Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 60 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4014-S4025]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATION TO SUSPEND THE DUTY ON CERTAIN CHEMICALS USED IN THE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce four bills
which will suspend the duties imposed on certain chemicals that are
important components in a wide array of

[[Page S4015]]

applications. Currently, these chemicals are imported for use in the
United States because there are no known American producers or readily
available substitutes. Therefore, suspending the duties on these
chemicals would not adversely affect domestic industries.
These bills would temporarily suspend the duty on the following:
Mesamoll (alkyl sulfonic acid ester of phenol);
Vulkalent E/C (N-phenyl-N-((trichloromethyl)thio)-benzenesulfonamide
with calcium carbonate and mineral oil);
Baytron M (3,4 ethylenedioxythiophene); and
Baytron C-R (iron(III) toluenesulfonate).
These chemicals are used in the manufacturing of a number of products
including, but not limited to, solvents, PVC coated fabric, medical
apparatus, rubber products for automobile hoses, circuit boards, and
other electronic goods.
Mr. President, suspending the duty on these chemicals will benefit
the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing the end-use
products. Further, these duty suspensions will allow U.S. manufacturers
to maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. I hope
the Senate will consider these measures expeditiously.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2560

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF DUTY ON MESAMOLL.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by
inserting in numerical sequence the following new subheading:

`` 9902.38.14 A certain Free........... No change...... No change...... On or before 12/
Alkylsulfonic Acid 31/2003 ''
Ester of Phenol (CAS .
No. 70775-94-9)
(provided for in
subheading
3812.20.10).........

(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
____

S. 2561

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF DUTY ON VULKALENT E/C.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by
inserting in numerical sequence the following new subheading:

`` 9902.38.30 A mixture of N-Phenyl- Free........... No change...... No change...... On or before 12/
N- 31/2003....... ''
((trichloromethyl)th .
io)-
Benzenesulfonamide;
calcium carbonate;
and mineral oil (the
foregoing provided
for in subheading
3824.90.28).........

S. 2562

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF DUTY ON BAYTRON M.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by
inserting in numerical sequence the following new subheading:

`` 9902.29.34 A certain 3,4- Free........... No change...... No change...... On or before 12/
ethylenedioxythiophe 31/2003....... ''
ne (CAS No. 126213- .
50-1) (provided for
in subheading
2934.90.90).........

S. 2563

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF DUTY ON BAYTRON C-R.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by
inserting in numerical sequence the following new subheading:

`` 9902.38.15 A certain catalytic Free........... No change...... No change...... On or before 12/
preparation based on 31/2003....... ''
Iron (III) .
toluenesulfonate
(CAS No. 77214-82-5)
(provided for in
subheading
3815.90.50).........

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 2564. A bill to provide tax incentives for the construction of
seagoing cruise ships in United States shipyards, and to facilitate the
development of a United States-flag, United States-built cruise
industry, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

all american cruise act of 2000

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation designed to
promote growth in the domestic cruise ship industry and at the same
time enable U.S. shipyards to compete for cruise ship orders. The
legislation would require that at least two U.S.-built ships be ordered
for each foreign-built ship permitted to operate in the U.S. market,
and provide tax incentives for U.S. cruise ship construction and
operation.

[[Page S4016]]

Current law prohibits non-U.S. vessels from carrying passengers
between U.S. ports. As such, today's domestic cruise market is very
limited. The cruise industry consists predominantly of foreign vessels
which must sail to and from foreign ports. The vast majority of cruise
passengers are Americans, but most of the revenues now go to foreign
destinations. That is because the high cost of building and operating
U.S.-flag cruise ships and competition from modern, foreign-flag cruise
ships have deterred growth in the domestic cruise ship trade.
By some estimates, a single port call by a cruise vessel generates
between $300,000 and $500,000 in economic benefits. This is a very
lucrative market, and I would like to see U.S. companies and American
workers benefit from this untapped potential. However, domestic ship
builders and cruise operations face a very difficult, up-hill battle
against unfair competition from foreign cruise lines and foreign
shipyards. Foreign cruise lines, for example, pay no corporate income
tax. Nor are they held to the same demanding ship construction and
operating standards imposed on U.S.-flag vessel operators. Foreign
cruise lines are also free from the need to comply with many U.S. labor
and environmental protection laws, and U.S. health, safety, and
sanitation laws do not apply to the foreign ships.
The legislation I am introducing today is designed to level the
playing field between the U.S. cruise industry and the international
cruise industry. It requires that at least two U.S.-built ships be
ordered for each foreign-built ship permitted to operate on a temporary
basis in the U.S. market, and provide tax incentive for U.S. cruise
ship construction and operation. For example, it provides that a
shipyard will pay taxes on the construction or overhaul of a cruise
ship of 20,000 gross tons or greater only after the delivery of the
ship.
Under my bill, a U.S. company operating a cruise ship of 20,000 grt
and greater may depreciate that vessel over a five-year period rather
than the current 10-year depreciation period. The bill would also
repeal the $2,500 business tax deduction limit for a convention on a
cruise ship to provide a tax deduction limit equal to that provided to
conventions held at shore-side hotels. The measure would authorize a
20-percent tax credit for fuel operating costs associated with
environmentally clean gas turbine engines manufactured in the U.S., and
also allows use of investment of Capital Construction Funds to include
not only the non-contiguous trades, but also the domestic point-to-
point trades and ``cruise to nowhere.''
Finally, the bill provides that a foreign-built ship may be brought
into the U.S. trades only after the owner or buyer of such vessel has
entered into a binding contract for the construction of at least two
cruise ships of equal or greater size in the U.S. The interim foreign-
built ship must be documented in the U.S. The contract must require
that the first ship constructed in the U.S. be delivered no later than
four years from the date of entering the binding contract with the
delivery of a second ship within five years, and that the foreign-built
ship must exit the U.S. trade within 12 months of the delivery of the
last ship, provided there is no longer than a 24-month elapse between
delivery of second and subsequent ships, should the contract provide
for construction of more than two ships.
Mr. President. I truly believe that this legislation would jumpstart
the domestic cruise trade, benefit U.S. workers and companies, and
promote economic growth in our ports. I strongly urge my colleagues to
join me in a strong show of support for this legislation.
______

By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 2566. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
grant the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to
regulate tobacco products, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

national youth smoking reduction act

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National
Youth Smoking Reduction Act, along with my colleague, Senator McCain.
The purpose of this bill is to diminish the number of children who
start to smoke or use other tobacco products, while at the same time
trying to reduce the risk such products pose to adults who make the
ill-advised--but legal--choice to use these products.
Mr. President, each day, more than 3,000 kids become regular smokers.
That's about one million per year. Currently more than 4 million
children 12 to 17 years old smoke. Sadly, more than 5 million children
alive today will die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses, unless
current trends are reversed.
Adults almost always start smoking as children. According to a 1994
Surgeon General report, nearly 90 percent of adults who smoke took his
or her first puff at or before the age of 18. Moreover, youth smoking
is on the rise! The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have
determined that smoking rates for students in grades 9 through 12
increased from 27.5 percent in 1991 to 36.4 percent in 1997. In my own
state of Tennessee, 38 percent of all high school students smoke
compared to just 26 percent of Tennessee adults.
Mr. President, we should all be alarmed by these statistics. Before
my election to the United States Senate, I was a heart and lung
transplant surgeon. I have held hundreds and hundreds of lungs in my
hands that were ravaged by years of smoking. I've performed hundreds of
coronary artery bypass heart operations to repair damage accelerated by
smoking. When you've seen the damage that cigarettes can cause to the
human body, it is a powerful motive to find a way to try to prevent
children from ever starting the habit. After all, as the statistics
suggest, if you keep a child from smoking, he'll probably never start
as an adult.
Many factors account for a child's decision to smoke. One concerns
the easy access of tobacco products to our nation's youth. For too
long, cigarettes have been readily available to those who are too young
to purchase them legally, whether through vending machines or by
pilfering them from self-service displays.
Another heavily-researched factor is the role that advertising has in
stimulating children to smoke. According to a 1995 study published in
the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, teens are more likely to
be influenced to smoke by cigarette advertising than they are by peer
pressure. In 1994 the CDC determined that 86 percent of children who
smoke prefer Marlboro, Camel and Newport--the three most heavily
advertised brands--compared to only about one-third of adult smokers.
When advertising for the ``Joe Camel'' campaign jumped from $27 million
to $43 million, between 1989 and 1993, Camel's share among youth
increased by more than 50 percent, while its adult market share did not
change at all.
There have been efforts made during the last decade to curb and
eliminate children smoking. In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration
promulgated a rule which would have reduced youth access to tobacco by
banning most cigarette vending machines and requiring that retailers
verify the age of all over the counter sales. The rule would also
address advertising to children by restricting advertising within 1,000
feet of schools and playgrounds, restricting outdoor ads and ads in
publication with a significant teen readership to black and white text
only.

