[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13525-13528]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Graham, 
        and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1242. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make 
permanent the visa waiver program for certain visitors to the United 
States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                        the visa waiver program

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to make permanent the visa waiver 
program for certain visitors to the United States.
  The visa waiver program has been an unprecedented success in reducing 
barriers to travel and tourism to and from the United States. The 
program allows a citizen of a participating country to forego visa 
application at a U.S. consulate abroad, and allows them to travel to 
the U.S. for business or pleasure and make application for entry 
directly to the INS at a port of entry. To use this privilege, an 
applicant agrees to waive rights to challenge the decision of the INS 
inspector, and agrees to depart the U.S. within 90 days. More than 10 
million visitors used the visa waiver program in fiscal year 1995. This 
represents 76 percent of the total number of non-immigrant entries by 
citizens of visa waiver countries. Visitors entering under the visa 
waiver program accounted for just under 50 percent of all temporary 
business and tourist entries.
  In the ten years since the implementation of the visa waiver program, 
international visitors have become accustomed to the program's 
requirements, and use it routinely. The program has effectively served 
the purpose for which it was designed, to facilitate the efficient flow 
of low-risk foreign tourists and business travelers. Simultaneously, 
the program has afforded Department of State consular officers more 
time to focus efforts on individuals who visit the U.S. for other 
purposes, such as employment or study, or those who intend to remain in 
the U.S. for extended periods. Further, it has allowed the Department 
of State to drastically reduce its consular staff at low-risk 
locations, and strengthen efforts in high risk locations. Yet, all this 
pales in comparison to the real benefit of the visa waiver program, 
that of expanded foreign travel and tourism to the U.S. Put simply, the 
U.S. needs this program to remain competitive with the many other 
nations around the globe who are competing for the finite pool of 
business travelers and tourists.
  In 1996, the World Tourism Organization reported that the United 
States was the second most popular international tourist destination 
and the number one location for tourism expenditures. Of the 44.8 
million arrivals that year, 12.4 million entered under the visa waiver 
program. International tourism in the U.S. is a $65 billion enterprise 
which boosts the economies of many local communities.
  In my home state of Hawaii, tourism is an $11 billion indusry which 
generates about one-quarter of the state's tax revenue and one-third of 
its jobs. It is estimated that 80 percent of all international visitors 
arriving at Honolulu International Airport arrive under the visa waiver 
program. We know that the visa waiver program has been very successful 
because it provides a big boost for Japanese visitors to travel to 
Hawaii. Our long-term goal for a permanent visa waiver program would be 
to expand participation of the program in the Asia-Pacific region. 
Currently, most of the 26 eligible countries are in Europe. Only four 
of these countries are in the Asia-Pacific region--Australia, Japan, 
Brunei, and New Zealand. We hope that South Korea and China will be 
future participants in an expanded program.
  While the pilot program has been extended periodically since its 
inception, its unqualified success justifies a permanent program. 
Further, because the program's life has at times been uncertain and 
somewhat unpredictable, particularly at times when an authorization is 
about to expire, any real or perceived lapse in the program causes 
needless turmoil and uncertainty among the industry and government both 
here and abroad and, most important, the traveling public. In the ten 
years since it commenced, the benefit of the program has been clearly 
proven, and the need for it to remain a pilot program has ceased. To 
sunset the program in April 2000 or in the future would require a 
reinvestment of significant capital, both human and otherwise. In 
addition, because the visa waiver program is based on reciprocity, any 
termination or restriction of the program would likely result in a 
substantial backlash by other participating nations against U.S. 
citizens traveling abroad, resulting in more entry burdens for U.S. 
citizens when they attempt to enter other visa waiver countries.
  Visa waiver participants, by their very definition, are low-risk 
travelers. There is no data which indicates that visa waiver travelers 
stay longer than permitted otherwise violate the terms of their 
admission in any greater numbers than any other population of the 
traveling public. Another important benefit of the visa waiver program 
is the standardization of passports and machine readable documentation, 
which is used as an inducement for acceptance of a country into the 
program. The ability to read a document by machine has greatly 
increased the efficiency of the Federal inspection service process.
  I can say without reservation that this program is a resounding 
success. It has bolstered the U.S. economy through the expedited 
admission of millions of legitimate short-term visitors for business, 
allowing for the negotiation of contracts for the provision of American 
goods and services to the world. It has provided a welcome boost to the 
U.S. tourism industry, which employs thousands of American citizens, 
through the visa-free admission of millions of foreign tourists. We 
must support permanent reauthorization of this highly effective 
program. The visa waiver program is not just a win-win situation, it is 
a win for business, a win for tourism, and a win for effective 
management of the Department of State.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the 
bill be printed in the Record.

