[Pages S492-S514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Glenn):
S. 1529 A bill to provide for the Federal treatment of certain
relocation

[[Page S493]]
National Football League franchises, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.

the team relocation taxpayers protection act of 1996

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my
distinguished colleague from Ohio, Senator John Glenn, legislation that
will get U.S. taxpayers out of the business of subsidizing NFL
franchise moves.
It is clear by now that these franchise moves have a very substantial
impact not only on communities, on the economy, but also, frankly, on
the future of professional sports.
Mr. President, I have already on this floor in days past addressed at
length the question of the proposed move of the Cleveland Browns to
Baltimore. I believe, as do many Ohioans--indeed, as do many
Americans--that this move is simply wrong. I have discussed on this
floor the great tradition of the Browns, the love the people of
Cleveland and the people of Ohio have for the Browns.
Candidly, whether you care about the Browns or do not, whether you
are a sports fan or not a sports fan, you and every taxpayer are paying
for this move--every taxpayer in the entire country. Whether you live
in Cleveland, OH, or Los Angeles, CA, the Federal Government is
reaching into your pocket to pay for this move. I believe the taxpayers
will be shocked to know this, and they should be. The sports fan who
have followed all the back and forth of this move, very few of them are
aware today as I speak from the Senate floor that the Federal
Government, is subsidizing this purported move by $36 million--$36
million of taxpayers' money.
That provides the occasion and the rational and the public policy
reason for the legislation Senator Glenn and I are introducing today.
Quite frankly, I can see no moral justification for taxpayers, for the
people of Cleveland or anywhere else to reward a sports team with
public money to assist that team in breaking its word and deserting the
community. I believe that to do this is unconscionable and is simply
wrong.
Let me put it in real terms. To force a family in Parma, OH, or
Euclid, or in Cleveland, or in Columbus, OH, to take there tax dollars,
to send them to Washington and to have Washington turn around and
subsidize Baltimore, MD, to steal the team from the Browns and to do it
with $36 million in Federal taxpayers' money makes absolutely no sense.
I believe that we must stop the insanity. We must act to get the
Government out of this subsidy business.
Mr. President, today, more and more public money is being used to
support professional football franchises. Communities are making
significant public investments to lure and keep NFL teams in there
area. In each one of these cases, in return for the public investment,
teams are agreeing to stay in the community for a specifically defined
period of time. There is a deal made. The local community will offer
financial incentives, will support the team, and in return the owner
agrees to stay in that community during the term of the lease. It is
fairly simple. Unfortunately, however, some franchises are breaking
their part of the deal by seeking to relocate before the term of the
deal has expired, before the lease is over.
That is why I am introducing legislation that will get the Federal
taxpayer out of the business of subsidizing this particular kind of
relocation. The enactment of this bill will result, frankly, in less
Government involvement in professional sports, not more. Under the
current system, when a city or State wants to raise funds to build a
stadium and thereby secure a professional team, it authorizes a
governmental entity such as a stadium authority to issue bonds. In
other words, to sell the debt to anyone who wants to buy the debt. The
stadium authority can then use the proceeds to build the stadium and
the people who have invested pay no tax on the interest they earn--tax-
free bonds. The tax exemption allows the stadium authority to pay lower
interest rates and thus keep more money for itself. They can build the
stadium at less of a cost--in this particular case in Baltimore it is
$36 million less cost. That is the difference between issuing the
bonds, building the stadium with taxable bonds versus building that
stadium with nontaxable bonds.

Mr. President, because the bondholder does not pay Federal tax on
interest, the interest amounts to a Federal subsidy for stadium
authority bondholders. For example, in the case of the Browns move,
this subsidy is worth, as I have stated, $36 million to the Browns.
The legislation that Senator Glenn and I are introducing today will
prohibit the use of these Federal subsidies in bond deals associated
with the relocation of an NFL team, when that team breaks an existing
deal with the community that has supported the team. In short, new
Federal subsidies under this bill cannot be used to help a team violate
an existing commitment where that commitment includes public money.
The bill's criteria are straightforward. There are five separate
criteria and each one of these has to be met before our bill applies:
First, if the franchise is currently in a public facility; second, if
the proposed relocation will be to a new public facility; third, if fan
support in the current location, the current team's local area--in this
case, Cleveland--has been at least 75 percent of stadium capacity in
the preceding season; fourth, if the current lease with the public
entity has not expired--in other words, they are breaking the lease;
and fifth, if asked, voters in the current jurisdiction have approved
the use of further tax dollars to improve the current facility or to
build a new one.
If all five of these criteria apply, then our bill provides as
follows: No expenditure of Federal funds including grants, awards,
loans, guarantees, tax credits, exemptions, allowances or any use of
Federal tax-exempt financing may be used to benefit the franchise
seeking to relocate.
In short, Mr. President, if you own a football team and you want to
break your lease and the local community has done everything it can to
support the team, you can do it; Congress will not stop you, not under
this bill, but--but--the Federal taxpayers will not help you do it.
They will not encourage you with a subsidy to do it. The Federal
taxpayers will not subsidize your breach of faith. That is the message
that the bill will send to NFL owners. If you want to go build your own
stadium, you can do that, too, but the Federal taxpayers will not help
you do it. If you want to rely only on State, local dollars, not
Federal dollars, you can do that, too, but Federal taxpayers simply
will not help you do it. If you want to break a deal in the community
and the community you are leaving has done everything it can to keep
its part of the bargain, then the Federal taxpayer will not get
involved.
Mr. President, it is important to discuss this issue in the context
of everything else that is occurring today and this past year in
Washington. In the Senate, we have been consumed with decisions on
Federal spending. How can we slow the rate of growth of spending? What
Federal budget should we pass? How can we balance the Federal budget?
We are making very tough decisions on health care for poor people,
welfare reform, Medicare, Medicaid, the education of our youth.
I do not need to tell anyone in this Chamber that these are very
difficult decisions, but here is an easy decision. As I stated earlier,
in just this case, the case of the Browns purported move to Baltimore,
it is estimated that the Federal tax subsidy is $36 million. That is
over and above any local taxpayer subsidy--$36 million of Federal tax
money, $36 million that will benefit one professional sports franchise.
The American people want to know what we mean by corporate welfare.
This, Mr. President, is corporate welfare. This is what we mean. Paying
the Browns $36 million of Federal money is, simply, morally wrong.
For me, the question is, under our serious budget constraints, what
in the world justifies taking $36 million from taxpayers, including the
ones in Cleveland whose trust with the Browns has been broken, to pay
for this move? Absolutely nothing justifies it.
Mr. President, I have spoken at length regarding the impact of sports
franchise relocation on the communities that love their teams. I have
mentioned the pride that the people of Cleveland, the people of all of
Ohio have in the Browns. I have discussed the unbroken bonds of
affection that stretch from the days after the Second