The rule was controversial, particularly some of the advertising
restrictions. It was made even more controversial by the fact that many
in Congress did not believe that FDA had ever been given the authority
to regulate tobacco.
During the 105th Congress, Senator McCain introduced S. 1415, the
tobacco settlement bill, which was a comprehensive response to the
landmark tobacco settlement of 1997. As part of that bill, I drafted
provisions which set up a framework for the FDA to regulate tobacco.
The tobacco settlement bill did not pass the Senate, which killed my
effort during the 105th Congress to have FDA regulate tobacco in an
attempt to keep the product away from children.
Thus, Congress has never delegated to the FDA the authority to
regulate tobacco. On March 21, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
FDA lacked any authority to regulate tobacco

[[Page S4017]]

products. It was obvious to the Court that Congress never intended for
the FDA to treat tobacco products as drugs subject to regulation under
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
The National Youth Smoking Reduction Act, which we introduce today,
would for the first time give the FDA authority to regulate tobacco.
This authority would not flow from treating nicotine as a drug and
tobacco products as drug delivery devices. That's what the FDA has
already tried to do, by trying to force tobacco products under Chapter
5 of the existing Act. To me, this is like taking a square peg and
trying to put it in a round hole; it just doesn't fit. Chapter 5 calls
on the Secretary to determine whether the regulatory actions taken will
provide reasonable assurance of the ``safety and effectiveness'' of the
drug or the device. Well, clearly, tobacco is neither safe nor
effective, as those terms are understood in the Act. We know that
tobacco kills. That has clearly been demonstrated over the last 35
years. You can talk about the effectiveness of a pacemaker or a heart
valve or an artificial heart; you can talk about those devices as being
safe and effective. You really cannot apply that standard to tobacco.
Therefore, instead of taking tobacco and ramming it through the drug
and device provisions, I felt it was important to look at the unique
nature of tobacco, and regulate it under a new chapter, which we
designate as Chapter 9. This gives FDA the flexibility to create a new
standard that was appropriate for tobacco products.
Chapter 9 requires manufacturers to submit to the FDA information
about the ingredients, components and substances in their products. It
empowers the FDA to set performance standards for tobacco products, by
which FDA can try to reduce the risk posed by these products. It gives
FDA the power to regulate the sale, distribution, access to, and
advertising of tobacco products to try to prevent children from
smoking. It also gives the FDA the power to revise and improve the
warning labels contained on tobacco product packages and advertising.
Last, it gives FDA the power to encourage tobacco manufacturers--who
probably know more about the products than even FDA's scientists--to
develop and market ``reduced risk'' products for adults who are regular
users of tobacco.
In short, our bill represents a powerful, initial grant of authority
to the FDA to regulate tobacco.
We think the bill, as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the
need to promote the public health and the recognition that adults may
legally choose to smoke. I very strongly believe that, should Congress
act to give FDA authority to regulate tobacco products, this
legislation will be the template.
Six years ago, I was saving lives as a heart and lung surgeon. I saw
the ravages of tobacco in the operating room. The people of Tennessee
elected me to use common sense to advance the public good. I submit
that crafting a comprehensive approach to keep children from smoking is
a chance for the Senate to save lives through the exercise of common
sense.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor this important
legislation aimed at reducing youth smoking. This legislation addresses
the void in federal regulatory authority over tobacco left by the
recent Supreme Court ruling that FDA has no current power to regulate
tobacco products.
Dr. Frist provided excellent guidance and leadership on FDA authority
in 1998. In this legislation he is continuing that role by proposing
legislation which I believe can gain support of enough of our
colleagues to actually make this the law. Right now FDA has no
authority whatsoever. While I supported the even more stringent
measures proposed in 1998, I concur with Senator Frist that our chief
responsibility this year is to pass legislation which will actually
result in reductions in the number of kids smoking. We should pass this
legislation and see results, not simply talk for several more years
about how much more we would like to do.
The statistics on youth smoking are clear and alarming: 3000 kids
start smoking every day; 1000 of them will die early from smoking
related disease; and one of three adolescents is using tobacco by age
18.
We're not talking about kids who sneak a cigarette out of their
mother's purse. According to a Surgeon General's report 71 percent of
youth smokers use tobacco daily, but 90 percent of lifetime smokers
take up the habit before the age of 18--the legal age to buy tobacco
products in every state in the union--so if we can limit the number of
kids smoking, we will eventually decrease the number of adults smoking.
Specifically, what the legislation will do is:
1. FDA will oversee ingredients in tobacco products to ensure that
they are adulterated with ``putrid'' or ``poisonous substances,'' and
may regulate the manufacturing process to require the sanitary
conditions one would normally expect in dealing with agricultural
products.
2. It includes the very stringent and specific warning labeling
requirements from the 1998 legislation. FDA will have the authority to
revise and enforce labeling requirements, and to ensure that tobacco
products are not misbranded or misrepresented to the public.
3. FDA will serve as the clearinghouse for information about tobacco
products, the ingredients used by manufacturers, and will approve new
products and formulas to ensure that they protect public health.
4. FDA will have the authority to establish advertising and access
limitations designed to ensure that kids are not the target of
marketing by tobacco companies, and to prevent kids from easily
shoplifting or buying cigarettes.
5. It provides a mechanism for lower risk tobacco products to be
tested, reviewed and approved.
6. It allows FDA to regulate tobacco products and nicotine to
decrease the harm caused by them as much as feasible.
What the legislation does not do is permit FDA to ban tobacco
products directly, or indirectly. That authority remains with Congress.
There are an estimated 40-50 million smokers in this country, and it is
neither practical nor in the public interest to vest that authority
with a federal agency which is unaccountable to the public at large. We
do not gain by driving current smokers to black markets. It is better
to regulate tobacco products to prevent them from becoming worse and to
focus on decreasing the number of kids who take up smoking or using
chewing tobacco.
The legislation also does not raise prices--it does not raise taxes.
No new government programs or agencies are created. No liability issues
are addressed. This is simple and straightforward legislation to give
the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products and to promulgate
regulations to prevent advertising, marketing and access for kids.
The legislation does not permit a broad ban or control over
advertising. Instead, it vests authority with FDA to regulate
advertising aimed at kids. This limitation allows FDA sufficient
authority to address Joe Camel type advertising, while providing the
best opportunity for success against constitutional challenges.
While I strongly advocate against kids smoking, I recognize that it
is the right of an adult to make a stupid choice--to smoke--knowing of
the consequences. This legislation protects that right. It provides a
delicate balance between protecting a person from himself, and letting
each individual make individual choices, and suffer the consequences of
those choices.
This legislation will draw attacks from both sides--from those who
think the bill is too stringent, and from those who think the
legislation does not go far enough. I say to my friends on both sides,
this is a reasonable and practical solution to a serious problem. I
urge an end to the posturing and a dedication to making sure that we do
not leave this session without providing FDA with some authority over
tobacco products. I pledge to both sides that I will work with them to
refine the language, to address their legitimate concerns. But, we will
have gained nothing if we allow this to become the political football
that it became two years ago.
Make no mistake, this is not perfect legislation. I would like to do
more. But I think it is more important to move forward with this very
good proposal than to wait for some distant time, if ever, when we can
pass a perfect bill.