[[Page 13526]]

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

                                S. 1242

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT VISA WAIVER PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 
                   VISITORS.

       Section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1187) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``PILOT'';
       (2) in the caption for subsection (a)(2), by striking 
     ``PILOT'' and inserting ``VISA WAIVER'';
       (3) in the caption for subsection (c) by striking ``Pilot'' 
     and inserting ``Visa Waiver'';
       (4) by striking ``pilot'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``visa waiver'';
       (5) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``during the pilot 
     program period (as defined in subsection (e))'';
       (6) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``(within the pilot 
     program period)'';
       (7) by striking subsection (f); and
       (8) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 1243. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and 
extend the prostate cancer preventive health program; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


              PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH AND PREVENTION ACT

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this year 37,000 American men will die, and 
179,300 will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, the second leading 
cause of cancer-related deaths in American men. Cancer of the prostate 
grows slowly, without symptoms, and thus is often undetected until in 
its most advanced and incurable stage. It is critical that men are 
aware of the risk of prostate cancer and take steps to ensure early 
detection.
  While the average age of a man diagnosed with prostate cancer is 66, 
the chance of developing prostate cancer rises dramatically with age--
which makes it important for men to be screened or consult their 
healthcare professional. The American Cancer Society and the American 
Urological Association recommend that men over 50 receive both an 
annual physical exam and a PSA (prostate-specific antigen) blood test. 
African-American men, who are at higher risk, and men with a family 
history of prostate cancer should begin yearly screening at age 40.
  Even if the blood test is positive, however, it does not mean that a 
man definitely has prostate cancer. In fact, only 25 percent of men 
with positive PSAs do. Further testing is needed to determine if cancer 
is actually present. Once the cancer is diagnosed, treatment options 
vary according to the individual. In elderly men, for example, the 
cancer may be especially slow growing and may not spread to other parts 
of the body. In those cases, treatment of the prostate may not be 
necessary, and physicians often monitor the cancer with follow-up 
examinations.
  Unfortunately, preventive risk factors for prostate cancer are 
currently unknown and the effective measures to prevent this disease 
have not been determined. In addition, scientific evidence is 
insufficient to determine if screening for prostate cancer reduces 
deaths or if treatment of disease at an early stage is more effective 
than no treatment in prolonging a person's life. Currently, health 
practitioners cannot accurately determine which cancer will progress to 
become clinically significant and which will not. Thus, screening and 
testing for early detection of prostate cancer should be discussed 
between a man and his healthcare practitioners.
  In an effort to help address the serious issues of prostate cancer 
screening, to increase awareness and surveillance of prostate cancer, 
and to unlock the current mysteries of prostate cancer through 
research, I rise to introduce the ``Prostate Cancer Research and 
Prevention Act.''
  The ``Prostate Cancer Research and Prevention Act'' expands the 
authority of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to 
carry-out activities related to prostate cancer screening and overall 
awareness and surveillance of the disease and extends the authority of 
the National Institutes of Health to conduct basic and clinical 
research in combating prostate cancer.
  The bill directs the CDC to make grants to States and local health 
departments to increase awareness, surveillance, information 
dissemination regarding prostate cancer, and to examine the scientific 
evidence regarding screening for prostate cancer. The main focus is to 
comprehensively evaluate of the effectiveness of various screening 
strategies for prostate cancer and the establishment of a public 
information and education program about the issues regarding prostate 
cancer. The CDC will also strengthen and improve surveillance on the 
incidence and prevalence of prostate cancer with a major focus on 
increasing the understanding of the greater risk of this disease in 
African-American men.
  The bill also reauthorizes the authority of the CDC to conduct a 
prostate screening program upon consultation with the U.S. Preventive 
Services Task Force and professional organizations regarding the 
scientific issues regarding prostate cancer screening. The screening 
program, when implemented, will provide grants to States and local 
health departments to screen men for prostate cancer with priority 
given to low income men and African-American men. In addition the 
screening program will provide referrals for medical treatment of those 
screened and ensure appropriate follow up services including case 
management.
  Finally, to continue the investment in medical research, the bill 
extends the authority of the National Cancer Institute at the National 
Institutes of Health to conduct and support research to expand the 
understanding of the cause of, and find a cure for, prostate cancer. 
Activities authorized include basic research concerning the etiology 
and causes of prostate cancer, and clinical research concerning the 
causes, prevention, detection and treatment of prostate cancer.
  Mr. President, as we celebrate Father's Day this weekend, I hope that 
we take time to reflect on the serious health threat of prostate 
cancer. It is my hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the 
``Prostate Cancer Research and Prevention Act,'' so that we can further 
understand the issues surrounding this disease and continue to move 
forward on developing effective treatment and finding a cure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      American Cancer Society,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1999.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: On behalf of the more than 2 million 
     volunteers of the American Cancer Society, I am writing to 
     offer our support for the Prostate Cancer Research and 
     Prevention Act. Thank you for introducing this important 
     legislation that reauthorizes important programs, with 
     respect to prostate cancer research and prevention activities 
     at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Agency for 
     Health Care Policy (AHCPR), the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration (HRSA) and the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention (CDC).
       Prostate cancer represents one of the most significant 
     medical and social challenges facing our country today. In 
     1999, approximately 179,300 new cases of prostate cancer will 
     be diagnosed in the United States and it is estimated that 
     this disease will cause more than 37,000 deaths this year. 
     While aggressive detection and treatment programs have begun 
     to show some promise of reducing the mortality rate for this 
     disease, we still have a long way to go.
       The Society support the continuation of prostate cancer 
     research programs at the NIH, APCPR, HRSA and CDC. These 
     programs may yield better tests to detect prostate cancer at 
     an early stage, new treatments to cure prostate cancer, and 
     improved knowledge of the psychosocial and quality-of-life 
     impacts of men diagnosed with prostate cancer.
       Your legislation also recognizes the need for more 
     information on how best to tackle the many challenges this 
     disease brings. Specifically, the bill addresses the need 
     for: additional research on the effectiveness of prostate 
     cancer screening strategies; more data on how best to improve 
     training, education, and skills of health practitioners with 
     regards to prostate cancer; and more information about how 
     men seek medical attention, make decisions about treatment, 
     and follow-up on treatment recommendations.

