[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 81 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6698-S6701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROBERTS:
  S. 2194. A bill to amend the Arms Export Control Act to provide the 
President with discretionary authority to impose nuclear 
nonproliferation controls on a foreign country; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.


                  nuclear nonproliferation legislation

 Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that 
gives the President full discretionary authority to address the nuclear 
tests recently conducted by India and Pakistan. My bill does not 
require the severe mandatory sanctions imposed on India and Pakistan be 
removed. Nuclear proliferation is a deadly serious issue. The actions 
of India and Pakistan deserve a strong response from the United States 
and the rest of the world.

[[Page S6699]]

  Sanctions are only one of several policy tools. Obviously, one of the 
best policy weapons we have available is hard-nosed diplomacy to 
prevent such nuclear incidents from occurring in the first place.
  The President must have full flexibility to implement a strong 
foreign policy that addresses the recklessness of Pakistan, India or 
any other nation that defines the world community. However, the 
Administration should be able to do so without the constraints of a 
Congressionally mandated list of sanctions. This flexibility should 
also include the authority to remove sanctions when appropriate or when 
in the best interest of the United States.
  Under current law, the United States must impose specific and 
mandatory sanctions on any non-nuclear weapons state that receives or 
detonates a nuclear device. This mandated action removes the 
President's authority to custom-tailor sanctions and set them for a 
specific period of time. These constraints dangerously restrict the 
President's ability to respond to world events.
  My bill provides the Administration with discretionary authority over 
sanctions placed on nations that practice nuclear proliferation. The 
President and his diplomatic corp are given the authority to either 
impose or not impose sanctions. They can decide the degree of 
sanctions. They can later remove or modify any sanctions. Additionally, 
the President is required to report his intentions to Congress within 
30 days of informing the violating country of the sanctions. If it 
disagrees, Congress remains free to react legislatively.
  This bill represents an important step toward what I hope will be a 
critical debate regarding U.S. foreign policy. Unilateral sanctions 
rarely achieve their goals. Instead, they damage U.S. businesses and 
workers. They diminish U.S. strength and prestige in international 
affairs. They generate resentment from allies and competitors alike.
  I would remind you that we now have in place unilateral sanctions 
against more than 70 nations representing almost three-fourths of the 
world's populations. Those are markets lost to the American economy.
  Congress and the Administration must now work together to reassess 
all instances where unilateral sanctions are imposed. This bill 
represent an excellent step in the right direction.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Grams, and Mr. 
        Bingaman):
  S. 2196. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
establishment at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of a 
program regarding lifesaving interventions for individuals who 
experience cardiac arrest, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources.