[[Page S4018]]

This legislation is a major step in the right direction. I think we
can get enough support to pass it. I support its early consideration
and action.
______

By Mrs. BOXER.
S. 2567. A bill to provide Outer Continental Shelf Impact Assistance
to State and local governments, to amend the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Act of 1978, and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly
referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act) to establish a fund to meet
the outdoor conservation and recreation needs of the American people,
and for other purposes; read the first time.

conservation and reinvestment act

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, earlier today, I introduced in the Senate
a bill that passed the House of Representatives on Thursday, May 11--
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000. I introduced the bill
and asked that it be put on the Senate calendar for one simple reason.
I believe that the fastest way to pass legislation to protect our
national lands legacy is to take up where the House left off last week.
I know that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been
trying for many months to get a lands legacy bill, and I commend the
efforts of Senator Bingaman, Senator Landrieu and others. But I am also
aware of the great differences of opinion on the Committee. I
personally support the Bingaman bill, which is similar to legislation I
introduced last year, the Resources 2000 Act. Some Senators support the
Landrieu bill. Others oppose both approaches.
Thus, it may not be possible to get a strong bill out of the Energy
Committee this year. And, Mr. President, we are running out of time.
There are probable fewer than 60 working days left in the 106th
Congress. So that is why I have asked that the House bill be placed on
the Senate calendar, so that at any time the Majority Leader can take
it up and place it before the Senate.
The House bill isn't perfect. I would like to see further changes.
But it would be a good start for the Senate. We must not let this
session of Congress end without passing this critical legislation to
protect our natural heritage.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Kerry, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 2568. A bill to protect the public health by providing the Food
and Drug Administration with certain authority to regulate tobacco
products; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

youth smoking prevention and public health protection act

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to
give the Food and Drug Administration board authority to regulate
tobacco products for protection of the public health. With the recent 5
to 4 decision by the Supreme Court rejecting FDA's claim that it had
authority to regulate tobacco products under current law, it is now
essential for Congress to act. We cannot in good conscience allow the
federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to
remain powerless to deal with the enormous risk of tobacco, the most
deadly of all consumer products.
The provisions in this bill are identical to those in the bipartisan
compromise reached during Senate consideration of comprehensive tobacco
control legislation in 1998. Fifty eight Senators supported it at that
time. That legislation was never enacted because of disputes over
tobacco taxation and litigation, not over FDA authority.
This FDA provision is a fair and balanced approach to FDA regulation.
It creates a new section in FDA jurisdiction for the regulation of
tobacco products, with standards that allow for consideration of the
unique issues raised by tobacco use. It is sensitive to the concerns of
tobacco farmers, small businesses, and nicotine-dependent smokers. But,
it clearly gives FDA the authority it needs in order to prevent youth
smoking and to reduce addiction to this highly lethal product.
I had hoped to be introducing this bill with the same bipartisan
support we had for this FDA provision in 1998. Unfortunately, we have
not been able to reach agreement. I believe the changes in the 1998
language now being proposed by Republicans will undermine the FDA's
ability to deal effectively with the enormous health risks posed by
smoking. This concern is shared by a number of independent public
health experts who have reviewed the proposed Republican changes and by
the FDA officials who would be responsible for administering the law.
The bipartisan compromise agreed to in 1998 is still the best
opportunity for Senators to come together and grant FDA the regulatory
authority it needs to substantially reduce the number of children who
start smoking and to help addicted smokers quit. Nothing less will do
the job.
The stakes are vast. Three thousand children begin smiling every day.
A thousand of them will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases.
Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the nation
today. Cigarettes kill well over four hundred thousand Americans each
year. That is more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol
abuse, illegal drugs, AIDS, murder, suicide, and fires combined. Our
response to a public health problem of this magnitude must consist of
more than half-way measures.
We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that
target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug
Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale,
distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
The tobacco industry currently spends five billion dollars a year to
promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to
tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to
appreciate the enormity of the health risk. The industry knows that
more than 90% of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time
they reach adulthood.
Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies'
own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children
into dependency on their deadly product. Recent studies by the
Institute of medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the
substantial role of industry advertising in decisions by young people
to use tobacco products. If we are serious about reducing youth
smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising
designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children.
This legislation will give FDA the ability to stop tobacco advertising
which glamorizes smoking from appearing in publications likely to be
read by significant numbers of children.

FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products.
Nearly every state makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children
under 18, but surveys show that those laws are rarely enforced and
frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of
cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the
purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self-
service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious
enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling
tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that
children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes.
The FDA conducted the longest rulemaking proceeding in its history,
studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of
children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were
received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its
proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which
cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those
regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing
youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no
sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multi-
year rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will give
the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA
the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued under the new
statute.
The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette
and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These
warnings

[[Page S4019]]

will be more explicit in their description of the medical problems
which can result from tobacco use. The FDA is given the authority to
change the text of these warning labels periodically, to keep their
impact strong.
Nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that
it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco
companies have vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products.
No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under
oath before Congress as recently as 1994 that smoking cigarettes is not
addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through
the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this
addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for
their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers
chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even
more addictive.
The tobacco industry has a long, dishonorable history of providing
misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These
companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far
less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product
design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they
actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous
authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest
disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end.
Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the
FDA regulate them for the protection of the public health. Over forty
million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible
public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban
would leave forty million people without a way to satisfy their drug
dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help
addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less
toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA
must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from
cigarettes, to the extent that it becomes scientifically feasible. The
inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded.
Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they
plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes.
This legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced
risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No
health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified
to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent
deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public
into a false sense of health safety.
Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America.
Congress must vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating
tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively.
This legislation will give the FDA the legal authority it needs to
reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets
children--to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors--to help
smokers overcome their addiction--to make tobacco products less toxic
for those who continue to use them--and to prevent the tobacco industry
from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking.
The 1998 compromise we reached in the Senate is still the right
answer. We cannot allow the tobacco industry to stop us from doing what
we know is right for America's children. I intend to do all I can to
see that Congress enacts this legislation this year. The public health
demands it.
______

By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Murkowski, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Baucus):
S. 2569. A bill to ensure and enhance participation in the HUBZone
program by small business concerns in Native America, to expand
eligibility for certain small businesses on a trial basis, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business.

hubzones in native america act of 2000

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today with
Senators Kerry, Campbell, Murkowski, Stevens, Daschle, and Baucus will
expand economic opportunity in some of the most stubborn areas of
poverty and unemployment in the entire country. It will do so by
expanding the HUBZone program to ensure that Indian Tribal enterprises
and Alaska Native Corporations are eligible to participate.
The HUBZone program, enacted in 1997, directs a portion of Federal
contracting dollars into areas of the country that have been out of the
economic mainstream for far too long. HUBZone areas, which include,
qualified census tracts, poor rural counties, and Indian reservations,
often are relatively out-of-the-way places that the stream of commerce
passes by. They tend to be low-traffic areas that do not have a
reliable customer base to support business development. As a result,
business has been reluctant to move into these areas. It simply has not
been profitable, without a customer base to keep them operating.
The HUBZone Act seeks to overcome this problem by making it possible
for the Federal government to become a customer for small businesses
that locate in HUBZones. While a small business works to establish its
regular customer base, a Federal contract can help it stabilize its
revenues and remain profitable. This gives small business a chance to
get a foothold, and provides jobs to these areas. New business and new
jobs mean new life and new hope for these communities.
The HUBZone Act seeks to restart the economic engine in these
communities and keep it running. Small business is the carburetor that
makes that engine run smoothly. If a community seeks to attract a large
business, often with expensive tax concessions and promises of public
works, that community can find itself back where it started if that
large business becomes unprofitable and closes its plant. However, if a
community attracts a diversified base of small businesses its overall
economic development does not stop just because one or two of those
businesses close. That is why small business must be a central part of
any economic development strategy.
Unfortunately, when we wrote the HUBZone Act three years ago, we
accidentally created a technical glitch that excludes Indian Tribal
enterprises and Alaska Native Corporations. These businesses must play
a central role in improving life in rural Alaska and on Indian
reservations. That is why we are here to propose a solution to this
problem.
In the HUBZone Act, we specified that participating small businesses
must be 100 percent owned and controlled by U.S. citizens. However,
since citizens are ``born or naturalized'' under the Fourteenth
Amendment, ownership by citizens implies ownership by individual flesh-
and-blood human beings. Corporate owners and Tribal government owners
are not ``born or naturalized'' in the usual meanings of those terms.
Thus, the Small Business Administration found that it had no authority
to certify small businesses owned wholly or partly by Alaska Native
Corporations and Tribal governments.
Although the legal logic of that view seems sound, the outcome is
not. It certainly is not what we intended. On many reservations,
particularly the desolate, isolated ones in western State, the only
investment resources available are the Tribal governments. Excluding
those governments from investing in their own reservations means, in
practical terms, excluding those reservations from the HUBZone program
entirely. Similarly, Alaska Native Corporations have the corporate
resources that are necessary to make real investments in rural Alaska,
to provide jobs to Alaska Natives who currently have no hope of getting
them.