[[Page 13527]]

       All of this information would support the development and 
     communication of messages by public and private health 
     professionals about prostate cancer early detection and 
     treatment for men and their families, as well as provide for 
     the establishment of a prostate cancer screening program. The 
     American Cancer Society believes that prostate cancer 
     education, awareness and screening programs should give 
     priority to those populations at high risk of developing this 
     disease--specifically, African American and older men.
       Lastly, your legislation takes a crucial first step at 
     addressing several critical issues related to increasing 
     access to prostate cancer screening and appropriate follow-up 
     care. While the American Cancer Society recognizes that often 
     an incremental approach to complex health care issues is 
     preferable than attempting comprehensive reform or crafting 
     multifaceted policy solutions, the Society asks that you and 
     your colleagues take this opportunity to consider some of the 
     larger health care quality and access challenges to our 
     health care delivery system. We urge you to explore other 
     legislative provisions that would help to assure access to 
     quality care--for all patients--especially those 
     disproportionately affected by cancer.
       Again, the American Cancer Society applauds your leadership 
     and support for the reauthorization of these valuable 
     programs. Thank you for your continued dedication to cancer 
     control and prevention.
           Sincerely,
                                          Charles J. McDonald, MD,
     President of the Board of Directors.
                                  ____

                                               American Urological


                                            Association, Inc.,

                                     Baltimore, MD, June 17, 1999.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     The U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: As President of the American Urological 
     Association (AUA), representing 9,200 urologists in this 
     country, I would like to thank you for introducing the 
     ``Prostate Cancer Research and Prevention Act.'' The AUA 
     supports this legislation, which recognizes that prostate 
     cancer early detection and education are vital tools in the 
     fight against prostate cancer. As you know, the American 
     Cancer Society (ACS) estimates that 179,300 new cases of 
     prostate cancer will be diagnosed in 1999, and that 37,000 
     men will die from this disease this year.
       In a recent paper by Roberts et al (Journal of Urology 
     161:529, 1999), U.S. prostate cancer deaths per 100,000 men 
     from the years 1989 to 1992 were compared to the years 1993 
     to 1997. The authors found that prostate cancer deaths have 
     fallen significantly, and conclude that early detection may 
     have led to a decline in prostate cancer deaths.
       We would only point out a concern we have about the bill's 
     reliance on the United States Preventive Services Task Force 
     (USPSTF), which currently does not recommend prostate cancer 
     early detection. This varies from the AUA and ACS policy 
     positions (see attachment), and we believe this could send a 
     confusing message to patients. Moreover, Congress enacted 
     prostate cancer early detection coverage for Medicare 
     beneficiaries aged 50 and older in 1997. We believe reliance 
     on USPSTF could engender confusion about the value of 
     prostate cancer early detection.
       Again, thank you for introducing this important 
     legislation, and we look forward to working with you to 
     advance this effort. To coordinate any future efforts, please 
     contact Scott Reid, AUA Government Relations Manager.
           Sincerely,