                      cardiac arrest survival act

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, every day almost 1,000 Americans suffer 
from Sudden Cardiac Arrest. It can claim the life of a promising young 
athlete, a friend or family member regardless of age or health. Sudden 
Cardiac Arrest occurs when the heart's electrical impulses become 
chaotic causing the heart to stop pumping blood. Tragically, 95 percent 
of Americans who suffer from sudden cardiac arrest will die. Today, I 
am introducing a bill that can change that statistic.
  We know that quick implementation of ``Chain of Survival''--calling 
911, administering CPR and early access to defibrillation can 
dramatically improve survival rates for victims of Sudden Cardiac 
Arrest. Unfortunately, early access to defibrillation may be the most 
critical link in the chain and the most difficult to come by. The 
Cardiac Arrest Survival Act aims to improve community access to 
automatic external defibrillators (AEDs), a machine designed to shock 
the heart and restore its normal rhythm. If every community across 
America made this easy-to-use technology more readily available, we 
could increase the survival rate of cardiac arrest and possibly save 
250 lives each day and 100,000 lives each year.
  My home state of Washington has a long history of encouraging the use 
of AEDs. King County, Washington boasts one of the highest cardiac 
arrest survival rates in the nation at 30 percent--far above the 
national average survival rate of 5 percent. Communities that have 
improved survival rates have ensured that Emergency Medical Technicians 
are trained and equipped with automatic external defibrillators. Some 
communities have located AEDs in public places like sports stadiums, 
airports and shopping malls, and others have worked to ensure that 
police and firefighters, often the first to respond to an emergency, 
are trained and equipped with AEDs.
  Although the technology is proven effective, access to defibrillators 
outside the hospital setting is limited. Patient care and survival 
suffer from a patchwork of different state laws. Less than half of the 
nation's Emergency Medical Technicians are even trained and equipped to 
use AEDs. The Cardiac Arrest Survival Act aims to reduce the number of 
cardiac arrest fatalities by encouraging a uniform system of state laws 
and to improve current emergency medical training programs.
  The bill asks the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to work 
on model state legislation that addresses some of the barriers to 
community access to AEDs such as good samaritan immunity and public 
placement of these machines. NHLBI will also work with the National 
Highway Transportation and Safety Administration to update the current 
medical training curriculum to reflect the improvement in technology. 
The bill will also coordinate a database to collect information on 
cardiac arrest from existing databases on emergency care. While the 
bill is far from mandating anything, I am convinced we can reduce the 
number of cardiac arrest fatalities by encouraging states to train more 
people to use AEDs right on the scene in a way that the state of 
Washington is already doing.
  The Cardiac Arrest Survival Act is the Senate companion to a bill 
introduced by Congressman Stearns in the House of Representatives that 
currently has 80 cosponsors. The bill enjoys broad support from more 
than seventy associations including the American Heart Association, the 
American Red Cross, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 
Congressional Fire Services Institute Advisory Committee with some 45 
members, the Washington State Medical Association, the Washington State 
Hospital Association and a number of other supporters. I am also 
pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Murray, Grams, and 
Bingaman as original cosponsors of the bill, the full text of which I 
ask be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2196

       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 ``Cardiac Arrest Survival 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Each year more than 350,000 adults suffer cardiac 
     arrest, usually away from a hospital. More than 95 percent of 
     them will die, in many cases, because lifesaving 
     defibrillators arrive on the scene too late, if at all.
       (2) These cardiac arrest deaths occur primarily from occult 
     underlying heart disease and from drownings, allergic or 
     sensitivity reactions, or electrical shocks.
       (3) Survival from cardiac arrest requires successful early 
     implementation of a chain of events, the chain of survival 
     which begins when the person sustains a cardiac arrest and 
     continues until the person arrives at the hospital.
       (4) A successful chain of survival requires the first 
     person on the scene to take rapid and simple initial steps to 
     care for the patient and to assure the patient promptly 
     enters the emergency medical services system.
       (5) The first persons on the scene when an arrest occurs 
     are typically lay persons who are friends or family of the 
     victim, fire services, public safety personnel, basic life 
     support emergency medical services providers, teachers, 
     coaches, and supervisors of sports or other extracurricular 
     activities, providers of day care, school bus drivers, 
     lifeguards, attendants at public gatherings, coworkers, and 
     other leaders within the community.
       (6) A coordinated Federal response is necessary to ensure 
     that appropriate and timely lifesaving interventions are 
     provided to persons sustaining nontraumatic cardiac arrest. 
     The Federal response should include, but not be limited to--
       (A) significantly expanded research concerning the efficacy 
     of various methods of providing immediate out-of-hospital 
     lifesaving interventions to the nontraumatic cardiac arrest 
     patient;

[[Page S6700]]

       (B) the development of research-based, nationally uniform, 
     easily learned and well retained model core educational 
     content concerning the use of such lifesaving interventions 
     by health care professionals, allied health personnel, 
     emergency medical services personnel, public safety 
     personnel, and other persons who are likely to arrive 
     immediately at the scene of a sudden cardiac arrest;
       (C) an identification of the legal, political, financial, 
     and other barriers to implementing these lifesaving 
     interventions; and
       (D) the development of model State legislation to reduce 
     identified barriers and to enhance each State's response to 
     this significant problem.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH MODEL PROGRAM ON THE 
                   FIRST LINKS IN THE CHAIN OF SURVIVAL.