That is why we are here to propose a legislative fix. In putting
together this bill, we have sought to follow three broad principles.
First, no firm should be made eligible solely by virtue of who they
are. We should not, for example, make all Alaska Native Corporations
eligible solely because they are Alaska Native Corporations. Instead,
Alaska Native Corporations and Indian Tribal enterprises should be
eligible only if they agree to advance the goals of the HUBZone
program: job creation and economic development in the areas that need
it most.
Second, our legislation should seek to conform to existing Native
American policy and not allow the HUBZone

[[Page S4020]]

program to be used as a back door to change that policy. Some folks
would like to change Alaska Native policy so that Alaska Natives
exercise governmental jurisdiction over their lands, just like Tribes
in the Lower 48 do on their reservations and trust lands. However, the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 deliberately
avoided that approach, and our legislation here simply recognizes
existing practice in ANCSA.
The third principle underlying this bill is that Alaska Natives and
Indian Tribes should participate on more-or-less equal grounds. It is
impossible to have exact equivalence because the Federal relationship
with Alaska Natives is not equal to the relationship with Indian
Tribes, and also because Alaska is a very different State from the
Lower 48. However, ANCSA provided that Alaska Natives should be
eligible to participate in Federal Indian programs ``on the same basis
as other Native Americans.''
Mr. President, with these principles in mind, we have finally come to
the end of a long negotiation on these issues. This bill represents the
outcome of that discussion, and it is a long step forward. I have a
section-by-section discussion of the bill, and I ask unanimous consent
that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. The bill amends the definition of ``HUBZone
small business concern'' to include small businesses owned by
one or more U.S. citizens (current law), Alaska Native
Corporations and their subsidiaries, joint ventures, and
partnerships as defined under ANCSA, and Tribal enterprises.
Tribal enterprises refers to those wholly owned by one or
more Tribal governments, and to those partly owned by Tribal
governments if all other owners are small businesses or U.S.
citizens. Some Tribal governments have also created holding
companies to do their business for them, so they can waive
sovereign immunity against those companies without waiving it
against the Tribe itself. Small businesses owned by these
holding companies would also be eligible.
Section 2. This amends the definition of ``qualified
HUBZone small business concern'' to indicate what each of the
``HUBZone small business concerns'' must do in order to
advance the goals of the program and be qualified. Small
businesses in general must have a principal office in a
HUBZone, and 35% of their employees must reside in a HUBZone
(current law). This is also the underlying policy that would
apply to Alaska Native Corporations if the pilot program
described below were to become inactive; however, it is not
likely that Alaska Native Corporations would be able to
participate in the HUBZone program on this basis, for the
reasons in the discussion of the pilot program, below. Having
this as the fallback position in case the pilot program is
suspended, however, keeps Alaska Native Corporations and
small businesses in Alaska on the same footing. In this way,
a uniform standard will be in force in Alaska for all program
participants, either under the pilot program or under this
section. This prevents unnecessary confusion and complexity.
Tribal enterprises would be required to have 35% of their
employees performing a HUBZone contract either reside on an
Indian reservation or on any HUBZone adjoining a reservation.
This allows Tribal enterprises to use a place-of-performance
standard similar to Alaska Native Corporations in the pilot
program, below. However, it is slightly more restrictive than
the rule that applies to small businesses in general, whose
employees may come from any HUBZone to meet the 35%
threshold. Since Tribal enterprises are government-owned
entities (owned wholly or partly by Tribal governments), this
provision limits their scope to the reservations governed by
their respective owners.
The language about HUBZones ``adjoining'' a reservation is
also comparable to existing language in the Indian Education
Act that refers to activities ``on or near'' a reservation,
so the idea has a precedent in other Indian policy areas.
In each of these cases, a firm added to the definition of
``HUBZone small business concerns'' has a corresponding
obligation imposed on it to be ``qualified.'' They have to do
something in a HUBZone to participate.
The final component of this section is the ``HUBZone Pilot
Program for Sparsely Populated Areas.'' This attempts to
address concerns that small businesses in Alaska, as well as
Alaska Native Corporations, are likely to face insurmountable
practical problems that prevent their participation in the
HUBZone program even if they are eligible on paper. Most of
the useful HUBZones are in rural areas (Anchorage has just a
handful of qualified census tracts, and two of those tracts
are military installations), but rural areas tend not to have
large residential populations and have little infrastructure
to support contract performance. Thus, Alaska Native
Corporations tend to be headquartered in Anchorage, and 50%
of the Native population lives in Anchorage, where HUBZones
are few. This makes it unlikely that an Alaska Native
Corporation would be able to meet the general HUBZone
program's criteria of having a principal office plus 35% of
their employees in a HUBZone.
Other small businesses in Alaska are likely to confront
these same problems of population patterns and lack of
infrastructure that affect the Alaska Natives--and unlike the
Alaska Natives, regular small businesses will have fewer
corporate resources to call upon to overcome those problems.
It also makes sense administratively for all of Alaska to
have the same set of basic rules for the program at any
given time. Thus, the bill includes a three-year pilot
program providing that HUBZone participants must have
their principal office in a HUBZone in Alaska or 35% of
their employees must reside in a HUBZone in Alaska or in
an Alaska Native village in Alaska or 35% of the employees
working on a contract awarded through the HUBZone program
must do their work in a HUBZone in Alaska. This creates a
rule unique to Alaska. HUBZone participants in Alaska
would not need to meet all three criteria, just one of
them.
Under the pilot language, firms could relocate their
principal office to comply, or else they could hire 35% of
their employees from HUBZones. If neither of those is do-
able, they would have a third option, of having 35% of their
employees working a specific HUBZone contract do so in an
Alaska HUBZone.
However, since this does represent a relaxing of the
current HUBZone criteria, it is important to be on guard
against the possibility of relaxing the rules too much. Thus,
the pilot program has a cap. If more than 2% of the nation's
small business contract dollars are awarded to Alaska in any
fiscal year, the pilot would shut down for the next fiscal
year. Alaska Native Corporations and Alaska small businesses
would then fall back on the underlying, current-law criteria
of having a principal office in a HUBZone and 35% of their
employees residing in a HUBZone.
Section 3. The definitions of Alaska Native Corporation and
Alaska Native Village are the same as in ANCSA. The
definition of ``Indian reservation'' refers generally to the
definition of ``Indian country'' at 18 U.S.C. 1151, with two
exceptions. It excludes lands taken into trust in any State
where a Tribe did not exercise governmental jurisdiction on
the date of enactment (unless the Tribe is recognized after
the date of enactment). It also excludes land acquisitions
that are not within the external boundaries of a reservation
or former reservation or are noncontiguous to trust or
restricted lands as of the date of enactment. Since
reservation and trust areas are deemed HUBZones without any
explicit test of economic need, a Tribe could otherwise
purchase a plot of land in a prosperous area, have it placed
into trust status, and have it deemed a HUBZone. Using scarce
economic development resources like the HUBZone program, on
areas that are already developing without such assistance, is
not the highest and best use of those limited resources.
However, this definition would still allow Tribes to continue
current practices of trying to acquire lots, within their
reservations, to eliminate the ``checkerboard'' pattern of
reservations that have plots within them not owned by the
Tribe; it also allows Tribes to expand existing trust areas.
Finally, the definition of ``Indian reservation'' provides
a special rule for Oklahoma, which was all reservation at one
time. If all of Oklahoma were to be deemed a HUBZone, the
program benefits would flow to businesses in their current
locations, without requiring job creation in distressed areas
of Oklahoma. This would be corporate welfare, not economic
development. To avoid this problem, the definition focuses
the HUBZone program on Oklahoma lands currently in trust or
eligible for trust status under existing regulation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the
HUBZones in Native America Act of 2000. This bill is designed to
clarify eligibility requirements and enhance participation by Native
American-owned small firms seeking certification in the Small Business
Administration's Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone)
government contracting program. The bill also sets up a temporary pilot
program for Alaska Native Corporations under the HUBZone program.
As ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, I was a
cosponsor to the HUBZone legislation when it was enacted into law as
part of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997. The original
bill language, because of some peculiarities in Native American and
Alaska Native law, inadvertently exempted some Native American-owned
firms located in economically distressed areas from participating in
the HUBZone program. This bill is designed to make those firms eligible
to participate.
The HUBZone program, Mr. President, is designed to help qualified
small businesses located in economically distressed areas--inner
cities, rural areas, and Native American tribal lands--secure
contracting opportunities with the Federal government. The

