
institutions, and State and local governments.
  The commission is going to distribute a calendar, a register of 
national and international programs and projects concerning the flight 
centennial.
  What I hope most of all is that these celebrations will recognize 
that the history of flight is not just the story about machines or 
about the triumph of technology. It is rather a story about people. It 
is a story of how human creativity overcame one of the most fundamental 
barriers that humans ever faced.
  For hundreds of thousands of years, human beings could not fly, but 
in this century, thanks to the freedom and spirit of creativity in this 
country, the human race broke the bonds of Earth. So, from Dayton to 
Kitty Hawk and beyond the limits of our solar system, this is a story 
to truly celebrate.
  Madam President, I see my distinguished senior Senator from the State 
of Ohio, the honorable John Glenn, is on the floor. I yield to Senator 
Glenn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. GLENN. Thank you, Madam President. I thank my distinguished 
colleague.
  I rise as a cosponsor of this legislation to establish a national 
Commission on the Centennial of Flight. We have been very proud through 
the years to have worked with the people of Dayton, OH, in an effort to 
recognize the very exceptional contribution of the two brothers who ran 
the bicycle shop and dreamed of flight. They watched the birds and 
dreamed of flight, not knowing whether it would ever be possible.
  In 1992, it was my privilege to sponsor the legislation that 
established the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park which 
commemorates the extraordinary lives of Wilbur Wright, Orville Wright, 
and Paul Lawrence Dunbar, a black man, a poet, one of the finest poets, 
who was a close friend of the Wright brothers.
  That park and the memorial in North Carolina recall that on December 
17, 1903, Orville Wright flew 120 feet in 12 seconds. Can we imagine 
that, 120 feet in 12 seconds? But it was under power. It was the 
airplane that is over in the Smithsonian now. It was under powered 
flight with an engine and propeller. It was the first sustained flight 
in a power-driven, heavier-than-air machine.
  There were three other flights that day. We don't often hear about 
those. There were three other flights that day, and Wilbur Wright set a 
new world record flying on one of those flights 352 feet in 59 seconds. 
It was more than the length of a football field.
  Very little attention was paid at that time. People were very 
doubtful. Octave Chanute reported the achievement in Popular Science 
Monthly in March 1904. But the first--I think this is very 
interesting--the first eyewitness report about those flights appeared 
in a publication called Gleanings in Bee Culture, and that was in 
January 1905. That was the first real eyewitness report of Orville and 
Wilbur Wright's flights.
  The work had begun in 1899 with a serious study of everything the 
Wrights could find on aeronautics. In 1900, to test their glider, they 
selected Kitty Hawk on the word of the weather bureau because of the 
steadiness of the winds and direction of the winds at that time. The 
test glider in 1900 and 1901 failed to achieve the lifting power that 
they thought they needed and anticipated.
  They went back to Dayton and built a 6-foot wind tunnel to conduct 
experiments with over 200 different wing models. They developed the 
first reliable tables on the effects of air pressure on curved 
surfaces, the principles that we use today and that you see on every 
airplane, whether it is a general aviation small light airplane or a 
giant 747 or whether it is the Concorde flying at supersonic speed 
across the Atlantic Ocean.
  They developed these 200 different wing models and experimented with 
them. They developed the first reliable tables on the effects of air 
pressure on curved surfaces.

[[Page S11966]]

  In 1902, they conducted over almost 1,000 tests with a more promising 
glider. In 1903, the Wright brothers had completed the construction of 
a larger plane powered by their own lightweight gas-powered engine.
  Arriving in Kitty Hawk in September, storms and mechanical 
difficulties delayed trials until December. On the 17th, four men and a 
boy witnessed the very first flight, and a memorable photograph, 
fortunately, was captured. Four men and a boy witnessed that first 
flight.
  Back home in Dayton in 1904 and 1905, the Wright brothers continued 
testing their invention at Huffman Prairie, which is the area adjacent 
to what is today Wright Patterson Air Force Base where they first 
achieved maneuverable flight.
  In 1908, Wilbur and Orville signed a contract with the War Department 
for the first military airplane. In September, Orville circled the 
parade ground at an altitude of 120 feet just across the Potomac River 
from us today, over at Fort Meyer in Virginia.
  When most people these days think of the Wright brothers, we tend to 
think of them as having lived a long, long time ago. We tend to think 
of the Wright brothers as being part of ancient history. We also think 
of their airplane, the Wright Flyer III, as being an incredibly 
primitive machine, at least by today's standards. And it was a 
primitive machine. There were no fancy guidance systems or high-tech 
controls.
  By swiveling their hips from one side to the other, Orville and 
Wilbur could steer the airplane. To this day, when young people come 
in, when school groups come to Washington and visit my office and they 
say they are going over to the Air and Space Museum, I always tell them 
to get up on the gallery level and look down on the Wright brothers' 
airplane and see how they controlled flight, because the person flying 
lay on the lower wing and had a wooden yoke around his hips. That 
wooden yoke slid back and forth and there was a wire that went to the 
trailing edge of the upper wing, and they would slide in the direction 
they wanted to go, slide their hips over, pull that wire and literally 
warp the trailing edge of the wing down and made more lift on the wing 
on that side and the airplane would turn in the direction their hips 
were slid toward.
  I am glad they developed later on in aviation a better means of 
control. We can imagine a 747 pilot today making an approach swiveling 
his hips back and forth. But that was the way the Wright brothers 
controlled those very early flights.
  The first flight at Kitty Hawk and Huffman Prairie seemed so far 
removed from what we did later on, from my own experience in orbital 
flight in 1962, or from the first lunar landing, or from living aboard 
the orbiting space station for weeks on end, as Shannon Lucid did. She 
was up there for 188 days. She will be honored at the Smithsonian this 
evening, as a matter of fact. Yet, all this occurred within a lifetime.

  I know we kid Senator Thurmond around here quite a lot about his age, 
but Senator Thurmond was born December 5, 1902. The Wright brothers did 
not fly until a year later, on December 7, 1903. So we have in this 
body right now a man whose lifetime spans all of manned flight, powered 
flight, from that first day at Kitty Hawk into space. Strom Thurmond 
has witnessed the complete history of flight. And we marvel at just how 
far we have come in an incredibly short period of time. We have 
literally gone from the Wright brothers to the Moon and beyond in a 
single lifetime.
  That is amazing. In that sense, I think it is fair to say that 
Orville and Wilbur Wright were our first astronauts, really, because 
they were the first who really did rise off the Earth's surface in a 
sustained way and make flight that then advanced to higher and higher 
altitudes until we are above the Earth's atmosphere now with different 
kinds of machines; though I think in some ways we could say that they 
were the first two who, as the poem goes, ``slipped the surly bonds of 
Earth''--slipped the surly bonds of Earth and ventured into the air 
under the power of a motor.
  Everything since then has just been going higher and going faster. I 
also think it is fair to say the Wright brothers personified something 
that is behind every single leap or advancement in science or human 
knowledge since the beginning of time. The one characteristic they 
had--we could lump it all together and say that is something that is in 
the heart of all human progress--is curiosity and an innate curiosity 
about how we can do things differently or whether we can explore and 
find new shores or whether we can do experiments and do research in new 
areas.
  Whether you look at the voyage of Christopher Columbus, who brought 
Europeans to the shore of North America, whether you look at the 
experiments of Alexander Fleming--you know what Alexander Fleming was 
curious about? It was plain old green mold on bread. He did not know 
why the patterns formed around the mold the way they did. The green 
mold, it was a particular pattern. He was curious about that.
  You know what that led to? His curiosity led to the discovery of 
penicillin and the development of modern antibiotics. That curiosity 
about green mold on bread has led to increased life expectancy of 
people all around this Earth. We have gone up in life expectancy more 
in the last 100 years than in the previous 2,000 years, I read in a 
magazine just a short time ago. So the discovery of penicillin and 
Alexander Fleming's curiosity about green bread mold that led to that, 
has really revolutionized this Earth.
  Or we go ahead with the unexpected circumstance in a small electronic 
switching device that led to the development of the first transistor 
and ultimately to today's incredibly sophisticated computer systems.
  It is clear to me that curiosity isn't what killed the cat. It is 
also the goose that laid the golden egg for all of humankind. That is 
going to be true in the future as well as the past. In field after 
field, in discipline after discipline, in industry after industry, it 
is curiosity, that insatiable, relentlessly questioning spirit that 
keeps asking ``why'' that has moved our species ahead.
  The irony, of course, is any time someone or a group such as the 
Wright brothers, or a group of people undertake an exploration or 
undertake to demonstrate a new idea, whether in a laboratory, a 
spaceship, a bicycle shop or on a production line, there are many who 
question the wisdom of it all. Those naysayers who wanted to know when 
their bike would be fixed with the Wright brothers believed that if we 
were to fly God would have given us feathers, they said.
  So there was a joke about the Wright brothers at that time. ``If God 
wanted us to fly, why don't we have feathers?" Well, they fortunately 
laughed along with everybody else, but at the same time went ahead with 
their work. They were not deterred. But if there is one thing we know 
for sure about research or any kind of exploration of the unknown, it 
is that it is impossible to know what we will see at the end or what it 
may lead to.
  I believe that today, as perhaps never before, we cannot afford to 
lose that kind of curiosity and questing spirit that the Wright 
brothers had. With it, we can continue to learn new things, first, for 
this Nation, putting them to practical application, staying ahead of 
global competition. That has been the story of this country's 
advancement. Without it, we will quickly become yesterday's leader, 
yesterday's leader, not tomorrow's leader but yesterday's leader, 
hopelessly trying to hold back the hands of the clock and to hold on to 
a past glory that can never be just retained or recaptured.
  So the spirit of the Wright brothers is needed as much today as 
before their very first flight. That is why today I am pleased to join 
with my colleagues--my colleague from Ohio, my colleagues from North 
Carolina--in introducing this legislation to establish a national 
commission to assist in the commemoration of the centennial of powered 
flight that will occur in 2003 and the achievements of the Wright 
brothers. Those who worked to build our national parks and memorials to 
the Wright brothers in Ohio and North Carolina where flight was born 
and first achieved will now work together to recall and remember the 
spirit of flight to be commemorated as we approach the centennial of 
flight in 2003.
  The spirit represented by the Wright brothers was captured in their 
own day by their good friend, Paul Lawrence

[[Page S11967]]

Dunbar, who captured in the prophetic verse which he penned the 
triumphs that are remembered at the Dayton Aviation Heritage National 
Historical Park. One of his notations was:

     What dreams we have
     and how they fly
     like rosy clouds
     across the sky;
     of wealth, of fame
     of sure success . . .

  That is certainly what curiosity has brought us and what the Wright 
brothers brought us.
  Think of all that has occurred since that first flight at Kitty Hawk 
in 1903. Think of aviation today and all it entails and the giant 
industry. It has revised all the world's transportation, has revised 
our military, our security. All of that stemmed from that first flight 
in 1903.
  So we are happy to put in this legislation today. We hope that it is 
supported by all here, not just those from Ohio and North Carolina, 
because what started there in 1903 is something that affects everyone. 
It affects every State and every nation around the globe, even these 
days. And we look forward to this commission doing a great job in 
assisting in the commemoration of the centennial of powered flight and 
the achievements of the Wright brothers.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be an original 
cosponsor of legislation being introduced by Senator Helms--the two 
Senators from Ohio--that would establish a National Commission to 
oversee the 100th anniversary of the first flight.
  Mr. President, on a cold, windy December morning in 1903, in the 
Outer Banks of North Carolina, the Wright brothers changed the history 
of the world. Orville Wright flew for just 12 seconds--but it was the 
first manned flight.
  Today, many people take for granted what was accomplished by the 
Wright brothers that day, but at the time it was a historic 
achievement. Man had been thinking of flight for thousand of years--and 
yet the Wright brothers, here in the United States, were the first to 
do it.
  The development of flight grew rapidly. A little over a decade later, 
airplanes were used in the battles of World War I. Two decades after 
the 12-second first flight--Charles Lindbergh flew over the Atlantic.
  And of course, in 1962, in just a half century after the first 12-
second flight, our distinguished colleague John Glenn was the first man 
to fly around the world in space. Seven years after that, we landed a 
man on the Moon.
  It is hard to believe that all of this has taken place in the span of 
less than 100 years.
  This is why the centennial anniversary of first flight is so 
significant to us, the sponsors of this legislation.
  The Commission will coordinate the plans for the celebration. The 
Wright brothers were from Ohio, of course, where they ran a bicycle 
shop. The State of North Carolina's license plates bear the slogan 
``First in Flight''--so we are especially proud of this achievement in 
my State. To these two States, the celebration is important.
  But much more than that, I think the anniversary should be used to 
inspire students to learn more about the history of flight. Hopefully, 
it will remind people that this is a great nation inventors--and that 
American ingenuity has made us the greatest country in the history of 
the world. Finally, it should remind our citizens that America is a 
land of opportunity and freedom--where anyone's imagination can change 
the world. This is an entrepreneurial spirit that we must keep alive.
  I want to thank Senator Helms and Senators Glenn and DeWine for 
joining together today to introduce this legislation. I hope that the 
Senate will take it up soon.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1398. A bill to extend certain contracts between the Bureau of 
Reclamation and irrigation water contractors in Wyoming and Nebraska 
that receive water from Glendo Reservoir; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


         THE IRRIGATION PROJECT CONTRACT EXTENSION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Irrigation 
Project Contract Extension Act of 1997. I am pleased to be joined in 
this endeavor by Senators Enzi, Kerrey, and Hagel.
  This legislation would extend, for a period of 3 years, certain water 
contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and irrigators in Wyoming 
and Nebraska that receive water from Glendo Reservoir. All contracts 
are subject to renewal on December 31, 1998. Extending these contracts 
is considered a major Federal action and, therefore, subject to review 
of the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] and the Endangered 
Species Act [ESA]. Without a short-term continuation agreement, the 
irrigators would be responsible for the costs of the analysis and other 
environmental documentation.
  Currently, the States of Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado--and the 
Department of the Interior--are in the process of implementing a 
comprehensive ``Cooperative Agreement for Platte River Research and 
Other Efforts relating to Endangered Species Habitats along the Central 
Platte River, Nebraska.'' The term of this initiative is for 3 years, 
with an allowable 6-month extension. Upon completion of the cooperative 
agreement, efforts to enact the Platte River Recovery Implementation 
Program can begin. This basin wide, three-State plan will help to 
recover the endangered whooping crane, piping plover, and least stern, 
and improve critical habitats in the Central Platte River Basin.
  I believe it is important for Congress to act on this measure and 
extend these contracts for 3 years, or until the cooperative agreement 
is completed. In that time, the needed NEPA and ESA reviews will be 
fulfilled--clearing the way for the program to be initiated. It is 
important to remember that the program cannot be implemented until the 
environmental studies are completed and the parties have agreed to the 
results.
  Mr. President, this bill does not avoid environmental evaluation. It 
merely provides some relief to the water users, while allowing the NEPA 
and ESA documentation to take place through the cooperative agreement 
process. It is my understanding that once this agreement has expired, 
and if the Department of the Interior and the three States decide not 
to pursue the program, the contract renewal process would proceed as a 
separate Federal action at that time.
  This is good and fair legislation. It will benefit the environment 
and the water users. I look forward to working with my colleagues in 
the Senate and House to secure its passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 1399. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a 
project to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat of the 
Missouri River and the middle Mississippi River; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


               THE FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to 
enhance, preserve and protect habitat for fish and wildlife on the 
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. This new 5-year $50 million 
authorization is a win-win approach that will implement and expand the 
use of new and innovative measures developed by the Corps of Engineers 
to improve habitat conservation without impacting adversely private 
property and other water-related needs of the rivers including 
navigation, flood control and water supply.
  As I have always maintained, fish and wildlife conservation and 
commercial activity are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, we cannot 
afford to abandon either river commerce or the species that live in and 
on the river. This new approach is a win for man, for nature and for 
the river.
  This legislation is supported by Missouri Farm Bureau, MARC2000, 
American Rivers, the Missouri Soybean Association, the Missouri 
Corngrowers Association, and Farmland Industries. While these groups 
have not always agreed on river policy, that should not preclude us 
from seeking common ground and working together to address the 
questions of resource management and I am delighted that we can all 
come together in support of this commonsense approach.
  Without specific authorization and only scarce dollars, the St. Louis 
Corps of Engineers has been developing and

[[Page S11968]]

testing ways in which navigation structures used to guide the river and 
maintain the channel may be modified to meet environmental as well as 
navigation goals. These innovations have proven successful earning wide 
acclaim including a Presidential Design Award and Federal Design 
Achievement Award.
  This legislation seeks to put these successful innovations to work on 
the Missouri River and expand their use on the middle Mississippi by 
providing a specific authorization and a dedicated and substantial 
source of funds. In other words, we are giving the corps the tools they 
need to put their ideas to work to improve the rivers to benefit fish 
and wildlife.
  The legislation authorizes $10 million per year to protect, create 
and enhance side channels, island habitat, sand bars, and other 
riverine habitat. For example, by notching rock dikes that run 
perpendicular to the shoreline, sandbars develop between the dikes 
which has been provided nesting habitat for the endangered least tern 
and valuable spawning ground for the endangered pallid sturgeon. The 
Missouri Department of Conservation has run tests validating an 
increase in diversity and numbers of microinvertebrates surrounding the 
notched dikes.
  Chevron dikes have been developed to improve river habitat and to 
create beneficial uses of dredge material. These structures are placed 
in the shallow side of the river channel pointing upstream which 
improves the river channel while serving as small islands. These 
islands encourage the development of all four primary river ecosystem 
habitats and additionally, various micro-organisms cling to the 
underwater rock structures, providing a food source for fish.
  Changing the gradation of rock revetments, used to stabilize eroding 
riverbanks, has proved to provide greater bank stability and precluded 
the need to remove bank vegetation so that, for the first time, trees 
and rock revetment could coexist providing greater habitat diversity.
  The draft legislation authorizes $10 million per year over 5 years to 
develop and implement a plan including the following activities: 
Modification and improvement of navigation training structures to 
protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat; creation of side 
channels to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat; restoration 
and creation of island fish and wildlife habitat; creation of riverine 
fish and wildlife habitat; establishment of criteria to prioritize 
based on cost-effectiveness and likelihood of success; and physical and 
biological monitoring for evaluating the success of the project.
  The draft provides that the project be coordinated with other related 
Federal and State activities and that there be public participation in 
the development and implementation of the project. It requires a 25-
percent non-Federal cost share and limits the Federal cost of any 
single project to $5 million. Finally, the draft legislation confers no 
new regulatory authority and requires compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
  The legislation is designed to work between the banks of the river 
and forbids expressly any adverse impacts on private lands and water-
related activities including flood control, navigation, and water 
supply. Additionally, it is designed to compliment other existing 
programs such as the Missouri River Mitigation project and the 
Environmental Management Program on the Mississippi River.
  I intend to work with the administration and with other Senators and 
interested groups to build the broad support necessary to enact this 
legislation in an omnibus Water Resources Development Act the Senate is 
expected to consider in 1998.
  Mr. President, the problems experienced in the Midwest and elsewhere 
with railroad bottlenecks highlight the need for diverse transportation 
options. As the fall harvest proceeds, there are reports of grain being 
piled on the ground in neighboring Kansas and Nebraska. Notwithstanding 
that I must continue working on behalf of Missouri to preserve river 
navigation as a transportation option, our joint efforts to pursue this 
new legislation is a strong indicator that we may be experiencing an 
episode of domestic detente on river policy between groups that have 
pursued differing approaches in the past. This legislation offers a 
significant boost for our need to make the various river uses 
compatible and an important step toward unifying the river's 
stakeholders behind a realistic approach for the future.
  I thank and congratulate the various groups who have come together 
behind this legislation and look forward to enacting this consensus 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
  S. 1401. A bill to provide for the transition to competition around 
electric energy suppliers for the benefit and protection of consumers, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


           the transition to electric competition act of 1997

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise to day to introduce the Transition 
to Electric Competition Act of 1997 along with my colleague from the 
State of Washington, Senator Gorton. This bill provides for the 
transition toward deregulation and competition in the electric utility 
industry.
  While few people find a discussion of the electric utility industry 
and the many laws and regulations governing the industry exciting, the 
fact is that electricity is an extremely important commodity which 
affects everyone on a daily basis. Any event that increases or reduces 
electric rates can impact: First, the lives of the poor and those on 
fixed incomes that depend on electricity to heat their homes in the 
winter and cool them in the summer; second, the price of goods we buy 
every day; as well as third, the competitiveness of our factories. In 
addition, decisions made by electric generators often have a direct 
effect on our environment as well as our energy security.
  It is not at all inconsequential that the electric utility industry, 
which has remained relatively static for the last 60 years, is 
undergoing a fundamental change. Instead of the traditional vertically 
integrated local utility, which generates power at its own plants, 
transmits that power over its own lines and sells that power to all 
consumers in a particular area, consumers in some States are starting 
to be bombarded with all sorts of offers from companies competing to 
become their power supplier, and other entrepreneurs will be seeking to 
buy large blocks of power to serve certain kinds of consumers. 
Naturally, these changes are bound to create considerable apprehension 
among both utilities and consumers.
  Mr. President, in January I introduced S. 237, the Electric Consumers 
Protection Act, because I believed that retail electric competition was 
inevitable and Federal legislation was necessary to ensure that certain 
consumers were not disadvantaged in the process. Several States were 
proceeding to introduce competition in their jurisdictions and a number 
of others were examining the matter. Since that time I have become even 
more convinced that competition is on the horizon. Eleven States have 
now enacted legislation or issued regulations requiring retail 
competition by a time certain. Almost every other State currently has 
the matter under review.
  Some argue that there is no need for the Federal Government to 
intervene; that the States are doing just fine on their own and they 
should decide when and how to proceed with retail electric competition. 
Mr. President, I couldn't disagree more.
  A State-by-State approach will likely produce a lot of unintended 
consequences which will limit the benefits associated with retail 
competition and could disadvantage certain consumers. Electric 
generation markets are becoming increasingly regional and even multi-
regional. What happens in one State can have direct and indirect 
impacts on consumers and utilities located in another State. Utilities 
operating in more than one State can be subjected to conflicting 
regulatory regimes which could impact the way they operate their 
systems and the electric rates paid by consumers.
  This phenomenon is best illustrated by the multistate utility holding 
companies registered under the Public Utility Holding Company [PUHCA]. 
I have had a lot of experience with registered holding companies 
because two of them serve my home State of Arkansas. These holding 
companies generally plan for and operate generating facilities on a 
system-wide basis for the benefit of customers in the entire region

[[Page S11969]]

served by the company. If restructuring proceeds on a State-by-State 
basis, these holding companies would find themselves subjected to 
different requirements which could negatively impact consumers.
  A State-by-State approach to retail competition also present problems 
where utilities operate entirely within a single State. It would make 
no sense for a utility in a State that does not require retail 
competition, to be able to sell power at retail in an adjoining State 
that requires retail competition, while a utility subjected to retail 
competition is unable to mitigate its losses by competing for customers 
in the adjoining State. Such a result both increases stranded costs and 
distorts the generation marketplace.
  Moreover, the States can't adequately address issues associated with 
the use of transmission lines that provide for the transportation 
across a number of States or the ability of a utility with significant 
market power to dominate electricity generation in an entire region. 
Clearly these are issues that need to be resolved at the Federal level.
  When I introduced S. 237 there weren't many calling for Federal 
action. However, interested observers are increasingly coming to the 
conclusion that Federal electric restructuring legislation is not only 
helpful, but is necessary. Even some of the States are calling on the 
Federal Government to act.
  The legislation we are introducing today is an updated version of S. 
237. The bill includes the following provisions: All consumers would 
have the right to choose their power supplier by January 1, 2002. 
States could choose an earlier date for their residents if they wish. 
Utilities would be able to recover their legitimate, prudent and 
verifiable costs that they would have been able to recover from 
ratepayers if retail competition had not been implemented. Consumers 
located in States that currently have low cost electricity would be 
protected from rate increases by ensuring that utilities can't use 
their existing assets to sell power in more lucrative markets to the 
disadvantage of their existing customers. All utilities selling retail 
power would be required to generate a portion of that power using 
renewable resources. All of the interstate transmission facilities 
throughout the country would be managed by independent system operators 
to ensure that electricity flows in an efficient manner and that 
markets are competitive. FERC would be given greater authority to 
protect against the use of market power by utilities to inhibit 
competition. Both the Public Utility Holding Company Act [PUHCA] and 
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act [PURPA] would be repealed in 
conjunction with the implementation of retail electric competition.
  In addition, Mr. President, the legislation attempts to address some 
of the issues that relate to the impact of retail electric competition 
on two Federal entities--the Bonneville Power Administration [BPA] and 
the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA]. Senator Gorton is especially 
knowledgeable about the special problems facing BPA and I expect that 
he will work closely with the other Members of the Senate from the 
Pacific Northwest in developing a consensus approach.
  With regard to TVA, our bill attempts to develop an approach that 
will enable retail competition to be smoothly introduced in the 
Tennessee Valley and will help TVA pay off its tremendous debt. The 
bill also requires the TVA board to prepare a study examining whether 
TVA should be privatized. I know that some observers may be concerned 
that this could be a first step toward the privatization of the Federal 
Power Marketing Administration [PMA's]. Mr. President, there is no 
connection whatsoever between TVA and the PMA's. The PMA's market power 
generated at hydroelectric facilities located at Federal dams. These 
dams perform a variety of public services and cannot be privatized. 
TVA, on the other hand, generates the bulk of its power from coal and 
nuclear plants that serve no public purposes. In addition, the Federal 
PMA's pay for themselves through power sales. TVA, on the other hand, 
has an enormous level of privately held debt which it must find a way 
to pay off, since the Federal Government is not responsible for it.
  Mr. President, I am especially pleased that Senator Gorton has 
decided to join with me in the effort to enact comprehensive electric 
restructuring legislation. He has a reputation as a very bright and 
thoughtful Member of this body and is a distinguished member of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over the 
matter. I know that he shares my desire to move this legislation 
through Congress quickly next year.
  Senator Murkowski, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, 
recently indicated that he expects the committee to mark up electric 
restructuring legislation next year. Both Senator Gorton and I want to 
work with him and the other members of the committee in moving forward. 
I look forward to undertaking this important task.
  Mr. President, I want to say how honored I am to have one of our most 
distinguished Senators, Senator Gorton of Washington, as my chief 
cosponsor on this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section 
analysis of the Transition to Electric Competition Act of 1997 be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1401

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short title. This Act may be cited as the ``Transition 
     to Electric Competition Act of 1997''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as 
     follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Severability.
Sec. 5. Enforcement.

                      TITLE I--RETAIL COMPETITION

Sec. 101. Mandatory retail access.
Sec. 102. Aggregation.
Sec. 103. Prior implementation.
Sec. 104. State regulation.
Sec. 105. Retail stranded cost recovery.
Sec. 106. Wholesale stranded cost recovery.
Sec. 107. Lost retail benefits.
Sec. 108. Universal service.
Sec. 109. Public benefits.
Sec. 110. Renewable energy.
Sec. 111. Determination of local distribution facilities.
Sec. 112. Transmission.
Sec. 113. Competitive generation markets.
Sec. 114. Nuclear decommissioning costs.
Sec. 115. Right to know.
Sec. 116. Exemption of Alaska and Hawaii.

               TITLE II--PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES

Sec. 201. Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.
Sec. 202. Exemptions.
Sec. 203. Federal access to books and records.
Sec. 204. State access to books and records.
Sec. 205. Affiliate transactions.
Sec. 206. Clarification of regulatory authority.
Sec. 207. Effect on other regulation.
Sec. 208. Enforcement.
Sec. 209. Savings provision.
Sec. 210. Implementation.
Sec. 211. Resources.

           TITLE III--PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES ACT

Sec. 301. Definition.
Sec. 302. Facilities.
Sec. 303. Contracts.
Sec. 304. Savings clause.
Sec. 305. Effective date.

                   TITLE IV--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Sec. 401. Study.

                TITLE V--BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 501. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 502. Columbia River fish and wildlife coordination and governance.
Sec. 503. Pacific Northwest federal transmission access.
Sec. 504. Transition cost mechanism.
Sec. 505. Independent system operator participation.
Sec. 506. Financial obligations.
Sec. 507. Prohibition on retail sales.
Sec. 508. Clarification of Commission authority.
Sec. 509. Repealed statute.

                  TITLE VI--TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Sec. 601. Competition in service territory.
Sec. 602. Ability to sell electric energy.
Sec. 603. Termination of contracts.
Sec. 604. Rates for electric energy.
Sec. 605. Privatization study.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that:
       (a) Congress has the authority to enact laws, under the 
     Commerce Clause of the

[[Page S11970]]

     United States Constitution, regarding the wholesale and 
     retail generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of 
     electric energy in interstate commerce.
       (b) Several States have taken steps to require competition 
     among retail electric supplies and a large number of other 
     States are expected to act.
       (c) It has been the policy of Congress and the Commission 
     to promote competition among wholesale electric suppliers.
       (d) It is in the public interest that the transition 
     towards competition in electric service ensures that all 
     consumers receive reliable and competitively-priced electric 
     service.
       (e) Electric utility companies that prudently incurred 
     costs pursuant to a regulatory structure that required them 
     to provide electricity to consumers should not be penalized 
     during the transition to competition.
       (f) Consumers will not benefit from the introduction of 
     competition among electric energy suppliers if certain 
     suppliers have undue market power.
       (g) It is important to encourage conservation and the use 
     of renewable resources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, 
     promote domestic energy security and protect the environment.
       (h) Competition among electric energy suppliers should not 
     degrade reliability nor cause consumers to lose electric 
     service.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (a) The term ``affiliate'' of a specific company means any 
     company 5 percent or more of whose outstanding voting 
     securities are owned, controlled, or held with power to vote, 
     directly or indirectly, by such specific company.
       (b) The term ``aggregator'' means any person that purchases 
     or acquires retail electric energy on behalf of two or more 
     consumers.
       (c) The term ``ancillary services'' shall have the same 
     meaning assigned to it by the Commission.
       (d) The term ``associate company'' of a company means any 
     company in the same holding company system with such company.
       (e) The term ``Commission'' means the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission.
       (f) The term ``company'' means a corporation, joint stock 
     company, partnership, association, business trust, organized 
     group of persons, whether incorporated or not, or a receiver 
     or receivers, trustee or trustees of any of the foregoing.
       (g) The term ``corporation'' means any corporation, joint-
     stock company, partnership, association, rural electric 
     cooperative, municipal utility, business trust, organized 
     group of persons, whether incorporated or not, or a receiver 
     or receivers, trustee or trustees of any of the foregoing.
       (h) The term ``electric utility company'' means any company 
     that owns or operates facilities used for the generation, 
     transmission or distribution of electric energy for sale.
       (i) The term ``gas utility company'' means any company that 
     owns or operates facilities used for distribution at retail 
     (other than the distribution only in enclosed portable 
     containers) of natural or manufactured gas for heat, light or 
     power.
       (j) The term ``holding company system'' means a holding 
     company together with its subsidiary companies.
       (k) The term ``large hydroelectric facility'' means a 
     facility which has a power production capacity which, 
     together with any other facilities located at the same site, 
     is greater than 80 megawatts.
       (l) The term ``local distribution facilities'' means 
     facilities used to provide retail electric energy for 
     ultimate consumption.
       (m) The term ``lost retail benefits'' means the increased 
     cost of retail electric energy in a retail electric energy 
     provider's service territory resulting from the sale 
     subsequent to the implementation of retail electric 
     competition, outside such service territory, of electric 
     energy generated at facilities the cost of which were 
     included in the retail rate base of the retail electric 
     energy provider prior to the implementation of retail 
     electric competition.
       (n) The term ``mitigation'' means any widely accepted 
     business practice used by an electric utility company to 
     dispose of or reduce uneconomic assets or costs.
       (o) The term ``municipal utility'' means a city, county, 
     irrigation district, drainage district, or other political 
     subdivision or agency of a State competent under the laws 
     thereof to carry on the business of a retail electric energy 
     provider and/or a retail electric energy supplier.
       (p) The term ``person'' means an individual or corporation.
       (q) The term ``public utility company'' means an electric 
     utility company or gas utility company but does not mean a 
     qualifying facility as defined in the Public Utility 
     Regulatory Policies Act, or an exempt wholesale generator or 
     a foreign utility company defined in the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992.
       (r) The term ``public utility holding company'' means (A) 
     any company that directly or indirectly owns, controls, or 
     holds with power to vote, 10 percent or more of the 
     outstanding voting securities of a public utility company or 
     of a holding company of any public utility company; and (B) 
     any person, determined by the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, after notice and opportunity for hearing, to 
     exercise directly or indirectly (either alone or pursuant to 
     an arrangement or understanding with one or more persons) 
     such a controlling influence over the management or policies 
     of any public utility or holding company as to make it 
     necessary or appropriate for the protection of consumers with 
     respect to rates that such person be subject to the 
     obligations, duties, and liabilities imposed in this title 
     upon holding companies.
       (s) The term ``renewable energy'' means electricity 
     generated from solar, wind, waste, including municipal solid 
     waste, biomass, hydroelectric or geothermal resources.
       (t) The term ``Renewable Energy Credit'' means a tradable 
     certificate of proof that one unit (as determined by the 
     Commission) of renewable energy was generated by any person.
       (u) The term ``retail electric competition'' means the 
     ability of each consumer in a particular State to purchase 
     retail electric energy from any person seeking to sell 
     electric energy to such consumer.
       (v) The term ``retail electric energy'' means electric 
     energy and ancillary services sold for ultimate consumption.
       (w) The term ``retail electric energy provider'' means any 
     person who distributes retail electric energy to consumers 
     regardless of whether the consumers purchase such energy from 
     the provider or an alternative supplier. A retail electric 
     energy provider may also be a retail electric energy 
     supplier.
       (x) The term ``retail electric energy supplier'' means any 
     person which sells retail electric energy to consumers.
       (y) The term ``retail stranded costs'' means all 
     legitimate, prudent, verifiable and non-mitigatable costs 
     incurred by an electric utility company in all of its 
     generation assets which would have been recoverable in retail 
     rates but for the implementation of retail electric 
     competition, less the total market value of these assets 
     after retail electric competition is implemented. Binding 
     power purchase contracts and regulatory assets, the costs of 
     which would have been recovered but for the implementation of 
     retail electric competition, shall be considered generation 
     assets for purposes of this subsection.
       (z) The term ``rural electric cooperative'' means a 
     corporation that is currently paying off a loan for the 
     purposes of providing electric service from the Administrator 
     of the Rural Electrification Administration or the Rural 
     Utilities Service under the Rural Electrification Act of 
     1936.
       (aa) The term ``State'' means any State or the District of 
     Columbia.
       (bb) The term ``State regulatory authority'' means the 
     regulatory body of a State or municipality having sole 
     jurisdiction to regulate rates and charges for the 
     distribution of electric energy to consumers within the State 
     or municipality.
       (cc) The term ``subsidiary company'' of a holding company 
     means--
       (1) any company 10 percent or more of the outstanding 
     voting securities of which are directly or indirectly owned, 
     controlled, or held with power to vote, by such holding 
     company; and
       (2) any person the management or policies of which the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing, determines to be subject to a 
     controlling influence, directly or indirectly, by such 
     holding company (either alone or pursuant to an arrangement 
     or understanding with one or more other persons) so as to 
     make it necessary for the protection of consumers that such 
     person be subject to the obligations, duties, and liabilities 
     imposed upon subsidiary companies of public utility holding 
     companies.
       (dd) The term ``transmission system'' means all facilities, 
     including federally-owned facilities, transmitting 
     electricity in interstate commerce in a particular region, 
     including all facilities transmitting electricity in the 
     State of Texas and those providing international 
     interconnections, but does not include local distribution 
     facilities as determined by the Commission.
       (ee) The term ``wholesale electric energy'' means electric 
     energy and ancillary services sold for resale.
       (ff) The term ``wholesale electric energy supplier'' means 
     any person which sells wholesale electric energy.
       (gg) The term ``wholesale stranded costs'' shall have the 
     same meaning as in the Commission's Order No. 888.
       (hh) The term ``voting security'' means any security 
     presently entitling the owner or holder thereof to vote in 
     the direction or management of the affairs of a company.

     SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or the application of such 
     provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held 
     invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of 
     such provision to persons or circumstances other than those 
     as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected 
     thereby.

     SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Violation of the Act.--If any individual or corporation 
     or any other retail electric energy supplier or provider 
     fails to comply with the requirements of this Act, any 
     aggrieved person may bring an action against such entity to 
     enforce the requirements of this Act in the appropriate 
     Federal district court.
       (b) State or Commission Action.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any person seeking redress from an action 
     taken by a State regulatory authority, the Commission or a 
     regulatory board pursuant to this Act shall bring such action 
     in the appropriate circuit of the United States Court of 
     Appeals.

[[Page S11971]]

                     TITLE I--ELECTRIC COMPETITION

     SEC. 101. MANDATORY RETAIL ACCESS.

       (a) Customer Choice.--Beginning on January 1, 2002, each 
     consumer shall have the right to purchase retail electric 
     energy from any person offering to sell retail electric 
     energy to such consumer, subject to any limitations imposed 
     pursuant to section 104(a) of this Act.
       (b) Local Distribution and Retail Transmission 
     Facilities.--Beginning on January 1, 2002, all persons 
     seeking to sell retail electric energy shall have reasonable 
     and nondiscriminatory access, on an unbundled basis, to the 
     local distribution and retail transmission facilities of all 
     retail electric energy providers and all ancillary 
     services.

     SEC. 102. AGGREGATION.

       Subject to any limitations imposed pursuant to section 
     104(a) of this Act, a group of consumers or any person acting 
     on behalf of such group may purchase or acquire retail 
     electric energy for the members of the group if they are 
     located in a State or States where there is retail electric 
     competition.

     SEC. 103. PRIOR IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) State Action.--Nothing in the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 824 et seq.) shall be deemed to prohibit a State or 
     State regulatory authority, if authorized under State law, 
     from requiring retail electric energy providers selling 
     retail electric energy to consumers in such State to provide 
     reasonable and nondiscriminatory access, on an unbundled 
     basis, to its local distribution facilities and all ancillary 
     services to any retail electric energy supplier prior to 
     January 1, 2002.
       (b) Grandfather.--Legislation enacted by a State or a 
     regulation issued by a State regulatory authority which has 
     the effect of providing all consumers in such State the 
     opportunity to purchase retail electric energy from any 
     retail electric energy supplier by January 1, 2002 and 
     provides electric utility companies with the opportunity to 
     recover their retail stranded costs as defined by this Act 
     (unless there is an agreement between a State or State 
     regulatory authority and a retail electric energy provider 
     which provides for a different level of recovery), shall be 
     deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of sections 
     101 and 105 of this Act.
       (c) Reciprocity.--A State or State regulatory authority 
     that provides for retail electric competition may preclude 
     any retail electric energy provider selling retail electric 
     energy to consumers in another State and their affiliates 
     from selling retail electric energy to consumers in the State 
     with retail electric competition if the retail electric 
     energy provider does not provide reasonable and 
     nondiscriminatory access, on an unbundled basis, to its local 
     distribution facilities to any retail electric energy 
     supplier.

     SEC. 104. STATE REGULATION.

       (a) State Requirements.--A State or a State regulatory 
     authority may impose requirements on persons seeking to sell 
     retail electric energy to consumers in that State which are 
     intended to promote the public interest, including 
     requirements related to generation reliability and the 
     provision of information to consumers and other retail 
     electric energy suppliers. Any such requirements must be 
     applied on a nondiscriminatory basis and may not be used to 
     exclude any class of potential suppliers, such as retail 
     electric energy providers, from the opportunity to sell 
     retail electric energy.
       (b) Maintenance of State Authority.--Nothing in this Act is 
     intended to prohibit a State from enacting laws or imposing 
     regulations related to retail electric energy service that 
     are consistent with the requirements of this Act.
       (c) Continued State Authority Over Distribution.--A State 
     or State regulatory authority may continue to regulate local 
     distribution service currently subject to State regulation, 
     including billing and metering in any manner consistent with 
     this Act.

     SEC. 105. RETAIL STRANDED COST RECOVERY.

       (a) Application for Determination.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), an electric utility company subject to the 
     ratemaking jurisdiction of a State regulatory authority prior 
     to the date of enactment of this Act may submit an 
     application to the State regulatory authority seeking a 
     determination of its total stranded costs in that State if:
       (1) the State regulatory authority has issued a regulation 
     or the State has enacted legislation requiring retail 
     electric competition which does not provide for the full 
     recovery of retail stranded costs; or
       (2) the electric utility company's retail distribution 
     customers have access to retail competition as a result of 
     the requirements of Section 101 of this Act.
       (3) If a State regulatory authority fails to determine the 
     electric utility company's retail stranded costs within 18 
     months after the date upon which the company applied for a 
     determination of its stranded costs, the Commission shall 
     determine the company's retail stranded costs.
       (b) Nonregulated Utilities.--A municipal or rural electric 
     cooperative that seeks to recover its retail stranded costs 
     may determine its total retail stranded costs.
       (c) Right of Recovery.--(1) An electric utility company, 
     municipal utility or retail electric cooperative shall be 
     entitled to full recovery of its retail stranded costs, as 
     determined pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), over a 
     reasonable period of time through a non-bypassable Stranded 
     Cost Recovery Charge imposed on its customers.
       (2) A rural electric cooperative which sells wholesale 
     electric energy to rural electric cooperative retail electric 
     energy providers or a joint action agency which sells 
     wholesale electric energy to municipal retail electric energy 
     providers may recover wholesale stranded costs from such 
     rural electric cooperative or municipal retail electric 
     energy providers. Such cost recovery shall be deemed a retail 
     stranded cost of the rural electric cooperative or municipal 
     retail energy provider.
       (d) Prohibition on Cost-Shifting.--(1) No class of 
     consumers in a State shall be assessed a Stranded Cost 
     Recovery Charge that a State regulatory authority or the 
     Commission, whichever is applicable, determines is in excess 
     of the class' proportional responsibility for the retail 
     electric energy provider's costs that existed prior to the 
     implementation of retail electric competition in such State.
       (2) Customers of a retail electric energy provider that 
     serves consumers in more than one State or that is affiliated 
     with another retail electric energy provider shall only be 
     responsible for stranded costs associated with retail 
     electric competition in the State or area in which such 
     customers are located.
       (e) Prior Prudence Determinations.--Nothing in this Act is 
     intended to affect or modify or permit the modification of a 
     final determination made by the Commission or a State 
     regulatory authority or an agreement entered into by the 
     Commission or a State regulatory authority with regard to the 
     prudence of any costs associated with a particular generating 
     facility or contract.

     SEC. 106. WHOLESALE STRANDED COST RECOVERY.

       (a) Commission Regulation.--The Commission shall have sole 
     jurisdiction to determine and provide for the recovery of 
     wholesale stranded costs associated with wholesale electric 
     competition with regard to public utilities subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the Commission pursuant to the Federal Power 
     Act.
       (b) Regional Generating Facilities.--
       (1) The consent of Congress is given for the creation of a 
     regional board if--
       (A) each State regulatory authority regulating an affiliate 
     of a public utility holding company with affiliate retail 
     electric energy providers serving customers in more than one 
     state elects to join such a board;
       (B) an affiliate of the public utility holding company owns 
     and/or operates a generating facility and sells power from 
     that facility to two or more affiliates of the same holding 
     company and did not sell retail electric energy prior to 
     January 30, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ``wholesale 
     generating company''); and
       (C) the public utility holding company notifies each State 
     regulatory authority which regulates a retail electric energy 
     provider affiliated with the holding company that it intends 
     to seek recovery of the wholesale stranded costs associated 
     with the generating facility or facilities (described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(B)) owned by the wholesale generating 
     company affiliated with such holding company.
       (2) The regional board shall be formed if each State 
     regulatory authority elects to create the board within six 
     months after receiving the notification described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(C). If such elections are not made within 
     the requisite time period, the Commission shall assume the 
     responsibilities of the board as described in this section.
       (3) The regional board shall have 18 months after the date 
     it is formed to determine, on a unanimous basis, the 
     wholesale stranded costs associated with the generating 
     facility which is the subject of the proceeding and to 
     allocate such costs among the retail electric energy provider 
     affiliates of the public utility holding company on a just 
     and reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis.
       (4) If the regional board fails to make either or both 
     determinations, as described in subsection (b)(3) in the 
     requisite time period, the Commission shall make the 
     determination or determinations that have yet to be made.
       (5) After its level of wholesale stranded costs is 
     determined pursuant to this subsection, the wholesale 
     generating company affiliate of the holding company shall be 
     entitled to fully recover its stranded costs, over a 
     reasonable period of time, from the retail electric energy 
     provider affiliates to which it sells electric energy 
     pursuant to the procedures established by this subsection.
       (6) A retail electric energy provider's wholesale stranded 
     cost payment obligations pursuant to this subsection shall be 
     deemed retail stranded costs for the purposes of section 105 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 107. LOST RETAIL BENEFITS.

       A State may require a retail electric energy provider to 
     compensate its retail customers for lost retail benefits if, 
     after retail competition is implemented, the market value of 
     all of the provider's generating assets in the rate base 
     prior to the implementation of retail electric competition is 
     greater than the total costs of these assets that would have 
     been recoverable in retail rates but for the implementation 
     of retail electric competition. No retail electric energy 
     provider shall be required to compensate its customers in an 
     amount that exceeds the increased market value of its 
     generating assets resulting from the implementation of retail 
     electric competition.

     SEC. 108. UNIVERSAL SERVICE

       (a) State Universal Service Programs.--A State may 
     establish a Universal Service

[[Page S11972]]

     Program that ensures that all consumers have access to 
     purchase retail electric energy from at least one retail 
     electric energy supplier at a just and reasonable rate.
       (b) Service Obligation.--(1) After January 1, 2002, each 
     retail electric energy provider located in a State that has 
     not yet established a Universal Service Program described in 
     subsection (a) shall be obligated to sell retail electric 
     energy to, or purchase retail electric energy on behalf of, 
     any of its customers in a particular geographic area in which 
     a State regulatory authority or the Commission, if the State 
     regulatory authority fails to make a determination pursuant 
     to a request by an affected person, determines that there is 
     not effective retail electric competition in such area and 
     the consumer has not affirmatively chosen a retail electric 
     energy supplier.
       (2) The retail electric energy provider performing the 
     service described in subsection (b)(1) is entitled to a just 
     and reasonable rate from the consumer receiving such service.
       (c) Universal Service Fund.--A State or a State regulatory 
     authority, if authorized by the State, may impose a 
     nonbypassable Universal Service Charge on all customers of 
     every retail electric energy provider in such State to fund 
     all or part of the costs of a Universal Service Program, 
     including the partial or full payment of the charges a 
     provider may recover pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

     SEC. 109. PUBLIC BENEFITS.

       Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a State or State 
     regulatory authority from assessing charges on retail 
     consumers of energy to fund public benefits programs such as 
     those designed to aid low-income energy consumers, promote 
     energy research and development or achieve energy efficiency 
     and conservation.

     SEC. 110. RENEWABLE ENERGY.

       (a) Minimum Renewable Requirement.--Beginning on January 1, 
     2004 and each year thereafter, every retail electric energy 
     supplier shall submit to the Commission Renewable Energy 
     Credits in an amount equal to the required annual percentage 
     of the total retail electric energy sold by such supplier in 
     the preceding calendar year.
       (b) State Renewable Energy Programs.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to prohibit any State or any State 
     regulatory authority from requiring additional renewable 
     energy generation in that State under any program adopted by 
     the State.
       (c) Required Annual Percentage.--Beginning in calendar year 
     2003, the required annual percentage for each retail electric 
     energy supplier shall be 5 percent. Thereafter, the required 
     annual percentage for each such supplier shall be 9 percent 
     beginning in calendar year 2008 and 12 percent beginning in 
     calendar year 2013.
       (d) Submission of Credits.--A retail electric energy 
     supplier may satisfy the requirements of subsection (a) 
     through the submission of--
       (1) Renewable Energy Credits issued by the Commission under 
     this section for renewable energy sold by such supplier in 
     such calendar year.
       (2) Renewable Energy Credits issued by the Commission under 
     this section to any other retail electric energy supplier for 
     renewable energy sold in such calendar year by such other 
     supplier and acquired by such retail electric energy 
     supplier.
       (3) Any combination of the foregoing.

     A Renewable Energy Credit that is submitted to the Commission 
     for any year may not be used for any other purposes 
     thereafter.
       (e) Issuance of Renewable Energy Credits.--
       (1) The Commission shall establish by rule after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing but not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, a National Renewable Energy 
     Trading Program to issue Renewable Energy Credits to retail 
     electric suppliers. Renewable Energy Credits shall be 
     identified by type of generation and the State in which the 
     facility is located. Under such program, the Commission shall 
     issue--
       (A) one-half of one Renewable Energy Credit to any retail 
     electric energy supplier who sells one unit of renewable 
     energy generated at a large hydroelectric facility;
       (B) one Renewable Energy Credit to any retail electric 
     energy supplier who sells one unit of renewable energy 
     generated at a facility, other than a large hydroelectric 
     facility, built prior to the date of enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (C) two Renewable Energy Credits to any retail electric 
     supplier who sells one unit of renewable energy generated at 
     a facility, other than a large hydroelectric facility, built 
     on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) The Commission shall impose and collect a fee on 
     recipients of Renewable Energy Credits in an amount equal to 
     the administrative costs of issuing, recording, monitoring 
     the sale or exchange, and tracking such Credits.
       (f) Sale or Exchange.--Renewable Energy Credits may be sold 
     or exchanged by the person issued or the person who acquires 
     the Credit. A Renewable Energy Credit for any year that is 
     not used to satisfy the minimum renewable sales requirement 
     of this section for that year may not be carried forward for 
     use in another year. The Commission shall promulgate 
     regulations to provide for the issuance, recording, 
     monitoring the sale or exchange, and tracking of such 
     Credits. The Commission shall maintain records of all sales 
     and exchanges of Credits. No such sale or exchange shall be 
     valid unless recorded by the Commission.
       (g) Use of Proceeds by BPA.--The Administrator of the 
     Bonneville Power Administration shall use the proceeds from 
     the sale of any Renewable Energy Credit issued to the 
     Bonneville Power Administration under this section for its 
     retail electric energy sales to repay the Administration's 
     outstanding debt to the United States Treasury and 
     bondholders of securities backed by the Bonneville Power 
     Administration.
       (h) Rules and Regulations.--The Commission shall promulgate 
     such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section, including such rules and regulations requiring 
     the submission of such information as may be necessary to 
     verify the annual electric generation and renewable energy 
     generation which is supplied by any person applying for 
     Renewable Energy Credits under this section or to verify and 
     audit the validity of Renewable Energy Credits submitted by 
     any person to the Commission.
       (i) Annual Reports.--The Commission shall gather available 
     data and measure compliance with the requirements of this 
     section and the success of the National Renewable Energy 
     Trading Program established under this section. On an annual 
     basis not later than May 31 of each year, the Commission 
     shall publish a report for the previous year that includes 
     compliance data, National Renewable Energy Trading Program 
     results, and steps taken to improve the Program results.
       (j) Sunset.--The requirements of this section shall cease 
     to apply on December 31, 2019.