                                          Lloyd H. Harrison, M.D.,
     President.
                                  ____



                                         Men's Health Network,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 1999.
     Hon. Bill Frist, M.D.,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Health, Senate Committee on 
         Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: I am writing on behalf of the Men's 
     Health Network (MHN) in support of legislation which will 
     revise and extend the prostate cancer prevention health 
     program at the Centers for Disease Control. We thank you for 
     proposing this important legislation. As you know, educating 
     the public as to the prevalence and risks of prostate cancer 
     is of great importance in fighting this deadly disease.
       As the baby boom generation ages, the risk of prostate 
     cancer, if unchecked, will continue to increase. Prostate 
     cancer is the most commonly occurring cancer in America, 
     affecting about 200,000 men in 1999. Nearly 40,000 men will 
     lose their lives to the disease this year. A man has a one in 
     six chance of getting prostate cancer in his lifetime. If he 
     has a close relative with prostate cancer, his risk doubles. 
     With two close relatives, his risk increases five-fold. With 
     three close relatives, his risk is nearly 97%. Today, 
     African-American men have the highest prostate cancer 
     incidence rate in the world. The African-American mortality 
     rate from the disease is more than twice that of the rate for 
     Caucasian Americans.
       With the right investment in education and research, 
     prostate cancer is preventable, controllable and curable. 
     There is no better time than National Men's Health Week for 
     all of us to focus on prostate cancer and men's health. It is 
     vitally important to educate not only men but their families 
     as to the risk factors associated with this disease and the 
     need for annual screenings.
       Thank you for addressing this critical public health issue. 
     If there is anything we can do in the future to assist in the 
     passage of your bill, please do not hesitate to let us know.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Tracie Snitker,
                                             Government Relations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. 
        Kerrey, and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 1244. A bill to establish a 3-year pilot project for the General 
Accounting Office to report to Congress on economically significant 
rules of Federal agencies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


                    truth in regulating act of 1999

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Truth in 
Regulating Act.'' This legislation would establish a 3-year pilot 
project to support Congressional oversight to ensure that important 
regulatory decisions are efficient, effective, and fair.
  The foundation of the ``Truth in Regulating Act'' is the right of 
Congress and the people we serve to know about important regulatory 
decisions. Through the General Accounting Office, which serves as 
Congress' eyes and ears, this legislation will help us get access to 
the important information that Federal agencies use to make regulatory 
decisions before the horse gets out of the barn. So, in a real sense, 
this legislation not only gives people the right to know; it gives them 
the right to see--to see how the government works, or doesn't. And by 
providing us with information that agencies use to make regulations, it 
will enable Congress to ensure that agency regulations are consistent 
with Congress' intent and the authority that Congress has delegated to 
the agencies by statute. This will make the regulatory process more 
transparent, more accountable, and more democratic. It will help 
improve the quality and fairness of important regulations. This will 
contribute to the success of programs the public values and improve 
public confidence in the Federal Government, which is a real concern 
today.
  Under the 3-year pilot project established by this legislation, a 
Committee of either House of Congress may request the Comptroller 
General to review an economically significant rule as it is being 
developed. The Comptroller General shall submit a report no later than 
180 calendar days after a committee request is received. This should 
allow Congress ample time to decide whether it wants to disapprove the 
rule under the Congressional Review Act. The Comptroller General's 
independent analysis of the rule shall include: an analysis of the 
potential benefits of the rule, the potential costs of the rule, any 
alternative approaches that could achieve the goal in a more cost-
effective manner or that could produce greater net benefits, the extent 
to which the rule would affect State or local governments, and a 
summary of how the results of the analysis of the Comptroller General 
differ, if at all, from the results of agency analyses. The Comptroller 
General will have the discretion to develop the procedures for 
determining the priority of requests.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that the ``Truth in Regulating Act'' 
will encourage Federal agencies to make better use of modern 
decisionmaking tools, such as risk assessment and benefit-cost 
analysis. Currently, these important tools often are viewed simply as 
options--options that aren't used as much or as well as they should be. 
The Governmental Affairs Committee has reviewed and developed a 
voluminous record showing that our regulatory process is not working as 
well as intended and is missing important opportunities to achieve 
greater benefits at less cost. On April 22, I chaired a hearing in 
which we heard testimony on the need for this proposal. The General 
Accounting Office has done important studies for Governmental Affairs 
and other committees showing that agency practices--in cost-benefit 
analysis, risk