[[Page S494]]
World War, when the Browns started playing in Cleveland, to today's
fans who, frankly, still cannot believe that the Browns are trying to
leave town. I will not replow that field here except to say simply
this: Loyalty counts. Loyalty is not transferable.
The Cleveland story is very important precisely because the Browns
are the heart and soul of Cleveland and because the people of Cleveland
have done all they can to save the Browns. The Cleveland situation is,
Mr. President, the worst-case scenario. If the Browns can leave
Cleveland, any team can leave any town any time.
This was an ad that was paid for by Browns fans that appeared in USA
Today. I think it pretty much summarizes the situation. If this can
happen in Cleveland, Mr. President, this can happen to any team, to any
sports fans in the country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in the last several weeks we have seen
much activity surrounding the Browns' move to Baltimore. The State of
Maryland has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL. The city of
Cleveland sued the Browns. The city of Cleveland also sued the city of
Baltimore. Who knows, there may be more lawsuits coming.
My bill does one very important thing: It gets the American taxpayer
out of the middle of all this. Whatever the economic factors that cause
teams to go and to come, whatever the circumstances that lead city to
sue city, teams to sue teams, and the league to sue teams and
individuals, the American taxpayer should be left out of it. The
taxpayers' burden is high enough. It is wrong to make the taxpayers
pay.
My bill does not seek to manage the NFL team relocation process. It
does not intend to have more regulation of the NFL. But it does say
that the Federal Government will not help them leave and that the
Federal taxpayers will not subsidize these moves.
Mr. President, I considered naming my bill after our beloved
``Dawgs'' and the hard-core Browns fans who are represented in this
particular ad. You see in the ad the ``Big Dawg,'' who is certainly
famous in Cleveland, around the country, a great fan looking at this
empty stadium after the last home game. I considered naming my bill
after the Dawgs, and the Dawgs, of course, is, in this case, spelled d-
a-w-g-s. In this case, the Dawgs would stand for ``don't allow welfare
for greedy sports owners.''
While that title would express very accurately the deepest feelings
of the people of Ohio, I have decided on a title that would tell all
Americans why they should support this particular bill. I have called
the bill the Team Relocation Taxpayer Protection Act. The bill is
called the Team Relocation Taxpayer Protection Act.
If you are a taxpayer and you think we have better things to spend
Federal money on than corporate greed, you should support this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this
bill, the Dawgs bill, the Team Relocation Taxpayer Protection Act, be
printed in the Record.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before proceeding to the purpose for
which I have sought recognition, I would like to express my support for
the proposition outlined by the distinguished Senator from Ohio. I
believe that Baltimore ought to have a football team, and that is the
Colts. I think that Indianapolis is entitled to an expansion team.
I believe that Senator DeWine has articulated the issue cogently and
forcefully on a travesty which is being perpetrated on many American
cities and on many American taxpayers. There is really a situation
where sports teams are entrusted with a public interest.
The movement of the Dodgers from Brooklyn to Los Angeles was the
start of pirating in America of sports franchises and should never have
been allowed, accompanied by the movement of the Giants from New York
to San Francisco.
We have seen that matter proliferate. It is hard to understand why
the taxpayers of Maryland and Baltimore have to be in a bidding
contest, which, as I understand it, approximates some $200 billion to
bring a football team to Baltimore. Certainly Baltimore ought to have a
football team, and it ought to be the Colts, which moved out of
Baltimore in the middle of the night to go to Indianapolis.
American has a love affair with sports. I just came from a brief
sporting event in the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, where she
and Senator Santorum and I articulated a bet on the Super Bowl game. If
you cannot see this on C-SPAN 2, this is an unusual tie for me to wear.
It is a Steelers tie.
I am going to be going to the Super Bowl, weather permitting and
Senate schedule permitting. Who knows, we may be in session Sunday the
way things are going. But I have participated in America's love affair
with sports since I was a youngster in Wichita, KS, reading the box
scores from the Wichita Eagle every morning because of my love and
passion for baseball.
I have been attending the Phillies games and the Eagles games, and
when I can, in Pittsburgh, the Pirates games and the Steeler games
because of my love of the sport. It is tremendously exciting.
Just basically, it is unfair for the Browns--I was about to say the
Indians--for the Browns to be taken out of Cleveland. I hope we can do
something about it. I hope that with the complications of free agency
and franchise removal, salary caps and revenue sharing, that we will be
able to address this matter in a sane way in the Congress.
Baseball enjoys an antitrust exemption. Football enjoys a limited
antitrust exemption from revenue sharing for television. I believe
those sports are under an obligation to work out the rules so that the
teams do not get themselves pirated from one city to another.
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. 1529

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 ``Team Relocation Taxpayer
Protection Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF RELOCATING NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
FRANCHISES.