     SEC. 111. DETERMINATION OF LOCAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.

       (a) Application by State Regulatory Authority.--A State 
     regulatory authority may apply to the Commission for a 
     determination whether a particular facility used for the 
     transportation of electric energy located in such State is a 
     local distribution facility subject to the jurisdiction of 
     that State regulatory authority or is a transmission facility 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
       (b) Commission Findings.--If an application is submitted 
     pursuant to subsection (a) the Commission shall make a 
     determination giving the maximum practicable deference to the 
     position taken by the State regulatory authority, in 
     accordance with the following factors associated with the 
     facility:
       (1) function and purpose;
       (2) size;
       (3) location;
       (4) voltage level and other technical characteristics;
       (5) historic, current and planned usage patterns;
       (6) interconnection and coordination with other facilities; 
     and
       (7) any other factor the Commission deems relevant.

     SEC. 112. TRANSMISSION.

       (a) Transmission Regions.--Within two years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall establish the 
     broadest feasible transmission regions and designate an 
     Independent System Operator to manage and operate the 
     transmission system in each region beginning on January 1, 
     2002. In establishing transmission regions and designating 
     Independent System Operators the Commission shall give 
     deference to Independent System Operators approved by the 
     Commission prior to the date of enactment of this Act, if it 
     would be consistent with the requirements of this section.
       (b) Independent System Operators.--A person designated as 
     an Independent System Operator shall not be subject to the 
     control of--
       (1) any person owning any transmission facilities located 
     in the region in which the Independent System Operator will 
     operate; or
       (2) any retail electric energy supplier selling retail 
     electric energy to consumers in the region in which the 
     Independent System Operator will operate.
       (c) Transmission Regulation.--
       (1) The Commission shall continue to have authority over 
     the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce by 
     the Independent System Operator within the transmission 
     region designated by the Commission.
       (2) The Commission shall have authority over the 
     transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce 
     between two or more transmission regions designated by the 
     Commission.
       (3) Sections 212(f) and 212(j) of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 824k(f) and 824k(j)) are repealed effective January 1, 
     2002.
       (4) Section 212(g) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     824k(g)) is amended by adding ``prior to January 1, 2002'' 
     immediately following ``utilities''.
       (5) Section 212(h) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     824k(h))--
       (A) shall not apply after the date of enactment of this Act 
     where a retail electric energy supplier is seeking access to 
     a transmission facility for the purpose of selling retail 
     electric energy to a consumer located in a State that has 
     authorized retail electric competition prior to January 1, 
     2002; or
       (B) is repealed effective January 1, 2002.
       (f) Rules.--On or before January 1, 2001, the Commission 
     shall issue binding rules governing oversight of the 
     Independent System Operators and designed to promote 
     transmission reliability and efficiency and competition among 
     retail and wholesale electric energy suppliers, including 
     rules related to transmission rates that inhibit competition 
     and efficiency.

[[Page S11973]]

     SEC. 113. COMPETITIVE GENERATION MARKETS.

       (a) Mergers.--
       (1) Section 203(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     824b(a)) is amended by adding ``including the promotion of 
     competitive wholesale and retail electric generation 
     markets,'' immediately following ``public interest''.
       (2) Section 203 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824b) 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Acquisition of Natural Gas Utility Company.--No 
     public utility shall acquire the facilities or securities of 
     a natural gas utility company unless the Commission finds 
     that such acquisition is in the public interest.
       ``(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``natural gas utility company'' means any company that owns 
     or operates facilities used for the transportation at 
     wholesale, or the distribution at retail (other than the 
     distribution only in enclosed portable containers) of natural 
     or manufactured gas for heat, light, or power.''.
       (b) Market Power.--The Commission may take such actions as 
     it determines are necessary, including the following:
       (1) ordering the physical connection of generating or 
     transmission facilities,
       (2) ordering a transmitting utility (as defined in section 
     3(23) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(23)) to provide 
     transmission services (including any enlargement of 
     transmission capacity (consistent with applicable state law) 
     necessary to provide such services), or
       (3) requiring the divestiture of generating or transmission 
     facilities,
     in order to prohibit any retail or wholesale electric energy 
     supplier or retail electric energy provider or any affiliate 
     thereof, from using its ownership or control of resources to 
     maintain a situation inconsistent with effective competition 
     among retail and wholesale electric suppliers.

     SEC. 114. NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING COSTS.

       To ensure safety with regard to the public health and safe 
     decommissioning of nuclear generating units, any retail and 
     wholesale electric energy supplier owning nuclear generating 
     units prior to the date of enactment of this Act shall 
     recover all reasonable costs (as determined by the Commission 
     and relevant State regulatory authorities) associated with 
     Federal and State requirements for the decommissioning of 
     such nuclear generating units pursuant to a non-bypassable 
     charge imposed on all consumers located in the service 
     territories purchasing power, or that had purchased power, 
     from such nuclear generating units. In overseeing the non-
     bypassable charge, a State regulatory authority may take 
     into account the greater cost responsibility of those 
     consumers which continue to purchase power generated at a 
     nuclear unit.

     SEC. 115. RIGHT TO KNOW.

       Beginning on January 1, 2002, the Commission shall ensure 
     that each retail electric energy supplier discloses to the 
     public information on the types of fuel used to generate the 
     electricity sold by the supplier, including the percentage of 
     the electric energy sold by the supplier that is generated by 
     each fuel type.

     SEC. 116. EXEMPTION OF ALASKA AND HAWAII.

       This title shall not apply to any person located in Alaska 
     or Hawaii with regard to any activity or transaction 
     occurring in Alaska or Hawaii.

               TITLE II--PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES

     SEC. 201. REPEAL OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 
                   1935.

       The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended, 
     15 U.S.C. 79 et seq., is hereby repealed, effective one year 
     from the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 202. EXEMPTIONS.

       (a) Federal and State Agencies.--No provision of this title 
     shall apply to: (1) the United States, (2) a State or any 
     political subdivision of a State, (3) any foreign 
     governmental authority not operating in the United States, 
     (4) any agency, authority, or instrumentality of any of the 
     foregoing, or (5) any officer, agent, or employee of any of 
     the foregoing acting as such in the course of his official 
     duty.
       (b) Unnecessary Provisions.--The Commission, by rule or 
     order, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person 
     or transaction, or any class or classes of persons or 
     transactions, from any provision or provisions of this title 
     or of any rule or regulation thereunder, if the Commission 
     finds that regulation of such person or transaction is not 
     relevant to the rates of a public utility company. The 
     Commission shall not grant such an exemption, except with 
     regard to section 204 of this Act, unless all affected State 
     regulatory authorities consent.
       (c) Retail Competition.--The provisions of this title shall 
     not apply to a holding company and every associate company of 
     such holding company if the Commission certifies that the 
     retail customers of every public utility subsidiary of such 
     holding company have access to retail electric competition 
     and each State regulatory authority regulating the retail 
     electric energy provider subsidiaries of the holding company 
     certify that they will have sufficient access to the holding 
     company's books and records relevant to their regulatory 
     responsibilities.

     SEC. 203. FEDERAL ACCESS TO BOOKS AND RECORDS.

       (a) Provision of Books and Records.--Every holding company 
     and associate company thereof shall maintain, and make 
     available to the Commission, such books, records, accounts, 
     and other documents as the Commission deems relevant to costs 
     incurred by a public utility company that is an associate 
     company of such holding company and necessary or appropriate 
     for the protection of consumers with respect to rates.
       (b) Examination of Books and Records.--The Commission may 
     examine the books and records of any company in a holding 
     company system, or any affiliate thereof, as the Commission 
     deems relevant to costs incurred by a public utility company 
     within such holding company system and necessary or 
     appropriate for the protection of consumers with respect to 
     rates.
       (c) Protected Information.--No member, officer, or employee 
     of the Commission shall divulge any fact or information that 
     may come to his knowledge during the course of examination of 
     books, accounts, or other information as hereinbefore 
     provided, except insofar as he may be directed by the 
     Commission or by a court.

     SEC. 204. STATE ACCESS TO BOOKS AND RECORDS.

       (a) Provision of Books and Records.--Every holding company 
     and associate company thereof, shall maintain, and make 
     available to each State regulatory authority regulating the 
     rates of any public utility subsidiary of such holding 
     company, such books, records, accounts, and other documents 
     as the State regulatory authority deems relevant to costs 
     incurred by a public utility company that is an associate 
     company of such holding company and necessary or 
     appropriate for the protection of consumers with respect 
     to rates.
       (b) Protected Information.--No member, officer, or employee 
     of a State regulatory authority shall divulge any fact or 
     information that may come to his knowledge during the course 
     of examination of books, accounts, or other information as 
     hereinbefore provided, except insofar as he may be directed 
     by the State regulatory authority or a court.

     SEC. 205. AFFILIATE TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) Interaffiliate Transactions.--Both the Commission, with 
     regard to wholesale rates, and State regulatory authorities, 
     with regard to retail rates, shall have the authority to 
     determine whether a public utility company may recover in 
     rates any costs of goods and services acquired by such public 
     utility company from an associate company after the date of 
     enactment regardless of when the contract for the acquisition 
     of such goods and services was entered into.
       (b) Associate Companies.--Both the Commission, with regard 
     to wholesale rates, and State regulatory authorities, with 
     regard to retail rates, shall have the authority to determine 
     whether a public utility company may recover in rates any 
     costs associated with an activity performed by an associate 
     company.
       (c) Interaffiliate Power Transactions.--
       (1) Each State regulatory authority shall have the 
     authority to examine the prudence of a wholesale electric 
     power purchase made by a public utility, which is not an 
     associate company of a public utility holding company, 
     providing retail electric service subject to regulation by 
     the State regulatory authority.
       (2) Each State regulatory authority shall have the 
     authority to examine the prudence of a wholesale electric 
     power purchase made by a public utility, which is an 
     associate company of a public utility holding company, 
     providing retail electric service subject to regulation by 
     the State regulatory authority, provided that the costs 
     related to such purchase have not been allocated among two or 
     more associated companies of such public utility holding 
     company, by the Commission prior to the date of enactment and 
     there is no subsequent reallocation after the date of 
     enactment.

     SEC. 206. CLARIFICATION OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

       No public utility which is an associate company of a 
     holding company may recover in rates from wholesale or retail 
     customers any costs (other than wholesale or retail stranded 
     costs) not associated with the provision of electric service 
     to such customers, including those direct and indirect costs 
     related to investments not associated with the provision of 
     electric service to those customers, unless the Commission, 
     with regard to wholesale rates, or a State regulatory 
     authority, with regard to retail rates, explicitly consents.

     SEC. 207. EFFECT ON OTHER REGULATION.

       Nothing in this Act shall preclude a State regulatory 
     authority from exercising its jurisdiction under otherwise 
     application law to protect utility consumers.

     SEC. 208. ENFORCEMENT.

       The Commission shall have the same powers as set forth in 
     sections 306 through 317 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     825d-825p) to enforce the provisions of this title.

     SEC. 209. SAVINGS PROVISION.

       Nothing in this title prohibits a person from engaging in 
     activities in which it is legally engaged or authorized to 
     engage on the date of enactment of this title provided that 
     it continues to comply with the terms of any authorization, 
     whether by rule or by order.

     SEC. 210. IMPLEMENTATION.

       The Commission shall promulgate regulations necessary or 
     appropriate to implement this title not later than six months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 211. RESOURCES.

       All books and records that relate primarily to the function 
     hereby vested in the Commission shall be transferred from the 
     Securities

[[Page S11974]]

     and Exchange Commission to the Commission.

           TITLE III--PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES ACT

     SEC. 301. DEFINITION.

       For purposes of this title, the term ``facility'' means a 
     facility for the generation of electric energy or an addition 
     to or expansion of the generating capacity of such a 
     facility.

     SEC. 302. FACILITIES.

       Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 824a-3) shall not apply to any facility 
     which begins commercial operation after the effective date of 
     this title, except a facility for which a power purchase 
     contract entered into under such section was in effect on 
     such effective date.

     SEC. 303. CONTRACTS.

       After the effective date of this title or after the date on 
     which retail electric competition, as defined in title I of 
     this Act, is implemented in all of its service territories, 
     whichever is earlier, no public utility company shall be 
     required to enter into a new contract or obligation to 
     purchase or sell electric energy pursuant to section 210 of 
     the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.

     SEC. 304. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Notwithstanding sections 302 and 303, nothing in this title 
     shall be construed:
       (a) as granting authority to the Commission, a State 
     regulatory authority, electric utility company, or electric 
     consumer, to reopen, force, the renegotiation of, or 
     interfere with the enforcement of power purchase contracts or 
     arrangements in effect on the effective date of this Act 
     between a qualifying small power producer and any electric 
     utility or electric consumer, or any qualifying cogenerator 
     and any electric utility or electric consumer.
       (b) To affect the rights and remedies of any party with 
     respect to such a power purchase contract or arrangement, or 
     any requirement in effect on the effective date of this Act 
     to purchase or to sell electric energy from or to a 
     qualifying small power production facility or qualifying 
     cogeneration facility.

     SEC. 305. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall take effect on January 1, 2002.

                   TITLE IV--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

     SEC. 401. STUDY.

       The Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with 
     other relevant Federal agencies, shall prepare and submit a 
     report to Congress by January 1, 2000, which examines the 
     implications of differences in applicable air pollution 
     emissions standards for wholesale and retail electric 
     generation competition and for public health and the 
     environment. The report shall recommend changes to Federal 
     law, if any are necessary, to protect public health and the 
     environment.

                TITLE V--BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 501. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) The multi-purpose Federal Columbia River Power System's 
     Federal and non-Federal dams have provided immeasurable 
     benefits to the Pacific Northwest by providing flood control, 
     renewable hydroelectric power, irrigation, navigation, and 
     recreation;
       (2) The dams provide the Northwest with a continuing source 
     of clean and renewable power but, along with over-fishing and 
     other natural and human impacts on the ecosystem, have 
     adversely affected the Columbia Basin's fish and wildlife;
       (3) Enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 established 
     competition for the wholesale supply of electricity, and 
     market forces have driven the cost of power down nationally, 
     the Northwest included, and has allowed utilities and large 
     users to buy power at rates below those offered by the 
     Bonneville Power Administration;
       (4) Realizing the new economic forces impacting 
     electricity, the four Northwest State Governors undertook a 
     year-long review in 1996 of the regional electricity 
     system and made recommendations for the future of the 
     system;
       (5) Among these recommendations is the separation of the 
     transmission and power marketing functions of the Bonneville 
     Power Administration, with Commission oversight of access to 
     Bonneville's transmission system, and undertaking this 
     separation in a way that does not impair Bonneville's ability 
     to meet its obligations to the U.S. Treasury, fish and 
     wildlife programs, and bondholders of the Washington Public 
     Power Supply System;
       (6) There are ongoing efforts by Bonneville to reduce its 
     costs and require accountability of its funds, including 
     those of its funds used for salmon recovery; and
       (7) There is a need to provide a regional process involving 
     the Federal Government, state governments, tribal 
     governments, utilities and other users of the water of the 
     Columbia and Snake River System, to balance the multiple 
     objectives of the river system.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are:
       (1) To establish authority in a consolidated regional 
     governing body that will balance the multiple uses of the 
     Columbia and Snake river system, for hydroelectric 
     production, for irrigation, for recreation, for the 
     protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife populations, 
     and for flood control, with that body to be responsible and 
     accountable for spending funds for these purposes;
       (2) To facilitate the maintenance of an open transmission 
     system in the Northwest based on Commission rules and to 
     ensure its reliability; and
       (3) To assure that the Bonneville Power Administration 
     retains the ability to meet its unique financial obligations 
     to the U.S. Treasury, to fish and wildlife projects, to the 
     bondholders of the Washington Public Power Supply System, and 
     to remain a competitive wholesale supplier of electricity.

     SEC. 502. COLUMBIA RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION AND 
                   GOVERNANCE.

       This section is reserved.

     SEC. 503. PACIFIC NORTHWEST FEDERAL TRANSMISSION ACCESS.

       The Commission's rules on nondiscriminatory open access to 
     transmission services provided by public utilities, including 
     its rules on standards of conduct, shall also apply to 
     transmission services provided by the Bonneville Power 
     Administration, except as otherwise provided by the 
     Commission by rule if it is in the public interest, or except 
     as necessitated by the requirements of section 504 or 506 of 
     this Act. Except as provided in sections 504 and 508 of this 
     Act, rates for transmission imposed by the Administrator 
     shall continue to be established and reviewed and approved in 
     accordance with the provisions of otherwise applicable 
     Federal laws.

     SEC. 504. TRANSITION COST MECHANISM.

       If the Bonneville Power Administration proposes a charge to 
     recover its transition costs resulting from this Act, the 
     Energy Policy Act, or the Commission's Order No. 888, a 
     transition cost recovery mechanism shall be developed and 
     adopted by the Commission within 180 days of the filing of 
     the proposal with the Commission.

     SEC. 505. INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR PARTICIPATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration may 
     participate in a regulated Independent System Operator 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission pursuant to 
     section 112 of this Act.

     SEC. 506. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS.

       Sections 503, 504 and 505 of this Act shall be interpreted 
     and implemented in a manner that does not adversely affect 
     the security of the Bonneville Power Administration's 
     Washington Public Power Supply System net-billing and other 
     third-party financing arrangements.

     SEC. 507. PROHIBITION ON RETAIL SALES.

       Except as provided in section 5(d) of the Northwest Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 839c(d)), the Administrator shall not market, 
     sell or dispose of electric power to any end use or retail 
     customers that did not have a contract for the purchase of 
     electric power with the Administrator for services to 
     specific facilities as of October 1, 1997.

     SEC. 508. CLARIFICATION OF COMMISSION AUTHORITY.

       Section 7(a)(2) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power 
     Planning and Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by deleting the word ``costs,'' in paragraph (B);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (C) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``, and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(D) insofar as transmission rates are concerned, the 
     rates do not discriminate between transmission users or 
     classes of users in a manner that has the effect of 
     unreasonably denying transmission access under section 503 of 
     this Act.''

     SEC. 509. REPEALED STATUTE.

       Section 6 of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 838d) is hereby repealed.

                  TITLE VI--TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

     SEC. 601. COMPETITION IN SERVICE TERRITORY.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning on 
     January 1, 2002, all retail and wholesale electric energy 
     suppliers shall have the right to sell retail and wholesale 
     electric energy to persons that currently purchase retail or 
     wholesale electric energy either directly from the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority or persons purchasing electric energy from 
     the Tennessee Valley Authority.

     SEC. 602. ABILITY TO SELL ELECTRIC ENERGY.

       (a) TVA.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority may sell wholesale electric energy 
     to any person, subject to any restrictions imposed pursuant 
     to Section 104(a) of this Act, beginning on January 1, 2002.
       (b) Power Customers.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, persons that currently purchase wholesale electric 
     energy from the Tennessee Valley Authority may sell wholesale 
     and retail electric energy to any persons subject to any 
     restrictions imposed pursuant to section 104(a) of this Act, 
     beginning on January 1, 2002.

     SEC. 603. TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS.

       (a) Notice.--Beginning on January 1, 2001, the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority shall allow any person that has executed a 
     contract to purchase retail or wholesale electric energy from 
     it to terminate such contract upon one year's notice.
       (b) Stranded Costs.--Each person holding a contract that is 
     terminated pursuant to subsection (a) shall be responsible 
     for retail or wholesale stranded costs as determined by the 
     Commission.

[[Page S11975]]

     SEC. 604. RATES FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY.

       (a) Establishment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     shall establish, and periodically review and revise, rates 
     for the sale and disposition of wholesale and retail electric 
     energy and for the transmission of electric energy by the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority. Such rates shall be established 
     and, as appropriate, revised to recover, in accordance with 
     sound business principles, the costs associated with the 
     generation, acquisition, conservation, transmission, and 
     distribution of electric energy, including the payment of 
     principal and interest on the Authority's bonds over a 
     reasonable period.
       (b) Commission Review.--Rates established under this 
     section shall become effective only upon confirmation and 
     approval by the Commission, upon a finding by the Commission 
     that such rates are sufficient to ensure repayment of the 
     Authority's bonds over a reasonable number of years after 
     first meeting the Authority's legitimate, prudent, and 
     verifiable costs.

     SEC. 605. PRIVATIZATION STUDY.

       (a) Requirement for Preparation of Study.--The Board of 
     Directors the Tennessee Valley Authority shall prepare a 
     study for selling its electric power program (excluding dams 
     and appurtenant works and structures) to private investors 
     and, not later than two years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, shall submit such plan to the Congress.
       (b) Contents of Study.--The study shall consider the 
     following--
       (1) both the sale of the authority's electric power program 
     as a whole and the sale of some or all of its component 
     parts;
       (2) alternative means of selling the Authority's electric 
     power program or its component parts, including a public 
     stock offering, a private placement of stock, or the sale of 
     assets; and
       (3) the effect of any sale on--
       (A) electric rates and competition in the regional 
     electricity market,
       (B) the operation of the Authority's nonpower programs, and
       (C) the repayment of the Authority's debt.
       (c) Additional Elements.--The study shall also include--
       (1) An estimate of the amount of revenue that the United 
     States Treasury would receive under each of the alternatives 
     considered;
       (2) the Board's analysis of the feasibility of each of the 
     alternatives considered and its recommendation either for 
     retaining the Authority's power program under federal 
     ownership or the preferred alternative for selling it to 
     private investors; and
       (3) the Board's recommendation of whether the Authority's 
     dams should--
       (A) be transferred to the Department of the Army Corps of 
     Engineers and responsibility for marketing electric energy 
     produced by such dams assigned to the Southeastern Power 
     Marketing Administration, or
       (B) continue to be controlled by, and the electric energy 
     they produce continue to be marketed by the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority.
       (d) Further Action.--The Board of Directors shall take no 
     action to implement the sale of the Authority's power program 
     without further legislation authorizing such action.
                                  ____


  Transition to Electric Competition Act of 1997--Section-by-Section 
                                Analysis


                     title i--electric competition

     Section 101--Mandatory Retail Access
       All consumers (including current customers of investor-
     owned municipal and rural cooperative electric utilities) 
     have the right to purchase retail electric energy beginning 
     on January 1, 2002.
       All retail electric energy suppliers (entities selling 
     retail electric energy) have access to local distribution 
     facilities and all ancillary services beginning on January 1, 
     2002.
     Section 102--Aggregation
       A group of consumers or any entity acting on behalf of such 
     group is authorized to aggregate to purchase retail electric 
     energy for the members of the group if they live in a State 
     where retail electric competition exists.
     Section 103--Prior Implementation
       Nothing in the Federal Power Act shall prohibit States from 
     requiring retail electric competition prior to January 1, 
     2002.
       A State requiring retail electric competition prior to 
     January 1, 2002 and providing utilities with the opportunity 
     to recover stranded costs is exempt from the Act's 
     requirements related to retail competition and stranded 
     costs.
       A State may impose reciprocity requirements if it has 
     provided for retail competition to prevent utilities that 
     aren't subject to retail competition from selling power to 
     retail customers in its state.
     Section 104--State Regulation
       States may impose requirements on retail electric energy 
     suppliers to protect the public interest.
       No class of potential retail electric energy suppliers can 
     be excluded from selling retail electric energy.
       States may continue to regulate local distribution and 
     retail transmission service provided by retail electric 
     energy providers.
     Section 105--Retail Stranded Cost Recovery
       An investor-owned utility providing retail electric service 
     prior to the date of enactment which is seeking recovery of 
     its stranded costs must request the State regulatory 
     authority to determine the amount of its stranded costs 
     associated with the implementation of retail electric 
     competition.
       If a State regulatory authority fails to determine the 
     amount of stranded costs within 18 months of the request, 
     FERC will determine the amount.
       A municipal electric utility or a rural electric 
     cooperative may determine the amount of its stranded costs.
       A utility is entitled to recover its stranded costs from 
     its customers pursuant to a nonbypassable Stranded Cost 
     Recovery Charge.
       A rural electric cooperative or municipal joint action 
     agency that sells wholesale power to rural electric 
     cooperative or municipal distribution companies may recover 
     its stranded costs from the distribution companies.
       No class of customers (such as a utility's residential 
     customers) can be required to pay a Stranded Cost Recovery 
     Charge in excess of its proportional responsibility for 
     utility costs prior to the implementation of retail electric 
     competition.
       Customers served by utility companies operating in more 
     than one state either directly or through an affiliate are 
     only responsible for stranded costs arising from retail 
     electric competition in the state they reside.
       For purposes of determining stranded cost amounts, prior 
     prudence determinations are binding.
     Section 106--Wholesale Stranded Cost Recovery
       FERC has sole jurisdiction to determine and provide for the 
     recovery of the wholesale stranded costs associated with 
     utilities subject to the Federal Power Act.
       All of the states regulating utility subsidiaries of a 
     multistate utility holding company may form a regional board 
     to calculate the stranded costs of a wholesale electric 
     supplier subsidiary of the holding company that does not sell 
     any retail electric energy and to allocate such costs among 
     the utility subsidiaries of the holding company.
       If the regional board is not formed or if the members of 
     the regional board fail to produce a consensus on either 
     determination required of the board, FERC shall perform the 
     board's responsibilities.
       Once the wholesale subsidiary's stranded costs have been 
     determined, the subsidiary is entitled to recover such costs 
     from its affiliated utility companies in the manner allocated 
     by the board or FERC and the utility companies are entitled 
     to recover such costs from its customers.
     Section 107--Lost Retail Benefits
       A state may require a retail electric energy provider to 
     compensate its customers for any increase in power costs 
     resulting from the implementation of retail electric 
     competition if the market value of the provider's generating 
     assets increase and the provider sells power elsewhere due to 
     the implementation of retail electric competition.
     Section 108--Universal Service
       A state may establish a Universal Service Program to ensure 
     that all consumers have access to electric service at a just 
     and reasonable rate.
       If a state has not established a Universal Service Program 
     prior to January 1, 2002, each retail electric energy 
     provider located in that state is obligated to sell power to 
     or purchase power on behalf of consumers that do not have 
     sufficient access to competing retail electric energy 
     suppliers.
       The retail electric energy provider is entitled to just and 
     reasonable compensation for the service performed.
       States may impose a nonbypassable Universal Service Charge 
     to help pay for the retail electric energy provider's 
     compensation.
     Section 109--Public Benefits
       States may impose charges on retail electric energy 
     consumers to fund public benefit programs (i.e. low-income 
     and energy efficiency).
     Section 110--Renewable Energy
       Beginning of 2003, all retail electric energy suppliers are 
     required to either (1) sell at least a minimum amount of 
     renewable energy as part of the total amount of energy it 
     sells or (2) purchase credits from retail electric energy 
     suppliers that sell renewable energy in excess of the minimum 
     requirements.
       \1/2\ of one Renewable Energy Credit will be provided to 
     retail electric energy suppliers selling power generated from 
     a large hydroelectric facility (more than 80 MW). One 
     Renewable Energy Credit will be provided to retail electric 
     energy suppliers selling power generated at all other 
     renewable electric facilities built prior to the date of 
     enactment. Two Renewable Energy Credits will be provided to 
     retail electric energy suppliers selling power generated at 
     all other renewable electric facilities built subsequent to 
     the date of enactment.
       Retail electric energy suppliers are required to have 
     Credits worth 5% of its generation beginning in 2003, 9% of 
     its generation beginning in 2008 and 12% of its generation 
     beginning in 2013.
       The Bonneville Power Administration must use proceeds from 
     the sale of Credits issued to it to repay the 
     Administration's outstanding debt to the U.S. Treasury and 
     the Washington Public Power supply System Bondholders.
     Section 111--Determination of Local Distribution Facilities
       A State regulatory authority may apply with FERC for a 
     determination of whether a

[[Page S11976]]

     particular facility constitutes a local distribution 
     facility.
       FERC will give the position of the State regulatory 
     authority maximum practicable deference.
     Section 112--Transmission
       Within two years of the date of enactment FERC must 
     establish transmission regions and designate an Independent 
     System Operator (ISO) to manage and operate all of the 
     transmission facilities in each region beginning on January 
     1, 2002.
       The ISO can't be affiliated with any person owning 
     transmission facilities in the region or any retail electric 
     energy supplier selling retail electric energy in the region.
       FERC is required to issue rules by January 1, 2001 
     applicable to its oversight of the ISO's to promote 
     transmission reliability and efficiency and competition among 
     retail and wholesale electric energy suppliers.
       The Federal Power Act prohibition on FERC requiring 
     transmission access for the purposes of retail wheeling is 
     repealed on January 1, 2002 or at an earlier date for a 
     particular retail wheeling request in a State that retail 
     electric competition prior to January 1, 2002.
     Section 113--Competitive Generation Markets
       FERC's authority over utility mergers pursuant to the 
     Federal Power Act is extended to electric utility mergers 
     with natural gas utility companies.
       FERC review of mergers must take into account the impact of 
     a merger on competitive wholesale and retail electric 
     generation markets.
       FERC has authority to take actions necessary to prohibit 
     retail electric energy suppliers and providers from using 
     their control of resources to inhibit retail and wholesale 
     electric competition.
     Sectioin 114--Nuclear Decommissioning Costs
       Utilities owning nuclear power plants prior to the date of 
     enactment are entitled to recover costs to fund 
     decommissioning of the plants from their customers pursuant 
     to a non-bypassable charge.
     Section 115--Right to Know
       Each retail electric energy supplier must publicly disclose 
     information on the types of fuel used to generate the 
     electricity sold by the supplier.
     Section 116--Exemption of Alaska and Hawaii
       Title I does not apply to any transaction occurring in 
     Alaska or Hawaii.


               title ii--public utility holding companies

     Section 201--Repeal of PUHCA
       PUHCA is repealed one year from the date of enactment of 
     the Act.
     Section 202--Exemption
       Title II does not apply to federal or state agencies or 
     foreign governmental authorities not operating in the U.S.
       FERC may exempt anyone from any of the requirements of the 
     Title if the Commission finds the particular regulation not 
     relevant to public utility company rates and the affected 
     States consent.
       The provisions of the Title don't apply to a particular 
     holding company when retail electric competition exists in 
     the service territory of each utility subsidiary of the 
     holding company.
     Section 203--Federal Access to Books and Records
       Each holding company and associate company of the holding 
     company must make its books and records available to FERC.
     Section 204--State Access to Books and Records
       Each holding company and associate company of the holding 
     company must make its books and records available to each 
     State regulatory authority regulating a utility subsidiary of 
     the holding company.
     Section 205--Affiliate Transactions
       FERC, with regard to wholesale rates and States, with 
     regard to retail rates, have the authority to determine 
     whether a public utility affiliate of a holding company may 
     recover its costs associated with a non-power transaction 
     with an affiliated company if such costs arose after the date 
     of enactment.
       State regulatory authorities have the authority to review 
     the prudence of a utility's wholesale power purchases form 
     nonaffiliated sellers.
       State regulatory authorities have the authority to review 
     the prudence of a utility's wholesale power purchase from an 
     affiliated seller in the same holding company system unless 
     FERC has allocated the costs of the purchase among two or 
     more utility subsidiaries of the holding company prior to the 
     date of enactment and there is no subsequent reallocation.
     Section 206--Clarification of Regulatory Authority
       FERC, with regard to wholesale rates, and State regulatory 
     authorities, with regard to retail rates, must explicitly 
     consent, before a utility affiliate of a utility holding 
     company can recover costs in rates that are not directly 
     related to the provision of electric service to its 
     customers.
     Section 207--Effect on Other Regulation
       State regulatory authorities can exercise their 
     jurisdiction under otherwise applicable law to protect 
     utility consumers.
     Section 208--Enforcement
       FERC has the same enforcement authority under this Title as 
     it does under the Federal Power Act.
     Section 209--Savings Provision
       A person engaging in an activity it was legally entitled to 
     engage in on the date of enactment may continue to be 
     entitled to engage in the activity.
     Section 210--Implementation
       FERC must promulgate regulations to implement the Title 
     within 6 months of the date of enactment.
     Section 211--Resources
       The SEC must transfer its books and records related to 
     holding company regulation to the FERC.


           Title iii--public utility regulatory policies act

     Section 301--Definition
     Section 302--Facilities
       Section 210 of PURPA doesn't apply to facilities beginning 
     commercial operation after the effective date of this Title 
     unless the power purchase contract related to the facility 
     was in effect on the effective date.
     Section 303--Contracts
       Public utilities are no longer required to enter into new 
     purchase contracts under Section 210 of PURPA once there is 
     retail electric competition in their service territories.
     Section 304--Savings Clause
       This Title does not affect existing power purchase 
     contracts under PURPA.
     Section 305--Effective Date
       The effective date of this Title is January 1, 2002.


                   title iv--environmental protection

     Section 401--Study
       EPA must submit a study to Congress by January 1, 2002, 
     which examines the implications of wholesale and retail 
     electric competition on the emission of pollutants and 
     recommends changes to law, if any are necessary to protect 
     public health and the environment.


                title v--bonneville power administration

     Section 501--Findings and Purposes
     Section 502--Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Coordination 
         and Governance
       This section is reserved for future versions of the bill.
     Section 503--Pacific Northwest Federal Transmission Access
       BPA is subject to FERC's open access transmission 
     requirements unless FERC determines it is not in the public 
     interest or it would prevent BPA from paying its debt.
     Section 504--Transition Cost Mechanism
       FERC is required to develop a transition cost recovery 
     mechanism for BPA if BPA makes a proposal.
     Section 505--Independent System Operator Participation
       BPA is not prohibited from participating in an Independent 
     System Operator.
     Section 506--Financial Obligations
       The use of BPA's transmission facilities for competitive 
     generation transmission shall not adversely affect BPA's 
     ability to pay its debt.
     Section 507--Prohibition on Retail Sales
       BPA is prohibited from selling retail electric energy to 
     customers that did not have a contract with BPA as of October 
     1, 1997.
     Section 508--Clarification of Commission Authority
       Pacific Northwest transmission rates can't be used to 
     unreasonably deny transmission access.
     Section 509--Repealed Statute
       Section 6 of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System 
     is repealed.


                  Title VI--Tennessee Valley Authority

     Section 601--Competition in Service Territory
       Beginning on January 1, 2002, TVA's retail and wholesale 
     customers are permitted to purchase power from other sellers.
     Section 602--Ability to Sell Electric Energy
       Beginning on January 1, 2002, TVA may sell wholesale 
     electric energy outside of its current service territory.
     Section 603--Termination of Contracts
       Any person that currently holds a wholesale or retail 
     contract with TVA may cancel the contract with one year 
     notice beginning on January 1, 2001.
     Section 604--Rates for Electric Energy
       TVA's Board of Directors will establish the rates for the 
     sale and transmission of electric energy by TVA.
       The rates must be sufficient to recover TVA's costs, 
     including the payment of principal and interest on its bonds 
     over a reasonable period.
       FERC must review and approve the Board's rates if they are 
     sufficient to ensure the repayment of TVA's legitimate, 
     prudent and verifiable costs over a reasonable period of time 
     and ensure the recovery of TVA's stranded retail and 
     wholesale costs.
     Section 605--Privatization Plan
       TVA's Board of Directors must prepare a plan within two 
     years of the date of enactment for selling its electric power 
     program to private investors.
       No action on the sale of TVA may occur without subsequent 
     congressional actions.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas has eloquently 
and adequately described the bill which we are introducing jointly 
today. He is a leader in this field, and introduced the bill on this 
subject early this year. He and I, and the occupant of the Chair, have 
had the opportunity to go

[[Page S11977]]

through seven workshops on electric power marketing restructuring. 
During the course of this time, the Senator from Arkansas and I found 
that we thought very similarly in this field, and we are here together 
on the floor today to introduce a bill that modifies somewhat, but not 
in its general philosophy, the proposal that he introduced almost a 
year ago.
  The goal that we set in this bill is to provide for competition for 
choice, and ultimately for lower prices for electric power consumers 
from the largest industry to the individual homeowner all across the 50 
States of the United States. We set a deadline for that competition to 
exist on the 1st of January of the year 2002. We encourage States, 
several of which have already acted, to provide for their own free and 
open competition by allowing States that have met the general 
requirements of this bill before 2002 to do it in their own way--in the 
way in which their legislatures have decided or may have decided.
  We cover, as the Senator from Arkansas pointed out, the legitimate 
stranded costs of utilities that have been required to build 
facilities, some of which may not be completely competitive in an 
entirely free and open market. We set up a system of independent system 
operators so that the entire transmission system of the United States 
will be free and open on equal terms to all potential competitors.
  We encourage the increased use of renewable energy sources by 
requiring certain minimums increasing in three steps throughout the 
course of the next 15 years or so but providing credit for those who 
already have renewable resources--hydropower, solar power, and the 
other forms of renewable resources which exist at the present time and 
may exist in the future, and allow the sale of credit from those who 
already meet or exceed the renewable requirements of the bill--credits 
that they can sell to others.
  Senator Bumpers has been a true leader in this field, and I am 
honored and delighted to now join with him in what I believe is the 
first bipartisan approach to this subject, a bipartisan approach which 
is going to be absolutely essential to any success.
  At the same time that he has been working with his constituents 
across the country, I have been listening to my own, and my privately 
owned and public utility districts, those that produce electricity and 
those that do not, and the wide range of other existing utilities or 
potential competitors in the Northwest.
  I represent a State that already has very low power charges. We want 
to be a part of this process, not so that we can slow down the benefits 
to others--the entire American economy must and will benefit from this 
bill--but so that my constituents and consumers will benefit as well 
from the advent of competition. I am convinced that the outline of this 
bill does just exactly that.
  We must deal with the peculiar challenges of the largest power 
marketing authority, the Bonneville Power Administration. We do so in a 
way that reflects the regional review sponsored by the four Governors 
of the four Pacific Northwest States during the course of last year. We 
also call in general terms for a more effective and broad-based 
management of the Columbia River State System, reflecting all of the 
multitude of uses of water in that system, and calling for a far more 
effective use of the billions of dollars that we are spending on salmon 
recovery.
  So I believe for my own region that we can provide lower power costs, 
greater competition, better salmon recovery, and a more rational 
management of the Columbia-Snake River System.
  I believe for the people of the United States as a whole that we can 
provide for lower power costs, a greater use of renewable energy, more 
competition, and a better America.
  For those reasons, I am delighted to have been a part at this point 
of a joint operation with my friend from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Washington State for his eloquent remarks. I just wanted to say how 
honored I am to have him join me on this bill, and reiterate one other 
thing because Senator Gorton and I want to be totally honest to the 
people of this country as we go forward with this bill.
  I think one thing that I must say is that, in my opinion, this $220 
billion industry can cope with this bill--not only cope with it, but 
that industry, business, and the consumers of this country will all 
benefit from this, and the Nation will benefit because it is a global 
economy where we are competing so strenuously with the other nations of 
the world.
  Electricity is such a big part of our producing industry, and the 
less they pay the more competitive we become. That ought to be a real 
incentive for the people of this body to look very seriously at this 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1402. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to establish a 
community health aide program for Alaskan communities that do not 
qualify for the Community Health Aide Program for Alaska operated 
through the Indian Health Service; to the Committee on Finance.


    the alaskan community health aide program expansion act of 1997

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise to introduce 
legislation relative to the benefits of community health aides. This 
particular legislation would be titled the Alaskan Community Health 
Aide Program Expansion Act of 1997. The purpose of the act would be to 
provide a link to health care for rural communities, primarily in my 
State.
  The Alaskan Community Health Aide Program Expansion Act would enable 
the health aides to have access to rural, non-Native communities 
throughout Alaska. The act will authorize training and continuing 
education of Alaskans as community health aides to small communities 
that do not currently qualify for the Indian Health Services' Community 
Health Aide Program.
  Mr. President, some 50 years ago, this unique system of community 
health aides was formed in my State. In the early 1940's, due to an 
extreme outbreak of tuberculosis across Alaska, volunteers were 
selected by local communities and trained as community health aides. 
These communities, of course, suffered from distance, extreme 
isolation. They were often located hundreds of miles from the nearest 
physician. And the community health aides, through radio contact to a 
distant hospital in the region, became the eyes, the ears and hands of 
a physician and administered life-saving medications to remote patients 
throughout the State.
  Today, through the Indian Health Services, the aides reside in 176 
Alaskan-Native communities, small isolated communities throughout our 
State--which if you spread Alaska across the United States, in a 
proportional map it would run from Canada to Mexico, from California to 
Florida. So we are talking about a big piece of real estate, Mr. 
President.
  These aides, today, through telecommunications capability with 
physicians in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other urban areas, provide 
health care, provide disease prevention throughout our State. The 
health aides are broadly acknowledged as the backbone of rural health 
delivery for Alaska's Native people.
  However, Mr. President, there is a large void in Alaska's Community 
Health Aide Program. Approximately 50 of our local Alaskan communities 
do not have community health aides because the people who live there 
are non-Native, and thus they do not qualify for the service under 
current law.
  In these 50, 51 communities, there is no physician, there is no other 
health care provider of any kind. Instead, these communities are served 
by public health care nurses who come and go on an itinerant basis. In 
other words, Mr. President, health care access in these communities is 
infrequent at best.
  Often these non-Native communities are characterized by geographic 
isolation and cultural isolation, especially in areas such as the 
Russian communities of Nikolaevsk, Vosnesenda, Katchmaksel, and 
Rassdonla.
  Most of these communities are completely unconnected by roads. Access 
is only available by airplane, boat, and sometimes snowmachine or 
dogsled. The needs of these communities is a daunting task.

[[Page S11978]]

  The Community Health Aide Program Expansion Act would remedy this 
dilemma. For the first time in the history of our State, all 
communities and villages will have the opportunity to have health care 
available within a village. This legislation will enable the trained 
health aide to live within a community, teach basic disease prevention 
and health promotion, in other words, the basic skills for good health.
  Mr. President, this legislation will enable affordable and consistent 
access to health care to all Alaskan communities.
  I ask my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 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. 1402

       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 ``Alaskan Community Health 
     Aide Program Expansion Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Numerous communities in Alaska have no physicians or 
     health care providers of any kind.
       (2) While those communities are served by Alaskan public 
     health nurses on an itinerant basis, Alaskan law prohibits 
     those nurses from treating patients for individual health 
     concerns.
       (3) Physical and cultural isolation is so severe in those 
     communities that private health care providers often opt not 
     to serve those communities.
       (4) Not enough Native Alaskans reside in such communities 
     to warrant placement of a community health aide pursuant to 
     the Community Health Aide Program for Alaska operated through 
     the Indian Health Service.

     SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF THE COMMUNITY HEALTH AIDE PROGRAM FOR 
                   ALASKA.

       Part A of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1301-1320b-16), as amended by section 4321(c) of the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1320b-16), is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:


                ``alaskan community health aide program

       ``Sec. 1147. Not later than October 1, 1998, the Secretary 
     shall establish an Alaskan Community Health Aide Program (in 
     this section referred to as the `Program') under which the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(1) provide for the training of Alaskans as community 
     health aides or community health practitioners;
       ``(2) use such aides or practitioners in the provision of 
     health care, health promotion, and disease prevention 
     services to Alaskans living in communities that do not 
     qualify for the Community Health Aide Program for Alaska 
     operated through the Indian Health Service and established 
     under section 119 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 1616l);
       ``(3) provide for the establishment of teleconferencing 
     capacity in health clinics located in or near such 
     communities for use by community health aides or community 
     health practitioners;
       ``(4) using trainers accredited under the Program, provide 
     a high standard of training to community health aides and 
     community health practitioners to ensure that such aides and 
     practitioners provide quality health care, health promotion, 
     and disease prevention services to the Alaskan communities 
     served by the Program;
       ``(5) develop a curriculum for the training of such aides 
     and practitioners that--
       ``(A) combines education in the theory of health care with 
     supervised practical experience in the provision of health 
     care; and
       ``(B) provides instruction and practical experience in the 
     provision of acute care, emergency care, health promotion, 
     disease prevention, and the efficient and effective 
     management of clinic pharmacies, supplies, equipment, and 
     facilities;
       ``(6) establish and maintain a Community Health Aide 
     Certification Board to certify as community health aides or 
     community health practitioners individuals who have 
     successfully completed the training described in paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), or can demonstrate equivalent experience;
       ``(7) develop and maintain a system which identifies the 
     needs of community health aides and community health 
     practitioners for continuing education in the provision of 
     health care, including the areas described in paragraph 
     (5)(B), and develop programs that meet the needs for such 
     continuing education;
       ``(8) develop and maintain a system that provides close 
     supervision of community health aides and community health 
     practitioners; and
       ``(9) develop a system under which the work of community 
     health aides and community health practitioners is reviewed 
     and evaluated to ensure the provision of quality health care, 
     health promotion, and disease prevention services in 
     accordance with this section.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1403. A bill to amend the National Historic Preservation Act for 
purposes of establishing a national historic lighthouse preservation 
program; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


       the national historic lighthouse preservation act of 1997

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to establish the historic lighthouse preservation bill. This 
legislation would amend the National Historic Preservation Act to 
establish a historic lighthouse preservation program within the 
Department of the Interior.
  The legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Administrator of General Services to establish a process for conveying 
historic lighthouses which are around our coastal areas and Great Lakes 
when these lighthouses have been deemed to be in excess of Federal 
needs of the agency owning and operating the lighthouse.
  For entities eligible to receive a historic lighthouse, it would be 
for the uses of educational, park, recreation, cultural, and historic 
preservation. And the agencies that would be included would be Federal 
or State agencies, local governments, nonprofit corporations, 
educational agencies, and community development organizations, and so 
forth.
  There is no question that the historic lighthouses would be conveyed 
in a nonfee structure to selected entities which would have the 
obligation to maintain these historic structures and maintain their 
integrity.
  The historic lighthouses would revert back to the United States if a 
property ceases to be used for education, park, recreation, cultural or 
historic preservation purposes, or failed to be maintained in 
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
  Mr. President, as I said, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will establish a national historic light station program.
  Lighthouses are among the most romantic reminders of our country's 
maritime heritage. Marking dangerous headlands, shoals, bars, and 
reefs, these structures played a vital role in indicating navigable 
waters and supporting this Nation's maritime transportation and 
commerce. These lighthouses served the needs of the early mariners who 
navigated by visual sightings on landmarks, coastal lights, and the 
heavens. Hundreds of lighthouses have been built along our sea coasts 
and on the Great Lakes, creating the world's most complex aids to 
navigation system. No other national lighthouse system compares with 
that of the United States in size and diversity of architectural and 
engineering types.
  My legislation pays tribute to this legacy and establishes a process 
which will ensure the protection and maintenance of these historic 
lighthouses so that future generations of Americans will be able to 
appreciate these treasured landmarks.
  The legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Department of the 
Interior, through the National Park Service, to establish a historic 
lighthouse preservation program. The Secretary is charged with 
collecting and sharing information on historic lighthouses; conducting 
educational programs to inform the public about the contribution to 
society of historic lighthouses; and maintaining an inventory of 
historic lighthouses.
  A historic light station is defined as a lighthouse, and surrounding 
property, at least 50 years old, which has been evaluated for inclusion 
on the National Register of Historic Places, and included in the 
Secretary's listing of historic light stations.
  Most important, the Secretary, in conjunction with the Administrator 
of General Services, is to establish a process for identifying, and 
selecting among eligible entities to which a historic lighthouse could 
be conveyed. Eligible entities will include Federal agencies, State 
agencies, local communities, nonprofit corporations, and educational 
and community development organizations financially able to maintain a 
historic lighthouse, including conformance with the National Historic 
Preservation Act. When a historic lighthouse has been deemed excess to 
the needs of the Federal agency which manages the lighthouse, the 
General Services Administration will convey it, for free, to a selected 
entity for education, park, recreation, cultural, and historic 
preservation purposes.

[[Page S11979]]

  My legislation also recognizes the value of lighthouse friends 
groups. Often, these groups have spent significant time and resources 
on preserving the character of historic lighthouses only to have this 
work go to waste when the lighthouse is transferred out of Federal 
ownership. Under current General Services Administration regulations, 
these friends groups are last on the priority list to receive a surplus 
light station in spite of their efforts to protect it. My bill gives 
priority consideration to public entities who submit applications in 
which the public entity partners with a nonprofit friends group.
  Everyone agrees that the historic character of these lighthouses 
needs to be maintained. But the cost of maintaining these historic 
structures is becoming increasingly high for Federal agencies in these 
times of tight budgetary constraints. These lighthouses were built in 
an age when they had to be manned continuously. Today's advanced 
technology makes it possible to build automated aids to navigation that 
do not require around-the-clock manning. This technology has made many 
of these historic lighthouses expensive anachronisms which Federal 
agencies must maintain even if they no longer use them as navigational 
aids.
  My legislation ensures that the historic character of these 
lighthouses are maintained when the lighthouses are no longer needed by 
the Federal Government. When the historic lighthouse is conveyed out of 
Federal ownership, the entity which receives the lighthouse must 
maintain it in accordance with historic preservation laws and 
standards. A lighthouse would revert to the United States, at the 
option of the General Services Administration, if the lighthouse is not 
being used or maintained as required by the law.
  In the event no government agency or nonprofit organization is 
approved to receive a historic lighthouse, it would be offered for sale 
by the General Services Administration. The proceeds from these sales 
would be transferred to the National Maritime Heritage Grant Program 
within the National Park Service. Congress established the National 
Maritime Heritage Grant Program in 1994 to provide grants for maritime 
heritage preservation and education projects. Unfortunately, funding 
for this program has been nonexistent so the proceeds from any historic 
lighthouse sales would help ensure the program's viability.
  It is my intent to ensure that coastal towns, where a historic 
lighthouse is an integral part of the community, would receive a 
historic lighthouse when it is no longer needed by the Federal 
Government. These historic lighthouses could be used by the community 
as a local park, a community center, or a tourist bureau. It also would 
ensure that historic lighthouse friends groups or lighthouse 
preservation societies, which have voluntarily helped to maintain the 
historic character of the lighthouse, could receive an excess 
lighthouse.
  Mr. President, I know firsthand the importance and allure of these 
historic lighthouses. When I was in the Coast Guard, I helped maintain 
lighthouses and other navigational aids. These lights were critical to 
safe maritime traffic and I took my responsibilities seriously knowing 
that lives were dependent on it.
  By preserving historic lighthouses, we preserve a symbol of that era 
in American history when maritime traffic was the lifeblood of the 
Nation, tying isolated coastal towns through trade to distant ports 
around the world. Hundreds of historic lighthouses are owned by the 
Federal Government and many of these are difficult and expensive to 
maintain. This legislation provides a process to ensure that these 
historic lighthouses are maintained and publicly accessible.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1403

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the `National Historic Lighthouse 
     Preservation Act of 1997.'

     SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC LIGHT STATIONS.

       Title III of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470w-470w-6) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 308. Historic Lighthouse Preservation

       ``(a) In General.--In order to provide a national historic 
     light station program, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) collect and disseminate information concerning 
     historic light stations, including historic lighthouses and 
     associated structures;
       ``(2) foster educational programs relating to the history, 
     practice, and contribution to society of historic light 
     stations;
       ``(3) sponsor or conduct research and study into the 
     history of light stations;
       ``(4) maintain a listing of historic light stations; and
       ``(5) assess the effectiveness regarding the conveyance of 
     historic light stations.
       ``(b) Conveyance of Historic Light Stations.--
       ``(1) Within one year of enactment, the Secretary and the 
     Administrator of General Services (hereinafter Administrator) 
     shall establish a process for identifying, and selecting, an 
     eligible entity to which a historic light station could be 
     conveyed for education, park, recreation, cultural and 
     historic preservation purposes.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall review all applicants for the 
     conveyance of a historic light station, when the historic 
     light station has been identified as excess to the needs of 
     the agency with administrative jurisdiction over the historic 
     light station, and forward to the Administrator a single 
     approved application for the conveyance of the historic light 
     station. When selecting an eligible entity, the Secretary may 
     consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer of the 
     state in which the historic light station is located. A 
     priority of consideration shall be afforded public entities 
     that submit applications in which the public entity enters 
     into a partnership with a nonprofit organization whose 
     primary mission is historic light station preservation.
       ``(3) The Administrator shall convey, by quit claim deed, 
     without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the historic light station, together 
     with any related real property, subject to the conditions set 
     forth in subsection (c) upon the Secretary's selection of an 
     eligible entity. The conveyance of a historic light station 
     under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of 
     42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.
       ``(c) Terms of Conveyance.--
       ``(1) The conveyance of a historic light station shall be 
     made subject to any conditions as the Administrator considers 
     necessary to ensure that--
       ``(A) the lights, antennas, sound signal, electronic 
     navigation equipment, and associated light station equipment 
     located on the property conveyed, which are active aids to 
     navigation, shall continue to be operated and maintained by 
     the United States for as long as needed for this purpose;
       ``(B) the eligible entity to which the historic light 
     station is conveyed under this section shall not interfere or 
     allow interference in any manner with aids to navigation 
     without the express written permission of the head of the 
     agency responsible for maintaining the aids to navigation;
       ``(C) there is reserved to the United States the right to 
     relocate, replace, or add any aid to navigation or make any 
     changes to the property conveyed under this section as may be 
     necessary for navigation purposes;
       ``(D) the eligible entity to which the historic light 
     station is conveyed under this section shall maintain the 
     property in accordance with the National Historic 
     Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x, the Secretary's 
     Historic Preservation Standards, and other applicable laws; 
     and
       ``(E) the United States shall have the right, at any time, 
     to enter property conveyed under this section without notice 
     for purposes of maintaining and inspecting aids to navigation 
     and ensuring compliance with paragraph (C), to the extent 
     that it is not possible to provide advance notice.
       ``(2) The Secretary, the Administrator, and any eligible 
     entity to which a historic light station is conveyed under 
     this section, shall not be required to maintain any active 
     aids to navigation associated with a historic light station.
       ``(3) In addition to any term or condition established 
     pursuant to this subsection, the conveyance of a historic 
     light station shall include a condition that the property 
     in its existing condition, at the option of the 
     Administrator, revert to the United States if--
       ``(A) the property or any part of the property ceases to be 
     available for education, park, recreation, cultural, and 
     historic preservation purposes for the general public at 
     reasonable times and under reasonable conditions which shall 
     be set forth in the eligible entity's application;
       ``(B) the property or any part of the property ceases to be 
     maintained in a manner that ensures its present or future use 
     as an aid to navigation or compliance with the National 
     Historic Preservation Act. 16 U.S.C. 470-470x, the 
     Secretary's Historic Preservation Standards, and other 
     applicable laws; or
       ``(C) at least 30 days before the reversion, the 
     Administrator provides written notice to the owner that the 
     property is needed for national security purposes.
       ``(d) Description of Property.--The legal description of 
     any historic light station, and any real property and 
     improvements associated therewith, conveyed under this 
     section

[[Page S11980]]

     shall be determined by the Administrator. The Administrator 
     may retain all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to any historical artifact, including any lens 
     or lantern, that is associated with the historical light 
     station whether located at the light station or elsewhere.
       ``(e) Responsibilities of Conveyees.--Each eligible entity 
     to which a historic light station is conveyed under this 
     section shall use and maintain the light station in 
     accordance with this section, and have such terms and 
     conditions recorded with the deed of title to the light 
     station and any real property conveyed therewith.
       ``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Historic Light Station.--The term `historic light 
     station' includes the light tower, lighthouse, keepers 
     dwelling, garages, storage sheds, support structures, piers, 
     walkways, and underlying land; provided that the light tower 
     or lighthouse shall be--
       ``(A) at least 50 years old;
       ``(B) evaluated for inclusion in the National Register of 
     Historic Places; and
       ``(C) included on the Secretary's listing of historic light 
     stations.
       ``(2) Eligible Entity.--The term `eligible entity' shall 
     mean any department or agency of the Federal government, any 
     department or agency of the state in which the historic light 
     station is located, the local government of the community in 
     which the historic light station is located, nonprofit 
     corporation, educational agency, or community development 
     organization that--
       ``(A) has agreed to comply with the conditions set forth in 
     subsection (c) and to have those conditions recorded in the 
     conveyance documents to the light station and any real 
     property and improvements that may be conveyed therewith;
       ``(B) is financially able to maintain the light station 
     (and any real property and improvements conveyed therewith) 
     in accordance with the conditions set forth in subsection 
     (c); and
       ``(C) can indemnity the Federal government to cover any 
     loss in connection with the light station and any real 
     property and improvements that may be conveyed therewith, or 
     any expenses incurred due to reversion.

     SEC. 3. SALE OF SURPLUS LIGHT STATIONS.

       Title III of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470w-470w-6) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 309. Historic Light Station Sales

       ``In the event no applicants are approved for the 
     conveyance of a historic light station pursuant to section 
     308, the historic light station shall be offered for sale. 
     Terms of such sales shall be developed by the Administrator 
     of General Services. Conveyance documents shall include all 
     necessary convenants to protect the historical integrity of 
     the site. Net sale proceeds shall be transferred to the 
     National Maritime Heritage Grant Program, established by the 
     National Maritime Heritage Act of 1994, Public Law 103-451, 
     within the Department of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. TRANSFER OF HISTORIC LIGHT STATIONS TO FEDERAL 
                   AGENCIES.

       Title III of the National Historic Preservation Act of 
     1966, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:
       ``Sec. 310. Transfer of Historic Light Stations to Federal 
     Agencies
       ``After the date of enactment, any department or agency of 
     the Federal government, to which a historic light station is 
     conveyed, shall maintain the historic light station in 
     accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 
     1966, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x, the Secretary's Historic 
     Preservation Standards, and other applicable laws.

     SEC. 5. FUNDING.

       There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of the Interior such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Thompson, and 
        Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 1404. A bill to establish a Federal Commission on Statistical 
Policy to study the reorganization of the Federal statistical system, 
to provide uniform safeguards for the confidentiality of information 
acquired for exclusively statistical purposes, and to improve the 
efficiency of Federal statistical programs and the quality of Federal 
statistics by permitting limited sharing of records among designated 
agencies for statistical purposes under strong safeguards; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


               the federal statistical system act of 1997

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleagues, 
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, 
and Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, in introducing legislation to 
establish a commission to study the Federal statistical system. 
Congressman Stephen Horn of California and Congresswoman Carolyn 
Maloney of New York plan on introducing identical legislation in the 
House of Representatives. This legislation is similar to bills I 
introduced in September 1996, and again at the beginning of this 
Congress.
  The commission to study the Federal statistical system would consist 
of 15 Presidential and congressional appointees with expertise in 
fields such as actuarial science, finance, and economics. Its members 
would conduct a thorough review of the U.S. statistical system, and 
issue a report including recommendations on whether statistical 
agencies should be consolidated.
  Of course, we have an example of a consolidated statistical agency 
just across the northern border. Statistics Canada, the most 
centralized statistical agency among OECD countries, was established in 
November, 1918 as a reaction to a familiar problem. At that time, the 
Canadian Minister of Industry was trying to obtain an estimate of the 
manpower resources that Canada could commit to the war effort. And he 
got widely different estimates from statistical agencies scattered 
throughout the government. Consolidation seemed the way to solve this 
problem, and so it happened--as it can in a parliamentary government--
rather quickly, just as World War I ended.
  Last spring, a member of my staff met in Ottawa with the Assistant 
Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada. He reported that Statistics 
Canada is doing quite well. Decisions about the allocation of resources 
among statistical functions are made at the highest levels of 
government because the Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada holds a 
position equivalent to Deputy Cabinet Minister. He communicates 
directly with Deputy Ministers in other Cabinet Departments. In 
contrast, in the United States, statistical agencies are buried several 
levels below the Cabinet Secretaries, so it is difficult for the heads 
of these statistical agencies to bring issues to the attention of high-
ranking administration officials and Congress.
  Statistics are part of our constitutional arrangement, which provides 
for a decennial census that, among other purposes, is the basis for 
apportionment of membership in the House of Representatives. I quote 
from article I, section I:

       . . . enumeration shall be made within three Years after 
     the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and 
     within ever subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as 
     they shall by Law direct.

  But, while the Constitution directed that there be a census, there 
was, initially, no Census Bureau. The earliest censuses were conducted 
by U.S. Marshals. Later on, statistical bureaus in State governments 
collected the data, with a Superintendent of the Census overseeing from 
Washington. It was not until 1902 that a permanent Bureau of the Census 
was created by the Congress, housed initially in the Interior 
Department. In 1903 the Bureau was transferred to the newly established 
Department of Commerce and Labor.
  The Statistics of Income Division of the Internal Revenue Service, 
which was originally an independent body, began collecting data in 
1866. It too was transferred to the new Department of Commerce and 
Labor in 1903, but then was put in the Treasury Department in 1913 
following ratification of the 16th amendment, which gave Congress the 
power to impose an income tax.
  A Bureau of Labor, created in 1884, was also initially in the 
Interior Department. The first Commissioner, appointed in 1885, was 
Col. Carroll D. Wright, a distinguished Civil War veteran of the New 
Hampshire Volunteers. A self-trained social scientist, Colonel Wright 
pioneered techniques for collecting and analyzing survey data on 
income, prices, and wages. He had previously served as chief of the 
Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics, a post he held for 15 years, and in 
that capacity had supervised the 1880 Federal Census in Massachusetts.
  In 1888, the Bureau of Labor became an independent agency. In 1903, 
it was once again made a bureau, joining other statistical agencies in 
the Department of Commerce and Labor. When a new Department of Labor 
was formed in 1913, giving labor an independent voice--as labor was 
removed from the Department of Commerce and Labor--what we now know as 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics was transferred the newly created 
Department of Labor.
  And so it went. Statistical agencies sprung up as needed. And they 
moved back and forth as new executive departments were formed. Today, 
some 89

[[Page S11981]]

different organizations in the Federal Government comprise parts of our 
national statistical infrastructure. Eleven of these organizations have 
as their primary function the generation of data. These 11 
organizations are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Date
               Agency                      Department        established
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Agricultural Statistical    Agriculture...........       1863
 Service.
Statistics of Income Division, IRS.  Treasury..............       1866
Economic Research Service..........  Agriculture...........       1867
National Center for Education        Education.............       1867
 Statistics.
Bureau of Labor Statistics.........  Labor.................       1884
Bureau of the Census...............  Commerce..............       1902
Bureau of Economic Analysis........  Commerce..............       1912
National Center for Health           Health and Human             1912
 Statistics.                          Services.
Bureau of Justice Statistics.......  Justice...............       1968
Energy Information Administration..  Energy................       1974
Bureau of Transportation Statistics  Transportation........       1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          need for legislation

  President Kennedy once said:

       Democracy is a difficult kind of government. It requires 
     the highest qualities of self-discipline, restraint, a 
     willingness to make commitments and sacrifices for the 
     general interest, and also it requires knowledge.

That knowledge often comes from accurate statistics. You cannot begin 
to solve a problem until you can measure it.
  This legislation would require the Commission to conduct a 
comprehensive examination of the current statistical system and focus 
particularly on whether three agencies that produce data as their 
primary product--the Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] and the Bureau 
of the Census in the Commerce Department, and the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics [BLS] in the Labor Department--should be consolidated into a 
Federal statistical service.
  In September 1996, prior to when I first introduced a bill 
establishing a commission to study the U.S. statistical system, I 
received a letter from nine former chairmen of the Council of Economic 
Advisers [CEA] endorsing this legislation. Excluding two recent chairs, 
who at that time were still serving in the Clinton administration, the 
signatories include virtually every living former chair of the CEA. 
While acknowledging that the United States possesses a first-class 
statistical system, these former chairmen remind us that problems 
periodically arise under the current system of widely scattered 
responsibilities. They conclude as follows:

       Without at all prejudging the appropriate measures to deal 
     with these difficult problems, we believe that a 
     thoroughgoing review by a highly qualified and bipartisan 
     Commission as provided in your bill has great promise of 
     showing the way to major improvements.

  The letter is signed by Michael J. Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Alan 
Greenspan, Paul W. McCracken, Raymond J. Saulnier, Charles L. Schultze, 
Beryl W. Sprinkel, Herbert Stein, and Murray Weidenbaum. I ask 
unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the 
Record following my statement.
  It happens that this Senator's association with the statistical 
system in the executive branch began over three decades ago. I was 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy and Planning in the 
administration of President John F. Kennedy. This was a new position in 
which I was nominally responsible for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I 
say nominally out of respect for the independence of that venerable 
institution, which as I noted earlier long predated the Department of 
Labor itself. The then-Commissioner of the BLS, Ewan Clague, could not 
have been more friendly and supportive. And so were the statisticians, 
who undertook to teach me to the extent I was teachable. They even 
shared professional confidences. And so it was that I came to have some 
familiarity with the field.

  For example, we had just received a report on price indexes from a 
committee led by a Nobel laureate, George Stigler. The committee 
stressed the importance of accurate and timely statistics noting that:

       The periodic revision of price indexes, and the almost 
     continuous alterations in details of their calculation, are 
     essential if the indexes are to serve their primary function 
     of measuring the average movements of prices.

  While the final report of the Advisory Commission to Study the 
Consumer Index, the Boskin Commission, focused primarily on the extent 
to which changes in the CPI overstate inflation, the commission also 
addressed issues related to the effectiveness of Federal statistical 
programs and recommended that:

       Congress should enact the legislation necessary for the 
     Department of Commerce and Labor to share information in the 
     interest of improving accuracy and timeliness of economic 
     statistics and to reduce the resources consumed in their 
     development and production.

  And last week, we were again reminded of the importance of accurate 
and timely government statistics. The front page of the Wall Street 
Journal carried this headline on Tuesday October 29: ``An Extra $46 
Billion in Treasury's Coffers Puzzles Washington''.
  No one knows for sure the answer to this puzzle. Surely though, a 
changing economy which produces more and more services--which are 
harder to measure the value of than the goods it replaces--needs a top 
to bottom review of its statistical infrastructure. For if the public 
loses confidence in our statistics, they are likely to lose confidence 
in our policies as well.
  There is, of course, a long history of attempts to reform our 
Nation's statistical infrastructure. From the period 1903 to 1990, 16 
different committees, commissions, and study groups have convened to 
assess our statistical infrastructure, but in most cases little or no 
action has been taken on their recommendations. The result of this 
inaction has been an ever expanding statistical system. It continues to 
grow in order to meet new data needs, but with little or no regard for 
the overall objectives of the system. Janet L. Norwood, former 
Commissioner of the BLS, writes in her book ``Organizing to Count'':

       The U.S. system has neither the advantages that come from 
     centralization nor the efficiency that comes from strong 
     coordination in decentralization. As presently organized, 
     therefore, the country's statistical system will be hard 
     pressed to meet the demands of a technologically advanced, 
     increasingly internationalized world in which the demand for 
     objective data of high quality is steadily rising.

  In this era of Government downsizing and budget cutting, it is 
unlikely that Congress will appropriate more funds for statistical 
agencies. It is clear that to preserve and improve the statistical 
system we must consider reforming it, yet we must not attempt to reform 
the system until we have heard from experts in the field.


                         summary of legislation

  The legislation establishes a commission to study the Federal 
statistical system. The commission would consist of 15 members. Two--
the Chief Statistician of the Office of Management and Budget and a 
high-level government official--serve ex officio on the commission. The 
high-level official, selected by the President from among Cabinet 
officers, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve, the Comptroller General, or the Chairman of the Council of 
Economic Advisers--will serve as chairman.
  The other 13 members of the commission will be appointed as follows: 
Five by the President, no more than three of whom are to be from the 
same political party, four by the President pro tempore of the Senate, 
no more than two of whom are to be from the same political party, and 
four by the Speaker of the House, no more than two of whom are to be 
from the same political party.
  In an initial 18-month period, the commission would determine whether 
and how to consolidate the Federal statistical system, and would also 
make recommendations with respect to ways to achieve greater efficiency 
in carrying out Federal statistical programs. If the commission 
recommends consolidation of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau 
of the Census, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis into a newly 
established independent Federal agency, designated as the Federal 
Statistical Service, the commission's report would contain draft 
legislation incorporating such recommendations. The legislation would 
then be considered by the Congress under fast-track procedures.
  If legislation establishing a Federal statistical service is enacted 
by the Congress, the commission then would become a permanent body that 
would:
  Make recommendations for nominations for the appointment of an 
Administrator and Deputy Administrator of the Federal Statistical 
Service; serve

[[Page S11982]]

as an advisory body to the Federal Statistical Service on 
confidentiality issues; and conduct comprehensive studies, and submit 
reports to Congress on all matters relating to the Federal statistical 
infrastructure, including:
  An examination of the methodology involved in producing official 
data; a review of information technology and recommendations of 
appropriate methods for disseminating statistical data; and a 
comparison of our statistical system with the systems of other nations.
  This legislation is only a first step, but an essential one. The 
commission will provide Congress with the blueprint for reform. It will 
be up to us to finally take action after nearly a century of 
inattention to this very important issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. D'Amato, 
        Mr. Bryan, Mr. Grams, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
        Hagel, Mr. Allard, Mr. Enzi, and Ms. Moseley-Braun):
  S. 1405. A bill to amend titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to 
provide greater copyright protection by amending copyright infringement 
provisions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


  the financial regulatory relief and economic efficiency act of 1997

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan 
bill with my colleague from Florida, Senator Connie Mack, and 11 other 
original cosponsors from the Banking Committee. Entitled the 
``Financial Regulatory Relief and Economic Efficiency Act of 1997,'' 
the bill is designed to promote greater access to capital and credit 
for businesses and consumers, while ensuring the safety and soundness 
of our financial system.
  The acronym for the bill, FRREE, is actually indicative of the bill 
itself. If enacted, the bill would free valuable resources at financial 
institutions now being used to comply with the bureaucratic maze of 
current rules and regulations, and instead allow institutions to commit 
more of those resources to the business of lending. This is especially 
important, now that we are entering the 80th month of the current 
economic expansion. The 9 completed expansions since the end of World 
War II have averaged 50 months. Thus, many professional economists, 
businessmen, and academics worry how much longer the expansion of the 
current business cycle can go. Because this bill frees up resources 
that are inefficiently being used in the private sector, I believe this 
bill could have a substantial positive impact on extending the current 
business cycle as well as minimize any future economic downturn.
  One key provision would repeal an antiquated law that disallows banks 
to pay interest on business checking accounts. Due to sophisticated and 
expensive technology, big corporations can get around this problem by 
employing sweep accounts. However, smaller, family owned businesses 
cannot take advantage of this expensive technology and are forced to 
keep their money in noninterest bearing checking accounts. The Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the 
Office of Thrift Supervision, concluded in their 1996 Joint Report, 
``Streamlining of Regulatory Requirements,'' that the statutory 
prohibition against paying interest on demand deposits no longer serves 
a public purpose. Today, the repeal also has the support of the Chamber 
of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the 
American Farm Bureau Federation.
  The bill also allows the Federal Reserve to pay interest on reserve 
balances, thus reducing potential volatility in short-term lending 
rates. Given the historical importance of price stability, it is 
imperative we give the Federal Reserve this tool in order to better 
conduct monetary policy.
  In short, Mr. President, the bill repeals outdated laws that hinder 
the management practices of institutions; cuts bureaucratic red tape; 
eliminates unnecessary bookkeeping; increases funds available for 
residential mortgage lending; and eliminates unnecessary restrictions 
on the discounting, and bundling of financial services to consumers.
  The bill enjoys the overwhelming support of the Senate Banking 
Committee and the chairman of the committee, Chairman D'Amato, is 
committed to having hearings on this bill when we return early next 
year.
  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. 1405

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Financial 
     Regulatory Relief and Economic Efficiency Act of 1997''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--IMPROVING MONETARY POLICY AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTION MANAGEMENT 
                               PRACTICES

Sec. 101. Payment of interest on reserves at Federal reserve banks.
Sec. 102. Amendments relating to savings and demand deposit accounts at 
              depository institutions.
Sec. 103. Repeal of savings association liquidity provision.
Sec. 104. Repeal of dividend notice requirement.
Sec. 105. Thrift service companies.
Sec. 106. Elimination of thrift multistate multiple holding company 
              restrictions.
Sec. 107. Noncontrolling investments by savings association holding 
              companies.
Sec. 108. Repeal of deposit broker notification and recordkeeping 
              requirement.
Sec. 109. Uniform regulation of extensions of credit to executive 
              officers.
Sec. 110. Expedited procedures for certain reorganizations.
Sec. 111. National bank directors.
Sec. 112. Amendment to Bank Consolidation and Merger Act.
Sec. 113. Loans on or purchases by institutions of their own stock; 
              affiliations.
Sec. 114. Depository institution management interlocks.
Sec. 115. Purchased mortgage servicing rights.
Sec. 116. Cross marketing restriction; limited purpose bank relief.
Sec. 117. Divestiture requirement.
Sec. 118. Daylight overdrafts incurred by Federal home loan banks.
Sec. 119. Federal home loan bank governance amendments.
Sec. 120. Collateralization of advances to members.

           TITLE II--STREAMLINING ACTIVITIES OF INSTITUTIONS

Sec. 201. Updating of authority for community development investments.
Sec. 202. Acceptance of brokered deposits.
Sec. 203. Federal Reserve Act lending limits.
Sec. 204. Eliminate unnecessary restrictions on product marketing.
Sec. 205. Business purpose credit extensions.
Sec. 206. Affinity groups.
Sec. 207. Fair debt collection practices.
Sec. 208. Restriction on acquisitions of other insured depository 
              institutions.
Sec. 209. Mutual holding companies.
Sec. 210. Call report simplification.

                 TITLE III--STREAMLINING AGENCY ACTIONS

Sec. 301. Scheduled meetings of Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
Sec. 302. Elimination of duplicative disclosure of fair market value of 
              assets and liabilities.
Sec. 303. Payment of interest in receiverships with surplus funds.
Sec. 304. Repeal of reporting requirement on differences in accounting 
              standards.
Sec. 305. Agency review of competitive factors in Bank Merger Act 
              filings.
Sec. 306. Termination of the Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight 
              Board.

                  TITLE IV--DISCLOSURE SIMPLIFICATION

Sec. 401. Alternative compliance method for APR disclosure.
Sec. 402. Alternative compliance methods for advertising credit terms.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Positions of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System on 
              the Executive Schedule.
Sec. 502. Consistent coverage for individuals enrolled in a health plan 
              administered by the Federal banking agencies.
Sec. 503. Federal Housing Finance Board.

                    TITLE VI--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

Sec. 601. Technical correction relating to deposit insurance funds.
Sec. 602. Rules for continuation of deposit insurance for member banks 
              converting charters.
Sec. 603. Amendments to the Revised Statutes.
Sec. 604. Conforming change to the International Banking Act.
TITLE I--IMPROVING MONETARY POLICY AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTION MANAGEMENT 
                               PRACTICES

     SEC. 101. PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON RESERVES AT FEDERAL RESERVE 
                   BANKS.

       (a) In General.--Section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 461(b)) is amended

[[Page S11983]]

     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(12) Earnings on reserves.--
       ``(A) In general.--Balances maintained at a Federal reserve 
     bank by or on behalf of a depository institution to meet the 
     reserve requirements of this subsection applicable with 
     respect to such depository institution may receive earnings 
     to be paid by the Federal reserve bank at least once each 
     calendar quarter at a rate or rates not to exceed the general 
     level of short-term interest rates.
       ``(B) Regulations relating to payments and distribution.--
     The Board may prescribe regulations concerning--
       ``(i) the payment of earnings in accordance with this 
     paragraph;
       ``(ii) the distribution of such earnings to the depository 
     institutions which maintain balances at such banks or on 
     whose behalf such balances are maintained; and
       ``(iii) the responsibilities of depository institutions, 
     Federal home loan banks, and the National Credit Union 
     Administration Central Liquidity Facility with respect to the 
     crediting and distribution of earnings attributable to 
     balances maintained, in accordance with subsection (c)(1)(B), 
     in a Federal reserve bank by any such entity on behalf of 
     depository institutions which are not member banks.''.
       (b) Authorization for Pass Through Reserves for Member 
     Banks.--Section 19(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 
     U.S.C. 461(c)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``which is not a 
     member bank''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 19 of the 
     Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(4) (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(4)), by striking 
     subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) 
     as subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)(A) (12 U.S.C. 461(c)(1)(A)), by 
     striking ``subsection (b)(4)(C)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (b)''.

     SEC. 102. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SAVINGS AND DEMAND DEPOSIT 
                   ACCOUNTS AT DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) NOW Accounts Authorized for All Businesses.--Section 2 
     of Public Law 93-100 (12 U.S.C. 1832) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 2. WITHDRAWALS BY NEGOTIABLE OR TRANSFERABLE 
                   INSTRUMENTS FOR TRANSFERS TO THIRD PARTIES.

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     depository institution (as defined in section 3 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act) may permit the owner of any 
     deposit or account to make withdrawals from such deposit or 
     account by negotiable or transferable instruments for the 
     purpose of making payments to third parties.''.
       (b) Repeal of Prohibitions on Payment of Interest on Demand 
     Deposits.--
       (1) Federal reserve act.--Section 19 of the Federal Reserve 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 371a) is amended by striking subsection (i).
       (2) Home owners' loan act.--The first sentence of section 
     5(b)(1)(B) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1464(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``savings association 
     may not--'' and all that follows through ``(ii) permit any'' 
     and inserting ``savings association may not permit any''.
       (3) Federal deposit insurance act.--Section 18 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828) is amended by 
     striking subsection (g).

     SEC. 103. REPEAL OF SAVINGS ASSOCIATION LIQUIDITY PROVISION.

       (a) Repeal of Liquidity Provision.--Section 6 of the Home 
     Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1465) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 5.--Section 5(c)(1)(M) of the Home Owners' Loan 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(c)(1)(M)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(M) Liquidity investments.--Investments identified by the 
     Director, including cash, funds on deposit at a Federal 
     reserve bank or a Federal home loan bank, or bankers' 
     acceptances.''.
       (2) Section 10.--Section 10(m)(4)(B)(iii) of the Home 
     Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a(m)(4)(B)(iii)) is amended 
     by striking ``liquid assets'' and all that follows through 
     ``Loan Act,'' and inserting ``cash and marketable securities 
     identified by the Director,''.

     SEC. 104. REPEAL OF DIVIDEND NOTICE REQUIREMENT.

       Section 10(f) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1467a(f)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) [Reserved].''.

     SEC. 105. THRIFT SERVICE COMPANIES.

       (a) Streamlining Thrift Service Company Investment 
     Requirements.--Section 5(c)(4)(B) of the Home Owners' Loan 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(c)(4)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in the subparagraph heading, by striking 
     ``corporations'' and inserting ``companies''; and
       (2) in the first sentence, by striking ``corporation 
     organized'' and all that follows through ``such State.'' and 
     inserting ``company, if such company engages or will engage 
     only in activities reasonably related to the activities of 
     financial institutions, as the Director may determine and 
     approve. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term 
     `company' includes any corporation and any limited liability 
     company (as defined in section 1(b)(7) of the Bank Service 
     Company Act).''.
       (b) Regulation and Examination of Service Providers.--
     Section 5(d) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(d)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(7) Regulation and examination of savings association 
     service companies.--
       ``(A) Service performed by contract or otherwise.--If a 
     savings association, subsidiary, or any savings and loan 
     affiliate or entity, as identified by section 8(b)(9) of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act, that is regularly examined or 
     subject to examination by the Director, causes to be 
     performed for itself, by contract or otherwise, any services 
     authorized under this Act or other applicable Federal law, 
     whether on or off its premises--
       ``(i) such performance shall be subject to regulation and 
     examination by the Director to the same extent as if such 
     services were being performed by the savings association on 
     its own premises;
       ``(ii) the Director may authorize any other Federal banking 
     agency (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act) that supervises such subsidiary, savings and 
     loan affiliate, or entity to perform an examination referred 
     to in clause (i); and
       ``(iii) the savings association shall notify the Director 
     of the existence of the service relationship not later than 
     30 days after the earlier of the date of the making of such 
     service contract or the date of initiation of the service.
       ``(B) Administration by the director.--The Director may 
     issue such regulations and orders, including those issued 
     pursuant to section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 
     as may be necessary to enable the Director to administer and 
     carry out this paragraph and to prevent evasion of this 
     paragraph.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments to Section 8 of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act.--Section 8 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1818) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(9), by striking ``to any service 
     corporation of a savings association and to any subsidiary of 
     such service corporation''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(7)(A)(ii), by striking ``(b)(8)'' and 
     inserting ``(b)(9)''.

     SEC. 106. ELIMINATION OF THRIFT MULTISTATE MULTIPLE HOLDING 
                   COMPANY RESTRICTIONS.

       Section 10(e) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1467a(e)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as 
     paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively.

     SEC. 107. NONCONTROLLING INVESTMENTS BY SAVINGS ASSOCIATION 
                   HOLDING COMPANIES.

       Section 10(e)(1)(A)(iii) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1467a(e)(1)(A)(iii)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, except with the prior approval of the 
     Director,'' after ``or to retain''; and
       (2) by striking ``to so acquire or retain'' and inserting 
     ``to acquire, by purchase or otherwise, or to retain''.

     SEC. 108. REPEAL OF DEPOSIT BROKER NOTIFICATION AND 
                   RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT.

       Section 29A of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1831f-1) is repealed.

     SEC. 109. UNIFORM REGULATION OF EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT TO 
                   EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.

       Section 22(g)(4) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 
     375a(4)) is amended by striking ``member bank's appropriate 
     Federal banking agency'' and inserting ``Board''.

     SEC. 110. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN REORGANIZATIONS.

       The National Bank Consolidation and Merger Act (12 U.S.C. 
     215 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 5 as section 7; and
       (2) by inserting after section 4 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 5. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN REORGANIZATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--A national banking association may, with 
     the approval of the Comptroller, pursuant to rules and 
     regulations promulgated by the Comptroller, and upon the 
     affirmative vote of the shareholders of such association 
     owning at least two-thirds of its capital stock outstanding, 
     reorganize so as to become a subsidiary of a bank holding 
     company or a company that will, upon consummation of such 
     reorganization, become a bank holding company.
       ``(b) Reorganization Plan.--A reorganization authorized 
     under subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance with 
     a reorganization plan that--
       ``(1) specifies the manner in which the reorganization 
     shall be carried out;
       ``(2) is approved by a majority of the entire board of 
     directors of the association;
       ``(3) specifies--
       ``(A) the amount of cash or securities of the bank holding 
     company, or both, or other consideration, to be paid to the 
     shareholders of the reorganizing association in exchange for 
     their shares of stock of the association;
       ``(B) the date as of which the rights of each shareholder 
     to participate in such exchange will be determined; and
       ``(C) the manner in which the exchange will be carried out; 
     and
       ``(4) is submitted to the shareholders of the reorganizing 
     association at a meeting to be held on the call of the 
     directors in accordance with the procedures prescribed in 
     connection with a merger of a national bank under section 3.
       ``(c) Rights of Dissenting Shareholders.--If, pursuant to 
     this section, a reorganization plan has been approved by the 
     shareholders and the Comptroller, any shareholder of the 
     association who has voted

[[Page S11984]]

     against the reorganization at the meeting referred to in 
     subsection (b)(4), or has given notice in writing at or prior 
     to that meeting to the presiding officer that the shareholder 
     dissents from the reorganization plan, shall be entitled to 
     receive the value of his or her shares, as provided by 
     section 3 for the merger of a national bank.
       ``(d) Effect of Reorganization.--The corporate existence of 
     an association that reorganizes in accordance with this 
     section shall not be deemed to have been affected in any way 
     by reason of such reorganization.''.

     SEC. 111. NATIONAL BANK DIRECTORS.

       (a) Amendments to the Revised Statutes.--Section 5145 of 
     the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 71) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``for one year'' and inserting ``for a 
     period of not more than 3 years,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``In accordance 
     with regulations issued by the Comptroller of the Currency, 
     an association may adopt bylaws that provide for staggering 
     the terms of its directors.''.
       (b) Amendment to the Banking Act of 1933.--Section 31 of 
     the Banking Act of 1933 (12 U.S.C. 71a) is amended in the 
     first sentence, by inserting before the period ``, except 
     that the Comptroller of the Currency may, by regulation or 
     order, exempt a national banking association from the 25-
     member limit established by this section''.

     SEC. 112. AMENDMENT TO BANK CONSOLIDATION AND MERGER ACT.

       The National Bank Consolidation and Merger Act (12 U.S.C. 
     215 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 5, as 
     added by section 110 of this Act, the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6. MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS WITH SUBSIDIARIES AND 
                   NONBANK AFFILIATES.

       ``(a) In General.--Upon the approval of the Comptroller, a 
     national banking association may merge with 1 or more of its 
     subsidiaries or nonbank affiliates.
       ``(b) Scope.--Nothing in this section shall be construed--
       ``(1) to affect the applicability of section 18(c)(1) of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; or
       ``(2) to grant a national banking association any power or 
     authority that is not permissible for a national banking 
     association under other applicable provisions of law.
       ``(c) Regulations.--The Comptroller shall promulgate 
     regulations to implement this section.''.

     SEC. 113. LOANS ON OR PURCHASES BY INSTITUTIONS OF THEIR OWN 
                   STOCK; AFFILIATIONS.

       (a) Amendment to Revised Statutes.--Section 5201 of the 
     Revised Statutes of the United States (12 U.S.C. 83) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 5201. LOANS BY BANK ON ITS OWN STOCK.

       ``(a) General Prohibition.--No national banking association 
     shall make any loan or discount on the security of the shares 
     of its own capital stock.
       ``(b) Exclusion.--For purposes of this section, an 
     association shall not be deemed to be making a loan or 
     discount on the security of the shares of its own capital 
     stock if it acquires the stock to prevent loss upon a debt 
     contracted for in good faith before the date of the loan or 
     discount transaction.''.
       (b) Amendment to Federal Deposit Insurance Act.--Section 18 
     of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(t) Loans by Insured Institutions on Their Own Stock.--
       ``(1) General prohibition.--No insured depository 
     institution shall make any loan or discount on the security 
     of the shares of its own capital stock.
       ``(2) Exclusion.--For purposes of this subsection, an 
     insured depository institution shall not be deemed to be 
     making a loan or discount on the security of the shares of 
     its own capital stock if it acquires the stock to prevent 
     loss upon a debt contracted for in good faith before the date 
     of the loan or discount transaction.''.
       (c) Removal of Prohibition on Certain Affiliations.--
     Section 18(s)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1828(s)) is amended by striking ``be an affiliate 
     of,''.

     SEC. 114. DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION MANAGEMENT INTERLOCKS.

       Section 205(8) of the Depository Institution Management 
     Interlocks Act (12 U.S.C. 3204(8)) is amended by striking 
     ``director'' each place it appears and inserting ``management 
     official''.

     SEC. 115. PURCHASED MORTGAGE SERVICING RIGHTS.

       Section 475(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
     Improvement Act of 1991 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``purchased'';
       (2) by striking ``rights'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``assets''; and
       (3) by striking ``90'' and inserting ``100''.

     SEC. 116. CROSS MARKETING RESTRICTION; LIMITED PURPOSE BANK 
                   RELIEF.

       (a) Cross Marketing Restriction.--Section 4(f) of the Bank 
     Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(f)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (3).
       (b) Daylight Overdrafts.--Section 4(f) of the Bank Holding 
     Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(f)) is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Permissible overdrafts described.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (2)(C), an overdraft is described in this paragraph 
     if--
       ``(A) such overdraft results from an inadvertent computer 
     or accounting error that is beyond the control of both the 
     bank and the affiliate;
       ``(B) such overdraft--
       ``(i) is permitted or incurred on behalf of an affiliate 
     that is monitored by, reports to, and is recognized as a 
     primary dealer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and
       ``(ii) is fully secured, as required by the Board, by 
     bonds, notes, or other obligations that are direct 
     obligations of the United States or on which the principal 
     and interest are fully guaranteed by the United States or by 
     securities and obligations eligible for settlement on the 
     Federal Reserve book entry system; or
       ``(C) such overdraft--
       ``(i) is permitted or incurred by, or on behalf of, an 
     affiliate that is engaged in activities that are so closely 
     related to banking, or managing or controlling banks, as to 
     be a proper incident thereto; and
       ``(ii) does not cause the bank to violate any provision of 
     section 23A or 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, either 
     directly, in the case of a bank that is a member of the 
     Federal Reserve System, or by virtue of section 18(j) of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act, in the case of a bank that is 
     not a member of the Federal Reserve System.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4(f)(2) of the Bank 
     Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(f)(2)) is amended 
     by striking ``Paragraph (1) shall cease to apply to any 
     company described in such paragraph if--'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to paragraph (3), a company described in paragraph 
     (1) shall no longer qualify for the exemption provided under 
     that paragraph
     if--''.
       (d) Activities Limitations.--Section 4(f)(2) of the Bank 
     Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(f)(2)) is amended 
     by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
       ``(B) any bank subsidiary of such company engages in any 
     activity in which the bank was not lawfully engaged as of 
     March 5, 1987;
       ``(C) any bank subsidiary of such company that--
       ``(i) accepts demand deposits or deposits that the 
     depositor may withdraw by check or similar means for payment 
     to third parties; and
       ``(ii) engages in the business of making commercial loans 
     (and, for purposes of this clause, loans made in the ordinary 
     course of a credit card operation shall not be treated as 
     commercial loans); or
       ``(D) after the date of enactment of the Competitive 
     Equality Amendments of 1987, any bank subsidiary of such 
     company permits any overdraft (including any intraday 
     overdraft), or incurs any such overdraft in the account of 
     the bank at a Federal reserve bank, on behalf of an 
     affiliate, other than an overdraft described in paragraph 
     (3).''.

     SEC. 117. DIVESTITURE REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 4(f)(4) of the Bank Holding 
     Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(f)(4)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(4) Divestiture in case of loss of exemption.--If any 
     company described in paragraph (1) fails to qualify for the 
     exemption provided under such paragraph by operation of 
     paragraph (2), such exemption shall cease to apply to such 
     company and such company shall divest control of each bank it 
     controls before the end of the 180-day period beginning on 
     the date that the company receives notice from the Board that 
     the company has failed to continue to qualify for such 
     exemption, unless before the end of such 180-day period, the 
     company has--
       ``(A) either--
       ``(i) corrected the condition or ceased the activity that 
     caused the company to fail to continue to qualify for the 
     exemption; or
       ``(ii) submitted a plan to the Board for approval to cease 
     the activity or correct the condition in a timely manner 
     (which shall not exceed 1 year); and
       ``(B) implemented procedures that are reasonably adapted to 
     avoid the reoccurrence of such condition or activity.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 4(f)(2) of 
     the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(f)(2)) 
     is amended by striking ``Paragraph (1) shall cease to apply 
     to any company described in such paragraph if--'' and 
     inserting ``A company described in paragraph (1) shall no 
     longer qualify for the exemption provided under such 
     paragraph if--''.

     SEC. 118. DAYLIGHT OVERDRAFTS INCURRED BY FEDERAL HOME LOAN 
                   BANKS.

       The Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 221 et seq.) is amended 
     by inserting after section 11A the following new section:

     ``SEC. 11B. DAYLIGHT OVERDRAFTS INCURRED BY FEDERAL HOME LOAN 
                   BANKS.

       ``(a) In General.--Any policy or regulation adopted by the 
     Board governing payment system risk or intraday credit 
     shall--
       ``(1) include--
       ``(A) the establishment of net debit caps appropriate to 
     the credit quality of each Federal Home Loan Bank; and
       ``(B) the imposition of normal fees for daylight 
     overdrafts, calculated in the same manner as fees for other 
     users; or
       ``(2) exempt Federal Home Loan Banks from such policy or 
     regulation.
       ``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `Federal Home Loan Bank' has the same meaning as in section 2 
     of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act.''.

     SEC. 119. FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK GOVERNANCE AMENDMENTS.

       The Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 7(i) (12 U.S.C. 1427(i)), by striking ``, 
     subject to the approval of the board'';
       (2) in section 12(a) (12 U.S.C. 1432(a))--

[[Page S11985]]

       (A) by striking ``, but, except'' and all that follows 
     through ``ten years'';
       (B) by striking ``and by its board of directors'' and all 
     that follows through ``enjoyed subject to the approval of the 
     Board'' and inserting ``and, by its board of directors, to 
     prescribe, amend, and repeal bylaws governing the manner in 
     which its affairs may be administered, consistent with this 
     Act''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``A Federal home 
     loan bank shall not be required to submit to the board of 
     directors of the bank for its approval, budget or business 
     plans, including annual operating and capital budgets, 
     strategic plans, or business plans.'';
       (3) in section 9 (12 U.S.C. 1429)--
       (A) in the second sentence, by striking ``with the approval 
     of the Board''; and
       (B) in the third sentence, by striking ``, subject to the 
     approval of the Board,'';
       (4) in section 10(a)(5) (12 U.S.C. 1430(a)(5))--
       (A) by striking ``and the Board''; and
       (B) by striking ``by the Board'' and inserting ``by the 
     Federal home loan bank''.
       (5) in section 10(c) (12 U.S.C. 1430(c)), by striking 
     ``Board'' and inserting ``Federal home loan bank'';
       (6) in section 10(d) (12 U.S.C. 1430(d))--
       (A) by striking ``and the approval of the Board''; and
       (B) by striking ``Subject to the approval of the Board, 
     any'' and inserting ``Any''; and
       (7) in section 16(a) (12 U.S.C. 1436(a)), by striking ``, 
     and then only with the approval of the Federal Housing 
     Finance Board''.

     SEC. 120. COLLATERALIZATION OF ADVANCES TO MEMBERS.

       Section 10(a) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1430(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Fully disbursed, whole first mortgages on improved 
     residential property that are not more than 90 days 
     delinquent, mortgages on improved residential property 
     insured or guaranteed by the United States Government or any 
     agency thereof, or securities representing a whole interest 
     in such mortgages.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``If an advance'' and all 
     that follows through ``is appropriate.''.
           TITLE II--STREAMLINING ACTIVITIES OF INSTITUTIONS

     SEC. 201. UPDATING OF AUTHORITY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 
                   INVESTMENTS.

       Section 5(c)(3)(A) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1464(c)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``located'' and all 
     that follows through ``1974'' and inserting ``for the primary 
     purpose of promoting the public welfare, including the 
     welfare of low- and moderate-income communities or families 
     (including the provision of housing, services, or jobs)''.

     SEC. 202. ACCEPTANCE OF BROKERED DEPOSITS.

       Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1831f) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (e) and (h);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (f) through (g) as 
     subsections (e) through (f), respectively;
       (3) in subsection (f), as redesignated, by striking 
     paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph 
     (3); and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Deposit Solicitations Restricted.--
       ``(1) In general.--An insured depository institution may 
     not solicit deposits by offering rates of interest that are 
     significantly higher than the national rate of interest on 
     insured deposits, as established by the Corporation, if--
       ``(A) the institution is undercapitalized or adequately 
     capitalized, as those terms are defined in section 38; or
       ``(B) the Corporation has been appointed conservator for 
     the institution.
       ``(2) Exclusion.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to an 
     insured depository institution that is well capitalized, as 
     defined in section 38.''.

     SEC. 203. FEDERAL RESERVE ACT LENDING LIMITS.

       Section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (m); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (m).

     SEC. 204. ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY RESTRICTIONS ON PRODUCT 
                   MARKETING.

       Section 106(b) of the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments 
     of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1972) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1);
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``(2)''; and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (I) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (9), respectively;
       (3) in paragraph (6), as redesignated--
       (A) by redesignating clauses (i) through (ix) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (I), respectively;
       (B) by striking ``clause (i)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``subparagraph (A)'';
       (C) in subparagraph (B), as redesignated--
       (i) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses (i) 
     and (ii), respectively;
       (ii) by striking ``(aa)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(I)'';
       (iii) by striking ``(bb)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(II)''; and
       (iv) by striking ``(cc)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(III)'';
       (D) in subparagraph (C), as redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``clauses (i) and (ii)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraphs (A) and (B)'';
       (ii) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (iii) in clause (i), as redesignated, by redesignating 
     items (aa) through (cc) as subclauses (I) through (III), 
     respectively; and
       (iv) by striking ``clause (iv)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (D)'';
       (E) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``clause (iii)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``subparagraph (C)'';
       (ii) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively:
       (iii) by striking ``(aa)'' and inserting ``(I)''; and
       (iv) by striking ``(bb)'' and inserting ``(II)''; and
       (F) in subparagraph (E), as redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``(ii) or (iii)'' and inserting ``(B), or 
     (C)''; and
       (ii) by redesignating subclauses (I) through (III) as 
     clauses (i) through (iii), respectively;
       (4) in paragraph (7), as redesignated--
       (A) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), as redesignated--
       (i) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as clauses 
     (i) through (iv), respectively;
       (ii) by striking ``(a)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(I)'';
       (iii) by striking ``(b)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(II)''; and
       (iv) by striking ``(c)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(III)'';
       (5) by striking ``this paragraph'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``this subsection''; and
       (6) by striking ``this subparagraph'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``this paragraph''.

     SEC. 205. BUSINESS PURPOSE CREDIT EXTENSIONS.

       Section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 
     U.S.C. 1843) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(k) Business Purpose Credit Extensions.--
       ``(1) In general.--An institution referred to in section 
     2(c)(2)(F) or 4(f)(3) may engage in the provision of credit 
     card accounts for business purposes, including the issuance 
     of such accounts to small businesses.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `credit card' has the same meaning as in section 103 of 
     the Truth In Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602).''.

     SEC. 206. AFFINITY GROUPS.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``affinity group'' means any person, other 
     than an individual, that--
       (A) is established for a common objective or purpose;
       (B) is not established by 1 or more settlement service 
     providers for the principal purpose of endorsing the products 
     or services of a settlement service provider;
       (C) the common objective or purpose of which is not 
     principally the conduct of settlement services; and
       (D) does not consist of member organizations whose 
     principal business is providing settlement services; and
       (2) the terms ``person'', ``settlement services'', and 
     ``thing of value'' have the meanings given those terms in 
     section 3 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 
     1974 (12 U.S.C. 2602).
       (b) Marketing Modernization.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, it shall not be unlawful to make a payment 
     or otherwise transfer any thing of value to an affinity group 
     for or in connection with an endorsement (written or oral), 
     either through an advertisement or through a communication 
     addressed to a consumer by name or by mailing address, of the 
     products or services of a settlement service provider, if 
     disclosure is clearly made at the time of the first written 
     communication with the consumer of the fact that a payment 
     has been made or may be made or any other thing of value may 
     accrue to the affinity group for the endorsement.

     SEC. 207. FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES.

       (a) Exemption for Communications Involving Legal 
     Proceedings.--Section 803 of the Fair Debt Collection 
     Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692a) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``communication' means the'' and inserting 
     the following: ``communication'--
       ``(A) means the''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``; and
       ``(B) does not include communications made pursuant to the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the case of a proceeding 
     in a State court, the rules of civil procedure available 
     under the laws of that State, or a nonjudicial foreclosure 
     proceeding.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by striking ``debt' means any'' and inserting the 
     following: ``debt'--
       ``(A) means any'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``; and
       ``(B) does not include a draft drawn on a bank for a sum 
     certain, payable on demand and signed by the maker.''.
       (b) Collection Activity Following Initial Notice.--Section 
     809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1692(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Continuation During Period.--Collection activities 
     and communications may continue during the 30-day period 
     described in subsection (a) unless the consumer requests the 
     cessation of such activities.''.
       (c) Definition of ``Communication''.--Section 803 of the 
     Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692a) is 
     amended--

[[Page S11986]]

       (1) by striking ``title--'' and inserting ``title, the 
     following definitions shall apply:''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``term `communication' means'' and 
     inserting ``term `communication'--
       ``(A) means'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and
       ``(B) does not include any communication made or action 
     taken to collect on loans made, insured, or guaranteed under 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965.''.

     SEC. 208. RESTRICTION ON ACQUISITIONS OF OTHER INSURED 
                   DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.

       Section 4(f)(12) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 
     (12 U.S.C. 1843(f)(12)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) in an acquisition in which the insured institution 
     has been found to be undercapitalized by the appropriate 
     Federal or State authority.''.