       Section 421 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     285b-3) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Programs under subsection (a)(1)(E) (relating to 
     emergency medical services and preventive, diagnostic, 
     therapeutic, and rehabilitative approaches) shall include 
     programs for the following:
       ``(1) The development and dissemination, in coordination 
     with the emergency services guidelines promulgated under 
     section 402(a) of title 23, United States Code, by the 
     Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs, 
     Department of Transportation, of a core content for a model 
     State training program applicable to cardiac arrest for 
     inclusion in appropriate current emergency medical services 
     educational curricula and training programs that address 
     lifesaving interventions, including cardiopulmonary 
     resuscitation and defibrillation. In developing the core 
     content for such program, the Director of the Institute may 
     rely upon the content of similar curricula and training 
     programs developed by national nonprofit entities. The core 
     content of such program--
       ``(A) may be used by health care professionals, allied 
     health personnel, emergency medical services personnel, 
     public safety personnel, and any other persons who are likely 
     to arrive immediately at the scene of a sudden cardiac arrest 
     (in this subsection referred to as `cardiac arrest care 
     providers') to provide lifesaving interventions, including 
     cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation;
       ``(B) shall include age-specific criteria for the use of 
     particular techniques, which shall include infants and 
     children; and
       ``(C) shall be reevaluated as additional interventions are 
     shown to be effective.
       ``(2) The operation of a limited demonstration project to 
     provide training in such core content for cardiac arrest care 
     providers to validate the effectiveness of the training 
     program.
       ``(3) The definition and identification of cardiac arrest 
     care providers, by personal relationship, exposure to arrest 
     or trauma, occupation (including health professionals), or 
     otherwise, who could provide benefit to victims of out-of-
     hospital arrest by comprehension of such core content.
       ``(4) The establishment of criteria for completion and 
     comprehension of such core content, including consideration 
     of inclusion in health and safety educational curricula.
       ``(5) The identification and development of equipment and 
     supplies that should be accessible to cardiac arrest care 
     providers to permit lifesaving interventions by preplacement 
     of such equipment in appropriate locations insofar as such 
     activities are consistent with the development of the core 
     content and utilize information derived from such studies by 
     the National Institutes of Health on investigation in cardiac 
     resuscitation.
       ``(6) The development in accordance with this paragraph of 
     model State legislation (or Federal legislation applicable to 
     Federal territories, facilities, and employees). In 
     developing the model legislation, the Director of the 
     Institute shall cooperate with the Attorney General, and may 
     consult with nonprofit private organizations that are 
     involved in the drafting of model State legislation. The 
     model legislation shall be developed in accordance with the 
     following:
       ``(A) The purpose of the model legislation shall be to 
     ensure--
       ``(i) access to emergency medical services through 
     consideration of a requirement for public placement of 
     lifesaving equipment; and
       ``(ii) good samaritan immunity for cardiac arrest care 
     providers; those involved with the instruction of the 
     training programs; and owners and managers of property where 
     equipment is placed.
       ``(B) In the development of the model legislation, there 
     shall be consideration of requirements for training in the 
     core content and use of lifesaving equipment for State 
     licensure or credentialing of health professionals or other 
     occupations or employment of other individuals who may be 
     defined as cardiac arrest care providers under paragraph (3).
       ``(7) The coordination of a national database for reporting 
     and collecting information relating to the incidence of 
     cardiac arrest, the circumstances surrounding such arrests, 
     the rate of survival, the effect of age, and whether 
     interventions, including cardiac arrest care provider 
     interventions, or other aspects of the chain of survival, 
     improve the rate of survival. The development of such 
     database shall be coordinated with other existing databases 
     on emergency care that have been developed under the 
     authority of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 2198. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
Congressional review of rules establishing or increasing taxes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                       the taxpayers' defense act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayer's 
Defense Act. Quite simply, this bill prohibits any agency from 
establishing a tax on the American people.
  Mr. President, as we all know, the United States was founded on one 
simple and fundamental principle--no taxation without representation.
  In ``The Second Treatise of Government'', John Locke said, ``if 
anyone shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people . . . 
without . . . consent of the people, he thereby . . . subverts the end 
of government.'' According to Locke, consent required agreement by a 
majority of the people, ``either by themselves or their representatives 
chosen by them.'' The Declaration of Independence listed, among the 
despotic acts of King George, his ``imposing taxes on us without our 
consent.''
  The Boston Tea Party remains the symbol of Americans' opposition to 
taxation without representation. The Constitutional authority--given 
only to Congress--to establish federal taxes is clear. Its reasoning 
also is clear. It is the Congress that represents the people. Only 
Congress considers and weighs every issue that rises to national 
importance. While federal agencies consider their own priorities to be 
paramount, only Congress can determine which goals merit a tax on the 
American people.
  The modern era of restricted federal budgets, however, threatens to 
erode the essential principle of ``no taxation without 
representation.'' In many subtle and often hidden ways, federal 
agencies are receiving from Congress the power to tax.
  They tax by adding unnecessary charges to legitimate government user 
fees. They tax through federal mandates. These taxes pass the cost of 
government on to the American people--without their knowledge.
  The worst example of administrative taxation is the Federal 
Communications Commission's Universal Service tax. ``Universal 
service'' is the idea that everyone should have access to affordable 
telecommunications services. It originated at the beginning of the 
century when the first national telecommunications service was still 
being created. This idea was expanded in the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, which allowed the FCC to extend universal service funds to 
provide ``discount telecommunications services'' to schools, libraries, 
and rural health care facilities.
  Most importantly, the Act gave the FCC the power to decide the level 
of ``contributions''--taxes--that telecommunications companies would 
have to pay to support universal service. The FCC now determines how 
much must be collected in taxes that subsidize a variety of ``universal 
service'' spending programs. Long distance providers pass the costs on 
to consumers in the form of higher telephone bills. In the first half 
of 1998, the tax was $625 million, and the Clinton Administration's 
budget projects it will rise to $10 billion per year. This 
administrative tax is already out of control.