(a) Effect on Interstate Commerce.--
(1) Findings.--The Congress finds that the conduct of a
National Football League franchise occurs in interstate
commerce and has a substantial effect on interstate commerce
and that when the facts and circumstances described in
subsection (c)(1) are combined, there arises substantial
potential for harmful effects on interstate commerce.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to deter such
harmful effects.
(3) No preemption of state or local actions.--Such other
actions as may be taken by a State or local governmental unit
or entity referred to in subsection (c)(1)(A) to address the
facts and circumstances described in subsection (c)(1) are
not preempted by this section and do not burden interstate
commerce.
(b) Federal Treatment.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law--
(1) any entity or person described in paragraph (1) or (2)
of subsection (c)--
(A) may not benefit, directly or indirectly, from any
expenditure of Federal funds, and
(B) shall not be allowed any Federal tax exclusion,
deduction, credit, exemption, or allowance,

in connection with or in any way related to the relocation of
a National Football League franchise of an entity or person
described in subsection (c)(1); and
(2) the interest paid or accrued on any bond, any portion
of the proceeds of which is used or is to be used to provide
facilities that are used or are to be used in whole or in
part by any entity or person described in paragraph (1) or
(2) of subsection (c), shall not be exempt from any Federal
tax.
(c) Entity or Person Described.--For purposes of this
section--
(1) General description.--An entity or person is described
in this paragraph if--
(A) the entity or person has conducted regular season home
football games through ownership of a franchise in the
National Football League in facilities--
(i) which are owned, directly or indirectly, by a State or
local governmental unit or entity, or
(ii) which are financed by a Federal, State, or local
governmental unit or entity;
(B) the entity or person has publicly announced that such
entity or person has the intention to conduct such football
games outside the facilities described in subparagraph (A)
before the expiration of the period during which such
governmental unit or entity has authorized the entity or
person to use such facilities;
(C) the entity or person has publicly announced that such
entity or person has the

[[Page S495]]
intention to conduct such football games in facilities--
(i) to be owned, directly or indirectly, by a State or
local governmental unit or entity, or
(ii) to be financed by a Federal, State, or local
governmental unit or entity;
(D) in the National Football League season preceding the
announcement of the intention of the entity or person to
relocate, attendance at the regular season home football
games of such entity or person averaged at least 75 percent
of normal capacity as previously published by the National
Football League with respect to such season; and
(E) within the period of 1 year before or after such
announcement by the entity or person, an election or
referendum has been held by the State or local governmental
unit in which the facilities described in subparagraph (A)
are located and the voters have approved a tax increase or
extension of a tax, or have failed to repeal any such tax
increase or extension, intended by such governmental unit to
be used as part of the financing for improved facilities or
new facilities for such football games of such entity or
person.
(2) Related person.--
(A) In general.--An entity or person is described in this
paragraph if such entity or person is a related person to an
entity or person described in paragraph (1).
(B) Application of certain rules.--For purposes of this
paragraph, a person or entity shall be treated as a related
person to an entity or person described in paragraph (1) if--
(i) under the terms of section 144(a)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, such person or entity would be treated
as a related person to an entity or person described in
paragraph (1), or
(ii) such person or entity is a successor in interest to an
entity or person described in paragraph (1) or to any related
person.
(C) Rules regarding certain relationships.--In determining
whether a person or entity is a related person to an entity
or person described in paragraph (1), the rules of sections
144(a)(3), 267, 707(b), and 1563 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 shall be applied--
(i) by substituting ``at least 25 percent'' for ``more than
50 percent'' each place it appears therein and by determining
such percentage on the basis of the highest percentage of the
stock or other indices of ownership that any person or entity
has owned directly or indirectly at any time after December
31, 1991,
(ii) by treating a person's step-children or step-
grandchildren as the person's natural children or
grandchildren, and
(iii) by treating all children and step-children of such
person as if they have not attained the age of 21 years.
(d) Bankruptcy Venue.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, including titles 11 and 28 of the United States Code,
any case under such title 11 with respect to an entity or
person described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (c)
may be commenced only in the district court for the judicial
district in which the principal place of business in the
United States of such entity or person has been located
during the greatest part of the 3-year period immediately
preceding the commencement of such case.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to--
(1) any expenditure of Federal funds on or after the date
of the introduction of this Act,
(2) any case commenced under title 11, United States Code,
after November 1, 1995, and
(3) any Federal tax exclusion, deduction, credit,
exemption, or allowance for any taxable period ending after
December 31, 1994.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
legislation being offered by my colleague from Ohio. We have worked
together very closely on the whole issue of professional sports team
relocation. It should come as no surprise this is an issue that hits
home for the people of our States.
Organized, professional sports have always played a prominent role in
American life. Individuals, cities, States, and even the entire nation
have come together and rallied around sports teams. And professional
sports teams have helped local economies rally and revitalized our
inner cities, creating whole new sectors of economic opportunity.
This week, many Americans' eyes are on Tempe, AR, where the Dallas
Cowboys will take on the Pittsburgh Steelers to determine who will win
a fifth NFL championship. Think of some of the other major sports
events that have riveted the nation's attention over the past months.
How about those Cleveland Indians and their amazing season which
culminated in a World Series appearance?
Who hasn't heard all the talk this winter about the return of Michael
Jordan and the Chicago Bulls' dominance of the NBA.
And who can forget the elation we all felt watching Cal Ripken, Jr.,
take his historic lap around Camden Yards?
What can be more American, or says more about our country, than
stories such as these? Or how we bask in a team's victories,
commiserate over the losses, and cheer exciting and dramatic exploits
on the field or on the court?
But there is a story that overshadows these and threatens this
spirit, that is community pride. Of course, I am speaking of team
relocation. And the relocation which has shocked the nation involves
the Cleveland Browns. Let me tell you a little about Cleveland and the
Browns.
The Cleveland Browns have been a symbol of undying and unwavering fan
support. Week after week, 70,000 people cram into Lakefront Memorial
Stadium to root on the Browns. The ``Dawg Pound'' is a national symbol
of fan support. Through 3-13 seasons, 13-3 season, exciting play-off
victories, demoralizing play-off defeats, Browns fans have been through
it all and still support their team.
There's no talk of getting on or off a bandwagon in Cleveland--every
fan is there, through thick and thin.
That's what makes the announcement that the Browns intend to desert
their home of 50 years the toughest to take. The Browns have enjoyed
backing from generations of fans, only to be told that it doesn't
matter.
Well, it does matter. It matters to the season ticket holder who has
been going to games for 30 years. It matters to the worker who sells
hot dogs at the stadium. It matters to businesses selling Browns t-
shirts, hats, and other paraphernalia. It matters to restaurants and
hotels that cater to fans and players. It matters to those raised as
Browns fans looking forward to passing along that tradition.
It should matter to every football, baseball, hockey, and basketball
fan across the country, because if it can happen to Cleveland, it can
happen to you.
And it should matter to every single taxpayer in America who are
going to end up footing part of the bill for the Browns' move and
others as relocation fever sweeps the country. It's shocking, but
Federal tax subsidies are going to help ease the cost of the Cleveland
Browns' relocation. It absolutely makes no sense that we should allow
taxpayer dollars to back up this kind of deal.
Why should taxpayers in Cleveland, or any American city, help foot
the tab for their local team to pull stakes and move to another city?
Talk about adding insult to injury. That's why I am pleased to join my
colleague from Ohio today in introducing this legislation.
Let me stress that this legislation does not put an all-out ban on
the use of public money in such situations. In fact, it is a very
narrowly tailored bill which says: if a team already took advantage of
tax dollars to build its existing stadium; and there has been
tremendous fan loyalty and support; and voters in the current
jurisdiction have approved of the means to improve the team's current
facility or build a new one; and the team's current lease has not
expired; then, we're not going to allow Federal tax dollars to
subsidize the move.
I think that's pretty reasonable. We shouldn't be in the business of
giving Federal tax subsidies to a team that already received the
benefit of public money to build their existing stadium, that intends
to turn its back on loyal fans and a community commitment to build or
improve their stadium, and a team that has broken its lease--that team
should not receive a Federal tax subsidy.
Right now, Washington is embroiled in a very nasty and partisan
debate about how our Government can reach a balanced budget. One of the
key issues in this debate centers on tax cuts--who should get them, who
shouldn't benefit.
Well, I put to my colleagues the question: should tax breaks go to
professional sports teams when they turn their back on an ironclad
commitment that is already backed by a Federal subsidy? I'm sure my
colleagues and all Americans know the answer to that question.
The Senate has a unique opportunity to start putting an end to the
chaos in professional sports. The bill we are introducing today is the
second step in that effort. I intend to continue pushing our Fans
Rights Act through Congress. We still need to grant leagues a limited
anti-trust exemption related to team transfers. I am pleased that many
of the witnesses at a Judiciary Committee yesterday agreed with this