     SEC. 209. MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANIES.

       Section 10(o) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1467a(o)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Reorganization.--A savings association operating in 
     mutual form may reorganize so as to become a holding 
     company--
       ``(A) by chartering a savings association, the stock of 
     which is to be wholly owned, except as otherwise provided in 
     this section, directly or indirectly by the mutual 
     association and by transferring the substantial part of its 
     assets and liabilities, by merger or otherwise, including all 
     of its insured liabilities, to the interim savings 
     association;
       ``(B) by converting to a stock association charter and 
     simultaneously forming a subsidiary stock holding company 
     that owns 100 percent of the voting stock of the converting 
     association; or
       ``(C) in any other manner approved by the Director, 
     including by the formation of a subsidiary stock holding 
     company, transferring assets and liabilities by merger or 
     otherwise to the subsidiary stock holding company, or through 
     the use of one or more interim institutions.'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(D)--
       (A) by striking ``savings association'' and inserting ``the 
     mutual holding company or subsidiary stock holding company'';
       (B) by striking ``such capital'' and inserting ``the 
     capital of the association'';
       (C) by striking ``association's''; and
       (D) by inserting ``of the association'' before 
     ``established'';
       (3) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by inserting ``or subsidiary stock holding company'' 
     before ``may engage'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by inserting ``or acquiring'' after ``Investing in''; 
     and
       (ii) by inserting ``, savings bank, or bank'' before the 
     period; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``or bank'' before 
     the period;
       (4) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
       ``(7) Chartering and regulation.--
       ``(A) In general.--A mutual holding company shall be 
     chartered by the Director, and a subsidiary stock holding 
     company may be chartered under State law, and such holding 
     companies shall be subject to such regulations as the 
     Director may prescribe. Unless the context otherwise 
     requires, a mutual holding company shall be subject to the 
     other requirements of this section regarding regulation of 
     holding companies.
       ``(B) Conversion to state charter.--A mutual holding 
     company organized pursuant to paragraph (1) may convert its 
     charter to a State mutual holding company charter.
       ``(C) Conversion to federal charter.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of Federal law, a mutual holding company 
     organized under State law may convert its State mutual 
     holding company charter to a Federal mutual holding company 
     charter.'';
       (5) in paragraph (8)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or subsidiary stock 
     holding company'' after ``company''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Issuance of shares.--This section shall not prohibit 
     a savings association or subsidiary stock holding company 
     chartered as part of a transaction described in paragraph (1) 
     from--
       ``(i) issuing any nonvoting shares or less than 50 percent 
     of the voting share of such association or subsidiary stock 
     holding company to any person other than the mutual holding 
     company;
       ``(ii) issuing all of the voting shares of such association 
     to a subsidiary stock holding company, if more than 50 
     percent of the voting shares of the subsidiary stock holding 
     company are owned by the mutual holding company; and
       ``(iii) issuing to any person other than the mutual holding 
     company, in connection with the formation of the mutual 
     holding company or at a later date, a separate class of 
     voting shares, the rights and preferences of which are 
     identical to those of the class of voting shares issued to 
     the mutual holding company, except with respect to the 
     payment of dividends.
       ``(C) Mutual savings association.--In the case of a mutual 
     savings association in which holders of accounts or obligors 
     exercise voting rights, such holders of accounts or obligors 
     shall have the right to subscribe on a priority basis for 
     voting shares of the subsidiary stock holding company or 
     savings association chartered pursuant to paragraph (1), 
     pursuant to regulations of the Director, but only with 
     respect to the voting shares issued in connection with the 
     initial reorganization pursuant to paragraph (1). The 
     priority subscription rights applicable to voting shares 
     issued to the mutual holding company in connection with the 
     initial reorganization pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be 
     exercisable at such time as the shares are subsequently sold 
     by the subsidiary savings association or subsidiary stock 
     holding company.'';
       (6) in paragraph (9)(A)(i)(I), by inserting ``, directly or 
     indirectly,'' after ``owned''; and
       (7) in paragraph (10)--
       (A) by striking ``subsection--'' and inserting 
     ``subsection, the following definitions shall apply:''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Subsidiary stock holding company.--The term 
     `subsidiary stock holding company' means a stock holding 
     company organized under applicable State law, that is wholly-
     owned, except as otherwise provided in this section, by the 
     mutual holding company.''.

     SEC. 210. CALL REPORT SIMPLIFICATION.

       (a) Modernization of Call Report Filing and Disclosure 
     System.--In order to reduce the administrative requirements 
     pertaining to bank reports of condition, savings association 
     financial reports, and bank holding company consolidated and 
     parent-only financial statements, and to improve the 
     timeliness of such reports and statements, the Federal 
     banking agencies shall--
       (1) work jointly to develop a system under which--
       (A) insured depository institutions and their affiliates 
     may file such reports and statements electronically; and
       (B) the Federal banking agencies may make such reports and 
     statements available to the public electronically; and
       (2) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, report to the Congress and make recommendations for 
     legislation that would enhance efficiency for filers and 
     users of such reports and statements.
       (b) Uniform Reports and Simplification of Instructions.--
     The Federal banking agencies shall, consistent with the 
     principles of safety and soundness, work jointly--
       (1) to adopt a single form for the filing of core 
     information required to be submitted under Federal law to all 
     such agencies in the reports and statements referred to in 
     subsection (a); and
       (2) to simplify instructions accompanying such reports and 
     statements and to provide an index to the instructions that 
     is adequate to meet the needs of both filers and users.
       (c) Review of Call Report Schedule.--Each Federal banking 
     agency shall--
       (1) review the information required by schedules 
     supplementing the core information referred to in subsection 
     (b); and
       (2) eliminate requirements that are not warranted for 
     reasons of safety and soundness or other public purposes.
                 TITLE III--STREAMLINING AGENCY ACTIONS

     SEC. 301. SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY 
                   BOARD.

       Section 14(b)(6)(A) of the Resolution Trust Corporation 
     Completion Act (12 U.S.C. 1831q note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``4 times a year, or more frequently if 
     requested'' and inserting ``2 times a year, or as 
     requested''; and
       (2) by striking ``In each year'' and all that follows 
     through ``located.''.

     SEC. 302. ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE DISCLOSURE OF FAIR 
                   MARKET VALUE OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES.

       Section 37(a)(3) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1831n(a)(3)) is amended by striking subparagraph (D).

     SEC. 303. PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN RECEIVERSHIPS WITH SURPLUS 
                   FUNDS.

       Section 11(d)(10) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1821(d)(10)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Rulemaking authority of corporation.--The Corporation 
     may prescribe such rules, including definitions of terms, as 
     it deems appropriate to establish the interest rate for or to 
     make payments of postinsolvency interest to creditors holding 
     proven claims against the receivership estates of insured 
     Federal or State depository institutions following 
     satisfaction by the receiver of the principal amount of all 
     creditor claims.''.

     SEC. 304. REPEAL OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT ON DIFFERENCES IN 
                   ACCOUNTING STANDARDS.

       Section 37 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1831n) is amended by striking subsection (c).

     SEC. 305. AGENCY REVIEW OF COMPETITIVE FACTORS IN BANK MERGER 
                   ACT FILINGS.

       (a) Report Required.--Section 18(c)(4) of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(c)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``request reports'' and all that follows through the 
     end of the paragraph and inserting the following: ``request a 
     report on the competitive factors involved from the Attorney 
     General. The report shall be furnished not later than 30 
     calendar days after the date on which it is requested, or not 
     later than 10 calendar days

[[Page S11987]]

     after such date if the requesting agency advises the Attorney 
     General that an emergency exists requiring expeditious 
     action.''.
       (b) Timing of Transaction.--Section 18(c)(6) of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(c)(6)) is amended by 
     striking the third sentence and inserting the following: ``If 
     the agency has advised the Attorney General of the existence 
     of an emergency requiring expeditious action and has 
     requested a report on the competitive factors within 10 days, 
     the transaction may not be consummated before the fifth 
     calendar day after the date of approval by the agency.''.
       (c) Evaluation of Competitive Effect.--
       (1) Amendments to bank holding company act of 1956.--
     Section 3(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 
     U.S.C. 1842(c)) is amended--
       (A) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Evaluation of competitive effect.--The Board may not 
     disapprove of a transaction pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) 
     unless the Board takes into account--
       ``(A) competition from institutions, other than depository 
     institutions (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act), that provide financial services;
       ``(B) efficiencies and cost savings that the transaction 
     may create;
       ``(C) deposits of the participants in the transaction that 
     are not derived from the relevant market;
       ``(D) the capacity of savings associations to make small 
     business loans;
       ``(E) lending by institutions other than depository 
     institutions to small businesses; and
       ``(F) such other factors as the Board deems relevant.''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``restraint or trade'' 
     and inserting ``restraint of trade''.
       (2) Amendments to federal deposit insurance act.--Section 
     18(c)(5) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1828(c)(5)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (B) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(5)'';
       (C) by striking ``In every case'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) In every case under this subsection''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) The responsible agency may not disapprove of a 
     transaction pursuant to subparagraph (A), unless the agency 
     takes into account--
       ``(i) competition from institutions that provide financial 
     services;
       ``(ii) efficiencies and cost savings that the transaction 
     may create;
       ``(iii) deposits of the participants in the transaction 
     that are not derived from the relevant markets;
       ``(iv) the capacity of the institutions to make small 
     business loans;
       ``(v) lending by institutions other than depository 
     institutions to small businesses; and
       ``(vi) such other factors as the responsible agency deems 
     relevant.''.

     SEC. 306. TERMINATION OF THE THRIFT DEPOSITOR PROTECTION 
                   OVERSIGHT BOARD.

       (a) In General.--Effective 3 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Thrift Depositor Protection 
     Oversight Board established under section 21A of the Federal 
     Home Loan Bank Act (hereafter in this section referred to as 
     the ``Board'') is terminated.
       (b) Disposition of Affairs.--
       (1) In general.--Effective on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Chairman of the Board (or the designee of the 
     Chairman) may exercise on behalf of the Board any power of 
     the Board necessary to settle and conclude the affairs of the 
     Board.
       (2) Availability of funds.--Funds available to the Board 
     shall be available to the Chairman of the Board to pay 
     expenses incurred in carrying out paragraph (1).
       (c) Savings Provision.--
       (1) Existing rights, duties, and obligations not 
     affected.--Nothing in this Act affects the validity of any 
     right, duty, or obligation of the United States, the Board, 
     the Resolution Trust Corporation, or any other person, that--
       (A) arises under or pursuant to the Federal Home Loan Bank 
     Act, or any other provision of law applicable with respect to 
     the Board; and
       (B) existed on the day before the effective date of the 
     termination of the Board under this Act.
       (2) Continuation of suits.--No action or other proceeding 
     commenced by or against the Board with respect to any 
     function of the Board shall abate by reason of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (3) Liabilities.--All liabilities arising out of the 
     operation of the Board during the period beginning on August 
     9, 1989, and ending on the date that is 3 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act shall remain the direct 
     liabilities of the United States. The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall not be substituted for the Board as a party to 
     any such action or proceeding.
       (4) Continuations of orders, resolutions, determinations, 
     and regulations pertaining to the resolution funding 
     corporation.--
       (A) In general.--Each order, resolution, determination, and 
     regulation regarding the Resolution Funding Corporation shall 
     continue in effect according to its terms until modified, 
     terminated, set aside, or superseded in accordance with 
     applicable law, if such order, resolution, determination, or 
     regulation--
       (i) was issued, made, and prescribed, or allowed to become 
     effective by the Board or by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction, in the performance of functions transferred by 
     this Act; and
       (ii) is in effect on the date that is 3 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Enforceability.--All orders, resolutions, 
     determinations, and regulations pertaining to the Resolution 
     Funding Corporation are enforceable by and against--
       (i) the United States prior to the effective date of the 
     transfer of responsibilities to the Secretary of the Treasury 
     under this Act; and
       (ii) the Secretary of the Treasury on and after the 
     effective date of the transfer of responsibilities to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury under this Act.
       (d) Transfer of Certain Resolution Funding Corporation 
     Responsibilities to Secretary of Treasury.--Effective 3 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     authorities and duties of the Board under sections 
     21A(a)(6)(I) and 21B of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act are 
     transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury (or the designee 
     of the Secretary).
       (e) Membership of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board.--
     Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, section 
     14(b)(2) of the Resolution Trust Corporation Completion Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 1831q note) is amended by striking subparagraph 
     (C) and redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively.
                  TITLE IV--DISCLOSURE SIMPLIFICATION

     SEC. 401. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE METHOD FOR APR DISCLOSURE.

       Section 127A(a)(2)(G) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1637a(a)(2)(G)) is amended by inserting before the 
     semicolon ``or, at the option of the creditor, a statement 
     that the periodic payments may increase or decrease 
     substantially''.

     SEC. 402. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE METHODS FOR ADVERTISING 
                   CREDIT TERMS.

       (a) Downpayment Amounts.--Section 144(d) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1664(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or the number of installments or the 
     period of repayment, then''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or'' before ``the dollar''.
       (b) Alternative Disclosures.--Chapter 3 of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1661 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 148. ALTERNATIVE DISCLOSURES.

       ``(a) In General.--A radio or television advertisement to 
     aid, promote, or assist, directly or indirectly, any 
     extension of consumer credit may satisfy the disclosure 
     requirements in sections 143, 144(d), 147(a), or 147(e), by 
     complying with all of the requirements in subsections (b) and 
     (c) of this section.
       ``(b) Information To Be Disclosed.--A radio or television 
     advertisement referred to in subsection (a) complies with 
     this subsection if it clearly and conspicuously sets forth, 
     in such form and manner as the Board may require--
       ``(1) the annual percentage rate of any finance charge, and 
     with respect to an open-end credit plan, the simple interest 
     rate or the periodic rate in addition to the annual 
     percentage rate;
       ``(2) whether the interest rate may vary;
       ``(3) if the advertisement states an introductory rate (or 
     states with respect to a variable-rate plan an initial rate 
     that is not based on the index and margin used to make later 
     rate adjustments)--
       ``(A) with equal prominence, the annual percentage rate 
     that will be in effect after the introductory or initial rate 
     period expires (or for a variable-rate plan, a reasonably 
     current annual percentage rate that would have been in effect 
     using the index and margin); and
       ``(B) the period during which the introductory or initial 
     rate will remain in effect;
       ``(4) the amount of any annual fee for an open-end credit 
     plan;
       ``(5) a telephone number established in accordance with 
     subsection (c) that may be used by consumers to obtain all of 
     the information otherwise required to be disclosed pursuant 
     to sections 143 and 144(d), and subsections (a) and (e) of 
     section 147; and
       ``(6) a statement that the consumer may use the telephone 
     number established in accordance with subsection (c) to 
     obtain further details about additional terms and costs 
     associated with the offer of credit.
       ``(c) Requirements for Telephone Numbers.--In the case of 
     an advertisement described in subsection (b) that refers to a 
     telephone number--
       ``(1) the creditor shall establish the telephone number for 
     a broadcast area not later than the date on which the 
     advertisement is first broadcast in that area;
       ``(2) the required information shall be available by 
     telephone for a broadcast area for a period of not less than 
     10 days following the date of the final broadcast of the 
     advertisement in that area;
       ``(3) the creditor shall provide all of the information 
     that is otherwise required pursuant to sections 143 and 
     144(d), and subsections (a) and (e) of section 147 orally by 
     telephone or, if requested by the consumer, in written form; 
     and
       ``(4) the consumer shall obtain the required information by 
     telephone without incurring any long-distance charges.''.

[[Page S11988]]

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. POSITIONS OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF FEDERAL RESERVE 
                   SYSTEM ON THE EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Positions at level i of the executive schedule.--
     Section 5312 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System.''.
       (2) Positions at level ii of the executive schedule.--
     Section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Chairman, Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``Members, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System.''.
       (3) Positions at level iii of the executive schedule.--
     Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``Members, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on the first day of the 
     first pay period for the Chairman and Members of the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System beginning on or after 
     the date of enactment of this section.

     SEC. 502. CONSISTENT COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS ENROLLED IN A 
                   HEALTH PLAN ADMINISTERED BY THE FEDERAL BANKING 
                   AGENCIES.

       (a) Enrollment in Chapter 89 Plan.--For purposes of chapter 
     89 of title 5, United States Code, any period of enrollment 
     shall be deemed to be a period of enrollment in a health 
     benefits plan under chapter 89 of such title, if such 
     enrollment is--
       (1) in a health benefits plan administered by the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Corporation before the termination of such 
     plan on January 3, 1998; or
       (2) subject to subsection (c), in a health benefits plan 
     (not under chapter 89 of such title) with respect to which 
     the eligibility of any employees or retired employees of the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System terminates 
     on January 3, 1998.
       (b) Enrollment; Continued Coverage.--
       (1) Enrollment.--Subject to subsection (c), any individual 
     who, on January 3, 1998, is enrolled in a health benefits 
     plan described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) may 
     enroll in an approved health benefits plan under chapter 89 
     of title 5, United States Code, either as an individual or 
     for self and family, if, after taking into account the 
     provisions of subsection (a), such individual--
       (A) meets the requirements of that chapter 89 for 
     eligibility to become so enrolled as an employee, annuitant, 
     or former spouse (within the meaning of that chapter); or
       (B) would meet the requirements of that chapter 89 if, to 
     the extent such requirements involve either retirement system 
     under such title 5, such individual satisfies similar 
     requirements or provisions of the Retirement Plan for 
     Employees of the Federal Reserve System.
       (2) Determinations.--Any determination under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall be made under guidelines established by the 
     Office of Personnel Management in consultation with the Board 
     of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
       (3) Continued coverage.--Subject to subsection (c), any 
     individual who, on January 3, 1998, is entitled to continued 
     coverage under a health benefits plan described in paragraph 
     (1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall be deemed to be entitled 
     to continued coverage under section 8905a of title 5, United 
     States Code, but only for the same remaining period as would 
     have been allowable under the health benefits plan in which 
     such individual was enrolled on January 3, 1998, if--
       (A) the individual had remained enrolled in that plan; and
       (B) that plan did not terminate, or the eligibility of such 
     individual with respect to that plan did not terminate, as 
     described in subsection (a).
       (4) Comparable treatment.--Subject to subsection (c), any 
     individual (other than an individual under paragraph (3)) 
     who, on January 3, 1998, is covered under a health benefits 
     plan described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) as 
     an unmarried dependent child, but who does not then qualify 
     for coverage under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, 
     as a family member (within the meaning of that chapter) shall 
     be deemed to be entitled to continued coverage under section 
     8905a of that title, to the same extent and in the same 
     manner as if such individual had, on January 3, 1998, ceased 
     to meet the requirements for being considered an unmarried 
     dependent child of an enrollee under such chapter.
       (5) Effective date.--Coverage under chapter 89 of title 5, 
     United States Code, pursuant to an enrollment under this 
     section shall become effective on January 4, 1998.
       (c) Eligibility for FEHBP Limited to Individuals Losing 
     Eligibility Under Former Health Plan.--Nothing in subsection 
     (a)(2) or any paragraph of subsection (b) (to the extent that 
     paragraph (2) relates to the plan described in subsection 
     (a)(2)) shall be considered to apply with respect to any 
     individual whose eligibility for coverage under the plan does 
     not involuntarily terminate on January 3, 1998.
       (d) Transfers to the Employees Health Benefits Fund.--The 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall transfer to the 
     Employees Health Benefits Fund, under section 8909 of title 
     5, United States Code, amounts determined by the Director of 
     the Office of Personnel Management, after consultation with 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System, to be necessary to 
     reimburse the Fund for the cost of providing benefits under 
     this section not otherwise paid for by the individuals 
     covered by this section. The amounts so transferred shall be 
     held in the Fund and used by the Office of Personnel 
     Management in addition to amounts available under section 
     8906(g)(1) of title 5, United States Code.
       (e) Administration and Regulations.--The Office of 
     Personnel Management--
       (1) shall administer the provisions of this section to 
     provide for--
       (A) a period of notice and open enrollment for individuals 
     affected by this section; and
       (B) no lapse of health coverage for individuals who enroll 
     in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United 
     States Code, in accordance with this section; and
       (2) may prescribe regulations to implement this section.

     SEC. 503. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD.

       Section 2A(b)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1422a(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively.
                    TITLE VI--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

     SEC. 601. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO DEPOSIT INSURANCE 
                   FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2707 of the Deposit Insurance 
     Funds Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-496) is 
     amended by striking ``7(b)(2)(C)'' and inserting 
     ``7(b)(2)(E)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be deemed to have the same effective date as section 
     2707 of the Deposit Insurance Funds Act of 1996.

     SEC. 602. RULES FOR CONTINUATION OF DEPOSIT INSURANCE FOR 
                   MEMBER BANKS CONVERTING CHARTERS.

       Section 8(o) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1818(o)) is amended in the second sentence, by 
     striking ``subsection (d) of section 4'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (c) or (d) of section 4''.

     SEC. 603. AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED STATUTES.

       (a) Waiver of Citizenship Requirement for National Bank 
     Directors.--Section 5146 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (12 U.S.C. 72) is amended in the first 
     sentence, by inserting before the period ``, and waive the 
     requirement of citizenship in the case of not more than a 
     minority of the total number of directors''.
       (b) Technical Amendment to the Revised Statutes.--Section 
     329 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (12 U.S.C. 
     11) is amended by striking ``to be interested in any 
     association issuing national currency under the laws of the 
     United States'' and inserting ``to hold an interest in any 
     national bank''.
       (c) Repeal of Unnecessary Capital and Surplus 
     Requirement.--Section 5138 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (12 U.S.C. 51) is repealed.

     SEC. 604. CONFORMING CHANGE TO THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING ACT.

       Section 4(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 
     U.S.C. 3102(b)) is amended in the second sentence, by 
     striking paragraph (1) and by redesignating paragraphs (2) 
     through (4) as paragraphs (1) through (3), respectively.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, today, Senator Shelby and several 
of my other colleagues on the Banking Committee are introducing the 
Financial Regulatory Relief and Economic Efficiency Act of 1997. I am 
cosponsoring this legislation because I have long been committed to the 
process of reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on financial 
institutions. Many of the provisions were drafted in consultation with 
the banking regulatory agencies and will remove duplicative, 
unnecessary restrictions that no longer make sense and are no longer 
appropriate, given this era of great change in the financial services 
industry. This bill will allow the banks to be more efficient and cost-
effective in their activities. It will also allow them to better meet 
the needs of the users of the system, the individuals, the communities, 
the businesses, the exporters, the farmers, and all those who depend on 
our financial system. We live in capital-scarce times and that means 
that it is imperative that our financial system provides capital to 
those who need it in the most cost-effective manner possible. We can be 
longer tolerate inefficiencies due to outmoded regulation.
  However, it is important to note that I do not support every 
provision of this bill, and in fact I have serious concerns about 
portions of it. I believe that certain sections of the bill will need 
to be changed significantly as it works its way through the Banking 
Committee and the Senate floor. That said, I want to be a part of this 
process, because I believe in the objectives of the bill: reducing 
unnecessary regulatory burden. Furthermore, I think the issue should be 
addressed in a bipartisan manner.

[[Page S11989]]

This type of effort needs to be a priority for Banking Committee and 
the Senate as a whole, and that is why I am an original cosponsor of 
the Financial Regulatory Relief and Economic Efficiency Act of 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
  S. 1406. A bill to amend section 2301 of title 38, United States 
Code, to provide for the furnishing of burial flags on behalf of 
certain deceased members and former members of the Selected Reserve; to 
the Committee on Veterans Affairs.


     burial flags for members of the guard and reserves legislation

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, several months ago, one of my 
constituents, Gilbert Miller, a retired Air Force senior master 
sergeant, walked into my Medford, OR office to share an idea with me. 
After doing some research, he discovered that some military reserve 
component members who had honorably served their country as Selected 
Reservists were not eligible for funeral burial flags. In response to 
this inequity, and in recognition of Veterans' Day, I rise to introduce 
a bill authorizing the Department of Veterans' Affairs to issue burial 
flags to deceased members of the reserve component.
  Mr. President, National Guard and Reserve units and individual 
members increasingly share the day-to-day burden of our national 
defense. Their service is routinely performed in a drill or short 
active duty tour status alongside an active component service member. 
Their status, however, does not make their contribution to our national 
defense any less important or less critical. Simply put, many 
requirements could not be met without the direct involvement of Reserve 
forces, either in a drill status or on short active duty tours.
  In view of this reality, I believe it is time to expand the current 
law regarding burial flags to include these members of the total force. 
Therefore, my bill permits the issuance of a burial flag to those 
National Guard and Reserve members who honorably served in the reserve 
component.
  Mr. President, I would like to thank the Non Commissioned Officers 
Association and all the veterans' groups for their support of this 
bill.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to our veterans 
as we prepare to celebrate Veterans' Day. Each day as I drive to work 
at the U.S. Senate, I cannot help but notice the beautiful monuments of 
our Nation's capital. These monuments were built to honor great people 
and great events, and each has its own inspirational story to tell. 
What you will find in the stories is that the greatness of our country 
and of its leaders was founded in the willingness of common men and 
women, our veterans, to risk their lives defending the principle of 
right. Serving both at home and on foreign soil, their service must 
always be remembered.
  Working in Washington in this great institution and among these 
beautiful monuments, I frequently am reminded of the sacrifices of our 
veterans. Even outside of Washington, in almost every town across 
America, there are monuments dedicated to our veterans. I urge each 
American to discover their story, not only from a historical 
perspective, but also through the eyes of the veterans living in their 
communities, where you will find common men and women who simply did 
the right thing when called upon. And because of them, we live in a 
world where there is more peace than ever before. They deserve our 
thanks.
  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. 1406

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

     SECTION 1. ISSUANCE OF BURIAL FLAGS FOR DECEASED MEMBERS AND 
                   FORMER MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE.

       Section 2301(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) deceased individual who--
       ``(A) was serving as a member of the Selected Reserve (as 
     described in section 10143 of title 10) at the time of death;
       ``(B) had served at least one enlistment, or the period of 
     initial obligated service, as a member of the Selected 
     Reserve and was discharged from service in the Armed Forces 
     under conditions not less favorable than honorable; or
       ``(C) was discharged from service in the Armed Forces under 
     conditions not less favorable than honorable by reason of a 
     disability incurred or aggravated in line of duty during the 
     individual's initial enlistment, or period of initial 
     obligated service, as a member of the Selected Reserve.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:

  S. 1407. A bill to allow participation by the communities surrounding 
Yellowstone National Park in decisions affecting the park, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


       THE YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ACT

  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Yellowstone 
National Park Community Participation Act. This is a bill to require 
the National Park Service to work in conjunction and consult with the 
communities surrounding Yellowstone National Park in both Montana and 
Wyoming.
  The communities surrounding Yellowstone National Park, are as 
directly affected by actions within the park, as anything in the park 
itself. These communities' stability and economic viability are in a 
large part dependent on the actions within the park. Their future is 
dependent upon the actions taken both by local park management, and the 
management of the National Park Service in Washington, DC.
  The Department of the Interior and the Director of the National Park 
Service have stated that the management of the parks and the Park 
Service itself should work in a cooperative effort to make sure that 
the local communities, affected by actions in the parks, are consulted 
before action occurs. Well unfortunately this is not always the case.
  Last year in the 104th Congress, authority was given to the National 
Park Service to provide for a demonstration project as it relates to 
fees charged to enter our national park. This was done with the 
understanding that this would assist the parks in coming up with 
additional funding for the backlog of construction and maintenance in 
each individual parks. Dollars which are sorely needed in the parks and 
which it is hoped would be put to good use.
  Communities surrounding our parks, especially Yellowstone, understand 
the need for the repairs to the infrastructure in the parks. They are 
all very willing to work with park management to do what they can to 
assist in maintaining the parks and assisting management in working on 
a means for caring for the parks.
  Yet, when the Park Service asked for input and provided each 
individual park with an opportunity to use and develop a new fee 
structure for the parks not all the communities were asked or informed 
of the increases in the fees. This was the case in Yellowstone National 
Park.
  While the management of Grand Teton, just a few miles south of 
Yellowstone, worked with and notified the communities affected by the 
future fee changes. Providing these communities an opportunity to 
prepare for the effects these changes would have on their business and 
economic vitality.
  An announcement was made by the management in Yellowstone to address 
the upcoming changes without very much, if any interaction with the 
surrounding communities. This then affected their ability to provide 
the information necessary to people who use their communities as a 
staging site for their visit to Yellowstone. It put them in the 
unenviable position of either subjecting their businesses to a loss, 
due to the fact that they either accepted the additional cost for 
operating their park tours, or charging the difference to those 
consumers who were there on the spur of the moment. This is not what 
any of us would like to do to our customers, nor anything that the 
Government should require of taxpayers who are either living at the 
gates of our national parks or visiting them for recreation.
  Had a consultation occurred in this instance, it is possible that 
relations between the communities and the park management could have 
developed to find a way to work through this process. However no 
consultation occurred and as a result, relations between park 
management and the local communities have been strained.
  Another telling facet of this dissolution of relations between local 
communities and the park management, is

[[Page S11990]]

what occurred just last winter. Due to what the park management called 
reduced funding, they changed the winter opening dates for the 
entrances to Yellowstone. This had a dramatic effect on the economic 
stability of the communities which are located at the entrances to 
Yellowstone.
  The basis for business in those communities at the entrances to 
Yellowstone, is not just the traffic they see during the summer, but 
rests in large part on winter tourism in and around Yellowstone. As 
beautiful and magnificent, as Yellowstone can be during the summer, the 
visual experiences a person can enjoy during the winter are multiplied. 
Many of the businesses in these local communities look upon winter 
tourism as a means of keeping them in business for the next year.
  When any change is announced, without suitable notification or 
adequate consultation, these communities suffer greatly. Last winter 
visitors arrived at Yellowstone with the understanding that the park 
would be open, to allow them to experience the beauty of the Nation's 
``Crown Jewel'' as it lay under a winter coating of snow. However, when 
they arrived at the entrance to the park, they were greeted not with a 
welcome, but with a barrier which kept them from enjoying their park.
  This delayed opening had a devastating effect on the communities at 
the gateways to Yellowstone. Many tours were canceled and groups which 
had planned future winter events in the area, have since canceled those 
plans. Although it was not true, many of these tour and business groups 
were of the understanding that Yellowstone was closed to winter travel 
and activity.
  The language in this bill would assure stability for the future of 
those communities located at the gateways to Yellowstone National Park. 
The legislation would provide for an opening and closing date, which 
the people of the community of West Yellowstone, MT, could count on in 
planning for tour groups and the hiring of personnel to make the 
visitors' stays a memorable experience.
  I have attempted to work with the Park Service and the local 
communities to see if some means of consultation could be worked out 
among all the parties involved. Last January a series of meetings 
occurred, between members of the local community the Park Service and 
my staff, to discuss the problems which the local communities were 
facing due to the actions taken last winter. As a result of these 
meetings, it was hoped that the management of the park would be more 
receptive to the working with the local communities in the development 
of changes affecting their lives. So far this has not been the case.
  I am offering this legislation today, in an attempt to open dialog to 
find suitable arrangements for consultation between the park and the 
gateway communities of Yellowstone National Park. I will request a 
hearing on this matter to open that dialog and to seek a means by which 
all parties are comfortable in a process of exchange and consultation 
on the future of the business related to Yellowstone. I look forward to 
working with the Park Service and the local communities to find a means 
of keeping Yellowstone a treasure for all America and the world to 
enjoy, during all seasons of the year.
  Thank you, Madam President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 1408. A bill to establish the Lower East Side Tenement National 
Historic Site, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


 the lower east side tenement museum national historic site act of 1997

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Moynihan, to introduce legislation that will declare 
the Lower East Side Tenement Museum a national historic site. Most of 
us have heard the stories of how the great wave of immigrants of 
generations ago entered our Nation, but few really know what happened 
to them after they landed at Ellis Island. At the Lower East Side 
Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard Street in New York City, one is able to 
follow the lives of the immigrants beyond the first hours on our 
shores. The museum tells their history, displays their courage and 
showcases their values in an interpretive setting that brings the 
visitor back to an era from which many of us came. The museum presents 
to many of us an awareness of our ancestral roots that we may never 
have known existed. Through the legislation being introduced by Senator 
Moynihan and me, the museum will be able to affiliate itself with the 
National Park Service, bestowing national recognition on the humble 
beginnings of millions of our ancestors.
  The Tenement Museum is unique in that it not only traces the quality 
of life inside the tenement, but presents a picture of the immigrant's 
outside world as well. Due to the cramped and dingy nature of the 
tenement, as much time as possible was spent outside. Thus, in order to 
fully explore their lives, it is essential to look toward their work, 
their houses of worship, their organizations, and their entertainment. 
The museum incorporates the experiences of yesteryear's immigrants and 
interprets them for today's generations. It gives the visitor a 
powerful glimpse into the life and living arrangements that our 
ancestors faced on a daily basis. Besides onsite programs, the museum 
utilizes the surrounding neighborhood; an area which continues to this 
day in its role as a receiver of immigrants.
  Throughout our Nation we have preserved, remembered and cherished 
places of national significance and beauty. We have put enormous energy 
toward maintaining homes of noted Americans and protecting vast areas 
of wilderness. What we do not have, though, is a monument to the so-
called ordinary citizen. The Tenement Museum can fill that role and 
will do so at no cost to the Federal Government under this legislation.
  It is unlikely that many of those who lived in buildings like the one 
at 97 Orchard Street felt that they were special. Rather, they were 
probably grateful for the chance to come to America to try to make a 
better life for themselves and their families. Given the living and 
working conditions that we now take for granted, the language and 
cultural obstacles they had to overcome, we should applaud their 
ability to take hold of an opportunity and not only survive, but 
thrive. It is their contributions to society in the face of 
overwhelming obstacles that defined an era and established an ethic 
that survives to this day. It is their spirit that we admire, and that, 
in retrospect, makes these otherwise ordinary individuals special. The 
Tenement Museum is their monument, and as their descendants, it is ours 
as well.
  Congress has an opportunity to recognize the pioneer spirit of our 
ancestors and deliver it to future generations of Americans. The museum 
reminds us all of an important and often forgotten chapter in our 
immigrant heritage, mainly, that millions of families made their first 
stand in our Nation not in a log cabin or farmhouse or mansion, but in 
a city tenement. Granting the Lower East Side Tenement Museum 
affiliated status within the National Park Service will shed light on 
that chapter while linking it to the chain of the Status of Liberty, 
Ellis Island, and Castle Clinton in the story of our urban immigrant 
heritage. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Moynihan and me in 
cosponsoring this bill, and I urge its speedy consideration by the 
Senate.
  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. 1408

       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 ``Lower East Side Tenement 
     National Historic Site Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1)(A) immigration, and the resulting diversity of cultural 
     influences, is a key factor in defining the identity of the 
     United States; and
       (B) many United States citizens trace their ancestry to 
     persons born in nations other than the United States;
       (2) the latter part of the 19th century and the early part 
     of the 20th century marked a period in which the volume of 
     immigrants coming to the United States far exceeded that of 
     any time prior to or since that period;
       (3) no single identifiable neighborhood in the United 
     States absorbed a comparable

[[Page S11991]]

     number of immigrants than the Lower East Side neighborhood of 
     Manhattan in New York City;
       (4) the Lower East Side Tenement at 97 Orchard Street in 
     New York City is an outstanding survivor of the vast number 
     of humble buildings that housed immigrants to New York City 
     during the greatest wave of immigration in American history;
       (5) the Lower East Side Tenement is owned and operated as a 
     museum by the Lower East Side Tenement Museum;
       (6) the Lower East Side Tenement Museum is dedicated to 
     interpreting immigrant life within a neighborhood long 
     associated with the immigrant experience in the United 
     States, New York City's Lower East Side, and its importance 
     to United States history; and
       (7)(A) the Director of the National Park Service found the 
     Lower East Side Tenement at 97 Orchard Street to be 
     nationally significant; and
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior declared the Lower East 
     Side Tenement a National Historic Landmark on April 19, 1994; 
     and
       (C) the Director of the National Park Service, through a 
     special resource study, found the Lower East Side Tenement 
     suitable and feasible for inclusion in the National Park 
     System.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure the preservation, maintenance, and 
     interpretation of this site and to interpret at the site the 
     themes of immigration, tenement life in the latter half of 
     the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, the 
     housing reform movement, and tenement architecture in the 
     United States;
       (2) to ensure continued interpretation of the nationally 
     significant immigrant phenomenon associated with New York 
     City's Lower East Side and the Lower East Side's role in the 
     history of immigration to the United States; and
       (3) to enhance the interpretation of the Castle Clinton, 
     Ellis Island, and Statue of Liberty National Monuments.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the 
     Lower East Side Tenement found at 97 Orchard Street on 
     Manhattan Island in City of New York, State of New York, and 
     designated as a national historic site by section 4.
       (2) Museum.--The term ``Museum'' means the Lower East Side 
     Tenement Museum, a nonprofit organization established in City 
     of New York, State of New York, which owns and operates the 
     tenement building at 97 Orchard Street and manages other 
     properties in the vicinity of 97 Orchard Street as 
     administrative and program support facilities for 97 Orchard 
     Street.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) In General.--To further the purposes of this Act and 
     the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the preservation of 
     historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities 
     of national significance, and for other purposes'', approved 
     August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Lower East Side 
     Tenement at 97 Orchard Street, in the City of New York, State 
     of New York, is designated a national historic site.
       (b) Coordination with National Park System.--
       (1) Affiliated site.--The historic site shall be an 
     affiliated site of the National Park System.
       (2) Coordination.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Museum, shall coordinate the operation and interpretation of 
     the historic site with the Statue of Liberty National 
     Monument, Ellis Island National Monument, and Castle Clinton 
     National Monument. The historic site's story and 
     interpretation of the immigrant experience in the United 
     States is directly related to the themes and purposes of 
     these National Monuments.
       (c) Ownership.--The historic site shall continue to be 
     owned, operated, and managed by the Museum.

     SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT OF THE SITE.

       (a) Cooperative Agreement.--The Secretary may enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with the Museum to ensure the marking, 
     interpretation, and preservation of the national historic 
     site designated by section 4(a).
       (b) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may 
     provide technical and financial assistance to the Museum to 
     mark, interpret, and preserve the historic site, including 
     making preservation-related capital improvements and repairs.
       (c) General Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Museum, shall develop a general management plan for the 
     historic site that defines the role and responsibility of the 
     Secretary with regard to the interpretation and the 
     preservation of the historic site.
       (2) Integration with national monuments.--The plan shall 
     outline how interpretation and programming for the historic 
     site shall be integrated and coordinated with the Statue of 
     Liberty National Monument, Ellis Island National Monument, 
     and Castle Clinton National Monument to enhance the story of 
     the historic site and these National Monuments.
       (3) Completion.--The plan shall be completed not later than 
     2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Limited Role of Secretary.--Nothing in this Act 
     authorizes the Secretary to acquire the property at 97 
     Orchard Street or to assume overall financial responsibility 
     for the operation, maintenance, or management of the historic 
     site.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague 
Senator D'Amato in introducing a bill that will authorize a small but 
most significant addition to the National Park system by designating 
the Lower East Side Tenement Museum a national historic site. For 150 
years New York City's Lower East Side has been the most vibrant, 
populous, and famous immigrant neighborhood in the Nation. From the 
first waves of Irish and German immigrants to Italians and Eastern 
European Jews to the Asian, Latin, and Caribbean immigrants arriving 
today, the Lower East Side has provided millions their first American 
home.
  For many of them that home was a brick tenement; six or so stories, 
no elevator, maybe no plumbing, maybe no windows, a business on the 
ground floor, and millions of our forbearers upstairs. The Nation has 
with great pride preserved log cabins, farm houses, and other symbols 
of our agrarian roots. We have reopened Ellis Island to commemorate and 
display the first stop for 12 million immigrants who arrived in New 
York City.
  Until now we have not preserved a sample of urban, working class life 
as part of the immigrant experience. For many of those disembarked on 
Ellis Island the next stop was a tenement on the Lower East Side, such 
as the one at 97 Orchard Street. It is here that the Lower East Side 
Tenement Museum shows us what that next stop was like.
  The tenement at 97 Orchard was built in the 1860's, during the first 
phase of tenement construction. It provided housing for 20 families on 
a plot of land planned for a single family residence. Each floor had 
four 3-room apartments, each of which had two windows in one of the 
rooms and none in the others. The privies were out back, as was the 
spigot that provided water for everyone. The public bathhouse was down 
the street.
  In 1900 this block was the most crowded per acre on Earth. Conditions 
improved at 97 Orchard Street after the passage of the New York 
Tenement House Act of 1901, though the crowding remained. Two toilets 
were installed on each floor. A skylight was installed over the 
stairway and interior windows were cut in the walls to allow some light 
throughout each apartment. For the first time the ground floor became 
commercial space. In 1918 electricity was installed. Further 
improvements were mandated in 1935, but the owner of this building 
chose to board it up rather than follow the new regulations. It 
remained boarded up for 60 years until the idea of a museum took hold.
  The tenement museum will keep at least one apartment in the 
dilapidated condition in which it was found when reopened, to show 
visitors the process of urban archaeology. Others are being restored to 
show how real families lived at different periods in the building's 
history. Across the street there are interpretive programs to better 
explain the larger experience of gaining a foothold on America in the 
Lower East Side of New York. There are also plans for programmatic ties 
with Ellis Island and its precursor, Castle Clinton. And the museum 
plans to play an active role in the immigrant community around it, 
further integrating the past and present immigrant experience on the 
Lower East Side.
  This bill designates the tenement museum a national historic site. It 
also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a 
cooperative agreement with the museum to ensure the marking, 
interpretation, and preservation of the site. The Secretary will also 
coordinate with the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, and Castle Clinton 
sites to help with the interpretation of the immigrant experience. It 
will be a productive partnership.
  Mr. President, I believe the tenement museum provides an outstanding 
opportunity to preserve and present an important stage of the immigrant 
experience and the move for social change in our cities at the turn of 
the century. I know of no better place than 97 Orchard Street to do so, 
and no

[[Page S11992]]

other place in the National Park system doing so already. I look 
forward to the realization of this grand idea, and I ask my colleagues 
for their support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 1409. A bill for the relief of Sheila Heslin of Bethesda, MD; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


                       private relief legislation

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, along with 
my colleagues Senators Thompson and Bennett, that will require the 
Department of Justice to pay the legal fees of a former Federal 
employee, Sheila Heslin, who incurred these expenses as a direct result 
of the campaign finance investigations conducted by the Congress, the 
Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency.
  Earlier this fall, Ms. Heslin testified before the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee about actions she took while performing 
her official duties as an employee of the National Security Council. 
Everyone who observed her testimony was impressed with her honesty and 
courage in resisting high-level political pressure. Ms. Heslin told us 
how other governmental and political officials pressured her to approve 
a request that Roger Tamraz, a major contributor with an unsavory 
reputation, be allowed to meet with President Clinton. She resisted 
these overtures in an effort to protect the integrity of the White 
House and to ensure that our foreign policy was conducted 
appropriately. Of all the individuals who testified before the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee about the campaign finance problems, Ms. 
Heslin provided the best example of how career Government officials 
ought to conduct themselves. She demonstrated courage and a high regard 
for the proper conduct of U.S. foreign policy.
  Ms. Heslin participated in these proceedings as a witness, not as the 
subject of any investigation. She has provided important information on 
events and activities that may well become the subject of prosecution. 
As a result, Ms. Heslin was forced to retain private counsel to advise 
her in the various investigations because representation by Government 
counsel would have presented a clear conflict of interest.
  It is my understanding that the Department of Justice has to date 
declined to reimburse Ms. Heslin for the legal fees relating to her 
testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and other 
similar inquiries. She is now a private citizen with a new baby and 
without the personal wealth to afford the legal representation her 
service as a Government employee has required. As an important and 
fully cooperative witness in these investigations, she has set an 
example that ought to not be discouraged by denying Government payment 
for outside legal representation in a case involving appropriate 
actions taken during her Federal employment.
  Under existing regulations, the Department of Justice normally 
approves the payment of legal fees for Government employees when ``the 
actions for which representation is requested reasonably appears to 
have been performed within the scope of the employees's employment'' 
and payment is ``in the interest of the United States.'' Both 
requirements have been met in the case Sheila Heslin.
  Moreover, Mr. President, in connection with other investigations, the 
Department of Justice has paid the legal fees of hundreds of Government 
employees, some of whom were high-level political appointees. For 
example, in fiscal year 1996, political appointees at the White House 
and on the Vice President's staff were reimbursed thousands of dollars 
in attorneys' fees. To deny the payment of legal fees to Ms. Heslin, 
who is not suspected of any wrongdoing, while at the same time paying 
the legal fees of many other Government employees, some of whom were 
being investigated for possible illegal activities, is simply unfair.
  Earlier this month, I asked the Attorney General to personally 
address this matter and to reverse the decision denying reimbursement 
to Ms. Heslin. I am still waiting for Attorney General Reno's response 
to my letter.
  In the absence of action by the Department of Justice, I am 
introducing this bill which directs the Attorney General to pay 
reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Ms. Heslin as a result of the 
campaign finance investigations. To ensure that such payments are not 
excessive, it is intended that the amounts be determined in accordance 
with applicable Justice Department regulations.
  Mr. President, this bill is not only for Sheila Heslin. It is also to 
send a clear message to every career Government employee who in the 
future has to choose between succumbing to inappropriate political 
pressure or doing the right thing. It is also for the American people 
who are the ultimate beneficiaries when public servants put the 
interests of the country ahead of the interests of those seeking to buy 
access and influence for their own narrow purposes.
  Mr. President, it is regrettable that we cannot do more to reward 
people who follow the high standards of conduct we all espouse. At the 
very least, we should ensure that the actions of their Government do 
not penalize them. For that reason, I hope my colleagues will support 
this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED:
  S. 1410. A bill to amend section 258 of the Communications Act of 
1934 to enhance to protections against unauthorized changes in 
subscriber selections of telephone service providers, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                     the anti-slamming act of 1997

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few comments 
concerning legislation which I am introducing to deal with the problem 
of slamming. Earlier this year, I outlined the remedies necessary to 
deal with this serious consumer problem in a Sense of the Senate 
Resolution which was amended to the Commerce State Justice 
Appropriations legislation. The legislation I introduce today embodies 
those remedies. I would like to take a moment to thank Ranking Member 
Hollings and Chairmen McCain and Burns for the assistance they have 
lent to me on this issue.
  Telephone ``slamming'' is the illegal practice of switching a 
consumer's long distance service without the individual's consent. This 
problem has increased dramatically over the last several years, as 
competition between long distance carriers has risen. Slamming is the 
top consumer complaint lodged at the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC), with 11,278 reported complaints in 1995, and 16,500 in 1996. In 
the first nine months of 1997 alone, 15,000 complaints have been filed. 
Unfortunately, this represents only the tip of the iceberg because most 
consumers never report violations to the FCC. One regional Bell company 
estimates that 1 in every 20 switches is fraudulent. Media reports 
indicate that as many as 1 million illegal transfers occur annually. 
Thus, slamming threatens to rob consumers of the benefit of a 
competitive market, which is now composed of over 500 companies which 
generate $72.5 billion. As a result of slamming, consumers face not 
only increased phone bills, but also the significant expenditure of 
time and energy in attempting to identify and reverse the fraud. The 
results of slamming are clear: higher phone bills and immense consumer 
frustration.
  Mr. President, we are all aware of the stiff competition which occurs 
for customers in the long distance telephone service industry. The goal 
of deregulating the telecommunications industry was to allow consumers 
to easily avail themselves of lower prices and better service. 
Hopefully, this option will soon be presented to consumers for in-state 
calls and local phone service. Indeed, better service at lower cost is 
a main objective of those who seek to deregulate the utility industry. 
Unfortunately, fraud threatens to rob many consumers of the benefits of 
a competitive industry.
  Telemarketing is one of the least expensive and most effective forms 
of marketing, and it has exponentially expanded in recent years. By 
statute, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates most 
telemarketing, prohibiting deceptive or abusive sales calls, requiring 
that homes not be called at certain times, and that companies honor a 
consumer's request not to be called again. The law mandates that 
records concerning sales be maintained for two years. While the FTC is 
charged with primary enforcement, the law allows consumers, or state 
Attorneys General on their behalf, to bring legal action

[[Page S11993]]

against violators. Yet, phone companies are exempt from these 
regulations, since they are subject to FCC regulation.
  While the FCC has brought action against twenty-two of the industry's 
largest and smallest firms for slamming violations with penalties 
totaling over $1.8 million, this represents a minute fraction of the 
violations. FCC prosecution does not effectively address or deter this 
serious fraud. To date, state officials have been more aggressive in 
pursuing violators. The California Public Utility Commission fined a 
company $2 million earlier this year after 56,000 complaints were filed 
against it. Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin have 
all pursued litigation against slammers. Earlier this summer, public 
officials of twenty-five states asked the FCC to adopt tougher rules 
against slammers.
  As directed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has 
recently moved to close several loopholes which have allowed slamming 
to continue unabated. Most importantly, the FCC has proposed to 
eliminate the financial incentive which encourages many companies to 
slam by mandating that all revenues generated from an illegal switch be 
returned to the original carrier. At present, a slammer can retain the 
profits generated from an illegal switch. Additionally, the FCC 
proposed regulations would require that a carrier confirm all switches 
generated by telemarketing through either (1) a letter of agency, known 
as a LOA, from the consumer; (2) a recording of the consumer verifying 
his or her choice on a toll free line provided by the carrier; or (3) a 
record of verification by an appropriately qualified and independent 
third party. The regulations are expected to be finalized by the FCC 
early in 1998. While this represents a start, I believe that these 
remedies will be wholly inadequate to address the ever-increasing 
problem of slamming. The problem is that slammed consumers would still 
be left without conclusive proof that their consent was properly 
obtained and verified.
  My legislation encompasses a three part approach to stop slamming by 
strengthening the procedures used to verify consent obtained by 
marketers; increasing enforcement procedures by allowing citizens or 
their representatives to pursue slammers in court with the evidence 
necessary to win; and encouraging all stakeholders to use emerging 
technology to prevent fraud.
  Mr. President, let me also thank the National Association of 
Attorneys General, the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners which through both their national offices and individual 
members provided extensive recommendations to improve this bill. 
Additionally, I have found extremely helpful the input of several 
groups which advocate on behalf of consumers. I was particularly 
pleased to work with the Consumer Federation of America to address 
concerns which its members expressed, and I am honored that this 
legislation has received the endorsement of their organization.
  Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to outline the specific 
provisions of my bill. My legislation requires that a consumer's 
consent to change service is verified so that discrepancies can be 
adjudicated quickly and efficiently. Like the 1996 Act, my bill 
requires a legal switch to include verification. However, my 
legislation enumerates the necessary elements of a valid verification. 
First, the bill requires verification to be maintained by the provider, 
either in the form of a letter from the consumer or by recording 
verification of the consumer's consent via the phone. The length that 
the verification must be maintained is to be determined by the FCC. 
Second, the bill stipulates the form that verification must take. 
Written verification remains the same as current regulations. Oral 
verification must include the voice of the subscriber affirmatively 
demonstrating that she wants her long distance provider to be changed; 
is authorized to make the change; and is currently verifying an 
imminent switch. The bill mandates oral verification to be conducted in 
a separate call from that of the telemarketer, by an independent, 
disinterested party. This verifying call must promptly disclose the 
nature and purpose of the call. Third, after a change has been 
executed, the new service provider must send a letter to the consumer, 
within five business days of the change in service, informing the 
consumer that the change, which he requested and verified, has been 
effected. Fourth, the bill mandates that a copy of verification be 
provided to the consumer upon request. Finally, the bill requires the 
FCC to finalize rules implementing these mandates within nine months of 
enactment of the bill.