  This is possible because Congress delegated its authority to tax. The 
FCC is able to collect taxpayer dollars at levels it sets--without 
approval from Congress or the people. The FCC can defy Congress and the 
people because it has the power to levy taxes.
  Mr. President, some people thought the tax and spend liberals had 
left Washington. Not so. Washington interest groups who want to feed at 
this new federal trough already are geared up to accuse the Republic 
Congress of cutting funding for education and health care if any 
attempt is made to rein in the FCC. They will frame the issue as a 
matter of federal entitlements for sympathetic causes and groups.
  The most sympathetic group is the American taxpayer, whose money is 
being taken, laundered through the Washington bureaucracy, and returned 
for purposes set by unelected Washington bureaucrats. This is why the 
FCC must be required to get the approval of

[[Page S6701]]

Congress before setting future tax rates.
  Should tax dollars be used for federal universal service programs and 
what amounts or should Americans spend what they earn on their own, 
real, local priorities? Requiring Congress to review any administrative 
taxes would answer this question.
  My bill would create a new section to the Congressional Review Act 
for mandatory review of certain agency rules. Any rule that establishes 
or raises a tax would have to be submitted to and receive the approval 
of Congress before taking effect. In essence, the Act would disable 
agencies from setting taxes, but would allow them to formulate 
proposals under existing rulemaking procedures.
  Once submitted to Congress, a taxing regulation would be introduced 
in both the House and Senate by the Majority Leader. The rule would 
then be subject to expedited procedures, allowing a prompt decision on 
whether or not to approve a rule. The rule would have to be approved by 
both Houses and signed by the President.
  Congress must not allow a federal agency--unelected and unaccountable 
federal bureaucrats--to determine the amount of taxes hardworking 
Americans must pay. The Taxpayers' Defense Act will require Congress to 
stand up and face the American people when it decides to tax. The cry 
of ``no taxation without representation'' has gone up in the land 
before, and today we are hearing it again. It is time that we respond.

                          ____________________