[[Page S4021]]

program is also designed to create jobs in these areas by requiring
that firms hire 35% of their workforce from economically distressed
areas.
According to the SBA, there are currently 1171 small businesses that
are eligible to participate in the HUBZone program, and 114 of these
are Native American-owned, 11 of which are located in the state of
Alaska. This bill should provide the vehicle for more Native American-
owned firms to become eligible.
Mr. President, Native Americans are one of the groups that the SBA
presumes to be socially and economically disadvantaged for purposes of
their Section 8(a) and Small Disadvantaged Business contracting
programs. Unfortunately, Native American tribal areas have not been
able to share in the remarkable economic growth that our country has
enjoyed for the last few years. It is my hope that this bill, with its
technical corrections to the HUBZone program, will in some part,
provide greater economic opportunities in these areas that continue to
suffer high levels of unemployment and desperately need this
help.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my
fellow chairman Senator Bond in introducing the HUBZones in Native
America Act of 2000.
The act is designed to make sure that federal procurement dollars are
targeted to the areas that are most in need of an economic boost. These
areas are called ``historically underutilized business zones'' and
under the Act, Indian reservations are defined as ``historically
underutilized business zones''.
Tribal economies continue to be among the most depressed and
economically stagnant in the country. Though some well-situated tribes
are benefiting from gambling, most tribes and Indian people live in
Third World conditions.
In the 106th Congress, the emphasis of the Committee on Indian
Affairs has been that of Indian economic development. The ultimate goal
for Native economies is self-sufficiency. Programs, such as this,
bridge the gap between Native economies and private enterprise.
On May 10, 1999, the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on
Indian Affairs held a joint hearing on the implementation of the
HUBZones Act of 1997 and its impact on Indian communities.
During that hearing three main issues were aired that are remedied by
the amendments we introduce today:
Eligibility of Indian Lands in Oklahoma; Eligibility of Indian Lands
in Alaska; and Eligibility of Tribally-owned enterprises.
The original intent of the HUBZone program was to re-target existing
federal contracting dollars into America's distressed communities,
including Alaska Native and Indian communities. The changes reflected
in the HUBZones in Native America Act of 2000 build on the original
intent of the Act, and make further steps to ensure that Alaska Native
and Indian communities fully participate in this competitive program. I
look forward to perfecting the obstacles that remain.
I am hopeful that the legislation introduced today will encourage
long-term economic growth in Native communities by expanding business
opportunities and job creation activities.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I join Senators Bond, Kerry,
Campbell, Murkowski, Daschle, and Baucus, in introducing this bill. I
want to focus on a few specific portions of this bill that would be
beneficial to Alaska. this bill contains a provision to create a pilot
program for small businesses in qualified areas of Alaska. The pilot
program contained in this bill would alter the requirements for Alaska
small Businesses to quality as HUBZone participants.
The current HUBZone Program, as designed by the chairman of the Small
Business Committee, Senator Bond, is a good tool for getting
contracting dollars into distressed geographic areas and neighborhoods.
A HUBZone is an area that is (1) located in a qualified census tract,
(2) a qualified ``non-metropolitan county'' that is not located in a
metropolitan statistical area, and in which the median household income
is less than 80 percent of the non-metropolitan state median household
income, or an area that has an unemployment rate that is not less than
140 percent of the statewide average unemployment rate for the state in
which the county is located, or (3) lands within the external
boundaries of an Indian reservation. The current HUBZone program
requires a small business to be located in one of these designated
areas while also requiring at least 35 percent of the business'
employees to live in a HUBZone. This helps get dollars circulating into
areas of the community that have not enjoyed the economic growth of the
last 10 years.
The Alaska Pilot Program contained in this bill will modify the
requirements to allow a small business to qualify as a HUBZone
participant if they meet only one of the following conditions: Either
(1) they have their principle place of business in a HUBZone, or (2) at
least 35 percent of their employees live in a HUBZone, or (3) at least
35 percent of the employees working on a qualified contract perform the
work in a HUBZone. Rather than requiring a small business to meet all
of the requirements for HUBZone contracts, this Alaska Pilot Program
will allow small businesses in Alaska to compete for HUBZone contracts
by fulfilling only one of the requirements. This should be beneficial
for the communities and neighborhoods who have missed out on growth of
the 1990's. In addition, it could mean more jobs for Alaskans and more
money circulating into the Alaskan economy.
The bill also fixes technical problems that kept Alaska native-owned
firms from being able to participate in the HUBZone program. This will
allow Alaska native-owned small businesses an opportunity to broaden
their business activities in the state while also contributing
economically to their local communities and shareholders.
I would like to note that in providing benefits to native
communities, this bill would not change Indian law, nor the State of
Alaska's exclusive jurisdiction over lands in Alaska.
I thank the members of the Small Business and Indian Affairs
Committees who worked on this issue and for their willingness to take
into account the unique circumstances in Alaska. I believe this program
will help Alaska's economy to move forwarded and will afford hard
working small business owners in Alaska new opportunities.
______

By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 2570. A bill to provide for the fair and equitable treatment of
the Tennessee Valley Authority and its rate payers in the event of
restricting of the electric utility industry.

legislation to provide for fair treatment of the Tennessee valley
authority

Mr. FRIST. 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. 2570

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
(2) Distributor.--The term ``distributor'' means a
cooperative organization, municipal, or other publicly owned
electric power system that, on December 31, 1997, purchased
all or substantially all of its wholesale power requirements
from the Tennessee Valley Authority under a long-term power
sales agreement.
(3) Distributor service area.--The term ``distributor
service area'' means a geographic area within which a
distributor is authorized by State law to sell electric power
to retail electric consumers on the date of enactment of this
Act.
(4) Electric utility.--The term ``electric utility'' has
the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 796).
(5) Excess electric power.--The term ``excess electric
power'' means the amount of the electric power and capacity
that--
(A) is available to the Tennessee Valley Authority; and
(B) exceeds the Tennessee Valley Authority's power supply
obligations to distributors and any Tennessee Valley
Authority retail electric consumers (or predecessors in
interest) that had a contract for the purchase of electric
power from the Tennessee Valley Authority on the date of
enactment of this Act.
(6) Public utility.--The term ``public utility'' has the
meaning given the term in section 201 of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 824).
(7) Retail electric consumer.--The term ``retail electric
consumer'' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796).