  These procedures should help ensure that consumers can efficiently 
avail themselves of the phone service they seek, without being exposed 
to random and undetectable fraudulent switches. If an individual is 
switched without his or her consent, the mandate of recorded, 
maintained verification will provide the consumer with the proof 
necessary to prove that the switch was illegal.
  The second main provision of my legislation would provide consumers, 
or their public representatives, a legal right to pursue violators in 
court. Following the model of Senator Hollings' 1991 Telephone Consumer 
Protection Act, my bill provides aggrieved consumers with a private 
right of action in any state court which allows, under specific 
slamming laws or more general consumer protection statutes such an 
action. The 1991 Act has been adjudicated to withstand constitutional 
challenges on both equal protection and tenth amendment claims. Thus, 
the bill has the benefit of specifying one forum in which to resolve 
illegal switches of all types of service: long distance, in-state, and 
local service.
  Realizing that many individuals will not have the time, resources, or 
inclination to pursue a civil action, my bill also allows state 
Attorneys Generals, or other officials authorized by state law, to 
bring an action on behalf of citizens. Like the private right of action 
in suits brought by public officials damages are statutorily set at 
$1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater. Treble damages are 
awarded in cases of knowing or willful violations. In addition to 
monetary awards, states are entitled to seek relief in the form of 
writs of mandamus, injunction, or similar relief. To ensure a proper 
role for the FCC, state actions must be brought in a federal district 
court where the victim or defendant resides. Additionally, state 
actions must be certified with the Commission, which maintains a right 
to intervening in an action. The bill makes express the fact that it 
has no impact on state authority to investigate consumer fraud or bring 
legal action under any state law.
  Finally, Mr. President, my legislation recognizes that neither 
legislators nor regulators can solve tomorrow's problems with today's 
technology. Therefore my bill mandates that the FCC provide Congress 
with a report on other, less burdensome but more secure means of 
obtaining and recording consumer consent. Such methods might include 
utilization of Internet technology or issuing PIN numbers or customer 
codes to be used before carrier changes are authorized. The bill 
requires that the FCC report to Congress on such methodology by 
December 31, 1999.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my initiative 
to stop slamming. I hope that this issue can be addressed quickly. As a 
result, I would urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Santorum, 
        Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Graham, 
        Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1411. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
disallow a Federal income tax deduction for payments to the Federal 
Government or any State or local government in connection with any 
tobacco litigation or settlement and to use any increased Federal 
revenues to promote public health; to the Committee on Finance.


        THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH TRUST FUND ACT OF 1997

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Harkin, 
DeWine, Santorum, Collins, Snowe, D'Amato, Smith of Oregon, Boxer, 
Kennedy, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Graham,

[[Page S11994]]

Dodd, Durbin, and Wellstone in introducing legislation that begins to 
realize the paramount goal of doubling funding for the National 
Institutes of Health [NIH] over the next 5 years. The bill ensures that 
any tobacco settlements or judgments are not tax deductible.
  As currently crafted, the global settlement specifically allows the 
tobacco companies to deduct the entire amount of their payments. That 
is a possible $128 billion break on their tax bill. I believe it is 
fundamentally wrong to allow them such a free ride at taxpayers' 
expense. More importantly, any settlement should provide funds for 
biomedical research, including funding to find better treatment and 
cures for the diseases caused by tobacco.
  Although the Tax Code often allows settlement amounts to be 
deductible, the current law provides that fines or penalties paid to a 
Government entity are not. The unprecedented situation we face with the 
tobacco industry demands that the Congress define these payments as 
more akin to such a fine or penalty. If a businessman cannot deduct a 
speeding ticket he received on his way to a meeting, tobacco shouldn't 
be able to deduct its payment for guaranteed immunity and certainty of 
liability. Which is worse, a speeding ticket or knowingly addicting and 
killing millions of Americans?
  I want my colleagues to understand that the success of our efforts on 
this front does not hinge on the enactment of a final Federal 
settlement. The bill applies to any settlement or judgment at the State 
or Federal level. As such, if the tobacco companies are found liable in 
any forum, or see fit to settle any of their cases with governmental 
entities, those payments will not be deductible. However, the bill 
leaves in place the deductibility of compensatory sums paid to 
individuals for harm done to them. Now is the time for Congress to step 
forward and pledge that we will not be a party to any tobacco 
settlement that comes at taxpayers' expense.
  Allowing the companies to state that they are willing to pay $368.5 
billion to the Government, when in reality they are only paying two-
thirds of that amount, is false advertising. The bill corrects this 
misleading situation to the benefit of thousands, perhaps millions, of 
Americans whose tobacco-related illnesses might be cured now through 
medical research.
  As my colleagues will recall, the Senate passed by a vote of 98 to 0 
a Sense of the Senate Resolution that Congress, and the Nation, should 
commit to the goal of doubling funding for NIH over the next 5 years. 
The actions we are taking today will help us to achieve that goal.
  The tax revenues which will be derived as a result of making the 
settlement or judgments nondeductible will be used to establish the 
National Trust Fund for Biomedical Research. Each year, after the 
President has signed the Labor/HHS/Education bill into law, the moneys 
in the medical research trust fund established by this bipartisan 
legislation will be allocated to NIH for biomedical research.
  Research has demonstrated that many diseases can be prevented, 
eliminated, detected earlier, or managed more effectively through a 
vast array of new medical procedures and therapies.
  For the first time in history, overall death rates from cancer have 
begun a steady decline in the United States. Ten years ago, cancer 
patients were offered little hope of survival. Today, however, if a 
breast cancer is detected at an early stage, there is a 94-percent 
survival rate. Today, 80 percent of children diagnosed with acute 
lymphoblastic leukemia [ALL] are alive and free of the disease 5 years 
after diagnosis.
  Genetic research has enabled Americans to learn if they are more 
likely to develop osteoporosis, breast cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease and 
other illnesses. Scientists now know that, in at least 50 percent, and 
possibly as many as 80 percent, of all cancers, one gene--p53--is 
damaged. If cancer cells growing in a dish are given healthy p53 genes, 
they immediately stop proliferating and die.
  We now know that if one inherits a mutated gene for hemochromatosis, 
more commonly known as iron overload disease, a disease which affects 
approximately 1 million Americans, then one will actually develop the 
disease. The benefit of knowing this is that giving blood is an 
effective way to manage the disease.
  Because of the advances made in biomedical research, people with 
Parkinson's disease, AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, and other ailments are 
living longer and healthier lives. We are on the verge of cures and new 
treatments for diseases which have plagued our society for many years. 
Research is the key which will unlock the knowledge needed to find 
these cures.
  But doubling our commitment to NIH, we could improve the grant 
success rate from 25 to 40 percent. More patients would have access to 
clinical trials. Approximately 2 percent of all cancer patients are now 
enrolled in clinical trials. We could increase that to 20 percent. The 
result is that more families would have access to the most effective 
state-of-the-art treatment.
  Patients would also benefit by advances in new methods of treatment 
including gene therapy, immunotherapy, spinal cord rejuvenation; 
helping diabetics naturally produce insulin; relief for Parkinson's 
disease patients, and reduction in heart disease, which is the leading 
cause of death in the United States.
  We have entered a new era of medical research in this country, but we 
must provide the necessary funding in order to translate discoveries 
into new methods of diagnosis and treatment.
  There can be little argument that scientific advances will also have 
a significant positive impact upon our Nation's economy. They will 
result in reduced health expenditures for Medicare, Medicaid, DOD, VA, 
and other public and private health programs. A recent study by the 
National Science Foundation concluded that every dollar spent on basic 
research permanently adds 50 cents or more each year to national 
output.
  In addition, the medical technology industry provides high-wage jobs 
to millions of Americans. Investment in basic science helps the United 
States compete in the global marketplace in such industries as 
pharmacology, biotechnology, and medical technology. Combined with the 
actions taken earlier this year to reform the FDA, public and private 
investment in biomedical research will ensure our ability to compete in 
this important industry and create new jobs.
  Mr. President, there are millions of Americans who are fighting a 
day-to-day battle against cancer, sickle cell anemia, AIDS, 
osteoporosis, Parkinson's disease, and other ailments. Their lives are 
in our hands. They are asking for hope and the opportunity for a cure. 
We must act now.
  This legislation is supported by more than 175 organizations 
representing a broad base of research, patient, health professions, 
consumer, and education communities. I ask unanimous consent that a 
list of these organizations be included in the Record.
  I urge my colleagues to join this bipartisan effort to help achieve 
the goal of doubling NIH funding over the next 5 years.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Organizations Supporting Mack-Harkin Tobacco Research Fund as of 
                            November 6, 1997

       1. Alliance for Eye and Vision Research.
       2. Alzheimer's Association.
       3. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.
       4. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
       5. American Academy of Dermatology.
       6. American Academy of Neurology.
       7. American Academy of Opthalmology.
       8. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
       9. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck 
     Surgery, Inc.
       10. American Academy of Pediatrics.
       11. American Academy of Physical Medicine and 
     Rehabilitation.
       12. American Association for Cancer Education.
       13. American Association for Cancer Research.
       14. American Association for Dental Research.
       15. American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
       16. American Association of Anatomists.
       17. American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
       18. American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic 
     Medicine.
       19. American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.
       20. American Association of Immunologists.
       21. American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists.

[[Page S11995]]

       22. American Cancer Society.
       23. American College of Cardiology.
       24. American College of Clinical Pharmacology.
       25. American College of Medical Genetics.
       26. American College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
       27. American College of Rheumatology.
       28. American Dermatological Association.
       29. American Federation for Medical Research.
       30. American Foundation for AIDS Research.
       31. American Gastroenterological Association.
       32. American Geriatrics Society.
       33. American Heart Association.
       34. American Liver Foundation.
       35. American Lung Association.
       36. American Optometric Association.
       37. American Pediatric Society.
       38. American Physiological Society.
       39. American Podiatric Medical Association.
       40. American Psychiatric Association.
       41. American Psychological Association.
       42. American Psychological Society.
       43. American Sleep Disorders Association.
       44. American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular 
     Biology.
       45. American Society for Cell Biology.
       46. American Society for Clinical Nutrition.
       47. American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and 
     Therapeutics.
       48. American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.
       49. American Society for Microbiology.
       50. American Society for Nutritional Sciences.
       51. American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental 
     Therapeutics.
       52. American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
       53. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and 
     Oncology.
       54. American Society of Cataract and Refractive surgery.
       55. American Society of Clinical Oncology.
       56. American Society of Hematology.
       57. American Society of Human Genetics.
       58. American Society of Nephrology.
       59. American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
       60. American Thoracic Society.
       61. American Uveitis Society.
       62. American Urogynecologic Society.
       63. American Urological Association.
       64. America's Blood Centers.
       65. Arthritic Foundation.
       66. Association for Medical School Pharmacology.
       67. Association of Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.
       68. Association of Academic Health Centers.
       69. Association of Academic Physiatrists.
       70. Association of American Cancer Institutes.
       71. Association of American Medical Colleges.
       72. Association of American Universities.
       73. Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology, and Neurobiology 
     Chairpersons.
       74. Association of Independent Research Institutes.
       75. Association of Medical and Graduate Departments of 
     Biochemistry.
       76. Association of Medical School Microbiology and 
     Immunology Chairs.
       77. Association of Medical School Pediatric Department 
     Chairmen.
       78. Association of Minority Health Professions Schools.
       79. Association of Pediatric Oncology Nurses.
       80. Association of Professors of Dermatology.
       81. Association of Professors of Medicine.
       82. Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry.
       83. Association of Schools of Public Health.
       84. Association of Subspecialty Professors.
       85. Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine.
       86. Association of University Environmental Health Sciences 
     Center.
       87. Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology.
       88. Association of University Programs in Occupational 
     Safety and Health.
       89. Association of University Radiologists.
       90. Astra Merck.
       91. Cancer Research Foundation of America.
       92. The Candlelighters Childhood Cancer Foundation.
       93. Citizens for Public Action.
       94. Coalition for American Trauma Care.
       95. Coalition of Patient Advocates for Skin Disease 
     Research.
       96. College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Inc.
       97. Columbia University.
       98. Communication Disorders Program University of Virginia.
       99. Consortium of Social Science Associations.
       100. Cooley's Anemia Foundation.
       101. Corporation for the Advancement of Psychiatry.
       102. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
       103. Digestive Disease National Coalition.
       104. Dystonia Medical Research Foundation.
       105. Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association 
     of America, Inc.
       106. East Carolina University School of Medicine.
       107. Emory University.
       108. The Endocrine Society.
       109. ESA, Incorporated.
       110. Families Against Cancer.
       111. Federation of American Societies for Experimental 
     Biology.
       112. Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive 
     Sciences.
       113. Foundation for Icthyosis and Related Skin Types.
       114. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
       115. Friends of the National Library of Medicine.
       116. Fox Chase Cancer Center.
       117. Gay Men's Health Crisis.
       118. General Clinical Research Center Project Directors 
     Association.
       119. Glaucoma Research Foundation.
       120. Immune Deficiency Foundation.
       121. Inova Institute of Research and Education.
       122. Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.
       123. Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International.
       124. The Lighthouse, Inc.
       125. Lombardi Cancer Center.
       126. Lupus Foundation of America.
       127. Lymphoma Research Foundation of America.
       128. Medical Library Association.
       129. National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research.
       130. National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
       131. National Alopecia Areata Foundation.
       132. National Association for Biomedical Research.
       133. National Association for Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum.
       134. National Association of Children's Hospitals.
       135. National Association of State Universities and Land-
     Grant Colleges.
       136. National Campaign to end Neurological Disorders.
       137. National Caucus of Basic Biomedical Science Chairs.
       138. National Coalition for Cancer Research.
       139. National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
     Medicare.
       140. National Council on Spinal Cord Injury.
       141. National Eczema Association for Science & Education.
       142. National Foundation for Ectodermal Dysplasias.
       143. National Marfan Foundation.
       144. National Mental Health Association.
       145. National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
       146. National Organization for Rare Disorders.
       147. National Osteoporosis foundation.
       148. The National Pemphigus Foundation.
       149. National Perinatal Association.
       150. National Psoriasis Foundation.
       151. National Vitiligo Foundation, Incorporated.
       152. New York University Medical Center.
       153. Oncology Nursing Society.
       154. Parkinson's Action Network.
       155. Prevent Blindness America.
       156. Prevention of Blindness.
       157. PXE International Inc.
       158. Radiation Research Society.
       159. Research America.
       160. Research Society on Alcoholism.
       161. RESOLVE.
       162. Roswell Park Cancer Institute.
       163. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
       164. Society for Inherited Metabolic Diseases.
       165. Society for Society for Investigative Dermatology.
       166. Society for Neuroscience.
       167. Society for Pediatric Research.
       168. Society for the Advancement of Women's Health 
     Research.
       169. Society of Gynecologic Oncologists.
       170. Society of Medical College Directors of Continuing 
     Medical Education.
       171. Society of University Otolaryngologists.
       172. Society of University Urologists.
       173. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.
       174. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Alliance.
       175. Tourette Syndrome Association, Inc.
       176. United Scleroderma Foundation, Incorporated.
       177. University of California, Berkeley School of 
     Optometry.
       178. Women in Ophthalmology.
       179. Women's Dermatologic Society.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today Senator Mack and I, joined by a 
strong bipartisan group of our colleagues, are introducing legislation 
that would prevent tobacco companies from claiming the settlement or 
judgement payments as a tax-deductible expense, and use the resulting 
savings to substantially expand our Nation's investment in the search 
for medical breakthroughs.
  It is important to note that this common sense proposal is the first 
major tobacco legislation this year to be introduced with strong 
bipartisan support. We have 16 cosponsors--8 Democrats and 8 
Republicans--and I believe we'll have many more as more of our 
colleagues have the time to review this bill. Senator Mack and I are 
also very pleased to have the support of over 170 organizations from 
across the Nation signed up in support of this plan.
  During the negotiations that led to the proposed national tobacco 
settlement, lawyers for the big tobacco companies insisted on a 
provision stating

[[Page S11996]]

that ``all payments pursuant to this agreement shall be deemed ordinary 
and necessary business expenses.'' This means that all payments under 
this proposal, an estimated $368.5 billion over 25 years, would be tax 
deductible. Thus the industry could write off about 35 percent of the 
entire settlement payment of $368.5 billion, as well as any future 
payments or fines. So, if this were allowed to happen, the American 
people--not Big Tobacco--would be forced to pay approximately $130 
billion of the tobacco settlement.
  But the American people have paid enough. They've paid by having 
their kids deliberately targeted in slick advertising campaigns. 
They've paid by having the industry lie to them about the health 
effects of tobacco. And they've paid with disease and death.
  Tobacco products kill more than 400,000 Americans every year--that's 
more deaths than from AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides, 
drugs, and fires combined. Last year, close to 5,000 Iowans died from 
smoking related illnesses.
  Mr. President, our bipartisan bill would close this outrageous 
loophole in the proposed national tobacco settlement, and open a new 
source of funding for investing in health research.
  And that's what we really need. The proposed settlement provides 
funding for smoking cessation programs, anti-smoking education 
programs, and FDA enforcement--but only a tiny amount is set aside for 
vital scientific research on lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease.
  The Senate is already on record, in a vote of 98-0, to double the 
budget of NIH within 5 years. If we create a trust fund for medical 
research as I have been calling for since 1993 and deposit in it the 
savings from the elimination of this special interest loophole, we 
could take a major step to meet the Senate's objective and make even 
more headway in curing killer diseases.
  A fund for health research would provide additional resources for our 
search for medical breakthroughs over and above those provided to NIH 
in the annual appropriations process. The fund would greatly enhance 
the quality of health care by investing more in finding preventive 
measures, cures and more cost effective treatments for the major 
illnesses and conditions that strike Americans.
  In 1993 and 1994 I argued that any health care reform plan should 
include additional funding for health research. Health care reform was 
taken off the front burner but the need to increase our Nation's 
commitment to health research has only grown.
  While health care spending devours nearly $1 trillion annually our 
medical research budget is dying of starvation. The United States 
devotes less than 2 percent of its total health care budget to health 
research. The Defense Department spends 15 percent of its budget on 
research. Does this make sense? The cold war is over but the war 
against disease and disability continues.
  Increased investment in health research is key to reducing health 
costs in the long run. If we can find cures for lung cancer, emphysema, 
and heart disease, the savings would be enormous.
  Mr. President, I do everything I can to increase funding for NIH 
through the appropriations process. But, given the current budget 
situation and freeze in discretionary spending what we can do is 
limited. Without action, our investment in medical research through the 
NIH is likely to decline in real terms.
  The NIH is able to fund only about 25 percent of competing research 
projects or grant applications deemed worthy of funding. This is 
compared to rates of 30 percent or more just over a decade ago. Science 
and cutting edge medical research are being put on hold. We may be 
giving up possible cures for diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, and 
countless other diseases.
  Our lack of investment in research may also be discouraging our young 
people from pursuing careers in medical research. The number of people 
under the age of 36 even applying for NIH grants dropped by 54 percent 
between 1985 and 1993. This is due to a host of factors but I'm afraid 
that the lower success rates among applicants is making biomedical 
research less and less attractive to young people.
  I am tremendously heartened by the significant bipartisan coalition 
of 16 Senators that has formed in support of our bill. Our colleagues 
who have joined with us on this legislation understand that health 
research is an investment in our future--an investment in our children 
and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, this legislation is common sense, bipartisan--and it's 
the right thing to do. Senator Mack and I join in asking our colleagues 
for their willingness to carefully review our proposal. Certainly any 
tobacco legislation that this Congress adopts next year should 
contribute significantly to our Nation's commitment in the search for 
medical breakthroughs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator 
Mack, Senator Harkin, and others in introducing the National Institutes 
of Health Trust Fund Act of 1997. This bill, very simply, is intended 
to ensure that payments made by the tobacco industry under any 
settlement legislation enacted by Congress on behalf of the people of 
this Nation, will be the full responsibility of the tobacco companies.
  Many of us were dismayed to learn that under current law, those 
payments could be deducted by these companies as a business expense--
effectively reducing the cost to manufacturers by one-third. I don't 
think that this is what the negotiators of the settlement intended, nor 
is it what the public expects. This bill would disallow the 
deductibility of the proposed settlement or the settlement of any other 
tobacco-related civil action. The tax revenues from the disallowance of 
the deduction, estimated at $100 billion, would go toward a trust fund 
for the National Institutes of Health.
  My primary interest in the tobacco settlement originates in the 
dramatically high incidence of teen smoking in our country. The 
statistics are startling--3,000 young children begin smoking each day 
and over 90 percent of adults that smoke started before the age of 18. 
Our hope and expectation is that with resources generated by a tobacco 
settlement, we can fund effective programs to help addicted teens quit 
smoking and prevent most children from ever starting.
  In essence, we want to encourage young people to take responsibility 
for their health. Tobacco companies must set a precedent for our youth 
by taking full financial responsibility for the damage they have 
inflicted on the public health of the Nation. Tobacco companies have 
already conceded the points that tobacco is harmful and addictive and 
information that would have been useful to our understanding of tobacco 
addition was withheld. Avoiding full payment of penalties for their 
actions through the tax deduction loophole is ethically wrong, even if 
legal. The tobacco industry needs to serve as an example for the 
children of the Nation by accepting the full financial consequences of 
the settlement.
  Just a few months ago, the public loudly voiced its disgust with the 
covert attempt to give the tobacco industry a $50 billion credit toward 
payment of a future settlement. While we were successful in eliminating 
that loophole, an unfortunate repercussion has been the exacerbation of 
the public's doubts about the settlement. Even if they didn't before, 
many now believe that the industry will exploit any loophole to escape 
its responsibility. We must restore the public's faith in this process. 
We must send a clear message that any tobacco settlement reached will 
be grounded in the principle that tobacco companies take full 
responsibility for their actions. That objective can best be achieved 
by swift passage of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Wyden, 
        Mr. Baucus and Mr. Gorton):
  S. 1412. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 
certain tax free corporate liquidations into a 501(c)(3) organization 
and to revise the unrelated business income tax rules regarding receipt 
of debt-financed property in such a liquidation; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                  THE CHARITABLE GIVING INCENTIVE ACT

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise to introduce with Senator 
Feinstein legislation that will provide incentives to taxpayers to use 
their wealth for charitable causes. In this era of ever-tightening 
fiscal constraints placed on congressional ability

[[Page S11997]]

to authorize discretionary funding, we have asked our communities to do 
more and more for those less fortunate. Charitable organizations in our 
communities have become an integral part of the safety net for the poor 
and homeless and significant sources of assistance for education in 
every community.
  To help charities take advantage of those donors who wish to 
contribute significant wealth for charitable purposes, we are 
introducing the Charitable Giving Incentive Act. This legislation will 
change current tax law to encourage prospective donors to contribute a 
controlling interest in a closely-held corporation to charity.
  When a donor is willing to make a gift of a controlling interest in a 
company, a tax is imposed on the corporation upon its liquidation, 
reducing the gift that the charity receives by 35 percent. The Smith/
Feinstein bill would eliminate this egregious tax that is levied upon 
the value of these qualifying corporations. We sincerely hope that this 
will directly encourage meaningful contributions to charitable 
organizations that help a variety of causes. I ask that my colleagues 
support this legislation and look forward to its being considered by 
the Finance Committee in the near future.
  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. 1412

       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 ``Charitable Giving Incentive 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CORPORATE LEVEL TAX UPON LIQUIDATION 
                   OF CLOSELY HELD CORPORATIONS UNDER CERTAIN 
                   CONDITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 337(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code 1986 (relating to treatment of 
     indebtedness of subsidiary, etc.) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Except as provided in subparagraph (B)'' 
     in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B) or (C)'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Exception in the case of closely-held stock acquired 
     without consideration.--If the 80-percent distributee is an 
     organization described in section 501(c)(3) and acquired 
     stock in a liquidated domestic corporation from either a 
     decedent (within the meaning of section 1014(b)) or the 
     decedent's spouse, subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any 
     distribution of property to the 80-percent distributee. This 
     subparagraph shall apply only if all of the following 
     conditions are met:
       ``(i) 80 percent or more of the stock in the liquidated 
     corporation was acquired by the distributee, solely by a 
     distribution from an estate or trust created by one or more 
     qualified persons. For purposes of this clause, the term 
     `qualified person' means a citizen or individual resident of 
     the United States, an estate (other than a foreign estate 
     within the meaning of section 7701(a)(31)(A)), or any trust 
     described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 
     1361(c)(2)(A).
       ``(ii) The liquidated corporation adopted its plan of 
     liquidation on or after January 1, 1999.
       ``(iii) The 80-percent distributee is an organization 
     created or organized under the laws of the United States or 
     of any State.
       ``(iv) All of the stock in the liquidated corporation is 
     non-readily-tradable stock (as defined in section 
     6166(b)(7)(B)).

     Nothing in subsection (d) shall be construed to limit the 
     application of this subsection in circumstances in which this 
     subparagraph applies.''.
       (b) Revision of Unrelated Business Income Tax Rules To 
     Exempt Certain Assets.--Subparagrph (B) of section 514(c)(2) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to property 
     acquired subject to mortgage, etc.) is amended by inserting 
     ``or pursuant to a liquidation described in section 
     337(b)(2)9C),'' after ``bequest or devise,''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues 
Senator Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden of Oregon, as well Senator Max 
Baucus and Senator Slade Gorton to introduce legislation to strengthen 
tax incentives and encourage more charitable giving in America. The 
legislation, based on S. 1121 which I introduced last year, represents 
an important step to encourage greater private sector support for 
important educational, medical, and other goals in local communities 
across the country.
  Americans are among the most caring in the world, contributing 
generously to charities in their communities: American families 
contribute, on average, nearly $650 for each household, or about $130 
billion annually, to charities. Approximately, three out of every four 
households give to nonprofit charitable organizations.
  However, charities are very concerned for the future, as Federal 
efforts to balance the budget will limit funds for social spending for 
urgent needs like children's services, homelessness, job training, and 
health care. While support for charities grew by 3.7 percent in 1994, 
contributions for human services, the area most closely associated with 
poverty programs, dropped by 6 percent. Nonprofit charities are very 
concerned about their ability to maintain their current level of 
services or grow to address unmet needs.
  Nonprofit charities can never replace government programs, but they 
can play a critical role and provide vital social services. The Federal 
Government must ensure we are doing everything we can to encourage 
support for charities, which supplement Federal programs.


             expanding tax incentives for charitable giving

  The Federal Government must provide the leadership and the tools to 
encourage more charitable giving through the Tax Code. One source of 
untapped resources for charitable purposes is closely held corporate 
stock. A closely held business is a corporation, in which stock is 
issued to a small number shareholders, such as family members, but is 
not publicly traded on an exchange. This type of business is very 
popular for family businesses involving different generations.
  However, the tax cost of contributing closely held stock to a charity 
or foundation can be prohibitively high. The tax burden discourages 
families and owners from winding down a business and contributing the 
proceeds to charity. This legislation would permit certain tax-free 
liquidations of closely held corporations into one or more tax exempt 
501(c)(3) organizations.
  Under current law, a corporation may have to be liquidated to 
effectively complete the transfer of assets to a charity, incurring a 
corporate tax at the 35 percent tax rate. In 1986, Congress repealed 
the ``General Utilities'' doctrine, imposing a corporate level tax on 
all corporate transfers, including those to tax exempt charitable 
organizations. A charity may also be subject to taxation on its 
unrelated business income from certain types of donated property.
  These tax costs make contributions of closely held stock a costly and 
ineffective means of giving funds to a charity. If we are going to find 
new ways to strengthen charities, we need to review the tax costs which 
undercut the incentive to give and the value of a charitable gift.
  Volunteers are already hard at work in their communities and 
charitable funding is already stretched dangerously thin. Charities 
need added tools to unlock the public's desire to give generously. We 
need to create appropriate incentives for the private sector to do 
more.
  In California, volunteer and charitable organizations, together, 
perform vital roles in the community and deserve our support. I would 
like to offer some examples, which can be also found throughout the 
country:
  Summer Search: In San Francisco, the Summer Search Foundation is hard 
at work preventing students from dropping out of high school. Summer 
Search helps students successfully complete school and, for 93 percent 
of the participants, go on to college. With increased charitable 
contributions, Summer Search could help keep kids in school and on 
track toward graduation and a more productive contribution to the 
Nation.

  Drew Center for Child Development: I am deeply concerned with 
increases in the number of child abuse and neglect cases, which now 
total nearly 3 million children in the United States. Social services 
block grants cuts will impose new burdens on local communities. The 
Drew Child Development Center, located in the Watts area of Los 
Angeles, works directly with children and families involved in child 
abuse environments. There are thousands of other families that could 
benefit from the Drew Center program if only more resources were 
available. Stronger tax

[[Page S11998]]

incentives to boost charitable giving could provide the Drew Center 
with some of the resources needed to combat this enormous problem.
  The Chrysalis Center: In 1993 I visited the Chrysalis Center, a Los 
Angeles organization dedicated to helping homeless individuals find and 
keep jobs. Chrysalis provides employment assistance, from training in 
jobseeking skills to supervised searches for permanent employment. The 
Center has helped place thousands of people in permanent, full-time 
jobs in the last decade.
  Jobs for the Homeless: Jobs for the Homeless assists with job 
placement services for the homeless in Berkeley and Oakland, supporting 
over 1,400 men and women. However, thousands more need their help. The 
former homeless individuals have landed successful positions in 
manufacturer, retailers, and small and large businesses. Without more 
contributions, Jobs for the Homeless will be unable to provide the 
necessary support and increase their literacy or drug rehabilitation 
programs, critical ingredients in moving people back to work.
  Today, Senators Smith, Wyden, Baucus, Gorton, and I introduce tax 
incentive legislation to encourage stronger support for the Nation's 
vital charities. The proposal: Eliminates the corporate tax upon 
liquidation of a qualifying closely held corporation under certain 
circumstances. The legislation would require 80 percent or more of the 
stock to be dedicated to a charity; and clarifies that a charity can 
receive mortgaged property in a qualified liquidation, without 
triggering unrelated business income tax for 10 years.
  By eliminating the corporate tax upon liquidation, Congress would 
encourage additional, and much needed, charitable gifts. Across 
America, countless thousands have built successful careers and have 
generated substantial wealth in closely held corporations. As the 
individuals age and plan their estates, we should help them channel 
their wealth to philanthropic goals. Individuals who are willing to 
make generous bequests of companies and assets, often companies they 
have spent years building, should not be discouraged by substantially 
reducing the value of their gifts through Federal taxes.
  While the Joint Tax Committee has not yet prepared an official 
revenue cost, previous estimates suggest a cost of about $400 million 
over 5 years. However, as a result of capital gains tax reform adopted 
earlier this year, the cost if likely to be significantly lower. Of 
equal significance, the same revenue estimating assumptions project big 
increases in charitable giving as a result of the legislation, 
stimulating between $3 and 5 billion in charitable contributions. This 
tax proposal may generate as much as seven or eight times its projected 
revenue loss in expanded charitable giving.
  I encourage others to review this legislation and listen to the 
charities in your community. The legislation has been endorsed by the 
Council on Foundations, which represents foundations throughout the 
country, and the Council of Jewish Federations. Since the introduction 
of the legislation last year, the proposal has been revised to sharpen 
the bill's focus and target the legislation in the most effective 
manner. I want to encourage the review process to continue, so we may 
continue to build support and target the bill's impact for the benefit 
of the Nation's nonprofit community.
  With virtually limitless need, we must look at new ways to encourage 
and nurture a strong charitable sector. Private charities cannot 
replace the government, but if the desire to support charitable 
activity exists, we should not impose taxes to decrease the value of 
that support. Tax laws should encourage, rather than impede, charitable 
giving. By inhibiting charitable gifts, Federal tax laws hurt those 
individuals that most need the help of their government and theie 
community.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Thomas, 
        Mr. Grams, Mr. Kerrey, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 1413. A bill to provide a framework for consideration by the 
legislative and executive branches of unilateral economic sanctions; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.


THE ENHANCEMENT OF TRADE, SECURITY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH SANCTIONS 
                               REFORM ACT

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Enhancement of 
Trade, Security, and Human Rights Through Sanctions Reform Act, a bill 
that will establish a more deliberative, commonsense approach to U.S. 
sanctions policy. I'm pleased to be joined by several distinguished 
colleagues, in introducing this important piece of legislation.
  In recent years, there has been a proliferation in the use of 
unilateral economic sanctions as a tool of American foreign policy. 
While unilateral sanctions may be a low cost alternative to the 
deployment of American Armed Forces abroad--or to milder, less coercive 
choices--they almost never succeed in achieving their foreign policy 
objectives. They frequently impose a greater burden on American 
companies, producers, farmers, and workers than on the intended target 
country.
  A cardinal test of foreign policy is that when we act 
internationally, our actions should do less harm to ourselves than to 
others. Unilateral economic sanctions, unfortunately, often fail this 
crucial test.
  Mr. President, there have been a large number of studies on 
unilateral economic sanctions in recent years and they provide some 
interesting results. Manufacturers revealed that in the period 1993 to 
1996, the United States imposed unilateral sanctions to achieve foreign 
policy goals 61 times in 35 different countries. Last year, the report 
of the President's Export Council cited 75 countries representing 52 
percent of the world's population that have been subject to or 
threatened by U.S. unilateral economic sanctions.
  These actions have jeopardized billions in export earnings and 
hundreds of thousands of American jobs, while weakening our ability to 
provide humanitarian assistance abroad. In another study, the Institute 
for International Economics concluded that, in 1995 alone, economic 
sanctions cost U.S. exports--to 26 countries--between $15-19 billion, 
and eliminated upwards to 200,000 U.S. jobs, many in high wage export 
sector.
  The damage to the U.S. economy can have long-term consequences. Once 
foreign competitors establish a presence in international markets 
abandoned by the United States, the potential losses begin to magnify. 
Over time, the cumulative effect of sanctions will be a loss of 
commercial contracts, but more importantly, may be a loss of confidence 
in American suppliers and in the United States as a reliable partner to 
do business. Frequent resort to economic sanctions, however, 
meritorious they may be, runs the risk of weakening the export sector 
which has contributed so greatly to our economic prosperity. This 
weakening effect can, in turn, have an adverse effect on our political 
influence abroad.

  The major difficulty with our increased use of unilateral economic 
sanctions is that they rarely achieve the foreign policy goals they are 
intended to achieve. Sanctions frequently give the illusion of action 
by substituting for more decisive action or by serving as a palliative 
for those who demand that some action be taken--any action--by the 
United States against another country with whom we have a disagreement.
  Sanctions can also make it more difficult diplomatically to engage 
foreign governments in dialogue to help bring about a political opening 
or a change in behavior. Serious trade sanctions can, in fact, inhibit, 
rather than facilitate, constructive dialogue with others.
  As a nation, we often seek instant gratification or quick results 
from our actions. Sanctions, however, take a long time to work and the 
change in behavior we seek in other countries will most often take 
place incrementally over time. In some cases, our sanctions have the 
unintended consequences of providing authoritarian leaders a basis for 
increasing their political support and rally opposition to the United 
States because our sanctions can be used to divert popular anger and 
resentment away from their own mis-deeds and mis-rule.
  Unilateral sanctions almost never help those we want to assist, they 
frequently harm the United States more than the sanctioned country and 
undermine our international economic

[[Page S11999]]

competitiveness and economic security. Most regrettably, unilateral 
sanctions have become a policy of first choice when other policy 
alternatives exist.
  Nonetheless, some economic sanctions are effective and, therefore, 
must remain a tool of American foreign policy. Multilateral, unlike 
unilateral, sanctions have frequently advanced American national 
interests. The multilateral sanctions against Saddam Hussein following 
Iraq's aggression against Kuwait have slowed down Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction program. Similarly, international sanctions aimed at 
Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia functioned to isolate 
them diplomatically and protect United States and allied interests in 
the Balkans. The international sanctions against apartheid in South 
Africa in the 1980's had a significant influence on bringing about a 
nonviolent peaceful transition in that country.
  Finally, the broad consensus to oppose Soviet expansion through 
export restraints on East-West trade in the Coordinating Committee, or 
CoCom, proved to be enormously effective. Most economic sanctions, 
whether unilateral or multilateral, must be in place for a long time 
before they are effective and their success will almost always be 
dependent upon extensive multilateral cooperation and compliance.
  Nothing in our proposed legislation prohibits unilateral economic 
sanctions. There are situations where other foreign policy options have 
been exhausted and where the actions of others are so outrageous or so 
threatening to the United States and our national interests that our 
response, short of the use of force, must be firm and unambiguous. In 
such instances, economic sanctions may be a useful instrument of 
American foreign policy.
  Mr. President, my proposed legislation is prospective. It will not 
affect existing U.S. sanctions. It will apply only to unilateral 
sanctions and to those sanctions intended to achieve foreign policy or 
national security objectives. It would exclude, by definition, U.S. 
trade laws, Jackson-Vanik and munitions list controls. It would not 
address the complex and important issue of state and local sanctions 
designed to achieve foreign policy goals, although these so-called 
vertical sanctions are increasingly important features of American 
foreign policy.
  More specifically, Mr. President, this legislation seeks to establish 
clear guidelines and informational requirements to help us understand 
better the likely consequences of our actions before we opt to impose 
economic sanctions. We should know in advance of voting on sanctions 
legislation what our goals are, the anticipated economic, political and 
humanitarian benefits and costs to the United States and 
other countries, the possible impact on our reputation as a reliable 
supplier, the other policy options that have been explored, and whether 
the proposed sanctions are likely to contribute to achieving the 
foreign policy objectives sought by legislation. Comparable 
requirements are also in the bill for sanctions mandated by the 
executive branch.

  Once sanctions are implemented, the bill also requires an annual 
report from the President detailing the degree to which sanctions have 
accomplished U.S. goals, as well as their impact on our economic, 
political and humanitarian interests, including our relations with 
other countries.
  The bill also provides for more active and timely consultations 
between Congress and the President. It provides Presidential waiver 
authority in emergencies or if he determines it is in the national 
interest.
  It includes a sunset provision that would terminate unilateral 
economic sanctions after 2 years duration unless the Congress or the 
President acts to reauthorize them.
  It includes language on contract sanctity to help ensure the United 
States is a reliable supplier.
  It identifies U.S. agriculture as an especially vulnerable sector of 
our economy that has borne a disproportionate burden stemming from U.S. 
economic sanctions. Because of this, there is discretionary authority 
for agricultural assistance in the bill. In addition, the bill opposes 
agricultural embargoes as a foreign policy weapon and urges that 
economic sanctions be targeted as narrowly as possible in order to 
minimize harm to innocent people and humanitarian activities.
  Mr. President, my sanctions reform bill represents an attempt to 
develop an improved and comprehensive approach to an important foreign 
policy issue. We, in the Congress, are often called upon to make 
difficult choices between conflicting interests or among our core 
values as a nation and our international interests.
  These are frequently hard choices that should be given careful 
attention and preceded by careful analysis. We should never turn our 
back on our fundamental values of supporting democracy, human rights, 
and basic freedoms abroad but we should ask whether we can alter the 
behavior of other countries by imposing sanctions on them. Many times 
we cannot do so and many times we exacerbate the very behavior we hope 
to reverse. There is no magic formula for influencing the behavior of 
other countries, but unilateral economic sanctions are rarely the 
answer.
  Nothing in this bill prevents the imposition of U.S. unilateral 
economic sanctions or dictates a particular trade-off between American 
core values and our commercial and other interests. The steps detailed 
in this bill provide for better policy procedures so that consideration 
of economic sanctions are preceded by a more deliberative process by 
which the President and the Congress can make reasoned and balanced 
choices affecting the totality of American values and interests.
  Mr. President, I feel strongly about this issue. I hope my colleagues 
will join the other original cosponsors by taking a close look at this 
legislation. I welcome their support and believe that if we deal with 
the sanctions issues in a careful and systematic manner, we can make a 
significant positive contribution to our national interest.
  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:

                                S. 1413

       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 ``Enhancement of Trade, 
     Security, and Human Rights through Sanctions Reform Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act to establish an effective 
     framework for consideration by the legislative and executive 
     branches of unilateral economic sanctions.

     SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States--
       (1) to pursue United States interests through vigorous and 
     effective diplomatic, political, commercial, charitable, 
     educational, cultural, and strategic engagement with other 
     countries, while recognizing that the national security 
     interests of the United States may sometimes require the 
     imposition of economic sanctions on other countries;
       (2) to foster multilateral cooperation on vital matters of 
     United States foreign policy, including promoting human 
     rights and democracy, combating international terrorism, 
     proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and 
     international narcotics trafficking, and ensuring adequate 
     environmental protection;
       (3) to promote United States economic growth and job 
     creation by expanding exports of goods, services, and 
     agricultural commodities, and by encouraging investment that 
     supports the sale abroad of products and services of the 
     United States;
       (4) to maintain the reputation of United States businesses 
     and farmers as reliable suppliers to international customers 
     of quality products and services, including United States 
     manufactures, technology products, financial services, and 
     agricultural commodities;
       (5) to avoid the use of restrictions on exports of 
     agricultural commodities as a foreign policy weapon;
       (6) to oppose policies of other countries designed to 
     discourage economic interaction with countries friendly to 
     the United States or with any United States national, and to 
     avoid use of such measures as instruments of United States 
     foreign policy; and
       (7) when economic sanctions are necessary--
       (A) to target them as narrowly as possible on those foreign 
     governments, entities, and officials that are responsible for 
     the conduct being targeted, thereby minimizing unnecessary or 
     disproportionate harm to individuals who are not responsible 
     for such conduct; and
       (B) to the extent feasible, to avoid any adverse impact of 
     economic sanctions on the humanitarian activities of United 
     States and foreign nongovernmental organizations in a country 
     against which sanctions are imposed.

[[Page S12000]]

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Unilateral economic sanction.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``unilateral economic sanction'' 
     means any restriction or condition on economic activity with 
     respect to a foreign country or foreign entity that is 
     imposed by the United States for reasons of foreign policy or 
     national security, including any of the measures described in 
     subparagraph (B), except in a case in which the United States 
     imposes the measure pursuant to a multilateral regime and the 
     other members of that regime have agreed to impose 
     substantially equivalent measures.
       (B) Particular measures.--The measures referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) are the following:
       (i) The suspension, restriction, or prohibition of exports 
     or imports of any product, technology, or service to or from 
     a foreign country or entity.
       (ii) The suspension of, or any restriction or prohibition 
     on, financial transactions with a foreign country or entity.
       (iii) The suspension of, or any restriction or prohibition 
     on, direct or indirect investment in or from a foreign 
     country or entity.
       (iv) The imposition of increased tariffs on, or other 
     restrictions on imports of, products of a foreign country or 
     entity, including the denial, revocation, or conditioning of 
     nondiscriminatory (most-favored-nation) trade treatment.
       (v) The suspension of, or any restriction or prohibition 
     on--

       (I) the authority of the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States to give approval to the issuance of any guarantee, 
     insurance, or extension of credit in connection with the 
     export of goods or services to a foreign country or entity;
       (II) the authority of the Trade and Development Agency to 
     provide assistance in connection with projects in a foreign 
     country or in which a particular foreign entity participates; 
     or
       (III) the authority of the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation to provide insurance, reinsurance, financing, or 
     conduct other activities in connection with projects in a 
     foreign country or in which a particular foreign entity 
     participates.

       (vi) A requirement that the United States representative to 
     an international financial institution vote against any loan 
     or other utilization of funds to, for, or in a foreign 
     country or particular foreign entity.
       (vii) A measure imposing any restriction or condition on 
     economic activity on any foreign government or entity on the 
     ground that such government or entity does business in or 
     with a foreign country.
       (viii) A measure imposing any restriction or condition on 
     economic activity on any person that is a national of a 
     foreign country, or on any government or other entity of a 
     foreign country, on the ground that the government of that 
     country has not taken measures in cooperation with, or 
     similar to, sanctions imposed by the United States on a third 
     country.
       (ix) The suspension of, or any restriction or prohibition 
     on, travel rights or air transportation to or from a foreign 
     country.
       (x) Any restriction on the filing or maintenance in a 
     foreign country of any proprietary interest in intellectual 
     property rights (including patents, copyrights, and 
     trademarks), including payment of patent maintenance fees.
       (C) Multilateral regime.--As used in this paragraph, the 
     term ``multilateral regime'' means an agreement, arrangement, 
     or obligation under which the United States cooperates with 
     other countries in restricting commerce for reasons of 
     foreign policy or national security, including--
       (i) obligations under resolutions of the United Nations;
       (ii) nonproliferation and export control arrangements, such 
     as the Australia Group, the Nuclear Supplier's Group, the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime, and the Wassenaar 
     Arrangement;
       (iii) treaty obligations, such as under the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
     Nuclear Weapons, and the Biological Weapons Convention; and
       (iv) agreements concerning protection of the environment, 
     such as the International Convention for the Conservation of 
     Atlantic Tunas, the Declaration of Panama referred to in 
     section 2(a)(1) of the International Dolphin Conservation Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1361 note), the Convention on International Trade 
     in Endangered Species, the Montreal Protocol on Substances 
     that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and the Basel Convention on the 
     Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes.
       (D) Financial transaction.--As used in this paragraph, the 
     term ``financial transaction'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 1956(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code.
       (E) Investment.--As used in this paragraph, the term 
     ``investment'' means any contribution or commitment of funds, 
     commodities, services, patents, or other forms of 
     intellectual property, processes, or techniques, including--
       (i) a loan or loans;
       (ii) the purchase of a share of ownership;
       (iii) participation in royalties, earnings, or profits; and
       (iv) the furnishing or commodities or services pursuant to 
     a lease or other contract.
       (F) Exclusions.--The term ``unilateral economic sanction'' 
     does not include--
       (i) any measure imposed to remedy unfair trade practices or 
     to enforce United States rights under a trade agreement, 
     including under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, title 
     VII of that Act, title III of the Trade Act of 1974, sections 
     1374 and 1377 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
     1988 (19 U.S.C. 3103 and 3106), and section 3 of the Act of 
     March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10b-1);
       (ii) any measure imposed to remedy market disruption or to 
     respond to injury to a domestic industry for which increased 
     imports are a substantial cause or threat thereof, including 
     remedies under sections 201 and 406 of the Trade Act of 1974, 
     and textile import restrictions (including those imposed 
     under section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956 (7 U.S.C. 
     1784));
       (iii) any action taken under title IV of the Trade Act of 
     1974, including the enactment of a joint resolution under 
     section 402(d)(2) of that Act;
       (iv) any measure imposed to restrict imports of 
     agricultural commodities to protect food safety or to ensure 
     the orderly marketing of commodities in the United States, 
     including actions taken under section 22 of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 624);
       (v) any measure imposed to restrict imports of any other 
     products in order to protect domestic health or safety;
       (vi) any measure authorized by, or imposed under, a 
     multilateral or bilateral trade agreement to which the United 
     States is a signatory, including the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the 
     United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement, and the United 
     States-Canada Free Trade Agreement; and
       (vii) any export control imposed on any item on the United 
     States Munitions List.
       (2) National emergency.--The term ``national emergency'' 
     means any unusual or extraordinary threat, which has its 
     source in whole or substantial part outside the United 
     States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy 
     of the United States.
       (3) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural 
     commodity'' has the meaning given that term in section 102(1) 
     of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602(1)).
       (4) Appropriate committees.--The term ``appropriate 
     committees'' means the Committee on Agriculture, the 
     Committee on International Relations, the Committee on Ways 
     and Means, and the Committee on Banking and Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives, and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, the Committee on 
     Finance, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate.
       (5) Contract sanctity.--The term ``contract sanctity'', 
     with respect to a unilateral economic sanction, refers to the 
     inapplicability of the sanction to--
       (A) a contract or agreement entered into before the 
     sanction is imposed, or to a valid export license or other 
     authorization to export; and
       (B) actions taken to enforce the right to maintain 
     intellectual property rights, in the foreign country against 
     which the sanction is imposed, which existed before the 
     imposition of the sanction.

     SEC. 5. GUIDELINES FOR UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS 
                   LEGISLATION.

       Any bill or joint resolution that imposes any unilateral 
     economic sanction, or authorizes the imposition of any 
     unilateral economic sanction by the executive branch, and is 
     considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, 
     should--
       (1) state the foreign policy or national security objective 
     or objectives of the United States that the economic sanction 
     is intended to achieve;
       (2) provide that the economic sanction terminate 2 years 
     after it is imposed, unless specifically reauthorized by 
     Congress;
       (3) provide for contract sanctity;
       (4) provide authority for the President both to adjust the 
     timing and scope of the sanction and to waive the sanction, 
     if the President determines it is in the national interest to 
     do so;
       (5)(A) target the sanction as narrowly as possible on 
     foreign governments, entities, and officials that are 
     responsible for the conduct being targeted; and
       (B) seek to minimize any adverse impact on the humanitarian 
     activities of United States and foreign nongovernmental 
     organizations in any country against which the sanction may 
     be imposed; and
       (6) provide, to the extent that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture or the Congressional Budget Office finds that--
       (A) the proposed sanction is likely to restrict exports of 
     any agricultural commodity or is likely to result in 
     retaliation against exports of any agricultural commodity 
     from the United States, and
       (B) the sanction is proposed to be imposed, or is likely to 
     be imposed, on a country or countries that constituted, in 
     the preceding calendar year, the market for more than 3 
     percent of all export sales from the United States of an 
     agricultural commodity,

     that the Secretary of Agriculture expand agricultural export 
     assistance under United States market development, food 
     assistance, or export promotion programs to offset the likely 
     damage to incomes of producers of the affected agricultural 
     commodity or commodities, to the maximum extent permitted by 
     the obligations of the United States under the Agreement on 
     Agriculture referred to in section 101(d)(2) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(2)).