[[Page S496]]
point. I hope there is Senate action on that bill, and the one we are
introducing today, early this season.
Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked with my colleague from
Ohio on this important legislation. It will provide a solution to a
serious, yet limited, problem. I urge all Senators to support this
bill.
______

By Mr. BUMPERS:
S. 1530. A bill to create a government corporation to own and operate
the naval petroleum reserves and naval oil shale reserves, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

the naval petroleum reserves and naval oil shale reserves
corporatization act of 1996

<bullet> Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I introduce the Naval Petroleum
Reserves and Naval Oil Shale Reserves Corporatization Act of 1996. This
bill would: First, create a government corporation to own and operate
the naval petroleum reserves and naval oil shale reserves; and second,
authorize the privatization of the corporation within 5 years if the
taxpayers receive a fair return.
The naval petroleum reserves consist of three fields: Elk Hills in
California; Buena Vista Hills in California and Teapot Dome in Wyoming.
The Federal Government owns 100 percent of both Buena Vista Hills and
Teapot Dome. However, the Government owns only 78 percent of Elk Hills.
The remaining 22 percent is owned by Chevron. Elk Hills is by far the
most significant area, making it one of the largest fields in the
United States. In fact, Elk Hills produces approximately $400 million
per year in revenues for the Federal Treasury.
Similarly, there are three naval oil shale reserves. Naval oil shale
reserves 1 and 3 are located in northwest Colorado. Naval oil shale
reserve 2 is located in eastern Utah. Unlike the Naval Petroleum
reserves, there is no production from the oil shale reserves because
development of oil shale is not currently economical. However, there is
also recoverable natural gas.
Both the administration and the majority party in Congress have, at
various times, proposed that the naval petroleum reserves be sold and
the administration has also proposed that two of the three oil shale
reserves be privatized as well. While I am not necessarily opposed to
the notion of removing the Government from the oil production business,
I am troubled that the various proposals do not put the taxpayers'
interests first. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated
that the sale of the naval petroleum reserves as originally proposed
would produce $1.55 billion in receipts. CBO also determined that the
sale would actually cost the Government $992 million over 7 years
because the reserves would produce approximately $2.5 billion in
revenues in the Government retains the assets during that same time
period. While the CBO estimate does not take into account the
appropriated expenditures made annually for operation and maintenance
of the petroleum reserves, the sale of the assets would eliminate
possibly billions of dollars worth of additional revenue that would be
derived from the continued operation of the naval petroleum reserves
over the life of the assets.
From 1987 until this year, Congress prohibited revenue derived from
the sale of Government assets from being scored for budget purposes. I
strongly opposed the change made to the asset sale scoring rule in this
year's budget resolution for exactly the reasons exemplified by the
proposed sale of the naval petroleum reserves. It makes no sense to
sell an asset for some quick cash when, in the long run, the loss of
revenues from the sold Government asset outweighs the funds derived
from the sale. However, that is exactly what the budget rules now
permit and, in fact, promote.

Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, I am not necessarily opposed
to the privatization of the naval petroleum reserves and the naval oil
shale reserves. However, I am opposed to selling these assets for far
less than they are worth to their current owners--the Americans
taxpayers.
The bill I am introducing today is designed to ensure that the value
of these assets are maximized. First, by creating a Government
corporation, the naval petroleum reserves can be operated in a more
efficient manner in the absence of burdensome restrictions placed on
Government agencies. Second, the corporation will have the time to
adequately evaluate the worth of the naval petroleum reserves and naval
oil shale reserves to make sure that if they are sold, the taxpayers
receive an adequate return. Finally, my bill authorizes the corporation
to privatize, but only if the price paid by private investors is at
least equal to the net present value if the corporation remained in
Government hands.
Government corporatization is not a new idea. In fact, the Department
of Energy [DOE] proposed creating a Government corporation to own and
operate the naval petroleum reserves in 1993. An internal DOE analysis
determined that a Government corporation is the option that would
produce the greatest net present value associated with the naval
petroleum reserves through 2040. In addition, in 1994 the National
Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] recommended that the naval
petroleum and oil shale reserves be owned and operated by a Government
corporation. In fact, the Academy estimated that the net present value
of the naval petroleum reserves, if they were owned by a Government
corporation, would be $4.1 billion. This is far greater than the $1.55
billion which CBO estimates the sale of the petroleum reserves would
produce.
Mr. President, our constituents have sent us to Washington, in part,
to act as their guardians by ensuring that their interests, as
taxpayers, are protected. Our obligations are not limited to making
sure that the funds provided by their taxes are spent wisely. It is
also the duty of everyone in this body to require that when taxpayer-
owned assets are disposed of, that the taxpayers receive a fair return.
It is beyond belief that anyone could argue that selling the naval
petroleum reserves for $1.55 billion is a better choice than creating a
Government corporation to own and operate the reserves which will
provide more than $4 billion adjusted for net present value.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring the
Naval Petroleum Reserves and Naval Oil Shale Reserves Corporatization
Act of 1996. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
appear in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1530

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 referred to as the ``Naval Petroleum
Reserves and Naval Oil Shale Reserves Corporatization Act of
1995''.

TITLE I--ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES CORPORATION.

SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CORPORATION.

(a) There is established a body corporate to be known as
the ``Naval Petroleum Reserves and Naval Oil Shale Reserves
Corporation'' (referred to in this Act as ``the
Corporation'').
(b) The Corporation is a for-profit, wholly owned
Government Corporation subject to chapter 91 of title 31,
United States Code (the Government Corporation Control Act).
The Corporation is an agency of the United States, subject to
annual apportionment under section 1512 of title 31, United
States Code.
(c) Jurisdiction and Control.--The Corporation has
exclusive jurisdiction and control over all of the Naval
Petroleum Reserves and Naval Oil Shale Reserves.

SEC. 102. CORPORATE OFFICES.

The Corporation shall maintain an office for the service of
process and papers in the District of Columbia, and is
considered, for purposes of venue in civil actions, to be a
resident of the District of Columbia. The Corporation may
establish offices in any other place it determines necessary
or appropriate in the conduct of its business.

SEC. 103. GENERAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CORPORATION.

The Corporation--
(a) may adopt, alter, and use a corporate seal, which shall
be judicially noticed;
(b) may settle and adjust claims, sue and be sued in its
corporate name, and be represented by its own attorneys in
all administrative and, with prior approval of the Attorney
General, judicial proceedings, including appeals from
decisions of Federal courts;
(c) shall adopt and may amend and repeal bylaws, and may
adopt, amend and repeal corporate orders and directives,
governing the manner in which its business may be conducted
and the powers granted to it by law may be exercised and
enjoyed;
(d) may acquire, purchase, lease, and hold the real and
personal property it considers necessary to conduct its
business;

[[Page S497]]

(e) may sell, lease, grant, and dispose of property as it
considers necessary to conduct its business;
(f) with the consent of the agency concerned, may utilize
or employ the services, records, facilities, or personnel, of
any Federal, State, or local government agency;
(g) may enter into contracts and incur liabilities;
(h) may retain or use up to $250 million annually of its
revenues, without further appropriation, for reasonable
capital and operating expenses of the Corporation;
(I) shall have the priority of the United States with
respect to the payment of debts out of bankrupt, insolvent,
and decedents' estates;
(j) may request from the Administrator of General Services
the services the Administrator is authorized to provide
agencies of the United States, and Administrator shall
furnish the requested services to the Corporation on the
same basis those services are provided agencies of the
United States;
(k) may accept gifts or donations of services or of real,
personal, mixed, tangible, or intangible property to conduct
its business; the Corporation shall establish written rules
setting forth the criteria to be used in determining whether
the acceptance of gifts or donations of real, personal,
mixed, tangible, or intangible property to conduct its
business under this subsection would reflect unfavorably upon
the ability of the Corporation or any employee to carry out
its responsibilities or official duties in a fair and
objective manner, or would compromise the integrity or
appearance of integrity of its programs or any official
involved in those programs;
(1) may execute all instruments necessary or appropriate in
the exercise of its powers;
(m) may acquire liability insurance or act as self-insurer;
(n) shall pay any settlement or judgment entered against it
from the Corporation's own funds and not from the judgment
fund established under section 1304 of title 31, United
States Code; section 1346(b) and chapter 171 of title 28,
United States Code do not apply to claims against the
Corporation; and
(o) may request the Secretary of the Treasury to invest
monies of the Corporation in public debt securities having
maturities suitable to the needs of the Corporation, and
bearing interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, taking into consideration current market yields on
outstanding obligations of the United States of comparable
maturity.

SEC. 104. SPECIFIC POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CORPORATION.