[[Page 13528]]

assessment, and in meeting transparency and disclosure requirements of 
laws and executive orders--need significant improvement. Many other 
authorities support these findings.
  All of us benefit when government performs well and meets the needs 
of the people it serves. I want to thank Blanche Lincoln, George 
Voinovich, Bob Kerrey, and John Breaux for joining me as original 
cosponsors of this bill. All of us on both sides of the aisle should 
pull together to improve the quality of our government. I urge by 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the ``Truth in Regulating Act'' be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1244

       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 ``Truth in Regulating Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) increase the transparency of important regulatory 
     decisions;
       (2) promote effective congressional oversight to ensure 
     that agency rules fulfill statutory requirements in an 
     efficient, effective, and fair manner; and
       (3) increase the accountability of Congress and the 
     agencies to the people they serve.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the term--
       (1) ``agency'' has the meaning given such term under 
     section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) ``economically significant rule'' means any proposed or 
     final rule, including an interim or direct final rule, that 
     may have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a 
     sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
     environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
     tribal governments or communities; and
       (3) ``independent analysis'' means a substantive review of 
     the agency's underlying assessments and assumptions used in 
     developing the regulatory action and whatever additional 
     analysis the Comptroller General determines to be necessary.

     SEC. 4. PILOT PROJECT FOR REPORT ON RULES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Request of review.--When an agency develops or issues 
     an economically significant rule, the Comptroller General of 
     the United States may review the rule at the request of a 
     committee of either House of Congress.
       (2) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report 
     on each economically significant rule selected under 
     paragraph (4) to the committees of jurisdiction in each House 
     of Congress not later than 180 calendar days after a 
     committee request is received. The report shall include an 
     independent analysis of the economically significant rule by 
     the Comptroller General using any relevant data or analyses 
     available to or generated by the General Accounting Office.
       (3) Independent analysis.--The independent analysis of the 
     economically significant rule by the Comptroller General 
     under paragraph (2) shall include--
       (A) an analysis of the potential benefits of the rule, 
     including any beneficial effects that cannot be quantified in 
     monetary terms and the identification of the persons or 
     entities likely to receive the benefits;
       (B) an analysis of the potential costs of the rule, 
     including any adverse effects that cannot be quantified in 
     monetary terms and the identification of the persons or 
     entities likely to bear the costs;
       (C) an analysis of alternative approaches that could 
     achieve the statutory goal in a more cost-effective manner or 
     that could provide greater net benefits, and, if applicable, 
     a brief explanation of any reason why such alternatives could 
     not be adopted;
       (D) an analysis of the extent to which the rule would 
     affect State or local governments; and
       (E) a summary of how the results of the analysis of the 
     Comptroller General differ, if at all, from the results of 
     the analyses of the agency in promulgating the rule.
       (4) Procedures for priorities of requests.--The Comptroller 
     General shall have discretion to develop procedures for 
     determining the priority and number of requests for review 
     under paragraph (1) for which a report will be submitted 
     under paragraph (2).
       (b) Cooperation With Comptroller General.--Each agency 
     shall cooperate with the Comptroller General by promptly 
     providing the Comptroller General with such records and 
     information that the Comptroller General determines necessary 
     to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the General 
     Accounting Office to carry out this Act $5,200,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF PILOT PROJECT.

       (a) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Duration of Pilot Project.--The pilot project under 
     this Act shall continue for a period of 3 years, if in each 
     fiscal year, or portion thereof included in that period, a 
     specific annual appropriation not less than $5,200,000 or the 
     pro-rated equivalent thereof shall have been made for the 
     pilot project.
       (c) Report.--Before the conclusion of the 3-year period, 
     the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report 
     reviewing the effectiveness of the pilot project and 
     recommending whether or not Congress should permanently 
     authorize the pilot project.

                          ____________________