[[Page S12001]]

     SEC. 6. REQUIREMENTS FOR BILL OR JOINT RESOLUTION.

       (a) Public Comment.--Before considering a bill or joint 
     resolution that imposes any unilateral economic sanction, or 
     authorizes the imposition of any unilateral economic sanction 
     by the executive branch, the committee of primary 
     jurisdiction shall publish a notice which provides an 
     opportunity for interested members of the public to submit 
     comments to the committee on the proposed sanction.
       (b) When Reports Requested.--The committee of primary 
     jurisdiction that orders reported a bill or joint resolution 
     described in section 5 shall timely request from the 
     President and the Secretary of Agriculture the reports 
     identified in subsection (c). Each such report that has been 
     timely submitted prior to the filing of the committee report 
     accompanying the bill or joint resolution shall be included 
     in the committee report. The committee report shall also 
     contain, if the bill or joint resolution does not meet any of 
     the guidelines specified in paragraphs (1) through (6) of 
     section 5, an explanation of why it does not.
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) Report by the president.--The President's report to 
     Congress under subsection (b) shall contain--
       (A) an assessment of--
       (i) the likelihood that the proposed unilateral economic 
     sanction will achieve its stated objective within a 
     reasonable period of time; and
       (ii) the impact of the proposed unilateral economic 
     sanction on--

       (I) humanitarian conditions, including the impact on 
     conditions in any specific countries on which the sanction is 
     proposed to be or may be imposed;
       (II) humanitarian activities of United States and foreign 
     nongovernmental organizations;
       (III) relations with United States allies;
       (IV) other United States national security and foreign 
     policy interests; and
       (V) countries and entities other than those on which the 
     sanction is proposed to be or may be imposed;

       (B) a description and assessment of--
       (i) diplomatic and other steps the United States has taken 
     to accomplish the intended objectives of the unilateral 
     sanction legislation;
       (ii) the likelihood of multilateral adoption of comparable 
     measures;
       (iii) comparable measures undertaken by other countries;
       (iv) alternative measures to promote the same objectives, 
     and an assessment of their potential effectiveness;
       (v) any obligations of the United States under 
     international treaties or trade agreements with which the 
     proposed sanction may conflict;
       (vi) the likelihood that the proposed sanction will lead to 
     retaliation against United States interests, including 
     agricultural interests; and
       (vii) whether the achievement of the objectives of the 
     proposed sanction outweighs any likely costs to United States 
     foreign policy, national security, economic, and humanitarian 
     interests, including any potential harm to United States 
     business, agriculture, and consumers, and any potential harm 
     to the international reputation of the United States as a 
     reliable supplier of products, technology, agricultural 
     commodities, and services.
       (2) Report by the secretary of agriculture.--The Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall submit to the appropriate committees a 
     report which shall contain an assessment of--
       (A) the extent to which any country or countries proposed 
     to be sanctioned or likely to be sanctioned are markets that 
     accounted for, in the preceding calendar year, more than 3 
     percent of all export sales from the United States of any 
     agricultural commodity;
       (B) the likelihood that exports of agricultural commodities 
     from the United States will be affected by the proposed 
     sanction or by retaliation by any country proposed to be 
     sanctioned or likely to be sanctioned, and specific 
     commodities which are most likely to be affected;
       (C) the likely effect on incomes of producers of the 
     specific commodities identified by the Secretary;
       (D) the extent to which the proposed sanction would permit 
     foreign suppliers to replace United States suppliers; and
       (E) the likely effect of the proposed sanction on the 
     reputation of United States farmers as reliable suppliers of 
     agricultural commodities in general, and of the specific 
     commodities identified by the Secretary.
       (3) Federal private sector mandate.--
       (A) In general.--Any bill or joint resolution that imposes 
     any unilateral economic sanction described in section 5 shall 
     be considered to include a Federal private sector mandate for 
     purposes of part B of title IV of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974.
       (B) Report by the congressional budget office.--The report 
     by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to subparagraph 
     (A) shall include an assessment of the likely short-term and 
     long-term costs of the proposed sanction to the United States 
     economy, including the potential impact on United States 
     trade performance, employment, and growth, the international 
     reputation of the United States as a reliable supplier of 
     products, agricultural commodities, technology, and services, 
     and the economic well-being and international competitive 
     position of United States industries, firms, workers, 
     farmers, and communities.

     SEC. 7. REQUIREMENTS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION.

       (a) In General.--The President may implement a unilateral 
     economic sanction under any provision of law not less than 60 
     days after announcing his intention to do so.
       (b) Consultation.--The President shall consult with the 
     appropriate committees regarding the proposed unilateral 
     economic sanction, including consultations regarding efforts 
     to achieve or increase multilateral cooperation on the issues 
     or problems prompting the proposed sanction.
       (c) Public Hearings; Record.--The President shall publish a 
     notice in the Federal Register of the opportunity for 
     interested persons to submit comments on the proposed 
     unilateral economic sanction.
       (d) Guidelines for Executive Branch Sanctions.--Any 
     unilateral economic sanction imposed by the President--
       (1) shall--
       (A) include a clear finding that the sanction is likely to 
     achieve a specific United States foreign policy or national 
     security objective within a reasonable period of time, which 
     shall be specified, and that the achievement of the 
     objectives of the sanction outweighs any costs to United 
     States national interests;
       (B) provide for contract sanctity;
       (C) terminate not later than 2 years after the sanction is 
     imposed, unless specifically extended by the President in 
     accordance with the procedures of this section;
       (D)(i) be targeted as narrowly as possible on foreign 
     governments, entities, and officials that are responsible for 
     the conduct being targeted; and
       (ii) seek to minimize any adverse impact on the 
     humanitarian activities of United States and foreign 
     nongovernmental organizations in a country against which the 
     sanction may be imposed; and
       (2) should provide, to the extent that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture finds that--
       (A) a unilateral economic sanction is likely to restrict 
     exports of any agricultural commodity from the United States 
     or is likely to risk retaliation against exports of any 
     agricultural commodity from the United States, and
       (B) the sanction is proposed to be imposed, or is likely to 
     be imposed, on a country or countries that constituted, in 
     the preceding calendar year, the market for more than 3 
     percent of all export sales from the United States of an 
     agricultural commodity,

     that the Secretary of Agriculture expand agricultural export 
     assistance under United States market development, food 
     assistance, or export promotion programs to offset the likely 
     damage to incomes of producers of the affected agricultural 
     commodity or commodities, to the maximum extent permitted by 
     law and by the obligations of the United States under the 
     Agreement on Agriculture referred to in section 101(d)(2) of 
     the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(2)).
       (e) Report by the President.--Prior to imposing any 
     unilateral economic sanction, the President shall provide a 
     report to the appropriate committees on the proposed 
     sanction. The report shall include the report of the 
     International Trade Commission under subsection (g) (if 
     timely submitted prior to the filing of the report). The 
     President's report shall contain the following:
       (1) An explanation of the foreign policy or national 
     security objective or objectives intended to be achieved 
     through the proposed sanction.
       (2) An assessment of--
       (A) the likelihood that the proposed unilateral economic 
     sanction will achieve its stated objectives within the stated 
     period of time; and
       (B) the impact of the proposed unilateral economic sanction 
     on--
       (i) humanitarian conditions, including the impact on 
     conditions in any specific countries on which the sanctions 
     are proposed to be imposed;
       (ii) humanitarian activities of United States and foreign 
     nongovernmental organizations;
       (iii) relations with United States allies;
       (iv) other United States national security and foreign 
     policy interests; and
       (v) countries and entities other than those on which the 
     sanction is proposed to be imposed.
       (3) A description and assessment of--
       (A) diplomatic and other steps the United States has taken 
     to accomplish the intended objectives of the proposed 
     sanction;
       (B) the likelihood of multilateral adoption of comparable 
     measures;
       (C) comparable measures undertaken by other countries;
       (D) alternative measures to promote the same objectives, 
     and an assessment of their potential effectiveness;
       (E) any obligations of the United States under 
     international treaties or trade agreements with which the 
     proposed sanction may conflict;
       (F) the likelihood that the proposed sanction will lead to 
     retaliation against United States interests, including 
     agricultural interests; and
       (G) whether the achievement of the objectives of the 
     proposed sanction outweighs any likely costs to United States 
     foreign policy, national security, economic, and humanitarian 
     interests, including any potential harm to United States 
     business, agriculture, and consumers, and any potential harm 
     to the international reputation of the United States as a 
     reliable supplier of products, technology, agricultural 
     commodities, and services.

[[Page S12002]]

       (f) Report by the Secretary of Agriculture.--Prior to the 
     imposition of a unilateral economic sanction by the 
     President, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees a report which shall contain an 
     assessment of--
       (1) the extent to which any country or countries proposed 
     to be sanctioned are markets that accounted for, in the 
     preceding calendar year, more than 3 percent of all export 
     sales from the United States of any agricultural commodity;
       (2) the likelihood that exports of agricultural commodities 
     from the United States will be affected by the proposed 
     sanction or by retaliation by any country proposed to be 
     sanctioned, including specific commodities which are most 
     likely to be affected;
       (3) the likely effect on incomes of producers of the 
     specific commodities identified by the Secretary;
       (4) the extent to which the proposed sanction would permit 
     foreign suppliers to replace United States suppliers; and
       (5) the likely effect of the prosed sanction on the 
     reputation of United States farmers as reliable suppliers of 
     agricultural commodities in general, and of the specific 
     commodities identified by the Secretary.
       (g) Report by the United States International Trade 
     Commission.--Before imposing a unilateral economic sanction, 
     the President shall make a timely request to the United 
     States International Trade Commission for a report on the 
     likely short-term and long-term costs of the proposed 
     sanction to the United States economy, including the 
     potential impact on United States trade performance, 
     employment, and growth, the international reputation of the 
     United States as a reliable supplier of products, 
     agricultural commodities, technology, and services, and the 
     economic well-being and international competitive position of 
     United States industries, firms, workers, farmers, and 
     communities.
       (h) Waiver in Case of National Emergency.--The President 
     may waive any of the requirements of subsections (a), (b), 
     (c), (e), (f), and (g), in the event that the President 
     determines that there exists a national emergency that 
     requires the exercise of the waiver. In the event of such a 
     waiver, the requirements waived shall be met during the 60-
     day period immediately following the imposition of the 
     unilateral economic sanction, and the sanction shall 
     terminate 90 days after being imposed unless such 
     requirements are met. The President may waive any of the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1)(B), (1)(D), and (2) of 
     subsection (d) in the event that the President determines 
     that the unilateral economic sanction is related to actual or 
     imminent armed conflict involving the United States.
       (i) Sanctions Review Committee.--The President shall 
     establish a Sanctions Review Committee to coordinate United 
     States policy regarding unilateral economic sanctions and to 
     provide appropriate recommendations to the President prior to 
     decisions regarding such sanctions. The Committee shall be 
     comprised of--
       (1) the Secretary of State;
       (2) the Secretary of the Treasury;
       (3) the Secretary of Defense;
       (4) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (5) the Secretary of Commerce;
       (6) the Secretary of Energy;
       (7) the United States Trade Representative;
       (8) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
       (9) the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers;
       (10) the Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs; and
       (11) the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.
       (j) Inapplicability of Other Provisions.--This section 
     applies notwithstanding any other provision of law.

     SEC. 8. ANNUAL REPORTS.

       (a) Annual Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate committees a report 
     detailing with respect to each country or entity against 
     which a unilateral economic sanction has been imposed--
       (1) the extent to which the sanction has achieved foreign 
     policy or national security objectives of the United States 
     with respect to that country or entity;
       (2) the extent to which the sanction has harmed 
     humanitarian interests in that country, the country in which 
     that entity is located, or in other countries; and
       (3) the impact of the sanction on other national security 
     and foreign policy interests of the United States, including 
     relations with countries friendly to the United States, and 
     on the United States economy.
       (b) Report by the United States International Trade 
     Commission.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the United 
     States International Trade Commission shall report to the 
     appropriate committees on the costs, individually and in the 
     aggregate, of all unilateral economic sanctions in effect 
     under United States law, regulation, or Executive order. The 
     calculation of such costs shall include an assessment of the 
     impact of such measures on the international reputation of 
     the United States as a reliable supplier of products, 
     agricultural commodities, technology, and services.
                                  ____


   Enhancement of Trade, Security and Human Rights Through Sanctions 
                Reform Act--Section-by-Section Analysis

       Section 1: Short Title. The act may be cited as the 
     ``Enhancement of Trade, Security and Human Rights through 
     Sanctions Reform Act.''
       Section 2: Purpose. The purpose of the Act is to establish 
     an effective framework for consideration of unilateral 
     economic sanctions.
       Section 3: Statement of Policy. This section sets forth 
     U.S. policy to pursue American security, trade, and 
     humanitarian interests through broad-ranging engagement with 
     other countries, while recognizing the need at times to 
     impose sanctions as a last resort. It supports multilateral 
     cooperation as an alternative to unilateral U.S. sanctions. 
     It seeks to promote U.S. economic growth through trade and to 
     maintain America's reputation as a reliable supplier. It 
     opposes boycotts and use of agricultural embargoes as a 
     foreign policy weapon. It urges that economic sanctions be 
     targeted as narrowly as possible, to minimize harm to 
     innocent people or to humanitarian activities.
       Section 4: Definitions. This section defines ``unilateral 
     economic sanction'' as any restriction or condition on 
     economic activity with respect to a foreign country or entity 
     imposed for reasons of foreign policy or national security. 
     This definition excludes multilateral sanctions, where other 
     countries have agreed to adopt ``substantially equivalent'' 
     measures. The definition also excludes U.S. trade laws, 
     Jackson-Vanik, and munitions list controls. This section also 
     defines the terms ``national emergency,'' ``agricultural 
     commodity,'' ``appropriate committees,'' and ``contract 
     sanctity.''
       Section 5: Guidelines for Unilateral Economic Sanctions 
     Legislation. This section provides that any bill or joint 
     resolution imposing or authorizing a unilateral economic 
     sanction should state the U.S. foreign policy or national 
     security objective, sunset after two years unless 
     specifically reauthorized, protect contract sanctity, provide 
     Presidential authority to adjust or waive the sanction in the 
     national interest, target the sanction as narrowly as 
     possible against the parties responsible for the offending 
     conduct, and provide for expanded export promotion if 
     sanctions target a major export market for American farmers.
       Section 6: Requirements for Report Accompanying the Bill. 
     The committee reporting sanctions legislation shall request 
     reports from the President and Secretary of Agriculture. 
     These reports shall be included in the committee report. If 
     the legislation does not meet any Section 5 guideline, the 
     committee report shall explain why not.
       The President's report shall contain an assessment of the 
     likelihood that the proposed sanction will achieve its stated 
     objective within a reasonable time. It must weigh the likely 
     foreign policy, national security, economic, and humanitarian 
     benefits against the costs of acting unilaterally. The report 
     will also assess alternatives, such as prior diplomatic and 
     other U.S. steps and comparable multilateral measures.
       The Secretary of Agriculture's report shall assess the 
     likely extent of the proposed legislation in terms of market 
     share in affected countries, the likelihood that U.S. 
     agricultural exports will be affected on the reputation of 
     U.S. farmers as reliable suppliers.
       Section 6 also considers unilateral sanctions as unfunded 
     federal mandates for purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Act. 
     The Congressional Budget Office shall assess the likely 
     short- and long-term cost of the proposed sanctions to the 
     U.S. economy.
       Section 7: Requirements for Executive Action. The President 
     may impose a unilateral sanction no less than 60 days after 
     announcing his intention to do so, during which time he shall 
     consult with Congressional committees and publish a notice in 
     the Federal Register seeking public comment. Any Executive 
     sanction must meet the same guidelines that Section 5 applies 
     to the Congress and must, in addition, include a clear 
     finding that the sanction is likely to achieve a specific 
     U.S. foreign policy or national security objective within a 
     reasonable--and specified--period of time.
       Section 7 also requires--prior to the imposition of a 
     unilateral sanction--the President and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to provide to the appropriate Congressional 
     committees reports that contain the same assessment as 
     required in the reports described in Section 6. The President 
     shall also request a report by the U.S. International Trade 
     Commission on the likely short- and long-term costs of the 
     proposed sanctions to the U.S. economy, including the 
     potential impact on U.S. competitiveness.
       In case of national emergency, the bill allows the 
     President temporarily to waive most Section 7 requirements in 
     order to act immediately. If the President acts on an 
     emergency basis, the waived requirements must be met within 
     sixty days. Finally, the President shall establish an 
     interagency Sanctions Review Committee to improve 
     coordination of U.S. policy regarding unilateral sanctions.
       Section 8: Annual Report. The President must submit to the 
     appropriate committees a report each year detailing the 
     extent to which sanctions have achieved U.S. objectives, as 
     well as their impact on humanitarian and other U.S. 
     interests, including relations with friendly countries. The 
     U.S. International Trade Commission shall report to the 
     Congress on the costs, individually and in the aggregate, of 
     all unilateral economic sanctions in effect under U.S. law, 
     regulation, or Executive order, including the impact on U.S. 
     competitiveness.

[[Page S12003]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. 
        Gorton):
  S. 1415. A bill to reform and restructure the processes by which 
tobacco products are manufactured, marketed, and distributed, to 
prevent the use of tobacco products by minors, to redress the adverse 
health effects of tobacco use, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                  the universal tobacco settlement act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 
Universal Tobacco Settlement Act. This bill is cosponsored by the 
Commerce Committee Ranking Member Senator Hollings, Senator Gorton, and 
Senator Breaux.
  Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today is the legislative 
version of the Universal Tobacco Settlement agreed upon by the 
attorneys general and the tobacco companies. We hope it will serve as 
the basis of discussion and amendment here in the Senate.
  I want briefly to discuss what this bill is and is not. It is the 
basis for hearings, discussion, and amendment. After this bill is 
introduced, I will ask consent to have it jointly referred to various 
committees of jurisdiction for consideration. As the chairman of the 
Commerce Committee, I intend to hold extensive hearings on this bill 
and use it as the vehicle for amendment.
  First, let me emphasize that this legislation was drafted by Senate 
legislative counsel who was requested to write a bill that would 
implement and mirror the universal tobacco agreement without any 
direction or input from Members and without any alteration from the 
agreement.
  The substance of the bill is not perfect, complete, comprehensive, or 
legislation that could ever be signed into law without considerable 
debate and amendments. None of the cosponsors endorse this bill as 
being the answer to our Nation's problem with tobacco-related death and 
illness. But it can and should serve as a basis to began negotiations 
between all concerned parties.
  The bipartisan group of attorneys general and the tobacco companies 
deserve praise for developing this language. I know it was not easy. 
But much more needs to be done. The Universal Tobacco Settlement 
Agreement presents more questions than it answers. That is why we must 
move the legislative process forward and begin debating substantive 
language.
  I had hoped that the administration would send the Congress 
legislation in this area. I would have liked for the Congress to begin 
considering the proposals developed and advocated by the White House. 
Unfortunately, the White House chose not to take such action. As a 
result, I have chosen to begin this discussion with attorneys general 
agreement.
  There has been one addition to the settlement developed by the 
attorneys general. The universal tobacco settlement did not address the 
issue of tobacco farmers and the communities whose existence and 
economy depends on the growing of tobacco. To address this concern, a 
new title IX has been added to the bill. The text of title IX is the 
language of S. 1310, legislation introduced by Senator Ford. It is my 
hope that with the addition of this language to the bill, we can begin 
the comprehensive debate necessary on this subject.
  Mr. President, let there be no mistake, the Senate takes its role in 
this matter very seriously. Millions of lives have been lost and 
millions more will follow. Every day 3,000 young adults and children 
begin smoking. We cannot and should not allow this to continue. With 
the introduction of this bill we will begin this debate and I am 
hopeful that by early next year we can move forward on the floor on 
this matter.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 1416. A bill to amend Federal election laws to repeal the public 
financing of national political party conventions and Presidential 
elections and spending limits on Presidential election campaigns, to 
repeal the limits on coordinated expenditures by political parties, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


              the presidential campaign reform act of 1997

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Governmental Affairs hearings 
investigating the 1996 Presidential election affirmed what 
knowledgeable observers have contended for years--that the Presidential 
campaign finance system of spending limits and taxpayer funding is a 
fraud.
  Not soon forgotten will be the seamy videos of the White House coffee 
fundraisers in which the President was caught on tape extolling the 
virtues of circumventing the Presidential system's contribution and 
spending limits, via soft money contributions to the DNC--that once 
proud institution hijacked by the Clinton-Gore campaign bent on 
reelection in 1996. The 1996 Clinton-Gore reelection campaign took 
campaign finance chicanery to new heights, or lows, depending on your 
perspective.
  Mr. President, I am no fan of spending limits so am not without 
sympathy for those who must campaign under them. The Presidential 
system, while technically voluntary, presents a Hobson's choice to 
those contemplating a campaign. Candidates can choose between 
compliance with arbitrary and severe spending limits, burdensome 
regulatory requirements, and the prospect of years of FEC audits or 
trying to mount a credible campaign under the severe constraints of 
outdated contribution limits.
  It's difficult enough to mount a statewide Senate campaign with 
individual contributions limited to $1,000 a pop. Conducting a 
nationwide effort under the same contribution limits must be a 
nightmare. It requires, at the least, a Herculean effort, unless a 
candidate has the good fortune to have a fortune sufficient to bankroll 
their own campaign out of their own pocket. So I might be inclined to 
cut the President and Vice President some slack for this particular 
malfeasance--they have so many fundraising misdeeds to account for this 
one got lost in the shuffle until recently. I might cut them some slack 
if they were not such shameless hypocrites, portraying themselves as 
victims of the system and America's biggest fans of reform, when they 
aren't pleading incompetence.
  ``William J. Clinton'' signed a letter, addressed to the Chairman of 
the Federal Election Commission, on October 13, 1995, in which the 
President agreed to comply with the Presidential system's limits in 
exchange for which the Clinton-Gore campaign would receive taxpayer 
dollars. All told, the Clinton-Gore campaign received $75 million for 
the primary and general elections in 1996. The Democratic National 
Committee received over $12 million for its convention extravaganza in 
Chicago. It was a lie.
  The Clinton-Gore campaign took the money--$75 million from the U.S. 
Treasury--and never had any intention of confining their campaign to 
the spending limits. The Presidential system, from its inception, has 
been a bad joke on the American taxpayers, limiting neither spending, 
nor so-called ``special interests,'' as its creators--self-styled 
reformers--said it would.
  Unwilling to concede that their utopian reform vision has become a 
taxpayer-funded debacle worthy only of dismantling, the inside-the-
beltway reform industry agitates instead for even more restrictions--on 
the party committees and independent groups. It would be like putting 
band-aids on the Titanic, and unconstitutional, to boot.
  The reform dream is the taxpayers' nightmare. Over $1 billion has 
been squandered on the Presidential system. It is an entitlement 
program for politicians. And a boondoggle for the likes of fringe 
candidates such as Lenora Fulani and Lyndon LaRouche who have flocked 
to the Presidential campaign entitlement program, like moths to a 
flame.
  Even Ross Perot's Reform Party has gotten into the act--as the Texas 
billionaire received $30 million from the U.S. Treasury last year for 
his campaign. An irony is that the Perot Reform Party's partaking of 
taxpayer funds from the Presidential system coffers will be the straw 
that breaks the camel's back in 2000. The Reform Party is going to 
bleed the reform dream dry if it takes what it will be entitled to in 
primary matching, convention, and general election funding. This is the 
gist of a recent FEC staff report on the fund's prospects for the 2000 
campaign.
  At the outset of the 2000 Presidential primaries, the Presidential 
fund will be so near bankruptcy that candidates will be able to receive 
only a tiny fraction of what they are entitled to. FEC

[[Page S12004]]

staff predict this dearth of funding will prompt some candidates to opt 
out of the Presidential spending limit system altogether. Where would 
such an exodus leave the competitive field? The candidates would still 
be stuck with the quarter-century old contribution limits, bestowing a 
tremendous advantage on those select few who have a huge donor base 
from which to draw or the wherewithal to fund a campaign out of their 
own pocket.
  This is a very real campaign finance crisis--a Presidential system on 
the edge of oblivion and a wide-open contest looming in the year 2000. 
So I rise today to introduce a bill to reform the Presidential system--
the object of so much scandal and scorn. This reform legislation would 
repeal the Presidential system's spending limits and taxpayer funding. 
It would save the American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars 
every election. To compensate for the loss of taxpayer funding and make 
the system more realistic, the contribution limit for Presidential 
candidates would be adjusted to $10,000, up from the current $1,000. 
The PAC limit would also be adjusted up to $10,000.
  It would also strengthen the political parties by updating the hard 
money contribution limits regulating donations to them. These limits 
are a quarter-century old and long overdue for adjustments. Candidates 
and political parties should not be shackled in the year 2000 with 
circa-1970's contribution limits. The bill would also do what the 
Supreme Court talked about doing in the 1996 Colorado decision and is 
likely to do in the near future: abolish the coordinated spending 
limit. This arbitrary restriction on what parties can do in 
coordination with their nominees is absurd. The parties prefer to 
operate in hard money over soft money. These reforms would facilitate 
that activity.
  Mr. President, these are commonsense reforms that would enhance 
competition and increase accountability in Presidential elections. In 
the interest of heading off a complete breakdown of the Presidential 
system in 2000, I urge Senators to step away from the traditional 
reform paradigm and join me in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 1418. A bill to promote the research, identification, assessment, 
exploration, and development of methane hydrate resources, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


        the methane hydrate research and development act of 1997

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Craig and 
Landrieu, I am introducing the Methane Hydrate Research and Development 
Act of 1997.
  Methane hydrate is a methane-bearing, ice-like substance that occurs 
in abundance in marine sediments. It is a crystalline solid of methane 
molecules surrounded by a structure of water molecules.
  Methane hydrates are stable at moderately high pressures and low 
temperatures and contain large quantities of methane. One unit volume 
of methane hydrate contains more than 160 volumes of methane at 
standard temperature and pressure.
  Methane hydrates are found in deep ocean sediments. Significant 
quantities are also found in the permafrost of Alaska, Canada, and 
Siberia.
  Despite their potential as an energy resource, methane hydrates have 
not received the attention they deserve. We are only beginning to 
understand the magnitude of this potential resource. The amount of 
methane sequestered in gas hydrates is enormous. Worldwide estimates 
range from 100,000 trillion cubic feet to 270 million trillion cubic 
feet. Locations of known methane hydrate deposits within the Untied 
States include the Arctic, the seabed adjacent to northern California, 
the Gulf of Mexico, and the Eastern Seaboard.
  A conservative estimate of deposits under U.S. jurisdiction is 2,700 
trillion cubic feet to seven million trillion cubic feet of gas. A 
recent U.S. Geological Survey analysis indicates the presence of over 
500 trillion cubic feet of methane at the Black Ridge site off the 
coast of Carolinas alone. When you consider that current U.S. 
consumption is less than 25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per 
year, you begin to appreciate the magnitude of this energy resource.
  The U.S. energy outlook is perilous at best. Our dependence on 
imported oil is steadily increasing. Soon we will import over 60 
percent of the oil we consume. Air pollution is a persistent problem. 
We are spending enormous resources to improve air quality. Global 
climate change poses a looming challenge. With these concerns in mind, 
it is easy to recognize the importance of methane hydrates.
  Methane hydrates are a strategic resource because they contain huge 
amounts of methane in a concentrated form. Extracted methane from 
hydrates represents an extraordinarily large energy resource and 
petrochemical feedstock. Methane is less polluting than other 
hydrocarbons because of its higher hydrogen-to-carbon ratio. Given the 
concerns about global climate change, a transition to methane as an 
energy resource is an attractive solution.
  The U.S. is not doing enough to explore this viable energy source. 
Other countries, primarily Japan and India, have aggressive programs to 
develop methane hydrates. Japan has launched an exploration project for 
methane hydrates in its surrounding waters. The Japanese National Oil 
Corporation is conducting a seismic survey off Hokkaido Island and will 
drill test wells in two locations in 1999. Commercial production is 
planned for 2010. About six trillion cubic meters of methane hydrates 
can be found in the seabed near Japan. Recovery of one-tenth of this 
reserve could yield about 100 years supply of natural gas for Japan.
  As part of its plan to boost natural gas resources, the Oil Industry 
Development Board of India has earmarked $56 million for a program of 
methane hydrates research and development. We cannot be left behind 
these and other nations in the race to develop this important energy 
resource.
  Science News recently published an article summarizing the hopes and 
hazards associated with methane hydrates. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of this article be printed in the Record.
  This is an exciting area of research and of new knowledge. It has an 
enormous payoff, not only for our energy security, but also for the 
global environment.
  My bill establishes a small research and development program with the 
potential for major payback. It would direct the Department of Energy 
to conduct research and development in collaboration with the Naval 
Research Laboratory and the U.S. Geological Survey. The Secretary of 
Energy would also consult with other Federal and State agencies, 
industry, and academia. It directs the Department to conduct research 
on, and identify, explore, assess, and develop methane hydrate 
resources as a source of energy. It also directs the Department to 
develop technologies needed to develop methane resources in an 
environmentally sound manner. It provides for research to develop safe 
means of transportation and storage of methane produced from methane 
hydrates. To alleviate the concerns related to releases of methane, the 
legislation directs the Department to undertake research to assess and 
mitigate hydrate degassing, both natural and that associated with 
commercial development. It requires the Department to develop 
technologies to reduce the risk of drilling through the gas hydrates. 
And finally, it provides for the training of scientists and engineers 
that would be needed for this new and exciting field on endeavor.
  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. 1418

       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 ``Methane Hydrate Research and 
     Development Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Contract.--The term ``contract'' means a procurement 
     contract within the meaning of 6303 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Cooperative agreement.--The term ``cooperative 
     agreement'' means a cooperative agreement within the meaning 
     of section 6305 of title 31, United States Code.

[[Page S12005]]

       (3) Grant.--The term ``grant'' means a grant agreement 
     within the meaning of section 6304 of title 31, United States 
     Code.
       (4) Methane hydrate.--The term ``methane hydrate'' means a 
     methane clathrate that--
       (A) is in the form of a methane-water ice-like crystalline 
     material; and
       (B) is stable and occurs naturally in deep-ocean and 
     permafrost areas.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (6) Secretary of Defense.--The term ``Secretary of 
     Defense'' means the Secretary of Defense, acting through the 
     Secretary of the Navy.
       (7) Secretary of the Interior.--The term ``Secretary of the 
     Interior'' means the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Director of the United States Geological Survey.

     SEC. 3. METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Commencement of program.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 
     of the Interior, shall commence a program of methane hydrate 
     research and development.
       (2) Designations.--The Secretary, Secretary of Defense, and 
     Secretary of the Interior shall designate individuals to 
     implement this Act.
       (3) Meetings.--The individuals designated under paragraph 
     (2) shall meet not less frequently than every 120 days to 
     review the progress of the program under paragraph (1) and 
     make recommendations on future activities.
       (b) Grants, Contracts, and Cooperative Agreements.--
       (1) Assistance and coordination.--The Secretary may award 
     grants or contracts to, or enter into cooperative agreements 
     with, universities and industrial enterprises to--
       (A) conduct basic and applied research to identify, 
     explore, assess, and develop methane hydrate as a source of 
     energy;
       (B) assist in developing technologies required for 
     efficient and environmentally sound development of methane 
     hydrate resources;
       (C) undertake research programs to provide safe means of 
     transport and storage of methane produced from methane 
     hydrates;
       (D) promote education and training in methane hydrate 
     resources research and resource development;
       (E) conduct basic and applied research to assess and 
     mitigate the environmental impacts of hydrate degassing, both 
     natural and that associated with commercial development; and
       (F) develop technologies to reduce the risks of drilling 
     through methane hydrates.
       (2) Consultation.--The Secretary may establish an advisory 
     panel consisting of experts from industry, academia, and 
     Federal agencies to advise the Secretary on potential 
     applications of methane hydrate and assist in developing 
     recommendations and priorities for the methane hydrate 
     research and development program carried out under this 
     section.
       (c) Limitations.--
       (1) Administrative expenses.--Not more than 5 percent of 
     the amount made available to carry out this section for a 
     fiscal year may be used by the Secretary for expenses 
     associated with the administration of the program subsection 
     (a)(1).
       (2) Construction costs.--None of the funds made available 
     to carry out this section may be used for the construction of 
     a new building or the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or 
     alteration of an existing building (including site grading 
     and improvement and architect fees.)
       (d) Responsibilities of the Secretary.--In carrying out 
     subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall--
       (1) facilitate and develop partnerships among government, 
     industry, and academia to research, identify, assess, and 
     explore methane hydrate resources;
       (2) undertake programs to develop basic information 
     necessary for promoting long-term interest in methane hydrate 
     resources as an energy source;
       (3) ensure that the data and information developed through 
     the program are accessible and widely disseminated as needed 
     and appropriate;
       (4) promote cooperation among agencies that are developing 
     technologies that may hold promise for methane hydrate 
     resource development; and
       (5) report annually to Congress on accomplishments under 
     this Act.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                  ____


            [From the Science News, Vol. 150, Nov. 9, 1996]

                     The Mother Lode of Natural Gas

                        (By Richard McNastersky)

       For kicks, oceanographer William P. Dillon likes to 
     surprise visitors to his lab by taking ordinary-looking ice 
     balls and setting them on fire.
       ``They're easy to light. You just put a match to them and 
     they will go,'' says Dillon, a researcher with the U.S. 
     Geological Survey (USGS) in Woods Hole, Mass.
       If the truth be told, this is not typical ice. The prop in 
     Dillon's show is a curious and poorly known structure called 
     methane hydrate. Unlike ordinary water ice, methane hydrate 
     consists of single molecules of natural gas trapped within 
     crystalline cages formed by frozen water molecules. Although 
     chemists first discovered gas hydrates in the early part of 
     the 19th century, geoscientists have only recently started 
     documenting their existence in underground deposits and 
     exploring their importance as potential fuel.
       Late last year a team of oceanographers conducted the most 
     in-depth investigation of methane hydrates to date by 
     drilling into an extensive accumulation beneath the seabed 
     off the coast of the southeastern United States. The results 
     of this research, which are now beginning to appear in the 
     scientific literature, seem to bolster extremely sketchy 
     estimates made years ago about the vastness of the hydrate 
     resource.
       ``It turns out there is a tremendous amount of gas down 
     there,'' says Charles Paull, a marine geologist at the 
     University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a leader of 
     the recent drilling expedition. ``It shores up the fact that 
     these are large reserves and makes it increasingly important 
     that they get assessed in terms of whether they are energy-
     producing deposits or not.''
       At the same time, scientists wonder whether this resource 
     also has a dark side. ``There have been extremely rapid 
     changes in climate in the past. Some think that these were 
     caused by methane released from methane hydrate,'' says 
     Dillon.
       Despite their potential importance, methane hydrates have 
     evaded scientific scrutiny until now, largely because they 
     are extremely difficult to study. They exist only where high 
     pressures and low temperatures squeeze water and methane into 
     a solid form.
       Most known deposits of methane hydrate lie below the 
     seafloor in regions that slope from the continents to the 
     deep ocean basins thousands of meters underwater. Marine 
     geologists have tentatively identified deposits off the 
     coasts of Costa Rica, New Jersey, Oregon, Japan, India, and 
     hundreds of other sites around the globe. Petroleum companies 
     have also encountered hydrates while drilling through Arctic 
     pernafrost in Siberia, Alaska, and Canada.
       Like vampires, hydrates disintegrate quickly if pulled from 
     their dark lair. When researchers on the recent drilling 
     expedition hauled up cores of sediment from the ocean floor, 
     the drastic reduction in pressure caused much of the hydrate 
     to melt before it even reached the ship. Without unusual 
     precautions, any remaining hydrate fizzed away when the 
     scientists cut open the core.
       ``Gas hydrates have largely escaped traditional geologic 
     observation because gas hydrates and humans are sort of 
     incompatible. The gas hydrates decompose under the conditions 
     [in which] people traditionally analyze cores. Conversely, 
     humans have no experience in operating in the conditions 
     where gas hydrates are stable. We die under the conditions of 
     gas hydrate stability,'' says Paull.
       Oceanographers first drilled through methane hydrates 
     unintentionally, on an expedition in 1970. Although that 
     encounter was uneventful, research drilling cruises purposely 
     avoided suspected hydrate deposits for 2 decades afterward, 
     fearing they might hit an overpressureized pocket of gas, 
     which could blast away the drilling equipment. Concerns over 
     pressurized gas gradually diminished, and mounting scientific 
     curiosity emboldened researchers to try boring through more 
     hydrate fields. Starting in 1992, the International Ocean 
     Drilling Program (ODP) intentionally breached hydrate 
     deposits several times without incident.
       On the recent expedition, Paull and his colleagues drilled 
     at three sites along the Blake Ridge, a large, submerged 
     promontory 330 kilometers off the southeast coast of the 
     United States. Working in water depths of 2,800 meters, the 
     researchers penetrated 700 meters below the seafloor with 
     a hollow drill bit that cuts away a core of sediment the 
     diameter of a soda can.
       The investigators had to take special precautions to 
     prevent losing methane-hydrate during the 10 minutes it too 
     to haul fresh sections of core up from the ocean bottom. At 
     various depths, they sealed small bits of core in pressurized 
     barrels, thereby containing the gas until the core reached 
     shipboard laboratories. These samples provided the first 
     direct measurements of how much methane-hydrate exists at 
     different depths beneath the seafloor.
       ``The amount of hydrate down there is much higher than has 
     previously been estimated says Paull. ``It was not uncommon 
     to go from 10 liters up to 30 liters of gas per liter of 
     sediment.''
       The researchers also measured, for the first time, large 
     amounts of free gas trapped beneath the frozen hydra-
     deposits. The volume of gas was far more than expected, 
     exceeding even the amount within the frozen layer, says 
     Paull.
       Although the exact origin of hydrate remains unknown, Paull 
     and others suspect that bacteria within the sediment consume 
     rich organic material and generate methane gas. At a certain 
     depth beneath the seafloor, the low temperatures and high 
     pressures ensnare the gas within the frozen hydrate 
     structures. Methane below the hydrate layer remains in 
     gaseous form because the temperatures there are too high to 
     support freezing.
       Conventional deposits of methane, a natural gas, form 
     through a different process, when seafloor sediments are 
     buried far deeper. Exposed to much higher temperatures, the 
     organic material the sediments simmers until it transforms 
     into petroleum and eventually methane.

[[Page S12006]]

       Nearly a decade ago, several researchers independently 
     tried to estimate how much methane exists in hydrate 
     deposits. Because of the scarcity of direct hyro-measurements 
     at the time, the estimate rested on indirect seismic studies 
     which probe the ocean bottom sediments with blasts of sound 
     that reflect off hidden layers.
       These studies suggested that global hydrate deposits 
     contain approximately 10,000 gigatons, or 10 tons, of carbon. 
     That number represents double the combined amount in all 
     reserves of coal, oil, and conventional natural gas.
       The newly emerging evidence, supports these rough 
     approximations, says Gordon J. MacDonald, one of the 
     scientists who made the calculations in the 1980s. ``All 
     these estimates are quite uncertain. But it remains 
     abundantly clear that methane hydrates contain the largest 
     store of carbon that we know about that is underground,'' 
     says MacDonald, who now directs the International Institute 
     for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria.
       In fact, hydrates may be more widespread than previously 
     thought. The recent ODP expedition found hydrates in regions 
     that lack the seismically reflective layers usually used to 
     identify potential deposits, the team reports in the Sept. 27 
     Science.
       ``Given their worldwide distribution and their very large 
     quantities, they make a very attractive energy source, 
     provided that one can bring the gas up at somewhere near 
     market price,'' MacDonald says. The cost of accessing 
     hydrates has served as a barrier in the past, but some 
     energy-hungry nations lacking conventional fossil fuels are 
     extremely interested in future use of hydrates.
       Japan plans to drill exploratory wells in the next few 
     years, first on land in Alaska and then in Japanese waters. 
     The Japanese National Oil Company is currently negotiating 
     with the U.S. and Canadian governments to conduct 
     experimental drilling of hydrate deposits near Prudhoe Bay, 
     Alaska in early 1998. They hope to have more success than the 
     nations and commercial companies that tried to extract frozen 
     methane in Canada, Alaska and Siberia during the 1970s and 
     1980s.
       In nature, methane hydrates are fickle molecules, liable to 
     melt whenever the pressure drops slightly or the temperature 
     creeps upward. Evidence of this instability pockmarks the 
     ocean floor along the Blake Ridge. Marine geologists have 
     identified numerous craters there that apparently formed when 
     hydrates melted, releasing methane gas.
       ``The Blake Ridge is a pressure cooker, over geological 
     time. The gas and fluids come up and blow thought the 
     sediments. We can see depressions 500 to 700 meters wide and 
     20 to 30 meters deep,'' says Dillon.
       In other cases, melting at the base of the hydrate layer 
     has destabilized seafloor slopes, leading to massive 
     submarine landslides. Researchers have suggested hydrate 
     weakness as a factor behind landslides off Alaska, the U.S. 
     Atlantic coast, British Columbia, Norway, and Africa, says 
     Keith A. Kvenvolden of the USGS in Menlo Park, Calif.
       Such inherent instability could spell problems for future 
     drilling platforms resting on top of hydrate-rich deposits. 
     If the collapses are large enough, they could also produce 
     the destructive waves called tsunamis that race across ocean 
     basins.
       Hydrates may exert their greatest impact through their 
     indirect links to climate. Because methane is a powerful 
     greenhouse gas--about 10 times as strong as carbon dioxide--
     massive melting of hydrates and the ensuing release of 
     methane gas could raise Earth's surface temperature.
       James P. Kennett of the University of California, Santa 
     Barbara has recently discovered intriguing evidence 
     implicating methane hydrates as an instigator of climate 
     change. Sediments off the California coast show signs that 
     carbon isotopic ratios in the ocean shifted quite 
     dramatically and quickly at several times during the last 
     70,000 years. Because methane has a distinctive isotopic 
     fingerprint that matches the shifts, Kennett suggests that 
     large volumes of methane must have poured into the ocean at 
     these times.
       In this theory, the methane came from hydrates that melted 
     when ocean waters warmed slightly. The liberation of so much 
     methane over a few decades would have caused widespread 
     warming that affected the entire globe. As supporting 
     evidence, Kennett notes that the ocean's isotopic shifts 
     indeed coincide with well-known Dansgaard-Oeschger episodes 
     when Earth's ice age climate went suddenly warm.
       ``Until now, [hydrates] haven't really entered into 
     discussions of climate change. They have been almost 
     completely ignored. Until the beginning of this year, I had 
     not even considered them. But I'm now convinced that they are 
     of great importance to the global environment and have been 
     for billions of years,'' says Kennett. He presented his 
     findings in September at a gas hydrate conference in Ghent, 
     Belgium.
       Kvenvolden has proposed a different mechanism that might 
     have released hydrates at the end of the last ice age. As the 
     great blanket of continental ice melted at that time, global 
     sea levels swelled by more than 90 meters, submerging many 
     Arctic regions where hydrate layers exist. The relatively 
     warm ocean water would have melted the hydrates, unleashing 
     tremendous amounts of methane into the atmosphere, Kvenvolden 
     believes.
       The same rationale could apply to the modern world. Sea 
     levels are currently rising slowly, at a rate of a few 
     centimeters per decade. Projections suggest that they will 
     rise even faster in the future because of the climatic 
     warming caused by greenhouse gas pollution. At the same time, 
     ocean temperatures are expected to creep upward.
       ``If you reason that hydrates were important in climate 
     change in the past, there is no reason they wouldn't be 
     important in the future,'' says Kvenvolden. Indeed, some 
     scientists speculate that melting methane hydrates could 
     greatly exacerbate global warming.
       For now, though, Kvenvolden and others remain unsure 
     exactly what role hydrates have played in past climate 
     changes. Lacking this knowledge, they say it is impossible to 
     predict how hydrates will behave in the future.
       A greater understanding of hydrates and their importance 
     will come as oceanographers tap deposits in other areas of 
     the world, testing whether the lessons learned on the Blake 
     Ridge apply elsewhere. Scientists are also creating synthetic 
     hydrates in the laboratory (SN:10/19/96, p. 252). By 
     squeezing methane and water in a pressurized apparatus, 
     Dillon and his colleagues can not only gauge how hydrates 
     weaken seafloor sediments but also improve seismic methods 
     for detecting hydrates.
       When the experiments are over, the remaining synthetic 
     hydrates could have other uses. ``I hadn't really thought of 
     it before, but you could try cooking with them'' says Dillon, 
     ``I wouldn't want to plan a major meal, but you could 
     probably scramble an egg on it.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 1420. A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 to provide for full reimbursement of States 
and localities for costs related to providing emergency medical 
treatment to individuals injured while entering the United States 
illegally; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


 THE ILLEGAL ALIEN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering legislation with Senator 
Kyl as original cosponsor, a legislation which provides full 
reimbursement to state and local counties for costs incurred for 
emergency medical services and ambulatory services provided to 
undocumented aliens injured during a pursuit by border patrol or under 
the custody of federal, state, or local authorities.
  This legislation: Authorizes full reimbursement for emergency medical 
costs, including ambulatory services for illegal aliens who are injured 
during illegal crossings at land and sea ports, or during a pursuit by 
border patrol, or while in custody of federal, state, or local 
authorities;
  Authorizes up to $18 million per year for the next 4 years from a 
separate account under the Attorney General to reimburse states and 
localities for emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens.
  Requires the Attorney General to submit a written report to Senate 
and House Judiciary Committees on the policy and practice, including 
custody practice, of the border patrol by March 1, 1998.
  Requires annual report by the Attorney General to Senate and House 
Judiciary and Appropriations Committees on the implementation of this 
bill.
  INS reports show that in FY96, 1.65 million illegal aliens were 
apprehended, of which 97% or 1.6 million apprehensions were made at the 
Southwest Border. INS also reports that more than 300,000 illegal 
aliens come into the country every year and in FY97, over 111,000 
criminal and other illegal aliens were put through formal deportation 
proceedings.
  With increased focus on apprehending illegal aliens at the 140 mile 
stretch of our Southwest border, recent reports also show increases in 
unreimbursed emergency medical service cost of illegal aliens to state 
and local county hospitals.
  The California State Auditor recently released a report which charged 
that San Diego alone incurred up to $8.1 million in unreimbursed 
charges in emergency medical service for illegal aliens between January 
1996 and May 1997. The Auditor estimates that San Diego hospitals 
incurred from $4.9 million to $8.1 million in unreimbursed emergency 
medical services and ambulatory services for up to 1074 illegal aliens 
during the seventeen month period. The unreimbursed medical service 
costs include hospital care, costs incurred for paramedics and air 
transportations, physicians, surgeons and laboratories. These 
uncompensated services, which hospitals and other emergency service 
providers are required to

[[Page S12007]]

provide under California law, were provided to illegal aliens who were 
injured during illegal crossings at the border and while escaping 
border patrol pursuits.

  The Sacramento Bee recently reported the following:

       Every time a Border patrol chase results in injuries, San 
     Diego area hospitals provide `free' care to those injured... 
     (For instance), medical care for Fransciso Quintera--who was 
     struck by a car while fleeing Border patrol agents--cost UCSD 
     Medical Center over $1 million in uncompensated expenses. In 
     one recent vehicle chase, a van loaded with illegal 
     immigrants crashed while evading the Border Patrol, costing 
     Scripps Hospital $200,000 and Mercy Hospital $100,000 in 
     uncompensated care.

  In the 1996 Immigration Act, Congress acknowledged the huge cost 
shift to state and local county hospitals in unreimbursed cost for 
emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens by authorizing 
full reimbursement for emergency Medicaid and ambulatory services.
  However, the $25 million appropriated annually over the next 4 years 
under the Balance Budget Act for emergency Medicaid for illegal aliens 
is insufficient to cover the full cost of emergency medical services 
for illegal aliens nationwide, where high immigrant States like 
California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona and 
Massachusetts end up picking up the responsibility for caring for the 
injured illegal aliens.
  In fact, for fiscal year 1998, there are no appropriations for 
reimbursement for emergency ambulatory services, as authorized by the 
1996 Immigration Act. Instead, Congress only requires INS to perform a 
pilot project in Nogales, Arizona and report its findings to Congress.
  Appropriating $25 million over the next 4 years and performing a 
pilot project in Nogales, Arizona is not enough to cover the millions 
of dollars high immigrant States like California incur every year in 
unreimbursed emergency medical and ambulatory costs for illegal aliens 
injured at the border or during a border patrol pursuit.
  Mr. President, time has come for the Federal Government to take full 
responsibility for the cost associated with providing emergency medical 
services, including ambulatory services, for illegal aliens and lifting 
the fiscal burden on State and local counties.
  Thank you and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
  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. 1420

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND 
                   IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996.

       Section 563 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 563. REIMBURSEMENT OF STATES AND LOCALITIES FOR 
                   EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.