The Corporation--
(a) shall explore, prospect, develop, use, produce, and
operate the Reserves to maximize the economic value of these
properties to the Nation;
(b) may enter into joint, unit, or other cooperative plans,
leases, or other agreements and transactions as may be
necessary in the conduct of its business;
(c) subject to section 109(c) shall administer and may
amend existing contracts, including the Unit Plan Contract,
and other agreements transferred to the Corporation under
section 109(a) of this subtitle;
(d) may construct, acquire, or contract for the use of
storage and shipping facilities, and pipelines and associated
facilities, on and off the Reserves, for transporting
petroleum from the Reserves to the points where the
production from the Reserves will be refined and shipped;
(e) may store, for appropriate reimbursement reasonably
reflecting fair market value, petroleum owned or managed by
other Federal agencies and instrumentalities and may store
petroleum owned or managed by non-Federal entities at rates
consistent with subsection (j) of this section;
(f) may acquire privately owned lands and leases inside the
Reserves, or outside those Reserves on the same geologic
structure, by exchange or contract, and in order to protect
the Reserves from drainage, and if unable to arrange an
exchange or contract, by purchase or condemnation;
(g) may acquire any pipeline in the vicinity of the Reserve
not otherwise operated as a common carrier by condemnation,
if necessary, if the owner refuses to accept, convey, and
transport without discrimination and at reasonable rates any
petroleum produced at the Reserve;
(h) may acquire a right-of-way for new pipelines and
associated facilities by eminent domain under the Act of
February 26, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 258a-258e), and the prospective
holder of the right-of-way is ``the authority empowered by
law to acquire the lands'' within the meaning of that Act;
new pipelines shall accept, convey, and transport any
petroleum produced at the Reserves at reasonable rates;
(i) may use, store, or sell its share of the petroleum
produced from the Reserves and lands covered by joint, unit,
or other cooperative plans;
(j) shall establish prices for products, materials, and
services on a basis that will allow it to maximize the
financial return to the Government;
(k) shall give priority to assisting in national security
matters when requested by the Secretary of Defense; and
(l) shall transfer annually to the Treasury all revenues in
excess of that needed for reasonable capital and operating
expenses of the Corporation, but in no event may the revenues
retained or used for those purposes in any fiscal year exceed
$250 million.

SEC. 105. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

The powers and functions of the Corporation are vested in a
Chief Executive Officer to be appointed by the Secretary. The
Chief Executive Officer serves at the pleasure and under the
supervision of, and may be removed at the discretion of, the
Secretary. The Secretary shall set the compensation of the
Chief Executive Officer, not to exceed Executive Level III.

SEC. 106. EMPLOYEES.

(a) Appointments.--
(1) The Chief Executive Officer may appoint officers and
employees of the Corporation without regard to the provisions
in title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the
competitive service, and may fix compensation without regard
to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,
United States Code, governing general schedule
classifications and pay. In appointing officers of the
Corporation and setting their compensation, which may not
exceed Executive Level IV, the Chief Executive Officer
shall consult with the Secretary. Any officer or employee
of the Corporation may be removed at the discretion of the
Chief Executive Officer except as specified in subsection
(b) of this section.
(2) Section 3132(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E)'' the United States Navel Petroleum Reserves and
Naval Oil Shale Reserves Corporation;''.
(b) Transfer of Functions.--An officer or employee of the
Department who the Secretary determines is performing
functions vested in the Corporation by this subtitle is
transferred to the Corporation under section 3503 of title 5,
United States Code. Such an officer or employee retains the
compensation in effect immediately prior to the transfer to
the Corporation until changed by the Chief Executive Officer,
and may not be separated involuntarily by reason of the
transfer (but may be separated for cause) for a period of one
year from the date of the transfer to the Corporation.
(c) Payments for Employee Benefits.--
(1) The Corporation shall make those payments to the
Employees' Compensation Fund which are required by section
3147 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) The Corporation shall pay to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund--
(A) those employee deductions and agency contributions
which are required by sections 3334, 3422, and 3423 of title
5, United States Code.
(B) those additional agency contributions which are
determined necessary by the Office of Personnel Management to
pay, in combination with sums under paragraph (2)(A) of this
subsection, the normal cost (determined using dynamic
assumptions) of retirement benefits for the employees of the
Corporation who are subject to subchapter III of chapter 83
of title 5, United States Code; and
(C) those additional amounts, not to exceed two percent of
the amounts under paragraphs (2)(A) and (2)(B) of this
subsection, which are determined necessary by the Office of
Personnel Management to pay the costs of administering
retirement benefits for the Corporation's employees and
retirees and their survivors (which months shall be available
to the Office as provided in section 3343(a)(1)(B) of title
5, United States Code).
(3) The Corporation shall pay to the Employees' Life
Insurance Fund--
(A) those employees deductions and agency contributions
which are required by sections 8707 and 8708(a) of title 5,
United States Code; and
(B) those amounts which are determined necessary by
the Office of Personnel Management under paragraph (5) of
this subsection to reimburse the Office for contributions
under sections 8708(d) of title 5, United Stated Code.
(4) The Corporation shall pay to the Employees Health
Benefits fund--
(A) those employees payments and agency contributions which
are required by section 8906 (a)-(f) of title 5, United
States Code; and
(B) those amounts which are determined necessary by the
Office of Personnel Management under paragraph (5) of this
subsection to reimburse the Office for contributions under
section 8708(d) of title 5, United States Code.
(4) The Corporation shall pay to the Employees Health
Benefits fund--
(A) those employee payments and agency contributions which
are required by section 8906 (a)-(f) of title 5, United
States Code; and
(B) those amounts which are determined necessary by the
Office of Personnel Management under paragraph (5) of this
subsection to reimburse the Office for contributions under
section 8906(g)(1) of title 5, United States Code.
(5) The amounts required under paragraphs (3)(B) and (4)(B)
of this subsection are the Government contributions for
retired employees who retire from the Corporation after the
date of transfer, the survivors of those retired employees,
and survivors of the employees of the Corporation who die
after the date of the transfer, prorated to reflect the
portion of the total civilian service of such employee and
retired employees that was performed for the Corporation
after the date of transfer.
(6) The Corporation shall pay to the Thrift Savings Fund
those employee and agency contributions that are required by
section 8432 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) Separation Incentive Payments.--The Corporation shall
pay any voluntary separation incentive payments authorized,
but not yet paid, by the Department prior to the

[[Page S498]]
transfer of functions under subsection (b) of this section.