[[Page S4022]]

(8) Tennessee valley region.--The term ``Tennessee Valley
Region'' means the geographic area in which the Tennessee
Valley Authority or its distributors were the primary source
of electric power on December 31, 1997.

SEC. 2. WHOLESALE COMPETITION IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY REGION.

(a) Amendments to the Federal Power Act.--
(1) Wheeling orders.--Section 212(f) of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 824k(f)) is repealed.
(2) Transmission.--Section 212(j) of the Federal Power Act
(16 U.S.C. 824k(j)) is repealed.
(b) Amendments to the Tennessee Valley Authority Act.--
(1) Sale or delivery of electric power.--The third sentence
of the first undesignated paragraph of section 15d(a) of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831n-4(a))
is repealed.
(2) Additional amendments.--The second and third
undesignated paragraphs of section 15d(a) of the Tennessee
Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831n-4(a)) are
repealed.

SEC. 3. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY POWER SALES.

(a) Limit on Retail Sales by Tennessee Valley Authority.--
Notwithstanding sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Tennessee
Valley Authority Act (16 U.S.C. 831i, 831j, 831k), the
Tennessee Valley Authority may sell electric power at retail
only to--
(1) a retail electric consumer (or predecessor in interest)
that had a contract for the purchase of electric power from
the Tennessee Valley Authority on the date of enactment of
this Act; or
(2) a retail electric consumer that consumes the electric
power within a distributor service area, if the applicable
regulatory authority (other than the Tennessee Valley
Authority) permits any other power supplier to sell electric
power to the retail electric consumer.
(b) Construction of Retail Electric Service Facilities.--No
person shall construct or modify a facility in the service
area of a distributor for the purpose of serving a retail
electric consumer within the distributor service area without
the consent of the distributor, except when the electric
consumer is already being served by such a person.
(c) Wholesale Power Sales.--
(1) Existing sales.--Nothing in this title shall modify or
alter the existing obligations of the Tennessee Valley
Authority under the first sentence of section 10 of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act (16 U.S.C. 831i) to sell power
to a distributor, provided that this paragraph shall not
apply to access to power being supplied to another entity
under an existing contract with a term of 1 year or longer by
a distributor that--
(A) has made a prior election under section 5(b); and
(B) requests to increase its power purchases from the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
(2) Sales of excess electric power.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding sections 10, 11, and 12,
or any other provision of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act
of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831i, 831j, 831k), the sale of electric
power at wholesale by the Tennessee Valley Authority for use
outside the Tennessee Valley Region shall be limited to
excess electric power.
(B) No excess electric power.--The Tennessee Valley
Authority shall not offer excess electric power under a firm
power agreement with a term of 3 or more years to any new
wholesale customer at rates, terms, and conditions more
favorable than those offered to any distributor for
comparable electric power, taking into account such factors
as the amount of electric power sold, the firmness of such
power, and the length of the contract term, unless the
distributor or distributors that are purchasing electric
power under equivalent firm power contracts agree to the sale
to the new customer.
(C) No effect on exchange power arrangements.--Nothing in
this subsection precludes the Tennessee Valley Authority from
making exchange power arrangements with other electric
utilities when economically feasible.
(d) Application of Tennessee Valley Authority Act To Sales
Outside Tennessee Valley Region.--The third proviso of
section 10 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16
U.S.C. 831i) and the second and third provisos of section 12
of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C.
831k) shall not apply to any sale of excess electric power by
the Tennessee Valley Authority for use outside the Tennessee
Valley Region.

SEC. 4. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ELECTRIC GENERATION
FACILITIES.

Section 15d(a) of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of
1933 (16 U.S.C. 831n-4(a)) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``, if the Corporation determines
that the construction, acquisition, enlargement, improvement,
or replacement of any plant or facility used or to be used
for the generation of electric power is necessary to supply
the demands of distributors and retail electric consumers of
the Corporation''; and
(2) by inserting after the second sentence the following:
``Commencing on the date of enactment of this sentence, the
Tennessee Valley Authority shall provide to distributors and
their duly authorized representatives, on a confidential
basis, detailed information on its projections and plans
regarding the potential acquisition of new electric
generating facilities, and, not less than 45 days before a
decision by the Tennessee Valley Authority to make such an
acquisition, shall provide distributors an opportunity to
comment on the acquisition. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, confidential information described in the
preceding sentence shall not be disclosed by a distributor to
a source other than the Tennessee Valley Authority, except
(1) in response to process validly issued by any court or
governmental agency having jurisdiction over the distributor;
(2) to any officer, agent, employee, or duly authorized
representative of a distributor who agrees to the same
confidentiality and non-disclosure obligation applicable to
distributor; (3) in any judicial or administrative proceeding
initiated by distributor contesting action by the Tennessee
Valley Authority to cause the construction of new electric
generation facilities; or (4) on or after a date that is at
least 3 years after the commercial operating date of the
electric generating facilities.''.

SEC. 5. RENEGOTIATION OF POWER CONTRACTS.

(a) Renegotiation.--The Tennessee Valley Authority and the
distributors shall make good faith efforts to renegotiate
their power contracts in effect on and after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Distributor Contract Termination or Reduction Right.--
If a distributor and the Tennessee Valley Authority are
unable by negotiation to arrive at a mutually acceptable
replacement contract to govern their post-enactment
relationship, the Tennessee Valley Authority shall allow the
distributor to give notice 1 time each calendar year, within
the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act or on any anniversary of that date, of the distributor's
decision to (1) terminate the contract to purchase wholesale
electric energy from the Tennessee Valley Authority that was
in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, to take
effect on the date that is 3 years after the date on which
notice is given under this subsection; or (2) reduce the
quantity of wholesale power requirements under the contract
to purchase wholesale electric energy from the Tennessee
Valley Authority that was in effect on the date of enactment
of this Act by up to 10 percent of its requirements, to take
effect on the date that is 2 years after the date on which
notice is given under this subsection, or more than 10
percent of its requirements, to take effect on the date that
is 3 years after the date on which notice is given under this
subsection, and to negotiate with the Tennessee Valley
Authority to amend the contract that was in effect on the
date of enactment to reflect a partial requirements
relationship.
(c) Partial Requirements Notice.--As part of a notice under
subsection (b), a distributor shall identify--
(1) the annual quantity of electric energy that the
distributor will acquire from a source other than the
Tennessee Valley Authority as the result of an election by
the distributor; and
(2) the times of the day and year that specified amounts of
the energy will be received by the distributor.
(d) Nondiscrimination.--The Tennessee Valley Authority
shall not unduly discriminate against any distributor as the
result of--
(1) the exercise of notice under paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (b) by the distributor; or
(2) the status of the distributor as a partial requirements
customer.

SEC. 6. REGULATION OF TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY TRANSMISSION
SYSTEM.

Notwithstanding sections 201(b)(1) and 201(f) of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824(b)(1), 824(f)), sections
202(h), 205, 206, 208, 210 through 213, 301 through 304, 306,
307 (except the last sentence of 307(c)), 308, 309, 313, and
317 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(h), 824d, 824e, 824g, 824i-
824l, 825-825c, 825e, 825f, 825g, 825h, 825l, 825p) apply to
the transmission and local distribution of electric power by
the Tennessee Valley Authority to the same extent and in the
same manner as the provisions apply to the transmission of
electric power in interstate commerce by a public utility
otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under
part II of that Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.).

SEC. 7. REGULATION OF TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
DISTRIBUTORS.