       ``(a) Subject to the availability of appropriations, the 
     Attorney General shall fully reimburse States and political 
     subdivisions of States for their costs of providing medical 
     services, including ambulatory services, related to an 
     emergency medical condition of an individual who--
       ``(1) is injured while, or being pursued immediately after, 
     crossing a land or sea border of the United States without 
     inspection or at any time or place other than as designated 
     by the Attorney General; and
       ``(2) is under the custody of the State or subdivision 
     pursuant to a transfer, request, or other action by a Federal 
     authority.
       ``(b) There is established in the general fund of the 
     Treasury a separate account out of which the Attorney General 
     shall provide reimbursement under this section.
       ``(c) Reimbursement under this section shall not be taken 
     out of monies appropriated for the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service.
       ``(d) There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     years 1998-2002 an amount not to exceed $18,000,000 annually 
     for the purpose of carrying out this section.
       ``(e) The Attorney General shall report to the Judiciary 
     and Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate annually on the implementation of this 
     section.
       ``(f) By March 1, 1998, the Attorney General shall submit a 
     written report to the Judiciary Committees of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate on the policy and practice, 
     including custody practice, of the United States Border 
     Patrol with respect to injured aliens.
       ``(g) For purposes of this section, the term `emergency 
     medical condition' has the same meaning as that term has 
     under section 562 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Faircloth, 
        and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 1421. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
additional support for and to expand clinical research programs, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


             THE CLINICAL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the promise of new biomedical research is 
boundless. As impressive as the progress of the past has been, it pales 
in comparison to future opportunities. We stand on the threshold of 
stunning advances in medicine. Supporting biomedical research is among 
the wisest possible investments we can make in our Nation's future.
  Support for clinical research is central to biomedical research. 
Clinical research is essential for the advancement of scientific 
knowledge and the development of cures and improvement treatments of 
disease. Tremendous advances in basic biological research are opening 
doors to new insights into all aspects of medicine. As a result, there 
are extraordinary opportunities for cutting-edge clinical research to 
translate breakthroughs in the laboratory to the bedsides of patients.
  Improvements in patient care and diagnosis and prevention of disease 
depend upon clinical research that brings basic research discoveries to 
the bedside. In addition, the results of clinical research are 
incorporated by industry and developed into new drugs, vaccines, and 
health care products. These developments strengthen the economy and 
create jobs.
  Advances in biomedical research may also prove to be the most 
effective way to reduce the country's health care costs in the long 
run. As our Nation's demographics change and the baby boomers move 
toward retirement, financing Medicare has become an increasing concern. 
A Duke University study released earlier this year suggests that a 
small improvement in the disability rate of older Americans can bring 
large cost savings for Medicare. Investment in medical research will 
result in healthier older Americans and lower costs to Medicare.
  Despite these clear benefits, clinical research is in crisis. The 
resources dedicated to such research, particularly at the NIH, have 
fallen to a level that places the United States at a serious 
international disadvantage.
  Studies by the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, 
the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health 
have highlighted significant problems in the Nation's clinical research 
efforts. A 1994 report by the Institute of Medicine, for example, 
characterized the current level of training and support for health 
research professionals as ``fragmented, frequently undervalued and 
potentially underfunded.''
  The legislation we are introducing today seeks to enhance support of 
clinical research by addressing the issues that have caused this crisis 
in clinical research.

  First, it will implement the longstanding recommendations regarding 
the merit review process for clinical research proposals at NIH.
  Second, it will provide greater support for general clinical research 
centers.
  Third, it will create new opportunities to pursue clinical research. 
A Clinical Research Career Enhancement Award will enable a clinical 
researcher to pursue research projects with a mentor prior to 
independent pursuit of research. For more established researchers, the 
Innovative Medical Science Award will provide funds to apply basic 
scientific discoveries to medical treatment. Both awards will generate 
the protected time which is so valuable to physician-scientists.
  Fourth, the bill provides support for individuals seeking advanced 
degrees in clinical investigation.
  Fifth, it expands the Loan Repayment Program for clinical researchers 
to encourage the recruitment of new investigators.

[[Page S12008]]

  A solid infrastructure is essential to any research program. In 
clinical research, that infrastructure is provided by the general 
clinical research centers at academic health centers throughout the 
country. Support for these centers was once largely provided by 
academic health centers. Today, academic health centers provide 
approximately $1 billion annually from clinical revenues to support 
clinical research. However, academic health centers are confronted with 
heavy competition from nonteaching institutions and are increasingly 
obligated to emphasize patient care over research to minimize costs. In 
the face of these changes, clinical researchers have become more 
dependent on NIH for infrastructure support.
  In spite of the expanding need, NIH support for the general clinical 
research centers has barely kept up with inflation. The centers are 
consistently funded at 75 percent of the funding level recommended by 
the NIH's own Advisory Council. This level is not adequate for the 
backbone of the Nation's clinical research efforts. Clearly we need to 
do more.
  The number of physicians choosing careers in clinical investigation 
is in serious decline. Between 1985 and 1997, the number of physicians 
increased by 34 percent, while the number of physicians pursuing 
research decreased by 37 percent. Fewer young physicians are choosing 
careers in research, and we need to reverse that decline.
  Student debt is a major barrier to pursuing clinical research. Young 
physicians graduate from medical school with an average debt burden of 
$80,000. Limited financial opportunity in clinical research has caused 
many young physicians to choose more lucrative medical practice. NIH 
has acknowledged this problem and has established a loan repayment 
subsidy to encourage the recruitment of clinical researchers to NIH. 
Our legislation expands the current program.
  Many of today's young clinical investigators are unfamiliar with 
research methodology. Dr. Harold Varmus, the Director of NIH, has 
articulated the need for individuals seeking careers in clinical 
research to have access to clinical research-specific training programs 
after they graduate from medical school. The NIH already supports a 
postgraduate training for those pursuing basic research. This 
legislation will support a comparable program for clinical 
investigators.
  Clinical researchers at academic health centers are also increasingly 
urged to turn their attention away from research to generate greater 
revenues. This loss of protected time has a significant adverse impact 
on their ability to compete for NIH research grants. This problem is 
particularly difficult for young researchers still seeking mentored 
research experience during the early years of clinical investigation. 
The NIH currently has awards to provide mentored career development 
experiences for basic scientists. Our legislation creates career 
development awards to help meet this need.
  Less than a third of all NIH grantees are physicians. Only a fraction 
of them receive awards for clinical investigation. The funding gap for 
clinical research is most severe in the earliest phases of clinical 
investigation, where basic scientific discoveries are tested on a small 
scale in studies involving few patients. Industry will not support such 
research in non-product-oriented studies and often regard such efforts 
as too speculative. The medical science awards in our bill will ensure 
funding for these important research initiatives.
  The need for reform of the peer review system has been documented by 
studies by the Institute of Medicine and an outside review committee of 
the NIH Division of Research Grants, which is responsible for the peer 
review process. So far, their recommendations have not been 
implemented, and the bias against clinical research persists. Our 
legislation will implement these recommendations and provide effective 
evaluation of clinical research proposals.
  The funds authorized by our legislation to support clinical research 
do not target specific diseases. The funds would go to peer-reviewed 
proposals to translate basic scientific discoveries into treatment and 
prevention of disease. Without such legislation, clinical research will 
continue to decline to a point where advances in medicine will no 
longer come from this country but from abroad.
  Mr. President, our bill is supported by more than a hundred and forty 
biomedical associations and organizations. I would like to thank the 
American Federation for Medical Research for their efforts to support 
this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the list of supporters, 
the letters of support be and a copy of the bill be included in the 
Record.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move this 
important legislation through Congress.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1421

       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 ``Clinical Research 
     Enhancement Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Clinical research is critical to the advancement of 
     scientific knowledge and to the development of cures and 
     improved treatment for disease.
       (2) Tremendous advances in biology are opening doors to new 
     insights into human physiology, pathophysiology and disease, 
     creating extraordinary opportunities for clinical research.
       (3) Clinical research includes translational research which 
     is an integral part of the research process leading to 
     general human applications. It is the bridge between the 
     laboratory and new methods of diagnosis, treatment, and 
     prevention and is thus essential to progress against cancer 
     and other diseases.
       (4) The United States will spend more than $1 trillion on 
     health care in 1997, but the Federal budget for health 
     research at the National Institutes of Health was $12.7 
     billion, only 1 percent of that total.
       (5) Studies at the Institute of Medicine, the National 
     Research Council, and the National Academy of Sciences have 
     all addressed the current problems in clinical research.
       (6) The Director of the National Institutes of Health has 
     recognized the current problems in clinical research and has 
     through the use of an advisory committee begun to evaluate 
     these problems.
       (7) The current level of training and support for health 
     professionals in clinical research is fragmented, frequently 
     undervalued, and potentially underfunded.
       (8) Young investigators are not only apprentices for future 
     positions but a crucial source of energy, enthusiasm, and 
     ideas in the day-to-day research that constitutes the 
     scientific enterprise. Serious questions about the future of 
     life-science research are raised by the following:
       (A) The number of young investigators applying for grants 
     dropped by 54 percent between 1985 and 1993.
       (B) The number of federally funded research (R01) grants 
     awarded to persons under the age of 36 have decreased by 70 
     percent from 1985 to 1993.
       (C) Newly independent life-scientists are expected to raise 
     funds to support their new research programs and a 
     substantial proportion of their own salaries.
       (9) The following have been cited as reasons for the 
     decline in the number of active clinical researchers, and 
     those choosing this career path:
       (A) A medical school graduate incurs an average debt of 
     $80,000, as reported in the Medical School Graduation 
     Questionnaire by the American Association of Medical Colleges 
     (AAMC).
       (B) The prolonged period of clinical training required 
     increases the accumulated debt burden.
       (C) The decreasing number of mentors and role models.
       (D) The perceived instability of funding from the National 
     Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies.
       (E) The almost complete absence of clinical research 
     training in the curriculum of training grant awardees.
       (F) Academic Medical Centers are experiencing difficulties 
     in maintaining a proper environment for research in a highly 
     competitive health care marketplace, which are compounded by 
     the decreased willingness of third party payers to cover 
     health care costs for patients engaged in research studies 
     and research procedures.
       (10) In 1960, general clinical research centers were 
     established under the Office of the Director of the National 
     Institutes of Health with an initial appropriation of 
     $3,000,000.
       (11) Appropriations for general clinical research centers 
     in fiscal year 1997 equaled $153,000,000.
       (12) In fiscal year 1997, there were 74 general clinical 
     research centers in operation, supplying patients in the 
     areas in which such centers operate with access to the most 
     modern clinical research and clinical research facilities and 
     technologies.
       (13) The average annual amount allocated for each general 
     clinical research center is $1,900,000, establishing a 
     current funding level of 75 percent of the amounts approved 
     by the Advisory Council of the National Center for Research 
     Resources.

[[Page S12009]]

       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to provide 
     additional support for and to expand clinical research 
     programs.

     SEC. 3. INCREASING THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES 
                   OF HEALTH IN CLINICAL RESEARCH.

       Section 402 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     282) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l)(1) The Director of NIH shall undertake activities to 
     support and expand the involvement of the National Institutes 
     of Health in clinical research.
       ``(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Director of NIH 
     shall--
       ``(A) design test pilot projects and implement the 
     recommendations of the Division of Research Grants Clinical 
     Research Study Group and other recommendations for enhancing 
     clinical research, where applicable; and
       ``(B) establish an intramural clinical research fellowship 
     program and a continuing education clinical research training 
     program at NIH.
       ``(3) The Director of NIH, in cooperation with the 
     Directors of the Institutes, Centers, and Divisions of the 
     National Institutes of Health, shall support and expand the 
     resources available for the diverse needs of the clinical 
     research community, including inpatient, outpatient, and 
     critical care clinical research.
       ``(4) The Director of NIH shall establish peer review 
     mechanisms to evaluate applications for--
       ``(A) clinical research career enhancement awards;
       ``(B) innovative medical science awards;
       ``(C) graduate training in clinical investigation awards;
       ``(D) intramural clinical research fellowships.

     Such review mechanisms shall include individuals who are 
     exceptionally qualified to appraise the merits of potential 
     clinical research training and research grant proposals.''.

     SEC. 4. GENERAL CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTERS.

       Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 409B. GENERAL CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTERS.

       ``(a) Grants.--The Director of the National Center for 
     Research Resources shall award grants for the establishment 
     of general clinical research centers to provide the 
     infrastructure for clinical research including clinical 
     research training and career enhancement. Such centers shall 
     support clinical studies and career development in all 
     settings of the hospital or academic medical center involved.
       ``(b) Activities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Director of NIH shall expand the activities of the general 
     clinical research centers through the increased use of 
     telecommunications and telemedicine initiatives.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, such 
     sums as may be necessary.

     ``SEC. 409C. ENHANCEMENT AWARDS.

       ``(a) Clinical Research Career Enhancement Award.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the National Center for 
     Research Resources shall make grants (to be referred to as 
     `clinical research career enhancement awards') to support 
     individual careers in clinical research at general clinical 
     research centers or at other institutions that have the 
     infrastructure and resources deemed appropriate for 
     conducting patient-oriented clinical research. The Director 
     of the National Center for Research Resources shall, where 
     practicable, collaborate or consult with other Institute 
     Directors in making awards under this subsection.
       ``(2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be submitted by an individual scientist at 
     such time as the Director may require.
       ``(3) Limitations.--The amount of a grant under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $125,000 per year per grant. 
     Grants shall be for terms of 5 years. The Director shall 
     award not more than 20 grants in the first fiscal year, and 
     not more than 40 grants in the second fiscal year, in which 
     grants are awarded under this subsection.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to make grants under paragraph (1), 
     $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(b) Innovative Medical Science Award.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the National Center for 
     Research Resources shall make grants (to be referred to as 
     `innovative medical science awards') to support individual 
     clinical research projects at general clinical research 
     centers or at other institutions that have the infrastructure 
     and resources deemed appropriate for conducting patient-
     oriented clinical research. The Director of the National 
     Center for Research Resources shall, where practicable, 
     collaborate or consult with other Institute Directors in 
     making awards under this subsection.
       ``(2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be submitted by an individual scientist at 
     such time as the Director requires.
       ``(3) Limitations.--The amount of a grant under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $175,000 per year per grant.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to make grants under this subsection, 
     $52,500,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(c) Graduate Training in Clinical Investigation Award.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the National Center for 
     Research Resources shall make grants (to be referred to as 
     `graduate training in clinical investigation awards') to 
     support individuals pursuing master's or doctoral degrees in 
     clinical investigation.
       ``(2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be submitted by an individual scientist at 
     such time as the Director may require.
       ``(3) Limitations.--The amount of a grant under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $75,000 per year per grant. 
     Grants shall be for terms of 2 years or more and will provide 
     stipend, tuition, and institutional support for individual 
     advanced degree programs in clinical investigation.
       ``(4) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     `advanced degree programs in clinical investigation' means 
     programs that award a master's or Ph.D. degree after 2 or 
     more years of training in areas such as the following:
       ``(A) Analytical methods, biostatistics, and study design.
       ``(B) Principles of clinical pharmacology and 
     pharmacokinetics.
       ``(C) Clinical epidemiology.
       ``(D) Computer data management and medical informatics.
       ``(E) Ethical and regulatory issues.
       ``(F) Biomedical writing.
       ``(5) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to make grants under this subsection, 
     $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 5. CLINICAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE.

       (a) National Research Service Awards.--Section 487(a)(1)(C) 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 288(a)(1)(C)) is 
     amended by striking ``50 such'' and inserting ``100 such''.
       (b) Loan Repayment Program.--Section 487E of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 288-5) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``from 
     disadvantaged backgrounds'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``who are from disadvantaged backgrounds''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``as employees of the National Institutes 
     of Health'' and inserting ``as part of a clinical research 
     training position'';
       (3) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Applicability of certain provisions regarding 
     obligated service.--With respect to the National Health 
     Service Corps Loan Repayment Program established under 
     subpart III of part D of title III, the provisions of such 
     subpart shall, except as inconsistent with this section, 
     apply to the program established in this section in the same 
     manner and to the same extent as such provisions apply to 
     such loan repayment program.'';
       (4) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``Amounts'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Amounts''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Disadvantaged backgrounds set-aside.--In carrying out 
     this section, the Secretary shall ensure that not less than 
     50 percent of the contracts involve those appropriately 
     qualified health professionals who are from disadvantaged 
     backgrounds.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Definition.--As used in subsection (a)(1), the term 
     `clinical research training position' means an individual 
     serving in a general clinical research center or in clinical 
     research at the National Institutes of Health, or a physician 
     receiving a clinical research career enhancement award, an 
     innovative medical science award, or a graduate training in 
     clinical investigation award.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for each fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITION.

       Section 409 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     284d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting ``(a) Health 
     Service Research.--For purposes''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Clinical Research.--As used in this title, the term 
     `clinical research' means patient oriented clinical research 
     conducted with human subjects, or research on the causes and 
     consequences of disease in human populations involving 
     material of human origin (such as tissue specimens and 
     cognitive phenomena) for which an investigator or colleague 
     directly interacts with human subjects in an outpatient or 
     inpatient setting to clarify a problem in human physiology, 
     pathophysiology, or disease; or epidemiologic or behavioral 
     studies, outcomes research, or health services research, or 
     developing new technologies or therapeutic interventions.''.
                                  ____


            Supporters of Clinical Research Enhancement Act

       Alliance for Aging Research
       Alzheimer's Association
       Ambulatory Pediatric Association
       American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
       American Academy of Dermatology

[[Page S12010]]

       American Academy of Neurology
       American Academy of Optometry
       American Academy of Ophthalmology
       American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery
       American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
       American Association for Cancer Research
       American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
       American Association of Anatomists
       American Association of Colleges of Nursing
       American Association of Neurological Surgeons
       American Cancer Society
       American Celiac Society--Dietary Support Coalition
       American College of Chest Physicians
       American College of Clinical Pharmacology
       American College of Medical Genetics
       American College of Neuropsychopharmacology
       American Diabetes Association
       American Federation for Medical Research
       American Gastroenterological Association
       American Geriatrics Society
       American Heart Association
       American Kidney Fund
       American Liver Foundation
       American Lung Association
       American Neurological Association
       American Optometric Association
       American Pediatric Society
       American Psychiatric Association
       American Skin Association
       American Society for Bone and Mineral Research
       American Society for Clinical Nutrition
       American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
       American Society for Reproductive Medicine
       American Society of Addiction Medicine
       American Society of Adults with Pseudo-Obstruction, Inc.
       American Society of Clinical Nutrition
       American Society of Hematology
       American Society of Nephrology
       American Thoracic Society
       American Urological Association
       Americans for Medical Progress
       Arthritis Foundation
       Association for Medical School Pharmacology
       Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
       Association of Academic Health Centers
       Association of Academic Physiatrists
       Association of American Cancer Institutes
       Association of American Medical Colleges
       Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges
       Association of Behavorial Sciences and Medical Education
       Association of Departments of Family Medicine
       Association of Medical and Graduate Departments of 
     Biochemistry
       Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairmen
       Association of Pathology Chairs
       Association of Professors of Dermatology
       Association of Professors of Medicine
       Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine
       Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry
       Association of Schools of Public Health
       Association of Subspecialty Professors
       Association of University Radiologists
       American Urogynecologic Society
       Center for Ulcer Research and Education Foundation
       Citizens for Public Action
       Cooley's Anemia Foundation
       Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America
       Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
       Dean Thiel Foundation
       Digestive Disease National Coalition
       East Carolina University School of Medicine
       Ehlers-Danlos National Foundation
       Ermory University School of Medicine
       The Endocrine Society
       Epilepsy Foundation of America
       Foundation for Ichthyosis and Related Skin Types
       Gay Men's Health Crisis
       General Clinical Research Center Program Directors' 
     Association
       Gluten Intolerance Group
       Hemochromatosis Research Foundation
       Hepatitis Foundation International
       Inova Institute of Research and Education
       Institute for Asthma and Allergy
       International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal 
     Disorders
       Jeffrey Modell Foundation
       Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
       Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International
       Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society
       Lupus Foundation of America, Inc.
       Medical Dermatology Society
       Mount Sinai Medical Center
       National Caucus of Basic Biomedical Science Chairs
       National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
       National Health Council
       National Marfan Foundation
       National Multiple Sclerosis Society
       National Organization for Rare Disorders
       National Osteoporosis Foundation
       National Perinatal Association
       National Tuberous Sclerosis Association
       National Vitiligo Foundation, Inc.
       National Vulvodynia Association
       North America Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology
       Oley Foundation for Home Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
       The Orton Dyslexia Society
       Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation
       PXE International
       RESOLVE
       Schepens Eye Research Institute
       Scleroderma Research Foundation
       Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
       Society for the Advancement of Women's Health Research
       Society for Inherited Metabolic Disorders
       Society for Investigative Dermatology
       Society for Pediatric Research
       Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates, Inc.
       Society of Gynecologic Oncologists
       Society of Medical College Directors of Continuing Medical 
     Education
       Soviety of University Urologists
       St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
       Tourette Syndrome Association, Inc.
       United Ostomy Association
       United Scleroderma Foundation
       University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry
       Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society
       Yale University School of Medicine.
                                  ____

                                               American Federation


                                          for Medical Research

                                                 November 7, 1997.
     Hon. Thad Cochran
     The Honorable Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Cochran and Kennedy: I write to express the 
     strong support of the American Federation for Medical 
     Research for the legislation you will introduce to enhance 
     clinical research programs at the National Institutes of 
     Health. The AFMR is a national organization of 6,000 
     physician scientists engaged in basic, clinical, and health 
     services research. Most of our members receive NIH support 
     for their basic research but are finding it increasingly 
     difficult to obtain public or private funding for 
     translational or clinical research--studies through which 
     basic science discoveries are translated to the care of 
     patients. In the past, academic medical centers provided 
     institutional support for this research through revenues 
     generated by patient care activities. However, as the health 
     care marketplace has become increasingly competitive, 
     academic centers have all but eliminated internal subsidizes 
     clinical research or the training of clinical investigators. 
     In fact, the Association of American Medical Colleges has 
     estimated that these institutions have lost approximately 
     $800 million in annual ``purchasing power'' for research and 
     research training within their institutions. In this context, 
     the $60 million in spending entailed in your legislation 
     (representing less than one-half of one percent of the NIH 
     budget) would seem an extremely modest investment in a much-
     needed program to reinvigorate our nation's clinical research 
     capabilities.
       The Clinical Research Enhancement Act is a conservative 
     approach to a severe problem. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 
     expressed alarm about the challenges confronting clinical 
     research in a 1994 report, and your bill is based on the 
     initiatives recommended by the IOM:
       The IOM recommended that the General Clinical Research 
     Centers program be strengthened. Your bill would codify this 
     program, which has existed since the late 1950's, so that the 
     Congress will have greater discretion over GCRC funding.
       The IOM recommended enhanced career development in clinical 
     investigation, and your bill proposes such awards.
       The IOM noted problems with the NIH peer review of clinical 
     research. Your bill directs the NIH to improve the peer 
     review process for such research and establishes ``innovative 
     science awards'' that will be reviewed by scientists 
     knowledgeable in clinical investigation.
       The IOM recommended programs to relieve the tuition debt of 
     physicians pursuing clinical research careers. Your bill 
     would expand an existing NIH intramural program for this 
     purpose to the extramural community.
       The IOM recommended structured, didactic training in 
     clinical investigation. Your bill authorizes funding for 
     advanced degree (master's and Ph.D.) training in clinical 
     research as successfully initiated at several institutions 
     around the country.
       The list of almost 150 organizations that support the 
     Clinical Research Enhancement Act indicates the consensus of 
     scientific, medical, consumer, and patient organizations that 
     steps must be taken as soon as possible to stop the 
     deterioration of the U.S. clinical research capacity, to 
     reinvigorate the clinical research programs of academic 
     medical centers, and to assure that the American people and 
     the American economy benefit from the translation of basic 
     science breakthroughs to improved clinical care and new 
     medical products. The American Federation for Medical 
     Research is pleased to have the opportunity to express its 
     strong support for your legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jeffrey Kern, MD.,
     President.
                                  ____

       As a coalition of organizations concerned about improving 
     the quality of health care, the National Health Council 
     strongly

[[Page S12011]]

     supports the Clinical Research Enhancement Act. As you know, 
     it has been more than three years since the Institute of 
     Medicine (IOM) documented the major challenges confronting 
     clinical research in our country. Your bill would implement a 
     number of the IOM recommendations for addressing these 
     problems. It is critically important that the NIH move 
     forward as rapidly as possible with these initiatives.
       The NIH is the major funding source in the United States 
     for basic biomedical research. However, the major dividends 
     from this investment are discoveries that improve our ability 
     to prevent, effectively treat, and cure disease and 
     disability. The NIH must foster not only the basic research 
     that begins this process but also the translational research 
     through which a basic science discovery is applied to a 
     medical problem. There is generous industry support for 
     clinical research and clinical trials aimed at the 
     development of new products. However, private funding is 
     extremely limited for initial translational research that may 
     have little or no commercial product potential. Examples of 
     such research include studies of nutritional therapies, new 
     approaches to disease prevention, transplantation techniques, 
     behavioral interventions, and studies of off-label uses of 
     approved drugs. In the past, such research was often 
     subsidized from patient care revenues to academic medical 
     centers. However, competition in the health care marketplace 
     has begun to erode this source of funding; therefore, NIH 
     must play an expanded role in providing support for this 
     research. The Clinical Research Enhancement Act would foster 
     NIH funding opportunities for this type of research through 
     the establishment of ``innovative medical science awards.'' 
     Such studies will focus on translating basic research 
     discoveries into tools that health care professionals can use 
     to cure disease and relieve suffering.
       In addition, we support provisions of the bill that would 
     foster opportunities for physicians to pursue careers in 
     clinical research. There is ample evidence that American 
     physicians are opting out of careers in science for a variety 
     of reasons. Steps must be taken to rebuild our nation's 
     supply of well-trained physician scientists if the United 
     States is to continue its leadership of the world in medical 
     science.
       Finally, the bill would direct the NIH to improve the peer 
     review of patient-oriented research. Studies have documented 
     the fact that clinical research proposals are at a 
     disadvantage when reviewed by NIH study sections because of 
     NIH's primary focus on basic biomedical research. This must 
     be changed, as proposed in your bill, so that scientific 
     opportunities to improve medical care are not lost.
       The undersigned organizations are extremely grateful for 
     your leadership in addressing the problems confronting 
     clinical research. We support your initiative to assure that 
     the NIH invests in the translational research that holds the 
     key for patients around the country who are waiting for a 
     cure. We are pleased to endorse the clinical Research 
     Enhancement Act.
       Alzheimer's Association
       American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association
       American Diabetes Association
       American Kidney Fund
       American Paralysis Association
       Digestive Diseases National Coalition
       Epilepsy Foundation of America
       Foundation Fighting Blindness
       Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International
       Glaucoma Research Foundation
       Myasthenia Gravis Foundation
       National Alopecia Areata Foundation
       National Multiple Sclerosis Society
       National Osteoporosis Foundation
       National Tuberous Sclerosis Association
       Paget Foundation
       Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation
       Tourette Syndrome Association.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. 
        Dorgan):
  S. 1422. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote 
competition in the market for delivery of multichannel video 
programming and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


 the federal communications commission satellite carrier oversight act

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today I am introducing the Federal 
Communications Commission Satellite Carrier Oversight Act. This bill 
will do a number of things to promote competition in the multichannel 
video marketplace. I wish to thank Senator Burns for his support on 
this bill.
  Congress has had a longstanding interest in promoting competition in 
the multichannel video marketplace so as to enable consumers to have a 
choice of video providers at competitive rates. However, a recent 
regulatory action threatens the ability of direct-to-home [DTH] 
satellite television operators to compete effectively with cable 
operators.
  On October 27, 1997, the Librarian of Congress adopted a Copyright 
Arbitration Royalty Panel's recommendation of a precipitous and wholly 
unjustified increase in the copyright fees satellite carriers pay for 
superstation and network affiliate signals delivered to satellite TV 
households. This action will result in a rate increase for satellite 
television subscribers and have a detrimental effect on the ability of 
DTH operators to compete with cable.
  This bill will ensure that this rate increase does not take effect as 
scheduled on January 1, 1998. It delays the effective date of the rate 
increase to January 1, 1999. The 7.5 million U.S. households who 
currently subscribe to satellite television deserve to have Congress 
examine the effect of this copyright fee increase on video competition 
and to consider changes to the law that would ensure a less arbitrary 
and more consumer friendly result. This delay will give the FCC an 
opportunity to determine what impact the increased copyright fees will 
have on satellite's ability to compete with cable, and it will give 
Congress an opportunity to evaluate the FCC's report and respond 
accordingly.
  The current satellite copyright rates are 14 cents per subscriber per 
month for each superstation signal and 6 cents per subscriber per month 
for each network signal. Cable operators currently pay an average of 
9.7 cents for the exact same superstations and 2.7 cents for the exact 
same network signals. At the 27-cent rate adopted by the Librarian, 
satellite carriers will be paying almost 270 percent more than cable 
for the exact same superstations and 900 percent more for the exact 
same network signals.
  This creates an enormous disparity in the copyright fees paid for the 
same signals and will result in rate increases to satellite 
subscribers, which in turn will have a negative impact on competition 
between cable and satellite. Such a result is directly contrary to the 
intent of Congress to give consumers a choice of video providers at 
competitive rates.
  The bill also addresses an issue of continuing concern to the DTH 
industry. Signal theft represents a serious threat to DTH operators. In 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress confirmed the 
applicability of penalties for unauthorized decryption of DTH satellite 
services. The amendment we propose would confirm the judicial 
interpretation that civil suits may be brought by DTH operators for 
signal theft.
  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. 1422

       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 ``Federal Communications 
     Commission Satellite Carrier Oversight Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       (a) The Congress finds that:
       (1) Signal theft represents a serious threat to direct-to-
     home satellite television. In the Telecommunications Act of 
     1996, Congress confirmed the applicability of penalties for 
     unauthorized decryption of direct-to-home satellite services. 
     Nevertheless, concerns remain about civil liability for such 
     unauthorized decryption.
       (2) In view of the desire to establish competition to the 
     cable television industry, Congress authorized consumers to 
     utilize direct-to-home satellite systems for viewing video 
     programming through the Cable Communications Policy Act of 
     1984.
       (3) Congress found in the Cable Television Consumer 
     Protection and Competition Act of 1992 that without the 
     presence of another multichannel video programming 
     distributor, a cable television operator faces no local 
     competition and that the result is undue market power for the 
     cable operator as compared to that of consumers and other 
     video programmers.
       (4) The Federal Communications Commission, under the Cable 
     Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 
     has the responsibility for reporting annually to the Congress 
     on the state of competition in the market for delivery of 
     multichannel video programming.
       (5) In the Cable Television Consumer Protection and 
     Competition Act of 1992, Congress stated its policy of 
     promoting the availability to the public of a diversity of

[[Page S12012]]

     views and information through cable television and other 
     video distribution media.
       (6) Direct-to-home satellite television service is the 
     fastest growing multichannel video programming service with 
     approximately 8 million households subscribing to video 
     programming delivered by satellite carriers.
       (7) Direct-to-home satellite television service is the 
     service that most likely can provide effective competition to 
     cable television service.
       (8) Through the compulsory copyright license created by 
     Section 119 of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, 
     satellite carriers have paid a royalty fee per subscriber, 
     per month to retransmit network and superstation signals by 
     satellite to subscribers for private home viewing.
       (9) Congress set the 1988 fees to equal the average fees 
     paid by cable television operators for the same superstation 
     and network signals.
       (10) Effective May 1, 1992, the royalty fees payable by 
     satellite carriers were increased through compulsory 
     arbitration to $0.06 per subscriber per month for 
     retransmission of network signals and $0.175 per subscriber 
     per month for retransmission of superstation signals, unless 
     all of the programming contained in the superstation signal 
     is free from syndicated exclusivity protection under the 
     rules of the Federal Communications Commission, in which case 
     the fee was decreased to $0.14 per subscriber per month. 
     These fees were 40-70 percent higher than the royalty fees 
     paid by cable television operators to retransmit the same 
     signals.
       (11) On October 27, 1997, the Librarian of Congress adopted 
     the recommendation of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel 
     and approved raising the royalty fees of satellite carriers 
     to $0.27 per subscriber per month for both superstation and 
     network signals, effective January 1, 1998.
       (12) The fees adopted by the Librarian are 270 percent 
     higher for superstations and 900 percent higher for network 
     signals than the royalty fees paid by cable television 
     operators for the exact same signals.
       (13) To be an effective competitor to cable, direct-to-home 
     satellite television must have access to the same programming 
     carried by its competitors and at comparable rates. In 
     addition, consumers living in areas where over-the-air 
     network signals are not available rely upon satellite 
     carriers for access to important news and entertainment.
       (14) The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel did not 
     adequately consider the adverse competitive effect of the 
     differential in satellite and cable royalty fees on promoting 
     competition among multichannel video programming providers 
     and the importance of evaluating the fees satellite carriers 
     pay in the context of the competitive nature of the 
     multichannel video programming marketplace.
       (15) If the recommendation of the Copyright Arbitration 
     Royalty Panel is allowed to stand, the direct-to-home 
     satellite industry, whose total subscriber base is equivalent 
     in size to approximately 11 percent of all cable households, 
     will be paying royalties that equal half the size of the 
     cable royalty pool, thus giving satellite subscribers a 
     disproportionate burden for paying copyright royalties when 
     compared to cable television subscribers.

     SEC. 3. DBS SIGNAL SECURITY.

       (a) Section 605(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 605) is amended by adding after ``satellite cable 
     programming,'' the following: ``or direct-to-home satellite 
     services,''.

     SEC. 4. PROCEEDING ON RETRANSMISSION OF DISTANT BROADCAST 
                   SIGNALS; REPORT ON EFFECT OF INCREASED ROYALTY 
                   FEES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS ON COMPETITION IN 
                   THE MARKET FOR DELIVERY OF MULTICHANNEL VIDEO 
                   PROGRAMMING.

       (a) Section 628 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 548) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (g): ``The 
     Commission shall, within 180 days of enactment of this 
     amendment initiate a notice of inquiry to determine the best 
     way in which to facilitate the retransmission of distant 
     broadcast signals such that it is more consistent with the 
     1992 Cable Act's goal of promoting competition in the market 
     for delivery of multichannel video programming and the public 
     interest. The Commission also shall within 180 days of 
     enactment report to Congress on the effect of the increase in 
     royalty fees paid by satellite carriers pursuant to the 
     decision by the Librarian of Congress on competition in the 
     market for delivery of multichannel video programming and the 
     ability of the direct-to-home satellite industry to 
     compete.''

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE OF INCREASED ROYALTY FEES.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Copyright Office shall be prohibited from implementing, 
     enforcing, collecting or awarding copyright royalty fees, and 
     no obligation or liability for copyright royalty fees shall 
     accrue pursuant to the decision of the Librarian of Congress 
     on October 27, 1997, which established a royalty fee of $0.27 
     per subscriber per month for the retransmission of distant 
     broadcast signals by satellite carriers, before January 1, 
     1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. 
        Grams):
  S. 1423. A bill to modernize and improve the Federal Home Loan Bank 
System; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


          the federal home loan bank system modernization act

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Home 
Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1997. I am joined in this effort 
by my distinguished colleagues Senators Bennett, Grams, and Kerrey.

  This legislation represents months of work in crafting a bill that 
has bipartisan support. The process has been open, and we have included 
all the affected parties: The Federal Home Loan Banks themselves, the 
Federal Housing Finance Board, and the banking industry. This process 
has allowed us to craft legislation that represents, above all, sound 
banking policy.
  This bill will help community banks and the consumers who rely on 
them. Take, for example, the case of Commercial State Bank in Wausa, 
NE. Commercial has served northeast Nebraska as an agricultural and 
business lender for more than 70 years.
  Now, with a growing economy in the region, the bank is growing as 
well. In the small community of 600 people, deposits cannot keep pace 
with the growing demand for loans--and that means the bank's liquidity 
is declining. With less liquidity, there just isn't as much money 
available for lending as the community demands.
  This bill would help banks like Commercial and communities like 
Wausa. As Doug Johnson, president of Commercial State Bank, wrote to me 
about this legislation:

       If banks like the Commercial State Bank were able to access 
     the Federal Home Loan Bank, our customers would be better 
     able to be serviced with a consistent and competitive source 
     of funding. Denying credit to qualified borrowers is not 
     productive for Nebraska or the Midwest. Unfortunately, those 
     borrowers may miss the opportunities available to them at 
     this time to improve their economic prosperity.

  Mr. President, that is what this bill is all about--helping small 
communities to better secure their economic futures.
  The Federal Home Loan Bank system was established in 1932, primarily 
to provide a source of credit to savings and loan institutions for home 
lending. Now, a majority of the members in the FHLB system are 
commercial banks. We should update this system to recognize this change 
in its membership.
  Not since 1989 has significant Federal Home Loan Bank legislation 
become law. The system is working well, but I believe Congress can make 
it better. It's time for Congress to act.
  This legislation has four main components:
  First, it recognizes the importance of the FHLB system to community 
banks. Many smaller institutions are dependent on deposits to fund 
lending in their local communities. Because of competition from non 
bank competitors, those deposits are shrinking. That is going to mean 
less community lending--which will hurt the economies of these small 
communities. A recent article in American Banker newspaper titled 
``Small Banks Face Crisis as Deposits Drain Away'' highlighted this 
problem, and I ask that this article be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  Our legislation would ease membership requirements for smaller 
community banks and thrifts that are vital sources of credit in their 
local communities. It would allow the FHLB System to be more easily 
accessed as an important source of liquidity for community lenders. 
These institutions would be permitted to post different types of 
collateral for various kinds of lending. This critical change will 
facilitate more small business, rural development, agricultural, and 
low-income community development lending in rural and urban 
communities.
  The second main component of this bill is an issue of basic fairness. 
Federally chartered savings associations, or thrifts as they are called 
today, are required to be members of the Federal Home Loan Bank System. 
Commercial banks, on the other hand, are voluntary members. This 
disparity is unfair.
  Our legislation allows federally chartered thrifts to become 
voluntary members. This is important to these institutions, which are 
large stockholders in the Federal Home Loan Bank System. It is critical 
that all member financial institutions have the ability to choose 
whether Federal Home Loan Bank membership is appropriate or not. As a 
result of this action, we also equalize stock purchase requirements for 
all member institutions. We do this in a way that maintains and 
enhances the safety and soundness of the FHLB system.
  The third component of this legislation fixes an imbalance in the 
system's annual REFCORP obligation. Currently, the 12 FHLBanks must 
collectively pay a fixed $300 million obligation to service the REFCORP 
bonds

[[Page S12013]]

that were issued to help pay for the S&L bailout. This fixed obligation 
has driven the banks to increase their levels of non-mission-related 
investments.
  Under our legislation each FHLBank would be required to pay 20.75 
percent of its earnings to service the REFCORP debt. Freeing the 
FHLBanks of the obligation to generate a specific dollar figure would 
allow them to concentrate on their primary mission of housing finance 
and community lending. This change was scored by the Congressional 
Budget Office as increasing Federal revenues by $44 million over the 
next 5 years. In other words, this change would allow a $44 million 
reduction in taxpayer obligations.
  Fourth and finally, the legislation addresses the issue of devolution 
of management functions from the Finance Board to the FHLBanks. On 
issues of day-to-day management, the FHLBanks should be able to govern 
themselves independently of their regulator. The function of the 
Finance Board should be mission regulation and safety-and-soundness 
regulation. The provisions of the legislation that accomplish this goal 
are non controversial and enjoy broad support.
  Mr. President, it is time to modernize the Federal Home Loan Bank 
System. The landscape of the financial services industry is rapidly 
evolving. The Federal Home Loan Banks should be allowed to modernize to 
keep pace with these changes. I am proud to take up this issue in the 
Senate and build on the work done in the House of Representatives by 
Congressmen Baker and Kanjorski, both tireless proponents for Federal 
Home Loan Bank modernization. Their help in the formulation of this 
legislation was critical.
  I sincerely hope the Senate Banking Committee and the full Senate 
will have the chance to consider this important legislation, and I 
encourage my colleagues to 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:

                 [From American Banker, Oct. 14, 1997]

             Small Banks Face Crisis as Deposits Drain Away

                       (By Laura Pavlenko Lutton)

       Community banks are finding it increasingly tough to meet 
     deposit and withdrawal demands as customers shift their 
     deposits into higher-yielding investments like mutual funds. 
     ``I think it could become a crisis,'' said C. William 
     Landefeld, president of Citizens Savings Bank in Bloomington, 
     Ill., and chairman of America's Community Bankers. ``It's one 
     of our biggest concerns.''
       Over the last three years, loans at banks with assets 
     between $100 million and $1 billion have grown nearly 11% 
     while deposits only increased 3.27%, according to the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Corp. At June 30, loans at these banks 
     averaged 74% of deposits--an all-time high. ``We're clearly 
     seeing some community banks struggle with liquidity,'' said 
     Keith Leggett, an economist at the American Bankers 
     Association. Loan-to-deposit ratios above 70% force these 
     institutions to seek alternative sources of funds to meet 
     loan demand--a move that can squeeze profit margins.
       ``Banks may give up liquidity to meet loan demand and that 
     raises a safety question,'' he added. While deposits are 
     leaving banks of all sizes, the problem is worst at small 
     banks because they have fewer funding sources. ``The big 
     banks can issue debt securities, but we can't really do 
     that,'' said Arthur C. Johnson, president of United Bank of 
     Michigan, a $165 million-asset bank in Grand Rapids.
       ``Smaller banks don't have the same access to the capital 
     markets.'' Many of these banks also are in towns with 
     dwindling populations or slumping economies. Dennis Utter, 
     president of $45 million-asset Adams County Bank, said it's 
     difficult to keep deposits in the bank's hometown of Kenesaw, 
     Neb. Baby boomers have moved much of their savings to 
     alternative investments, and younger depositors are even 
     tougher to attract, he said. ``When an old, loyal customer 
     passes away, those funds don't stay in Adams County Bank,'' 
     he said. ``The heirs don't live here anymore.''
       To increase liquidity, community bankers are turning to the 
     Federal Home Loan Bank System, seeking out deposit brokers, 
     nudging up interest rates, or selling off assets. The 12 
     Federal Home Loan banks, which lend money to member 
     institutions, are a popular source of funds for community 
     banks nationwide. Membership in the system has doubled in the 
     last six years to roughly 6,300, and through August total 
     loans were up 10.3%, to 177.8 billion.
       Mr. Johnson said United Bank of Michigan has borrowed $5 
     million from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis to 
     fund loan growth. But the Federal Home Loan Bank System is 
     not the answer for all community banks. Membership is limited 
     to banks and thrifts with mortgages making up at least 10% of 
     their total loan portfolios. What's more, only mortgage loans 
     may be used as collateral, further limiting what some 
     institutions may borrow.
       William L. McQuillan, president of City National Bank in 
     Greely, Neb., said his bank went out and brought enough 
     mortgages to meet the 10% test so it could start borrowing. 
     ``We couldn't continue to go out in the local market and pay 
     up for deposits,'' he said. The membership and collateral 
     requirements soon may be relaxed through rule change and 
     pending legislation.
       For example, banks may be able to reclassify some 
     agricultural loans as mortgages under a proposed rule, and 
     pending legislation would waive the 10% mortgage rule for 
     banks with assets under $500 million--making 800 more banks 
     eligible for membership. In the meantime, banks may buy 
     deposits from brokers. Mr. Utter said he buys about $5 
     million of deposits to get Adams County Bank through the peak 
     agricultural lending season of April through October.
       ``Brokered deposits used to be really frowned upon by 
     regulators, but we're not funding long-term investments'' he 
     said. Bank also sell older loans in their portfolio, 
     branches, or other investments to boost liquidity.
       Gary Scott, president of Cheatam State Bank in Kingston 
     Springs, Tenn., said his bank occasionally bundles 15- to 20-
     year mortgages and then sells them to raise cash. Citizens 
     Savings Bank recently sold one of its under-performing 
     branches to bring in new funds. The bank sacrificed the 
     branch's $7 million of deposits, but Citizens was able to use 
     cash from the sale to pay off some Federal Home Loan bank 
     advances, Mr. Landefeld said.
       First Dakota National Bank in Yankton, S.D., has sold off 
     municipal bond securities in recent years to increase its 
     loan capacity, according to its president, James Ahrendt. Lew 
     Stone, president of Goleta (Calif.) National Bank, said his 
     bank is using the Internet to solve liquidity problems. 
     Goleta sells certificates of deposit through an electronic 
     bulletin board, raising and lowering the rates depending on 
     how much money the bank needs. ``We could raise $10 million 
     overnight if we had to,'' Mr. Stone said.
       Industry experts say they expect the current trend of 
     declining deposit growth and increasing loan demand to 
     continue. ``I don't see any real relief for community 
     banks,'' said Charles N. Cranmer, head of equity research at 
     M.A. Schapiro & Co. in New York. ``You've got a banking 
     population that's been educated that they can do better 
     things with their money than put it in a bank.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. 
        Inouye):
  S. 1424. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the air transportation tax changes made by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
1997; to the Committee on Finance.


                aviation taxes modification legislation

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Akaka, 
Stevens, and Inouye, I am introducing legislation that will provide a 
measure of relief to the citizens of Alaska and Hawaii who must rely on 
air transport far more than citizens in the lower-48.
  When Congress adopted the balanced budget legislation last summer, 
one of the provisions of the tax bill re-wrote the formula for 
calculating the air passenger tax for domestic and international 
flights. As part of this formula change, Congress adopted a per 
passenger, per segment fee which disproportionately penalizes travelers 
to and from Alaska and Hawaii who have no choice but to travel by air.
  Th legislation we are introducing today would reinstate the prior law 
10 percent tax formula for flights to and from our states. In addition, 
the $6 international departure fees that are imposed on such flights 
would be retained at the current level and would not be indexed. I see 
no reason why passengers flying to and from our states must face a 
guaranteed increase in tax every year because of inflation. We don't 
index tobacco taxes, we don't index fuel taxes; why should government 
automatically gain additional revenue from air passengers simply 
because of inflation?
  Mr. President, this legislation requires that intrastate Alaska and 
Hawaii flights will be subject to a flat 10 percent tax if such flights 
do not originate or terminate at a rural airport in our states. In 
addition, the definition of a rural airport is expanded to include 
airports within 75 miles of each other where no roads connect the 
communities. In many towns in Alaska, air transport is the only viable 
means of transportation from one community to another. There is no 
reason these airports should be denied the benefit of the special rural 
airport tax rate simply because our state does not have the

[[Page S12014]]

transportation infrastructure or geographic definition that exists in 
most of the lower-48.
  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. 1424

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

     SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS TO AIR TRANSPORTATION TAX CHANGES 
                   MADE BY TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 1997.

       (a) Elimination of Inflation Adjustment for Tax on Certain 
     Use of International Travel Facilities.--Section 4261(e)(4) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to inflation 
     adjustment of dollar rates of tax) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``each dollar amount 
     contained in subsection (c)'' and inserting ``the $12.00 
     amount contained in subsection (c)(1)'', and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``the dollar 
     amounts contained in subsection (c)'' and inserting ``the 
     $12.00 amount contained in subsection (c)(1)''.
       (b) Modification of Rural Airport Definition.--Subclause 
     (I) of section 4261(e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (defining rural airport) is amended by inserting ``(or 
     is so located but is not connected to such other airport by 
     paved roads)'' after ``clause (i)''.
       (c) Imposition of Ticket Tax on Segments to and from Alaska 
     or Hawaii or Within Alaska or Hawaii at Rate in Effect Before 
     the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.--Section 4261(e) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Segments to and from alaska or hawaii or within 
     alaska or hawaii.--Except with respect to any domestic 
     segment described in paragraph (1), in the case of 
     transportation involving 1 or more domestic segments at least 
     1 of which begins or ends in Alaska or Hawaii or in the case 
     of a domestic segment beginning and ending in Alaska or 
     Hawaii--
       ``(A) subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting ``10 
     percent'' for the otherwise applicable percentage, and
       ``(B) the tax imposed by subsection (b)(1) shall not 
     apply.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by 
     section 1031 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my support to Senator 
Murkowski's bill that would amend Public Law 105-34, the Taxpayer 
Relief Act of 1997, with respect to domestic aviation travel to, from, 
and within Hawaii and Alaska. Hawaii, unlike any other State, save 
Alaska, does not have the transportation alternatives that are 
available to citizens of other States. Roads, bridges, trains, and 
buses do not operate between the islands of Hawaii. This geographic 
difference causes any tax imposed on the cost of flying, our citizens' 
only means of getting from one island to another, to fall 
disproportionately on our citizens.
  This bill would correct any injustice that the citizens of Hawaii and 
Alaska were, perhaps inadvertently, subjected to as a result of last 
summer's passage of increased excise taxes on air transportation. 
Specifically, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997's provision for the 
collection of an additional segment tax for each segment of air travel 
among the Hawaiian Islands disproportionately penalized Hawaii 
citizens.
  In addition, the current law definition of ``rural airports'' is 
under inclusive. Under the current law, Hawaii citizens traveling to 
and from an airport located within 75 miles of a high-traffic airport 
that is inaccessible to them because there are no paved roads 
connecting the two airports, are nonetheless ineligible for the reduced 
7.5 percent tax. By amending the definition of ``rural airports,'' this 
bill will afford Hawaii citizens the same tax benefits as similarly 
situated citizens of other States.
  Therefore, I support the reinstatement of the pre-act formula for 
computing taxes on domestic segments that begin or end in Alaska and 
Hawaii, which would correct the inequitable tax treatment of Hawaii 
passengers under the current law.
  It is my hope that my colleagues will support this measure during the 
second session of the 105th Congress.
  Mr. AKAKA. I am pleased to join Senator Murkowski and other 
colleagues in introducing legislation today that addresses certain 
aviation tax inequities that were enacted as part of Public Law 105-34, 
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
  Among other aviation provisions, Public Law 105-34 lowered the 
passenger ticket tax from 10 percent to 9 percent, falling 
incrementally to 7.5 percent over 3 years. In addition, the law 
established a new domestic segment fee of $1, rising incrementally to 
$3 over 5 years, which will ultimately be indexed for inflation. 
However, flights from certain small, rural airports are taxed at a 
simple 7.5 percent rate and exempted from the segment fee. Finally, 
while the existing $6 international departure tax for flights between 
Hawaii and other states is maintained, the charge is indexed for 
inflation beginning in 1999.
  Mr. President, these taxes unfairly discriminate against Hawaii 
travellers. Residents of and visitors to Hawaii are entirely dependent 
on plane service for communication among the State's eight major 
islands as well as for travel to and from the distant U.S. mainland. 
The new aviation charges make personal, commercial, and Government 
travel within Hawaii more costly and hurts our tourism-based economy by 
inhibiting visitation from other States. I understand that many of 
these problems also apply to Alaska, which has similar transportation 
concerns.
  The bill we are introducing today addresses these shortcomings. Our 
legislation would reinstate the prior 10 percent ticket tax and 
eliminate the new segment fee on flights between our States and the 
mainland as well as on intrastate flights in Hawaii and Alaska. The 
measure would also eliminate the inflation adjustment for the $6 
international departure tax to which flights to and from our States are 
subject. Finally, the bill would redefine the rural airport exemption 
in such a way that will qualify many passengers travelling within 
Hawaii and Alaska for the reduced 7.5 percent rate.
  Thank you, Mr. President. For the sake of Hawaii's and Alaska's 
unique air transportation needs, I urge my colleagues to support this 
initiative.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 1425. A bill to provide for the preservation and sustainability of 
the family farm through the transfer of responsibility for operation 
and maintenance of the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project, Montana; to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs.


          the flathead irrigation project transfer act of 1997

  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
transfer the operation of an irrigation project in Montana from the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs to the local irrigators. This is a bill, which 
has been before Congress before, but has been changed to address the 
concerns expressed by the BIA and groups which have opposed this 
legislation in the past.