SEC. 107. EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION.

The Corporation, including the Reserves and all other
corporate property, all corporate activities, and all
corporate income are exempt from taxation in any manner or
form by any State or local government entity.

SEC. 108. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.

(a) Federal Laws Governing Acquisition and Disposal.--The
Corporation shall not be considered to be a department,
agency, establishment, or instrumentality of the United
States for purposes of Federal laws, regulations, or other
requirements concerning acquisition of services and supplies,
and the acquisition, use, and disposal of real and personal
property, including the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act (40 U.S.C. 471, et seq.), except that the
Corporation shall be considered to be a department, agency,
establishment, or instrumentality of the United States for
the purposes of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a-276-7),
the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act (41 U.S.C. 351,
et seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(40 U.S.C. 327, et seq.), and civil rights laws and
regulations applicable to Federal contractors and
subcontractors.
(b) Exemption From Administrative Procedural Provisions.--
Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, does not apply to
the Corporation.

SEC. 109. TRANSFERS TO THE CORPORATION.

(a) Transfer of Assets.--Subject to subsection (c) of this
section, the Secretary shall transfer to the Corporation the
contracts, records, unexpended balance of appropriations and
other monies available to the Department (including funds set
aside for accounts payable and all advance payments),
accounts receivable, and all other assets that are related to
the powers and functions vested in the Corporation by this
subtitle.
(b) Transfer of Liabilities and Judgments.--
(1) All liabilities attributable to the operation of the
Reserves by the Department are transferred to the
Corporation.
(2) Any judgment entered against the Department imposing
liability arising out of the operation of the Reserves by the
Department is considered a judgment against and is payable
solely by the Corporation.
(c) Unit Plan Contract Dispute Resolution.--The Secretary
shall retain, and shall not transfer, dispute resolution
authority under section 9 of the Unit Plan Contract.
(d) Payment of Interest to the Treasury.--From time to
time, and at least at the close of each fiscal year, the
Corporation shall pay into the Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts interest on any Federal financial capital utilized
by the Corporation, as determined by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget. The rate of such interest
shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking
into consideration prevailing market yields, during the month
preceding each fiscal year, on outstanding obligations of the
United States with remaining periods to maturity of
approximately one year.

TITLE II--PRIVATIZATION OF THE CORPORATION

SEC. 201. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR PRIVATIZATION.

(a) Within 5 years after the establishment of the
Corporation, the Corporation shall prepare a strategic plan
for transferring ownership of the Corporation to private
investors. The Corporation shall revise the plan as needed.
(b) The plan shall include consideration of alternative
means for transferring ownership of the Corporation to
private investors, including public stock offering, private
placement, or merger or acquisition. The plan may call for
the phased transfer of ownership or for complete transfer at
a single point of time. If the plan calls for phased transfer
of ownership, then--
(1) privatization shall be deemed to occur when 100 percent
of ownership has been transferred to private investors;
(2) prior to privatization, such stock shall be nonvoting
stock; and
(3) at the time of privatization, such stock shall convert
to voting stock.
(c) The plan shall evaluate the relative merits of the
alternatives considered and the estimated return to the
Government's investment in the Corporation achievable through
each alternative. The plan shall include the Corporation's
recommendations on its preferred means of privatization.
(d) The Corporation shall transmit copies of the strategic
plan for privatization to the President and Congress upon
completion.

SEC. 202. PRIVATIZATION.

(a) Subsequent to transmitting a plan for privatization
pursuant to section 101, and subject to subsections (b) and
(c), the Corporation may implement the privatization plan if
the Corporation determines, in consultation with appropriate
agencies of the United States, that privatization will result
in a return to the United States at least equal to the net
present value of the Corporation.
(b) The Corporation may not implement the privatization
plan without the approval of the President.
(c) The Corporation shall notify the Congress of its intent
to implement the privatization plan. Within 30 days of
notification, the Comptroller General shall submit a report
to Congress evaluating the extent to which--
(1) the privatization plan would result in any ongoing
obligation or undue cost to the Federal Government; and
(2) the revenues gained by the Federal Government under the
privatization plan would represent at least the net present
value of the Corporation.
(d) The Corporation may not implement the privatization
plan less than 60 days after notification of the Congress.
(e) Proceeds from the sale of capital stock of the
Corporation under this section shall be deposited in the
general fund of the Treasury.<bullet>
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 1531. A bill to reimburse States and their political subdivisions
for emergency medical assistance provided to illegal aliens under their
custody as a result of Federal action; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