(a) Election To Repeal Tennessee Valley Authority
Regulation of Distributors.--On the election of a
distributor, the third proviso of section 10 of the Tennessee
Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831i) and the second
and third provisos of section 12 of the Tennessee Valley
Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831k) shall not apply to a
wholesale sale of electric power by the Tennessee Valley
Authority in the Tennessee Valley Region after the date of
enactment of this Act, and the Tennessee Valley Authority
shall not be authorized to regulate, by means of a rule,
contract provision, resale rate schedule, contract
termination right, or any other method, any rate, term, or
condition that is--
(1) imposed on the resale of the electric power by the
distributor; or
(2) for the use of a local distribution facility.
(b) Authority of Governing Bodies of Distributors.--
(1) In general.--Any regulatory authority exercised by the
Tennessee Valley Authority over any distributor making an
election

[[Page S4023]]

under subsection (a) shall be exercised by the governing body
of the distributor in accordance with the laws of the State
in which the distributor is organized.
(2) No election.--If a distributor does not make an
election under subsection (a), the third proviso of section
10 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C.
831i) and the second and third provisos of section 12 of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831k) shall
continue to apply for the duration of any wholesale power
contract between the Tennessee Valley Authority and the
distributor, in accordance with the terms of the contract.
(c) Use of Funds.--In any contract between the Tennessee
Valley Authority and a distributor for the purchase of at
least 70 percent of the distributor's requirements for the
sale of electric power, the Tennessee Valley Authority shall
include such terms and conditions as may be reasonably
necessary to ensure that the financial benefits of a
distributor's electric system operations are allocated to the
distributor's retail electric consumers.
(d) Removal of PURPA Ratemaking Authority.--Section 3(17)
of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16
U.S.C. 2602(17)) is amended by striking ``, and in the case
of an electric utility with respect to which the Tennessee
Valley Authority has ratemaking authority, such term means
the Tennessee Valley Authority''.

SEC. 8. STRANDED COST RECOVERY.

(a) Commission Jurisdiction.--
(1) Recovery of costs.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B),
notwithstanding the absence of 1 or more provisions
addressing wholesale stranded cost recovery in a power sales
agreement between the Tennessee Valley Authority and a
distributor that is executed after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority may recover any
wholesale stranded costs that may arise from the exercise of
rights by a distributor under section 5, to the extent
authorized by the Commission based on application of the
rules and principles that the Commission applies to wholesale
stranded cost recovery by other electric utilities within its
jurisdiction.
(B) No recovery of costs related to loss of sales
revenues.--In any recovery under subparagraph (A), the
Tennessee Valley Authority shall not be authorized to recover
from any distributor any wholesale stranded costs related to
loss of sales revenues by the Tennessee Valley Authority, or
its expectation of continuing to sell electric energy, for
any period after September 30, 2007.
(2) No effect on claim.--The exercise of rights by a
distributor under section 5 shall not affect any claim by the
Tennessee Valley Authority that the Tennessee Valley
Authority may have for the recovery of stranded costs before
October 1, 2007.
(b) Debt.--
(1) In general.--Stranded costs recovered by the Tennessee
Valley Authority under subsection (a) shall be used to pay
down the debt of the Tennessee Valley Authority, to the
extent determined by the Tennessee Valley Authority to be
consistent with proper financial management.
(2) Generation capacity.--The Tennessee Valley Authority
shall not use any amount recovered under paragraph (1) to pay
for additions to the generation capacity of the Tennessee
Valley Authority.
(c) Unbundling.--
(1) In general.--Any stranded cost recovery charge to a
customer authorized by the Commission to be assessed by the
Tennessee Valley Authority shall be--
(A) unbundled from the otherwise applicable rates and
charges to the customer; and
(B) separately stated on the bill of the customer.
(2) No wholesale stranded cost recovery.--The Tennessee
Valley Authority shall not recover wholesale stranded costs
from any customer through any rate, charge, or mechanism.
(d) Report.--Beginning in fiscal year 2001, as part of the
annual management report submitted by the Tennessee Valley
Authority to Congress, the Tennessee Valley Authority shall
include in the report--
(1) the status of the Tennessee Valley Authority's long-
range financial plans and the progress toward its goal of
competitively priced electric power (including a general
discussion of the Tennessee Valley Authority's prospects on
meeting the objectives of the Ten Year Business Outlook
issued on July 22, 1997);
(2) any changes in assumptions since the previous report
that may have a material effect on the Tennessee Valley
Authority's long-range financial plans;
(3) the source of funds used for any generation and
transmission capacity additions;
(4) the use or other disposition of amounts recovered by
the Tennessee Valley Authority under the Tennessee Valley
Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.) and this Act;
(5) the amount by which the Tennessee Valley Authority's
publicly held debt was reduced; and
(6) the projected amount by which the Tennessee Valley
Authority's publicly held debt will be reduced.

SEC. 9. APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAW

(a) In General.--
(1) Definition of antitrust laws.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in
this section, the term ``antitrust laws'' has the meaning
given the term in subsection (a) of the first section of the
Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)).
(B) Inclusion.--In this section, the term ``antitrust
laws'' includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act
(15 U.S.C. 45), to the extent that section 5 applies to
unfair methods of competition.
(2) Applicability of antitrust law.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), the Tennessee Valley Authority shall be
subject to the antitrust laws with respect to the operation
of its electric power and transmission systems.
(b) Damages.--No damages, interest on damages, costs, or
attorneys' fees may be recovered under section 4, 4A, or 4C
of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15, 15a, 15c) from the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
(c) Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this Act diminishes
or impairs any privilege, immunity, or exemption in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of this Act that would
have been accorded any person by virtue of the association of
the person together in advocating a cause or point of view
to--
(1) the Tennessee Valley Authority; or
(2) any other agency or branch of Federal, State or local
government.

SEC. 10. SAVINGS PROVISION.

Nothing in this Act shall affect section 15d(b) of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831n-4(b)),
providing that bonds issued by the Tennessee Valley Authority
shall not be obligations of, nor shall payment of the
principal thereof or interest thereon be guaranteed by, the
United States.
______

By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2571. A bill to provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of
certain entries of athletic shoes; to the Committee on Finance.

DUTY DRAWBACK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to help
retain a unique environmental recycling program launched by Nike, a
home-grown Oregon business, which involves recycling running shoes
rather than dumping them in a landfill. The bill would resolve an issue
on which the U.S. Customs Service has taken inherently conflicting
positions: whether a duty drawback can be claimed on an item that has
no commercial value and is no longer an item in United States commerce
but which is recycled rather than destroyed. I believe recycling should
be promoted and not punished, and that is what this legislation does.
Under existing U.S. Customs law, an importer is entitled to import
duty drawback on products that are returned to the importer because
they are defective. The point of this provision is to safeguard against
an import duty being imposed on a product that does not end up in
United States commerce. Customs law and regulation ensures that a
product will not end up in U.S. commerce by requiring that the product
be completely destroyed to the extent that the product has no
commercial value, or that it be exported from the United States. In
certain cases Customs has allowed duty drawback: for example, alcohol
salvaged from destroyed beer and malt liquor which was sold as scrap
rather than dumped as waste was accorded duty drawback.
Consistent with Customs' requirements, for a number of years Nike
destroyed the shoes and placed them in a landfill. This amounted to
thousands of tons of non-biodegradable shoes being dumped in landfills.
Because shoes are not biodegradable, Nike developed a new, more
environmentally-sustainable way to dispose of the defective shoes by
chopping them into small pieces, called ``re-grind,'' and giving the
regrind without charge or compensation to manufacturers of sport
surfaces. The re-grind became part of playground, basketball and other
surfaces that was used primarily for charitable purposes in poor urban
centers around the country. The program, called the ``Re-Use A-Shoe,''
is one of the many initiatives Nike has undertaken to incorporate
environmental sustainability into its operations.
The issue Customs has been grappling with is whether the re-grind is
``destroyed with no commercial value'' so as to qualify the destroyed
shoes for duty drawback treatment. For several years Customs granted
the re-grind shoes duty drawback, but a Customs audit team recently
determined that the re-grind was not ``destroyed,'' as it had
commercial value for court manufacturers and Customs recommended
retroactive denial of Nike's drawback claims, totaling $11.6 million.
Because Customs had already refunded the drawback, the audit team
recommended that Nike repay the $11.6 million to Customs.