  Years of management by the Bureau of Indian Affairs has led to a 
project in poor physical condition. Rather than being an asset for the 
government and the users, the Flathead Irrigation is rapidly becoming a 
liability. Using current estimates, the project is in need of $15 to 
$20 million worth of repair and conditioning. Government managers admit 
that costs associated with rehabilation of this project could be as 
much as 40 percent higher than if the project were under local control.
  The irony of this project however, is the fact that studies on 
locally owned irrigation projects in Montana and Wyoming show that the 
costs of operation and maintenance of the Flathead project are some of 
the highest in the Rocky Mountain Region the condition of the project 
may be worst in that same region. What do these people, and for that 
matter the taxpayer, get for the higher costs associated with the 
current management? Not much if anything at all.
  Let's take a moment here to see what local control of this irrigation 
project would mean to the irrigators and to the taxpayer. First of all, 
local control will mean increased accountability of the monies 
collected by and used in the operation of the Flathead Irrigation 
Project. At the current time the BIA is unable, or unwilling, to 
provide basic financial information to the local irrigation districts. 
This despite the fact that the local farmers and ranchers pay 100% of 
the costs to operate and maintain the project. At the same time, the 
current management cannot even deliver a year-end balance of funds paid 
by the local irrigation users.

[[Page S12015]]

  Local control will also create savings over the current operation 
management. By using these savings the local management could be used 
to restore the Flathead Irrigation Project to a fully functioning, 
efficiently operating unit.
  Without the transfer to local control, the residents of the Flathead 
face an uncertain future. This irrigation project is located in one of 
the most beautiful valleys in western Montana. Current trends in 
agriculture have put farmers and ranchers in a difficult position. 
Montana farmers and ranchers have always been land rich and cash poor. 
In the case of this valley in Montana, this is the rule and not the 
exception. They live in an area that is being changed daily due to the 
number of summer home construction, because of the beauty and a 
temperate climate for Montana.
  The family farmers and ranchers in this area continue to face 
economic pressures from outside. Which has led to a number of folks 
packing up and subdividing their land for residential home sites. Those 
who have packed up and left the area, have taken their land and 
subdivided it for the residential development, removing the land from 
agricultural production.
  The subdivision of the land has a number of negative impacts on this 
valley and Montana and the Nation. The landscape is dotted with 
magnificent homes which impacts on the landscape and open spaces, and 
of course wildlife. Another of the major impacts sin on the local and 
state economies and governments. Agriculture land in Montana pays 
approximately $1.29 in property taxes for every dollar invested by the 
local government for services. Residential subdivisions only pay 
approximately $0.89 for every dollar they receive in local government 
services.
  Preservation of the small family farm and ranch in the Mission, Jocko 
and Camas valleys in Montana is dependent upon local control. As local 
control of the Flathead Irrigation Project will provide these hard 
working Americans an opportunity to control and have input on the costs 
associated with the operation of this vital water source.
  The local control of this project is supported by a wide cross 
section of Montanan's. Governor Marc Racicot, the Lake County 
Commissioners and local irrigation districts are among the local 
government officials in support of this bill. Organizations which have 
voiced their support for the measure include the Montana Stockgrowers 
Association, Montana Water Resources Association and the National Water 
Resources Association. The support of this measure in bipartisan in 
nature as well.
  Madam President. I am pleased to introduce this measure today, and I 
look forward to moving this bill forward through committee and to the 
floor in an attempt to give local control back to the people who depend 
on the Flathead Irrigation Project for their way of living.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 1426. A bill to encourage beneficiary developing countries to 
provide adequate protection of intellectual property rights, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


the rights of intellectual property owners fairness facilitation act of 
                                  1997

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
I believe will encourage many of our trading partners to improve their 
protection of American intellectual property rights. This is not an 
insignificant matter, Mr. President. It is estimated that American 
companies lose approximately $50 billion every year from intellectual 
property violations. This theft not only affects a company's bottom 
line, it means losses to America's competitiveness, and, most 
importantly, it means loss of American jobs.

  The ``Rights of Intellectual Property Owners Fairness Facilitation 
Act of 1997,'' or RIP-OFF, will require participants in the Generalized 
System of Preferences program to expedite their implementation of the 
intellectual property agreement contained in the Uruguay Round of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In addition, to continue as a 
GSP beneficiary, a country must fully comply with the terms of any 
bilateral or other multilateral intellectual property agreement it has 
with the United States.
  Mr. President, the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights, known as TRIPS, requires signatories to 
improve and better enforce the rights of intellectual property holders. 
Unfortunately, too many countries are able to delay implementation of 
TRIPS for an inordinately long period of time. Developing countries 
have until 2000 and least developed countries are permitted to delay 
some TRIPS requirements for as long as 2006. The United States simply 
cannot afford to permit piracy to continue unabated for such a lengthy 
period.
  The GSP program enables certain products from developing countries to 
be exported to the United States duty-free. Through the years, Congress 
has conditioned the receipt of these tariff preferences on such factors 
as whether a country enforces arbitral awards in favor of US citizens, 
whether it affords internationally recognized worker rights to its 
workers, and whether it harbors terrorists. Although GSP beneficiaries 
are supposed to provide 'adequate and effective' intellectual property 
protection, it is an amorphous standard that has only been used a 
handful of times against countries, and then, only for a limited period 
of time, and with limited success. By tying the GSP program to 
expedited implementation of TRIPS and full compliance with agreements 
they have negotiated with the U.S., countries will know what they must 
do and by when to continue receiving GSP benefits. It also demonstrates 
our commitment to protecting American intellectual property rights 
overseas.
  My legislation conforms to current law, which provides the President 
with the discretion, via a waiver, to continue or extend GSP benefits 
to a country that does not comply with the requirements of this bill by 
allowing a waiver. The President has every right to determine that 
designating a country as a GSP beneficiary is in the national economic 
interest of the United States. I thought it was important to maintain 
the existing flexibility in this program. My bill will also enable our 
government to provide support and technical assistance to countries 
having difficulty meeting their intellectual property protection 
requirements.
  The GSP program provides countries with a benefit, not a right. 
Congress continues to downsize the federal government. Resources are 
scarce. In this climate, it is inappropriate to provide GSP benefits to 
countries that do not uphold our intellectual property rights. 
Industries reliant upon strong intellectual property protection, 
pharmaceutical, telecommunications, and motion picture companies, for 
example, are among this country's most competitive. We should be 
fostering this competitiveness by using appropriate tools to protect 
our innovators. Mr. President, this legislation will accomplish this 
goal.
  This legislation is very similar to a bill I introduced several years 
ago with Senator Roth. The modifications I have made account for the 
time countries have already had to commence changes to their 
intellectual property laws and regulations. Additionally, the bill 
clarifies that the standards provided in TRIPS should be the floor for 
intellectual property agreements, and that our government should 
continue seeking stronger protection for American intellectual property 
owners.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and 
ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted into the 
Record along with letters of support.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1426

       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 ``Rights of Intellectual 
     Property Owners Fairness Facilitation Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) United States industry loses billions of dollars each 
     year to countries that do not provide adequate protection of 
     intellectual property rights.
       (2) According to the Department of Commerce, United States 
     companies lose approximately $50,000,000,000 annually as a 
     result of violations of intellectual property rights by 
     foreign countries.

[[Page S12016]]

       (3) It is in the interest of the United States to leverage 
     its foreign policy to achieve certain trade policy 
     objectives, such as adequate, effective, and timely 
     protection of intellectual property rights.
       (4) Several countries that qualify under the generalized 
     system of preferences provisions have been identified under 
     section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2242) as 
     countries that do not provide adequate and effective 
     protection of patents, copyrights, and trademarks or deny 
     fair and equitable market access to United States persons 
     that rely on intellectual property rights protection.
       (5) Several countries that receive United States foreign 
     assistance also have been identified under section 182 of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 as countries that do not provide adequate 
     and effective protection of patents, copyrights, and 
     trademarks or deny fair and equitable market access to United 
     States persons that rely on intellectual property rights 
     protection.

     SEC. 3. COUNTRIES INELIGIBLE FOR GSP TREATMENT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Implementation of agreement on trips and other 
     agreements relating to intellectual property rights.--Section 
     502(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462(b)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting immediately after subparagraph (G) the 
     following new subparagraphs:
       ``(H) Such country is not implementing parts I, II, and III 
     of the Agreement on TRIPS--
       ``(i) beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of the Rights of Intellectual Property Owners 
     Fairness Facilitation Act of 1997; or
       ``(ii) by January 1, 2000, in the case of a least-developed 
     beneficiary developing country.
       ``(I) Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Rights of Intellectual Property Owners 
     Fairness Facilitation Act of 1997, such country is not 
     implementing--
       ``(i) article 70(9) of part VII of the Agreement on TRIPS; 
     or
       ``(ii) any bilateral or multilateral agreement (other than 
     an agreement described in subparagraph (H) or clause (i)) to 
     protect and enforce intellectual property rights entered into 
     with the United States.''.
       (B) in the last sentence, by striking ``(D), (E), (F), and 
     (G)'' and inserting ``(D), (E), (F), (G), (H), and (I)''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 507 of such Act (19 
     U.S.C. 2467) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(6) Agreement on trips.--
       ``(A) TRIPS.--The term `Agreement on TRIPS' means the 
     Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
     Rights entered into as part of the Uruguay Round Agreements.
       ``(B) Uruguay round agreements.--The term `Uruguay Round 
     Agreements' means the trade agreements resulting from the 
     Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations under the 
     auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.''.
       (b) Designation as Eligible GSP Country.--Section 502 of 
     such Act (19 U.S.C. 2462) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(g) Designation Where Country Adheres to the Agreement on 
     TRIPS and Other Intellectual Property Rights Agreements; 
     Annual Reports.--
       ``(1) Designation as beneficiary developing country.--A 
     country--
       ``(A) which has been denied designation as a beneficiary 
     developing country on the basis of subsection (b)(2)(H) or 
     (I), or
       ``(B) with respect to which such designation has been 
     withdrawn or suspended based on subsection (b)(2) (H) or (I),

     may be designated as a beneficiary developing country under 
     this title, if the President determines that the country is 
     fully implementing parts I, II, III and article 70(9) of part 
     VII of the Agreement on TRIPS, and any other agreement 
     entered into with the United States that relates to 
     intellectual property rights, and reports the determination 
     to Congress.
       ``(2) Reports.--
       ``(A) Annual reports.--Not later than the date that is 1 
     year after the date of enactment of the Rights of 
     Intellectual Property Owners Fairness Facilitation Act of 
     1997, and annually thereafter, the President shall determine 
     whether each country designated as a beneficiary developing 
     country under this title is fully implementing parts I, II, 
     and III of the Agreement on TRIPS and shall report such 
     findings to Congress.
       ``(B) Other reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Rights of Intellectual Property Owners 
     Fairness Facilitation Act of 1997, and annually thereafter, 
     the President shall determine whether each country designated 
     as a beneficiary developing country under this title is fully 
     implementing article 70(9) of part VII of the Agreement on 
     TRIPS and any other agreement entered into with the United 
     States that relates to intellectual property rights and shall 
     report such determination to Congress.''.

     SEC. 4. COORDINATION OF TRADE POLICY AND FOREIGN POLICY.

       (a) Other Efforts To Improve Protection of Intellectual 
     Property Rights.--The United States Trade Representative 
     shall notify the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
     Commerce, and the Administrator of the Agency for 
     International Development on a regular basis of any country 
     which is not fully implementing parts I, II, III and article 
     70(9) of part VII of the Agreement on TRIPS, and any other 
     agreement entered into with the United States that relates to 
     intellectual property rights.
       (b) Encouraging Implementation of Agreement on TRIPS.--The 
     Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the 
     Administrator of the Agency for International Development 
     shall cooperate with the United States Trade Representative 
     by encouraging any country that receives foreign assistance 
     and is not fully implementing the Agreement on TRIPS or any 
     other agreement entered into with the United States that 
     relates to intellectual property rights to enact and enforce 
     laws that will enable the country to implement the Agreement 
     on TRIPS and any other intellectual property rights 
     agreement. To further this objective, the Secretary of State 
     shall instruct the head of each United States diplomatic 
     mission abroad to include intellectual property rights 
     protection as a priority objective of the mission.
       (c) Other Actions To Encourage Protection of Intellectual 
     Property Rights.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the President is authorized to undertake the following 
     actions, where appropriate, with respect to a developing 
     country to encourage and help the country improve the 
     protection of intellectual property rights:
       (1) Provide Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
     insurance for intellectual property assets.
       (2) Require foreign assistance programs to provide support 
     for the development of national intellectual property laws 
     and regulations and for the development of the infrastructure 
     necessary to protect intellectual property rights.
       (3) Establish technical cooperation committees on 
     intellectual property standards within regional 
     organizations.
       (4) Establish, as a joint effort between the United States 
     Government and the private sector, a council to facilitate 
     and provide intellectual property-related technical 
     assistance through the Agency for International Development 
     and the Department of Commerce.
       (5) Require United States representatives to multilateral 
     lending institutions to seek the establishment of programs 
     within the institutions to support strong intellectual 
     property rights protection in recipient countries that have 
     fully implemented parts I, II, III and article 70(9) of part 
     VII of the Agreement on TRIPS, and any other agreement 
     entered into with the United States that relates to 
     intellectual property rights.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Agreement on trips.--The term ``Agreement on TRIPS'' 
     means the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 
     Property Rights entered into as part of the trade agreements 
     resulting from the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade 
     negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade.
       (2) Developing country.--The term ``developing country'' 
     means any country which is--
       (A) eligible to be designated a beneficiary developing 
     country pursuant to title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2461 et seq.); or
       (B) designated as a least-developed beneficiary developing 
     country pursuant to section 502 of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2462).
                                  ____



         Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 1997.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing to express PhRMA's 
     appreciation and support for your legislation, the ``rights 
     of Intellectual Property Owners Fairness Facilitation Act of 
     1997.'' The protection and enhancement of American 
     intellectual property is fundamental to the competitiveness 
     of many U.S. industries, especially the research-based 
     pharmaceutical industry. Thanks to the support of the 
     Congress and the Executive Branch, over the years many 
     countries such as Mexico and Brazil have improved their 
     intellectual property regimes, thereby improving their 
     prospects for economic development and setting a positive 
     example for other countries around the world.
       I believe your legislation, by providing a balanced range 
     of incentives for countries to improve their protection of 
     intellectual property rights, will send a positive signal to 
     our trading partners. Please do not hesitate to contact me if 
     there is anything PHRMA can do to support the passage of your 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Alan F. Holmer,
     President.
                                  ____



                                             Procter & Gamble,

                                 Washington, DC, October 28, 1997.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of Procter & Gamble, I 
     write in strong support of your efforts to protect U.S. 
     intellectual property rights through your bill, the ``Rights 
     of Intellectual Property Owners Fairness Facilitation Act of 
     1997.''
       Procter & Gamble now generates over half of its $35 billion 
     annual sales from international markets. America's leadership 
     to create rules-based international markets is

[[Page S12017]]

     one of our primary concerns. As we continue to build our 
     business in developing countries, we seek a ``level playing 
     field'' in the form of transparent, rules-based treatment and 
     protection of investments, including trademarks, 
     technologies, and ideas. Your bill, which requires that 
     developing countries adequately protect our intellectual 
     property rights or lose GSP benefits, represents a positive 
     step.
       We are all too familiar with what can happen overseas when 
     U.S. intellectual property rights are not adequately 
     protected. For instance, in the Persian Gulf countries, P&G 
     suffers from severe counterfeit activity. In certain other 
     nations receiving GSP preferences, we estimate that nearly 
     10% of our total sales is lost to counterfeit products. If 
     GSP can be used as an incentive for countries to implement 
     the TRIPS standards at an accelerated pace, we would avoid 
     those losses.
       Your proposed similar legislation in 1994, which we and 
     many of our trade associations such as IPO and PhRMA 
     supported. We will encourage those organizations to again 
     support this initiative.
           Sincerely,
                                                  R. Scott Miller,
                                                         Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FORD:
  S. 1427. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require 
the Federal Communications Commission to preserve lowpower television 
stations that provide community broadcasting, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


           THE COMMUNITY BROADCASTERS PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the 
Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1997. This legislation is 
designed to provide some limited protections for the owners and 
operators of low-power television, or LPTV.
  Mr. President, when the Federal Communications Commission created 
low-power television licenses in the early 1980's, it did so with a 
simple premise: television stations unable to reach a large area, can 
still offer a valuable service to our communities. Low-power television 
stations operate at the higher ends of the broadcast spectrum and serve 
a more limited area, generally a coverage area of approximately 12 to 
15 miles. In addition, LPTV licensees operate as a ``secondary 
status''. That is, they cannot interfere with the transmission of full 
power television stations.
  Since their creation almost 20 years ago, LPTV stations have 
flourished. As entrepreneurs, LPTV owners and operators have 
experimented with various kinds of programming. Many have been 
extremely successful as local, community broadcasters, providing 
regional news and sports coverage. In fact, LPTV stations have much in 
common with full power stations. Many offer a full service daily 
program schedule. Other LPTV stations have predominantly religious, all 
news, all sports, or all movie formats. Still, many other LPTV stations 
offer more local and ``niche'' programming because their service areas 
are smaller, their audiences more targeted.
  Unfortunately, the transition to the digital television era threatens 
the viability of many LPTV stations. As their spectrum is reclaimed by 
the FCC for the purpose of providing the second channel for digital 
television, some of the LPTV stations may face darkness during the 
transition to digital television, or afterwards.
  Let me say, Mr. President, that I have been and continue to be, a 
supporter of the transition to digital television. I believe the move 
to digital television is a prudent use of modern technology for the use 
of a scarce public resource, the electromagnetic spectrum. But I also 
believe that as we make this transition, good public policy must 
support the investments made by LPTV licensees. I would note, Mr. 
President, that a majority of Members of the Senate agreed with me on 
this point as a number of Members joined me on a March 6, 1997 letter 
to then FCC Chairman Reed Hundt in which we expressed concerns about 
the plans for the transition to digital television.
  And while the FCC agrees that LPTV licensees have been successful and 
offer a valuable enterprise, there remains regulatory uncertainty for 
LPTV licensees in the digital age. That is why I have introduced the 
Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1997. This legislation will 
elevate some LPTV stations from their current secondary status to a 
newly created Class A license. In so doing, Class A LPTV licensees 
would be treated under law and FCC regulations like a full power 
television station. That is, Class A LPTV licensees would assume the 
same duties and responsibilities as their full power counterparts.
  To qualify for a Class A license, an LPTV station must broadcast a 
minimum of 18 hours per day, and broadcast an average of at least 3 
hours per week of programming produced within the market area served by 
the LPTV station. LPTV stations must be operating under these 
conditions within the last 2 years before enactment of this legislation 
and within 6 months of filing for the license. Once an LPTV station 
obtains a Class A license, the FCC would be required to find spectrum 
for the station in the new digital television era. Like its full power 
counterparts, a Class A licensee could not be forced off the air by 
having its license terminated or rescinded. However, in those instances 
where the FCC cannot accommodate an LPTV licensee in one market, 
because of the potential for interference with full power digital 
transmissions, the FCC is authorized to award the LPTV Class A licensee 
another license in an adjacent community, or if that is not available, 
in another community acceptable to the licensee.
  Lower-power television licensees are willing and prepared to join 
their full power counterparts in the transition to digital television--
a transition which is technically complex and potentially costly for 
both full power and low-power broadcasters. But as long as there 
remains a regulatory uncertainty about the future of LPTV, they will 
not be able to obtain the investments and capital to make that 
transition.
  It is an interesting historic footnote, that at the time LPTV was 
authorized by the FCC, then FCC Chairman Charles Ferris suggested that 
one day, LPTV could develop into full power television stations. While 
this legislation does not elevate LPTV to full power status, I do 
believe that this legislation addresses a critical issue for LPTV 
supporters--the development of adequate protections in the digital age 
for broadcasters who provide a significant benefit to the public. I 
hope my colleagues, who are also supporters of their community 
broadcasters agree with me and will lend their support to move this 
legislation forward towards enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Mack and Mr. Bumpers):
  S. 1428. A bill to waive time limitations specified by law in order 
to allow the Medal of Honor to be awarded to be awarded to Robert R. 
Ingram of Jacksonville, Florida, for acts of valor while a Navy 
Hospital Corpsman in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam 
conflict; to the Committee on Armed Services.


              the robert r. ingram recognition act of 1997

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to urge passage of a private 
bill that will honor a man that served this country with honor and 
bravery. This bill will allow Robert R. Ingram to receive the Medal of 
Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk to his life 
above and beyond the call of duty.
  Robert R. Ingram served as Corpsman with Company C, First Battalion, 
Seventh Marines in Vietnam. On March 28, 1966, Corpsman Ingram 
accompanied Marine point platoon as it dispatched an outpost of a North 
Vietnam Aggressor battalion in Quang Ngai Province, Republic of 
Vietnam. They were sabotaged by the Vietnamese, and the platoon was 
decimated, suffering numerous casualties. Corpsman Ingram was himself 
injured four times during the attack while he administered first aid to 
other members of his platoon.
  Enduring the pain from his many injuries and disregarding his own 
life, Corpsman Ingram's selfless actions saved many U.S. soldiers that 
day. By his indomitable fighting spirit, daring initiative, and 
unfaltering dedication to duty, Corpsman Ingram clearly earned the 
Medal of Honor as a result of his actions. However, the Navy failed to 
process an award, and Corpsman Ingram received no official commendation 
for his actions. The men with whom he served that fateful day, and the 
men whose lives he saved, all feel that a commendation is due. However, 
there is no evidence of an award recommendation.

[[Page S12018]]

  Mr. President, it is time that Robert R. Ingram receives an honor 
that should have been bestowed upon him over thirty years ago. This 
bill calls for the time limitations in Section 6248 to be waived so 
that this action may be taken.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1428

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

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO ROBERT R. 
                   INGRAM FOR VALOR DURING THE VIETNAM CONFLICT.

       (a) Waiver of Time Limitations.--Notwithstanding the time 
     limitations specified in section 6248 of title 10, United 
     States Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the 
     awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the naval 
     service, the President may award the Medal of Honor under 
     section 6241 of that title to Robert R. Ingram of 
     Jacksonville, Florida, for the acts of valor referred to in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Action Described.--The acts of valor referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the actions of Robert R. Ingram on March 
     28, 1966, as a Hospital Corpsman Third Class in the Navy 
     serving in the Republic of Vietnam with Company C of the 
     First Battalion, Seventh Marines, during a combat operation 
     designated as Operation Indiana.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 1429. A bill to enhance rail competition and to ensure reasonable 
rail rates in any case in which there is an absence of effective 
competition; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


              the railroad shipper protection act of 1997

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to be joined 
by two of my distinguished colleagues, Senator Conrad Burns and Senator 
Byron Dorgan, in introducing today the Railroad Shipper Protection Act 
of 1997. This legislation is the result of many months of effort to 
develop constructive and pragmatic proposals for addressing the 
increasingly serious problems faced by shippers in need of affordable 
access to railroad service in every region of the country. As a 
bipartisan team committed to achieving urgently needed results in the 
coming year, we offer this bill with the hope that it will generate the 
interest, input, and support needed to help shippers obtain fair 
treatment and true competitive access from railroads across the 
country. I commend both Senators Burns and Dorgan for their leadership 
and constant attention to these issues, which can be complex and yet 
affect numerous communities, key industries, and workers nationwide.
  This legislation deals with issues of longstanding concern to me. 
Because of the importance of the relationship between the Nation's 
railroads and the shippers and communities that they serve, especially 
in my State of West Virginia, I have made a special effort throughout 
my tenure in the Senate to promote a rail transportation system that is 
fair and economically sound for all parties. Of all of the things that 
have troubled me about that system over the years, none is more 
troubling than the plight of captive rail shippers--businesses and 
communities that are dependent on a single railroad for freight 
transportation service.
  West Virginia has more than its fair share of captive shippers. Many 
of our coal fields, most of our chemical manufacturers, and one of our 
finest steel manufacturing facilities--and the largest single employer 
in our State--all are captive to a single railroad for shipments to 
domestic and foreign markets. The result is that West Virginia 
businesses too often suffer from unreasonable freight rates and 
inadequate transportation service.
  Today, two events are conspiring to create additional captive rail 
shippers--and worsen the competitive position of existing captive rail 
shippers--in West Virginia and across the Nation.
  First, our national freight rail system continues to concentrate into 
fewer and fewer major railroads. Since Congress deregulated the 
railroads in 1980, the number of major Class I railroads has declined 
from 43 to 5--and will drop to 4 if the division of Conrail is 
approved. For a long time the fears expressed by shippers, and by those 
of us in Congress who are dedicated to protecting shippers, have fallen 
on deaf ears. In the past several months, however, the entire Nation 
has witnessed the far-reaching economic impact of a merger gone awry. 
The 1996 merger of Union Pacific and Southern Pacific has made dramatic 
headlines as service is disrupted, trains pile up, shipments are lost, 
and ultimately facilities and jobs are put in jeopardy. The chemical 
industry alone has had to grapple with service disruptions costing an 
average of $35 to $60 million per month through the summer and into the 
fall.

  The UP-SP service crisis has caught my attention in part because the 
effects are so far-reaching that a number of West Virginia shippers 
have asked for my help, and in part because I now face a major merger 
in my own backyard with the proposal to divide Conrail between CSX and 
Norfolk Southern. The UP-SP situation is expected to improve in the 
coming months, following implementation of a comprehensive service 
recovery plan and unprecedented intervention by the Surface 
Transportation Board, but the UP-SP story has only reinforced my belief 
that concentration of the Nation's railroads is an ominous development 
for many shippers and for States like West Virginia. Railroad 
concentration is reducing transportation options and worsening the 
competitive position of captive shippers.
  Second, the Surface Transportation Board, established in 1995 to 
succeed the Interstate Commerce Commission, is understaffed and 
underfunded, and is not adequately promoting rail competition and 
protecting captive shippers. As I feared at the time it was passed, the 
effect of the ICC Termination Act has been to reduce our national 
commitment to a strong and effective regulatory body to protect rail 
shippers. Rather than being vigilant in protecting captive shippers 
from railroad abuses, the STB has instead been consumed with reviewing 
major railroad mergers, conducting annual revenue adequacy 
determinations which serve no purpose, and making matters worse for 
shippers by deciding in December 1996 that railroads may render captive 
a shipper that is otherwise positioned to enjoy competitive service by 
refusing to quote a rate on a bottleneck segment.
  Mr. President, just as the railroad industry has become more and more 
concentrated, the regulatory agency charged with protecting captive 
railroad customers has become less and less able to do its job.
  Some may wonder how the STB, which is directly charged with 
protecting against unreasonable rates and promoting competition, came 
to make such an anticompetitive and antishipper decision as that set 
forth in the 1996 bottleneck cases, and I think the answer illustrates 
well the need for Congress to correct the current imbalance between 
railroads and their customers.

  The answer lies in the confusing instructions that were given to the 
STB in the ICC Termination Act, and previously in the Staggers Rail Act 
of 1980 and the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 
1976. In these statutes Congress directed the STB and its predecessor, 
the ICC, to promote our national rail transportation system ``by 
allowing rail carriers to earn adequate revenues'' (49 U.S.C. 10101(3)) 
and by making ``an adequate and continuing effort to assist those 
carriers in attaining revenue levels'' that allow them ``to attract and 
retain capital in amounts adequate to provide a sound transportation 
system in the United States'' (49 U.S.C. 10704(a)(2)). Congress has 
further directed the STB to make an annual determination of each 
railroad's revenue adequacy--a determination that finds most class I 
railroads to be revenue inadequate, contrary to the view of Wall Street 
and industry observers about the financial strength of individual 
railroads and the industry as a whole.
  As is evident in reading the Board's bottleneck decision, the 
perceived revenue inadequacy of the major railroads, and the belief 
that protecting revenue adequacy is the preeminent responsibility of 
the agency, formed the basis of the STB's agreement with the railroads 
that they should have the right to prevent rail-to-rail competition 
even where competition is physically possible. At this point in the 
evolution of the railroad industry, such an approach is not only 
inequitable, it is harmful to our national economy.

[[Page S12019]]

  Today, I join with my colleagues in proposing legislation to clarify 
the policy of the U.S. Government with regard to railroad competition 
and to restore the intended balance between railroads and shippers in 
the laws governing their relationship and the oversight role of the 
STB. This bill would accomplish five major objectives: First, making 
clear that it is the policy of the U.S. Government to promote rail 
competition and protect captive shippers; second, reducing the 
regulatory burden on captive shippers by simplifying the market 
dominance test; third, overturning the bottleneck decision by requiring 
railroads to quote a rate on any available segment of service; fourth, 
eliminating the ``revenue adequacy'' test, which serves no practical 
purpose and perpetuates the erroneous view that railroads are in dire 
financial straits; and fifth, requiring the STB to open its process 
more widely in order to meet the needs of small shippers.
  It is our intention to pursue this legislation in the context of the 
STB's reauthorization next year. I am firmly committed to ensuring that 
the Board is reauthorized in a timely way and is provided with the 
funds it needs to perform its mission as the primary oversight agency 
for the Nation's railroads, but I want to make clear that I will not 
support continuation of the status quo in the relationship between 
railroads and shippers.
  The legislation I introduce today will begin to afford rail-to-rail 
competition and captive shipper protection the priority they deserve in 
our national transportation policy. It is an important first-step, and 
I look forward to working with Senator Burns, Senator Dorgan, and 
others over the course of the next several months to expand upon the 
shipper protections we propose today. I invite our colleagues to join 
us in this effort, and genuinely seek constructive input and assistance 
to achieve needed solutions.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in its entirety in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1429

       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 ``Railroad Shipper Protection 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the railroad industry has consolidated dramatically 
     since passage of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 (94 Stat. 1895 
     et seq.), leaving the railroad industry with only a few major 
     carriers and providing shippers with limited competitive 
     options;
       (2) the financial health of the railroad industry has 
     improved substantially since the passage of the Staggers Rail 
     Act of 1980;
       (3) due partly to the continued consolidation of the 
     railroad industry, captive rail shippers--
       (A) continue to exist; and
       (B) are increasing in number; and
       (4) rail shippers, including captive rail shippers, will 
     benefit from increased competition among railroads and a 
     streamlined process under which the Surface Transportation 
     Board determines the reasonableness of captive rail shipper 
     rates.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
       (2) Surface transportation board.--The term ``Surface 
     Transportation Board'' or ``Board'' means the Surface 
     Transportation Board established under section 701 of title 
     49, United States Code.

     SEC. 4. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to clarify the rail transportation policy of the United 
     States;
       (2) to ensure rail competition for shippers in geographic 
     areas in which rail competition is physically available;
       (3) to ensure reasonable rates for captive rail shippers; 
     and
       (4) to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens from the rate 
     reasonableness process of the Surface Transportation Board.

     SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION OF RAIL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.

       Section 10101 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``In 
     regulating''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Primary Objectives.--The primary objectives of the 
     rail transportation policy of the United States shall be--
       ``(1) to ensure effective competition among rail carriers 
     at origin and destination; and
       ``(2) to maintain reasonable rates in the absence of 
     effective competition.''.

     SEC. 6. REQUIREMENT OF RAILROADS TO ESTABLISH RATES TO 
                   FACILITATE RAIL TO RAIL COMPETITION.

       (a) Establishment of Rate.--Section 11101(a) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first 
     sentence the following: ``Upon the request of a shipper, a 
     rail carrier shall establish a rate for transportation 
     requested by the shipper between any 2 points on the system 
     of that rail carrier where traffic originates, terminates, or 
     may be interchanged. A rate established under the preceding 
     sentence shall apply to the shipper that makes the request 
     for the rate without regard to whether the rate established 
     is for part of a through transportation route between an 
     origin and a destination or whether the shipper has made 
     arrangements for transportation over any other part of that 
     through route.''.
       (b) Review of Reasonableness of Rate.--Section 10701(d) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) If a rail carrier establishes a rate for 
     transportation between any 2 points on the system of that 
     rail carrier where rail traffic originates, terminates, or 
     may be interchanged, the shipper may challenge the 
     reasonableness of--
       ``(A) that rate; or
       ``(B) the aggregate rate between origin and destination (if 
     the rate established is for part of a through route).''.

     SEC. 7. SIMPLIFIED STANDARD FOR MARKET DOMINANCE.

       Section 10707(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking ``(1)(A)'' and inserting ``(3)'';
       (3) by striking ``(B) For purposes'' and inserting ``(4) 
     For purposes''; and
       (4) by inserting before paragraph (3), as redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(1) In making a determination under this section, the 
     Board shall find that the rail carrier establishing the 
     challenged rate referred to in subsection (b) has market 
     dominance over the transportation to which the rate applies 
     if that rail carrier--
       ``(A) is the only rail carrier serving the origin, 
     destination, or intermediate portion of the route involved; 
     and
       ``(B) does not prove to the Board that the rate charged 
     results in a revenue-variable cost percentage for that 
     transportation that is less than 180 percent.
       ``(2) In making a market dominance determination under this 
     section in any case in which 2 or more rail carriers provide 
     service at an origin or destination, the Board shall consider 
     only transportation competition at that origin or 
     destination.''.

     SEC. 8. REVENUE ADEQUACY DETERMINATIONS.

       (a) Rail Transportation Policy.--Section 10101(3) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, as 
     determined by the Board;''.
       (b) Authority for Revenue Adequacy Determination.--Section 
     10704(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)''; and
       (2) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3).

     SEC. 9. REDUCTION OF PROCEDURAL BARRIERS FACED BY SMALL 
                   SHIPPERS.

       (a) Administrative Relief.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Surface Transportation 
     Board shall--
       (1) review the rules and procedures applicable to rate 
     complaints and other complaints filed with the Board by small 
     shippers;
       (2) identify any such rules or procedures that are unduly 
     burdensome to small shippers; and
       (3) take such action, including rulemaking, as is 
     appropriate to reduce or eliminate the aspects of the rules 
     and procedures that the Board determines under paragraph (2) 
     to be unduly burdensome to small shippers.
       (b) Legislative Relief.--The Board shall notify the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives if the Board determines that 
     additional changes in the rules and procedures described in 
     subsection (a) are appropriate and require commensurate 
     changes in statutory law. In making that notification, the 
     Board shall make recommendations concerning those changes.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am joining Senator Rockefeller and 
others in introducing legislation that is designed to address some 
chronic problems facing rail shippers, especially small, captive 
shippers such as the small grain elevators in agricultural States like 
North Dakota. As this bill is introduced in the Senate today, thousands 
of bushels of grain are lying on the ground in North Dakota because 
there are no cars available to small elevators to take wheat and barley 
to market. The frustration of North Dakota farmers and grain shippers 
is focused not only on the availability of grain cars to take their 
products to market this time of year, but also on what they have to pay 
when they have only one railroad serving them. The rates captive 
shippers pay to get their products to market reflect the basic 
principles of economics: where there is competition there are lower 
rates and where there is not, the captive shipper pays significantly 
more.

[[Page S12020]]

  While the legislation we are introducing today will not create more 
grain cars this year and it will not solve full the myriad of concerns 
that many captive shippers have with respect to rail service in this 
country, this bill will take a step towards addressing some issues that 
will help improve the situation of captive shippers.
  The inspiration of this bill is the fact that 20 years ago there were 
more than 40 Class I railroads and today there are eight, of which 5 of 
these ``mega carriers'' generate 94 percent of the Class I rail 
industry's gross income and own over 90 percent of the track miles, and 
produce nearly 95 percent of the gross ton miles. Today, the western 
two-thirds of the country is divided up between two mega carriers that 
own approximately 85 percent of the track, generate over 90 percent of 
the gross ton miles, and earn about 90 percent of the total net 
railroad operating income west of the Mississippi River.
  As the railroad industry has consolidated over the past 20 years, 
more and more shippers have become captive to one carrier, replacing 
competitive service with monopoly service. At the same time, small 
captive shippers face insurmountable obstacles to seek relief on 
unreasonable rates before the Surface Transportation Board [STB]. It 
seems to me that the Congress needs to begin a serious debate on issues 
effecting captive shippers. The STB still operates under outdated 
regulatory structures and too many hurdles and red tape stand between 
the small shipper and relief on unreasonable rates. This legislation 
takes a modest step at addressing a few specific issues in these areas.
  This legislation addresses the broader issues of promoting rail 
competition and protecting captive shippers where competition does not 
exist by identifying these issues as priorities for the STB. The also 
makes a couple of changes in specific policies of the STB. First, this 
bill overturns the STB's decision on the so-called ``bottleneck'' case 
where the STB concluded that carriers have no obligation to quote a 
rate for a segment of line. The essence of the bottleneck case was that 
some shippers believe that in areas where their products were being 
shipped where rail competition exists, they want to take advantage of 
the lower rates for that particular segment of line. This legislation 
would require a carrier to quote a rate for a specific segment at the 
request of the shipper. If the carrier did not quote a rate, then the 
STB would have to set a rate. This circumstance will permit captive 
shippers to take advantage of the little competition that does exist in 
the rail industry.

  This legislation also repeals the outdated revenue adequacy test. The 
Vice Chairman of the STB, Gus Owen, has appropriately questioned the 
appropriateness and the relevance of the STB conducting this outdated 
exercise of determining the revenue adequacy of railroads. This test is 
so out of date that the two largest railroads in the Nation failed the 
last revenue adequacy test by the STB. However, these and other major 
railroads have no problem leveraging capital and their own financial 
reports indicate record profits. It is a ridiculous test and it serves 
no useful purpose for STB procedures.
  In addition, the legislation attempts to streamline the bureaucratic 
hurdles facing small shippers in seeking rate relief before the STB. 
One provision streamlines the requirements imposed on the shipper to 
demonstrate that the rail carrier serving them meets the STB's 
definition of ``market dominance.'' Under current law, market dominance 
is defined as ``the absence of effective competition from other rail 
carriers or modes of transportation'' and the STB cannot find market 
dominance unless the revenue to variable cost percentage exceeds 180 
percent. Under the STB's interpretation of this requirement, the STB 
requires shippers to demonstrate that there is no product nor 
geographic competition under he what constitutes transportation 
competition. This legislation makes the market dominance test simple 
and easier to understand. Under this bill, a shipper need only 
demonstrate that they are served by only one rail carrier and that 
their rates exceed 180 percent revenue to variable cost to determine 
market dominance.
  This legislation would also require the STB to review its regulations 
and rules with respect to barriers that impede a small shippers' 
ability to file rate and other complaints against railroads before the 
STB. The STB would be required to minimize their red tape and barriers 
for shippers and also to report to Congress on barriers that require 
legislative action to remedy.
  Mr. President, this legislation is modest, but it will make a 
difference for small shippers in this country. The premise of the bill 
is that the STB ought to emphasize competition and where competition 
does not exist, the STB needs to make it easier for captive shippers to 
seek relief from unreasonable rates.
  Next year, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation will be debating reauthorization legislation on the STB. 
That will be a very important debate. Senator Rockefeller, I and others 
intend to make sure that one element of that debate will focus on the 
problems facing small, captive shippers and we consider this 
legislation as a building block for next year's debate. I hope my 
colleagues will support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 1453. A bill to establish a Commission on Fairness in the 
Workplace, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


        THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FAIRNESS IN THE WORKPLACE ACT

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National 
Commission on Fairness in the Workplace Act. This commission will be 
tasked to review the trend of creating more part-time jobs than full-
time jobs; assess the relationship between part-time work and wage 
levels, benefits, earning potential, and productivity; and examine the 
practice of having different wage and benefit levels for part-time and 
full-time workers. This commission, comprised of representatives of the 
business community, labor, academia and government, will report its 
findings and recommendations to Congress and the President.
  I fully recognize that for many individuals, part-time employment is 
a perfect solution. Full-time students and individuals wanting to 
combine work and family responsibilities choose to work part-time. But, 
part-time work should not be a passport to second class status. Often 
these employees perform the same duties as their full-time 
counterparts, but for less money and no benefits. And for those 
individuals seeking employment, too often they can only find work that 
requires full-time hours, but not full-time pay and benefits.
  Too many Americans are forced to work two and three part-time jobs to 
pay their rent or mortgage, and put food on their tables. Let's not 
forget that employees who work full-time, earning benefits and living 
wages, are often still struggling. How do we expect individuals and 
families to survive on part-time wages and no benefits. Their status 
may be classified as part-time, but their expenses certainly are not.
  Employers must strive to provide salaries and benefits that meet the 
demands of today's circumstances, while searching for ways to increase 
productivity and remain competitive in a global environment.
  The recent UPS experience put a national spotlight on this issue; 
working full-time hours at part-time status and receiving less money 
and fewer benefits than a full-time employee. One of the concessions of 
the negotiations was that UPS would agree to create 10,000 full-time 
jobs from existing part-time positions.
  A poll of 500 individuals by the University of Connecticut in 
September found strong support for action that would guarantee part-
time workers some benefits and compel employers to pay those workers 
hourly wages equal to their full-time counterparts. Part-time employees 
in Connecticut comprise 12 percent of the work-force, less than the 18 
percent national average.
  Our work-force is one of our countries most treasured assets. 
Employees deserve to receive living wages and benefits and we must act 
now. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Hartford 
Courant article ``Part-timers' Rights Backed'' be included in the 
Record and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page S12021]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1453

       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 ``National Commission on 
     Fairness in the Workplace Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there is an increasing trend toward the use of part-
     time workers;
       (2) part-time jobs often have no or limited health or 
     pension benefits and few labor protections;
       (3) there is a trend toward the creation of more part-time 
     jobs than full-time jobs;
       (4) questions have been raised regarding the impact of 
     part-time employment on wage levels, benefits, earning 
     potential, and productivity; and
       (5) a Federal commission should be established to conduct a 
     thorough study of all matters relating to the impact of part-
     time employment on wage levels, benefits, earning potential, 
     and productivity and to study the practice of providing 
     different wage and benefit levels to part-time and full-time 
     workers.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the National Commission on Fairness in the Workplace 
     (hereafter referred to in this Act as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 
     members of whom--
       (1) 3 shall be appointed by the President;
       (2) 3 shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of 
     the Senate, upon the recommendation of the Majority and 
     Minority Leaders of the Senate; and
       (3) 3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, in consultation with the Minority Leader of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the 
     Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold its first meeting as directed by 
     the President.
       (e) Meetings.--After the initial meeting, the Commission 
     shall meet at the call of the Chairperson.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, 
     but a lesser number of members may hold hearings.
       (g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall 
     select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among its 
     members.

     SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the impact of part-time employment in 
     the United States.
       (2) Matters to be studied.--The matters to be studied by 
     the Commission under paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) a review of the trend toward creation of more part-time 
     than full-time jobs;
       (B) an assessment of the relationship between part-time 
     work and wage levels, benefits, earning potential, and 
     productivity; and
       (C) a review of the practice of providing different wage 
     and benefit levels to part-time and full-time workers.
       (b) Report.--No later than 12 months after the Commission 
     holds its first meeting, the Commission shall submit a report 
     on the study to the President and Congress. The report shall 
     contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions 
     of the Commission, together with its recommendations for such 
     legislation and administrative actions as it considers 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out its duties of this Act.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to carry 
     out the provisions of this Act. Upon request of the 
     Chairperson of the Committee, the head of such department or 
     agency shall furnish such information to the Commission.

     SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not otherwise an officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for a 
     position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day (including 
     travel time) during which such member is engaged in the 
     performance of the duties of the Commission. Each member of 
     the Commission who is otherwise an officer or employee of the 
     United States shall serve without compensation in addition to 
     that received for services as an officer or employee of the 
     United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of service for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform its duties. The employment and 
     termination of an executive director shall be subject to 
     confirmation by a majority of the members of the Commission.
       (2) Compensation.--The executive director shall be 
     compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate payable for a 
     position at level V of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5316 of title 5, United States Code. The Chairperson may fix 
     the compensation of other personnel without regard to the 
     provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of 
     title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of 
     positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the 
     rate of pay for such personnel may not exceed the rate 
     payable for a position at level V of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5316 of such title.
       (3) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee, with the approval of the head of the appropriate 
     Federal agency, may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status, benefits, or privilege.
       (d) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals not to exceed 
     the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for a position at level V of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5316 of such title.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this Act. Any sums appropriated shall remain available, 
     without fiscal year limitation, until expended.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submission of 
     its report under section 4(b).
                                  ____


              [From the Hartford Courant, October 8, 1997]

   Part-timers' Rights Backed; Residents Polled by the University of 
Connecticut in September Strongly Support Government Action That Would 
  guarantee Part-timers Some Benefits; Courant/UCONN Connecticut Poll

                           (By Liz Halloran)

       It was the workplace issue that tripped up UPS and snarled 
     the nation's package delivery system during a 15-day strike 
     this summer: the growing use of part-time employees to do 
     America's business.
       UPS workers agreed to go back to work after the giant 
     delivery company said it would create 10,000 new full-time 
     jobs from existing part-time positions.
       The strike was over, but the national conversation about 
     the country's estimated 23 million part-time workers--their 
     rights and the government's role in protecting them--kicked 
     into high gear.
       ``Not everyone can work full time, and part-time work 
     offers extra freedom and income to families in need,'' said 
     Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., who is urging Congress to 
     set up a committee to study part-time work.
       ``[Part-time work] shouldn't be a passport to second-class 
     status,'' he said.
       It seems those in Connecticut agree strongly that part-time 
     work that provides significant pay, benefits and stature must 
     remain an option for families and individuals struggling to 
     satisfy their own needs, those of their children and demands 
     of their careers.
       Part-timers in Connecticut make up about 12 percent of the 
     work force--less than the 18 percent national average--and 
     most don't want a full-time job, a new Courant/Connecticut 
     Poll shows.
       But the residents polled by telephone by the University of 
     Connecticut Sept. 9-15 showed remarkable support for 
     government action that would guarantee part-timers some 
     benefits, and compel companies to pay those workers hourly 
     wages equal to their full-time counterparts. Only one in 
     three said they would support laws restricting companies from 
     hiring part-time workers instead of creating full-time jobs.
       But two-thirds said they would support laws requiring 
     employers to give part-time workers benefits such as health 
     insurance, pensions and vacations. Three out of four of those 
     polled said that there should be no difference in the hourly 
     pay of part- and full-time workers.
       ``There is backing for `fairness'--especially in hourly 
     rates and for the provision of at least some fringe 
     benefits,'' said G. Donald Ferree Jr., poll director.
       A majority of the 500 residents polled, however, seemed 
     more interested in making sure that all workers--including 
     part-timers--are paid equitably, than in judging whether jobs 
     should be part or full time, Ferree said.
       Democrats were more apt than Republicans to support 
     government policies regarding part-time work, as were women, 
     who

[[Page S12022]]

     are more likely than men to work part time, he said.
       The strong support the poll results show for part-time 
     worker benefits and equal pay did not surprise Joseph F. 
     Brennan, vice president of legislative affairs at the 
     Connecticut Business and Industry Association.
       ``I think the timing of the poll may have skewed results 
     somewhat because the UPS strike was in the headlines, and 
     general polling at that time seemed to support the workers,'' 
     Brennan said.
       Polling done in the past by the business association tells 
     a different story, he said, suggesting that residents do not 
     support greater governmental control of general business 
     practices. The association polls, however, have not asked 
     specifically about part-time work.
       Some business leaders have also argued that state 
     intervention into policies regarding part-time employee pay 
     and benefits could hamper Connecticut's ability to compete 
     with other states for jobs. They have also said that any 
     requirements should come from Congress and be applied 
     uniformly nationwide.
       A package of state legislative proposals aimed at 
     regulating corporate behavior, including a requirement to pay 
     part-timers the same hourly wage as full-timers doing the 
     same job, made little headway in the General Assembly this 
     year.
       Union officials say they believe that public sentiment for 
     part-time workers runs deeper than simply timing.
       ``The people in the poll have said it all--it's about equal 
     pay and equal benefits for equal work,'' said John W. Olsen, 
     president of the state AFL-CIO. ``It's not as much about part 
     and full time anymore.''
       Olsen said that if part-timers are compensated equally, 
     employers will find it less attractive to use them to replace 
     full-time positions.
       The issue was central to a demonstration in mid-September 
     against Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies 
     Corp. About 400 workers and supporters, dozens of whom were 
     arrested, gathered in downtown Hartford to protest Pratt's 
     decision to cut contracted full-time cleaning jobs and 
     replace them with part-time, lower-paying positions.
       While there are instances in Connecticut where workers have 
     been affected by company decisions to replace full-time jobs 
     with low-wage, no-benefit positions, most part-time employees 
     polled said they are not looking for full-time work.
       Only one out of five part-timers questioned in the poll 
     said they were actively seeking full-time work.
       ``Part-time work plays a real role in Connecticut, and many 
     engaged in it do not want full-time work instead,'' Ferree 
     said.
       One other thing the poll made clear, Ferree said, was that 
     the days when one income was deemed enough for a family to 
     live on are over. About half of those polled said their 
     family could live on what the main earner is paid, but nearly 
     as many said that their household needs the income of more 
     than one person.
       On the job, some of the time:
       Connecticut residents show remarkable support for requiring 
     employers to pay part-time workers at the same hourly rate as 
     full-time workers and to provide part-time workers some 
     benefits. Those polled also strongly believe it is important 
     to preserve part-time employment as a work option.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Courant/Connecticut Poll on part-time workers was 
     conducted by the University of Connecticut from Sept. 9-15. 
     Five hundred randomly selected people were interviewed by 
     telephone. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole 
     number and may not add up to 100.
       The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 
     percentage points. This means there is a 1-in-20 chance that 
     the results would differ by more than 5 points in either 
     direction from the results of a survey of all adult 
     residents.
       A poll's margin of error increases as the sample size 
     shrinks. Results for a subgroup within the poll have a higher 
     margin of error.
       The telephone numbers were generated by a computer in 
     proportion to the number of adults living in each area. The 
     actual respondent in each household also was selected at 
     random.

                          ____________________