[[Page S4024]]

It is clear from Customs' decisions that an article is considered
destroyed when it has been rendered of no commercial value and is no
longer an article of commerce. In this case, the defective footwear,
once shred, is valueless and of no commercial interest to anyone. Even
when the shredded material is subsequently processed by Nike to recover
some material of limited use, the recovered material is not saleable to
anyone and therefore has no commercial value.
Mr. President, it seems to me that the position taken by the Customs
audit team is not consistent with the intent of the duty drawback
provision. There is no commercial value to Nike in the re-grind; the
shoes have been destroyed. Nike gives the product to the manufacturer
without charge or compensation, and the manufacturers have confirmed
they would not pay for the material. I have copies of letters from each
of the manufacturers attesting to the fact that they would not pay for
the re-grind and that it is not commercially viable. It appears that
the Customs audit team believes a more desirable outcome is to have
Nike dump some 2 million pairs or 3.5 million pounds of shoes into a
landfill rather than recycle the destroyed material. The outcome is the
same: the shoes no longer have commercial value, nor are they a product
in U.S. commerce. It would seem to me there is no public policy benefit
in forcing Nike to dump the shoes in a landfill; but that there is much
to be gained from recycling millions of pairs of shoes that would
otherwise be dumped in a landfill.
The legislation I am introducing today resolves the question in favor
of recycling, in favor of the environment and in favor of a rational
duty drawback policy. I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 2571

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

SECTION 1. LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN ENTRIES.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law,
the United States Customs Service shall, not later than 90
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, liquidate
or reliquidate each drawback claim as filed described in
subsection (b).
(b) Drawback Claims.--The drawback claims referred to in
subsection (a) are the following claims, filed between August
1, 1993 and June 1, 1998:

Drawback Claims

221-0590991-9
221-0890500-5 through 221-0890675-5
221-0890677-1 through 221-0891427-0
221-0891430-4 through 221-0891537-6
221-0891539-2 through 221-0891554-1
221-0891556-6 through 221-0891557-4
221-0891559-0
221-0891561-6 through 221-0891565-7
221-0891567-3 through 221-0891578-0
221-0891582-0
221-0891584-8 through 221-0891587-1
221-0891589-7
221-0891592-1 through 221-0891597-0
221-0891604-4 through 221-0891605-1
221-0891607-7 through 221-0891609-3

(c) Payment of Amounts Due.--Any amounts due pursuant to
the liquidation or reliquidation of the claims described in
subsection (b) shall be paid not later than 90 days after the
date of such liquidation or reliquidation.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 63

At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Cleland) was added as a cosponsor of S. 63, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit against tax for
employers who provide child care assistance for dependents of their
employees, and for other purposes.

S. 85

At the request of Mr. Bunning, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 85, a bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on vaccines to 25 cents per
dose.

S. 662

At the request of Mr. L. Chafee, the name of the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. Allard) was added as a cosponsor of S. 662, a bill to
amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide medical
assistance for certain women screened and found to have breast or
cervical cancer under a federally funded screening program.

S. 1007

At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1007, a bill to
assist in the conservation of great apes by supporting and providing
financial resources for the conservation programs of countries within
the range of great apes and projects of persons with demonstrated
expertise in the conservation of great apes.

S. 1102

At the request of Mr. Grams, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Abraham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1102, a bill to guarantee
the right of individuals to receive full social security benefits under
title II of the Social Security Act in full with an accurate annual
cost-of-living adjustment.

S. 1237

At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1237, a bill to amend
title 10, United States Code, to permit retired members of the Armed
Forces who have a service-connected disability to receive military
retired pay concurrently with veterans' disability compensation.

S. 1333

At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1333, a bill to expand
homeownership in the United States.

S. 1419

At the request of Mr. McCain, the names of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kohl), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator
from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), and the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Campbell) were added as cosponsors of S. 1419, a bill to amend title
36, United States Code, to designate May as ``National Military
Appreciation Month''.

S. 1565

At the request of Mr. Sarbanes, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Cleland) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1565, a bill to license
America's Private Investment Companies and provide enhanced credit to
stimulate private investment in low-income communities, and for other
purposes.

S. 1638

At the request of Mr. Leahy, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1638, a bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 to extend the retroactive eligibility dates for financial
assistance for higher education for spouses and dependent children of
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who are killed in
the line of duty.

S. 1883

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Daschle) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1883, a bill to
amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate an inequity on the
applicability of early retirement eligibility requirements to military
reserve technicians.

S. 1900

At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1900, a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit to holders
of qualified bonds issued by Amtrak, and for other purposes.

S. 1921

At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. Craig) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1921, a bill to authorize
the placement within the site of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial of a
plaque to honor Vietnam veterans who died after their service in the
Vietnam war, but as a direct result of that service.

S. 2225

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2225, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a deduction for
qualified long-term care insurance premiums, use of such insurance
under cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, and a credit
for individuals with long-term care needs.

S. 2274

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2274, a bill to amend title
XIX of the

[[Page S4025]]

Social Security Act to provide families and disabled children with the
opportunity to purchase coverage under the medicaid program for such
children.

S. 2287

At the request of Mr. L. Chafee, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2287, a bill
to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the Director of the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to make grants for
the development and operation of research centers regarding
environmental factors that may be related to the etiology of breast
cancer.

S. 2299

At the request of Mr. L. Chafee, the name of the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2299, a bill to
amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to continue State Medicaid
disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotments for fiscal year 2001
at the levels for fiscal year 2000.

S. 2311

At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Mack) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2311, supra.
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2311, a bill to
revise and extend the Ryan White CARE Act programs under title XXVI of
the Public Health Service Act, to improve access to health care and the
quality of health care under such programs, and to provide for the
development of increased capacity to provide health care and related
support services to individuals and families with HIV disease, and for
other purposes.

S. 2357

At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from South Dakota
(Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2357, a bill to amend
title 38, United States Code, to permit retired members of the Armed
Forces who have a service-connected disability to receive military
retired pay concurrently with veterans' disability compensation.

S. 2413

At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2413, a bill to amend the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify the
procedures and conditions for the award of matching grants for the
purchase of armor vests.

S. 2415

At the request of Mr. Sarbanes, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2415, a bill to amend the
Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 and other sections of
the Truth in Lending Act to protect consumers against predatory
practices in connection with high cost mortgage transactions, to
strengthen the civil remedies available to consumers under existing
law, and for other purposes.

S. 2420

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2420, a bill to amend title
5, United States Code, to provide for the establishment of a program
under which long-term care insurance is made available to Federal
employees, members of the uniformed services, and civilian and military
retirees, and for other purposes.

S. 2459

At the request of Mr. Coverdell, the name of the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2459, a bill to
provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to
former President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy Reagan in recognition
of their service to the Nation.

S. 2463

At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2463, a bill
to institute a moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty at the
Federal and State level until a National Commission on the Death
Penalty studies its use and policies ensuring justice, fairness, and
due process are implemented.

S. 2510

At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Abraham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2510, a bill to establish
the Social Security Protection, Preservation, and Reform Commission.

S. 2539

At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Robb) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2539, a bill to amend the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 with respect to
export controls on high performance computers.

S. CON. RES. 60

At the request of Mr. Grassley, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. Con. Res. 60, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of
Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued in honor
of the U.S.S. Wisconsin and all those who served aboard her.
At the request of Mr. Kerry, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
Con. Res. 60, supra.
At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, his name was added as a cosponsor
of S. Con. Res. 60, supra.

S. CON. RES. 100

At the request of Mr. Hagel, the names of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell), the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), and the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Allard) were added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 100, a concurrent
resolution expressing support of Congress for a National Moment of
Remembrance to be observed at 3:00 p.m. eastern standard time on each
Memorial Day.

S.J. RES. 44

At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 44, a joint
resolution supporting the Day of Honor 2000 to honor and recognize the
service of minority veterans in the United States Armed Forces during
World War II.

AMENDMENT NO. 3146

At the request of Mr. Robb, the names of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Warner), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator
from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from Maryland (Ms.
Mikulski) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) were added as
cosponsors of Amendment No. 3146 intended to be proposed to S. 2521, an
original bill making appropriations for military construction, family
housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

____________________