immigration and naturalization service legislation

<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this legislation would require the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to reimburse States and
localities for the cost of emergency ambulance services provided to
illegal aliens injured while crossing the border. Currently, border
communities pay the high cost associated with providing emergency
ambulance services to illegal aliens. Although Federal authorities
consistently have placed illegal aliens injured crossing the border in
State and local custody in order to obtain medical services, the
Federal authorities have failed to reimburse local Governors for the
emergency ambulance services provided. As a result, Federal authorities
have left border States and localities to pick up the tab for a Federal
responsibility. This cannot continue.
In my home State of Arizona, the border city of Nogales has been
particularly impacted by the failure of Federal authorities to
reimburse the city for the costs of transporting aliens injured while
crossing the border. Between April 22 and July 31, 1995, 44 calls were
made by the Border Patrol to the city requesting ambulance service for
illegal aliens injured while crossing the border. Because these
patients rarely pay their own ambulance transport bill, the financial
burden on the city has become very heavy. The city has paid almost
$200,000 in ambulance costs in the past 6 years. This cost is
significant to Nogales, a border community which has only 20,000
inhabitants, a low tax base, and recently reported a $100,000 deficit.
The devaluation of the peso has left many Southwestern border
communities in a similarly depressed financial position. Illegal
immigration is a Federal matter and our Nation's border communities
cannot afford and should not be forced to pay for emergency ambulance
services provided at the request of Federal authorities. Again, that is
a Federal responsibility.
I recognize that a separate and much broader debate is being waged
across the Nation concerning a State's obligation to provide health
care and other social services to illegal aliens residing within its
borders. That issue is much larger and remains to be resolved. Today,
however, I believe we can all agree that Federal authorities who call
upon local emergency ambulance services for injured illegal aliens
should be required to pay for those ambulance services. Our border
States and communities should not be saddled with this additional
financial burden.<bullet>
______

By Mr. SIMON:
S. 1532. A bill to provide for the continuing operation of the Office
of Federal Investigations of the Office of Personnel Management, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS PRIVATIZATION ACT OF 1996

<bullet> Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, 1 year ago, as part of the National
Performance Review, the administration announced that the Office of
Personnel Management [OPM] would privatize its investigative branch,
the Office of Federal Investigations [OFI]. The Treasury and Postal
Service conference report directs OPM not to implement a reduction in
force before March 31, 1996, in order to allow the GAO to conduct a
cost-benefit analysis. OPM is prepared to initiate an employee stock
ownership plan [ESOP], which would have a sole source contract with OPM
for the first 2 to 3 years, after which contracts would be offered to
private firms. I am very concerned that privatization is

[[Page S499]]
not the best approach in this important area.
Today I offer legislation that would prevent immediate privatization
of this extremely important Government function. For over 40 years, the
OFI has been responsible for conducting background investigations for
potential employees of various agencies within the Federal Government,
including the Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, and the
Treasury Department. Overall, OFI conducts about 40 percent of all
Federal background investigations for positions ranging from
bureaucratic responsibilities to high-ranking positions requiring
substantial security clearances. In my view, shifting this
responsibility to the private sector raises a host of extremely
important questions which must be addressed before the decision to
privatize is made.
First, we must ensure that our national security is not in any way
jeopardized by a move to privatization. Currently, OFI does background
checks on individuals that will ultimately have access to top secret
information, including weapons systems and nuclear energy data. We need
to ask ourselves if this is the type of information that we want a
private investigator to have access to. If the answer is ``yes,''
certainly we need to carefully review the safeguards needed to ensure
that our national interests remain secure.
The ability of private firms to maintain the privacy of sensitive
records is another area that needs to be looked at closely. A private
contractor would potentially have the ability to amass large quantities
of information on Government employees. Although OPM has suggested that
they would have the ability to keep records private, I have not heard
specific measures that could be taken to guarantee this. Serious study
must be given to what measures can and should be taken to protect
privacy.
We must also ensure that quality investigations will continue to be
conducted. The Federal Government currently uses private investigators
for a very small fraction of background checks. The only experience
with private investigators on a large scale produced numerous
investigations that were not up to standard, or, even in a fraction of
cases, were falsified. This must not happen again. What safeguards can
and should OPM put in place to ensure that quality is maintained? We
must be certain that quality can be maintained before we make the
decision to privatize.
It is also important to ask ourselves if private investigators will
be able to provide the best available information to Government
agencies. Will they have difficulty obtaining vital information from
law enforcement officials? In a preliminary study, the General
Accounting Office [GAO] determined that law enforcement officials may
be reluctant to give out sensitive information to private
investigators. This issue deserves further study.
I have asked the GAO, as part of their ongoing cost-benefit analysis,
to address my concerns and report their findings to me before the end
of January, 1996. In addition, I sent a letter to a number of Federal
agencies asking for their input on the effect of privatization. In
response to my inquiry, I was told that privatization could cause
disruptions to operations and that the quality of investigations could
suffer. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the negative
impact that may be created by privatization.
My comments are not meant to imply that private contractors cannot
perform top quality investigations while also ensuring privacy and
protecting our national security. It is certainly conceivable that they
could. However, before this decision is made, we must be sure that
adequate study of the potential impact has been conducted.
The legislation I offer today would prevent privatization from
occurring for 2 years, during which time OFI would be prohibited from
reducing its number of full-time employees. In addition, the bill would
require OPM and the GAO to issue a comprehensive report detailing the
likely effect of privatization on all of the issues that I have
addressed.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. While I certainly
support the goals of the Clinton administration's National Performance
Review, and applaud efforts to eliminate Government waste, Federal
investigators employed by the government have served all of us
extremely well, and we should proceed with great caution before
changing this role.<bullet>
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 1533. A bill to provide an opportunity for community renewal and
economic growth in empowerment zones and enterprise communities, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

the community renewal and economic opportunity act of 1996

<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce
the Community Renewal and Economic Opportunity Act of 1996.
The bill contains 10 major initiatives to revive communities
afflicted by joblessness and crime and to help the neediest Americans
better provide for themselves and their families.
Included in the bill are measures to foster new job opportunities and
economic development in America's poorest communities through targeted
tax incentives; to improve public infrastructure in blighted areas by
channeling a greater percentage of Federal grant monies to the neediest
communities and by lowering the cost of project construction; to
invigorate the fight against violent crime which most seriously affects
low-income neighborhoods by allowing local law enforcement agencies to
keep a greater amount of forfeited criminal assets and by requiring
family opportunities for needy innocent victims; to increase family
opportunities for needy children by banning racial discrimination in
adoption; and to promote voluntarism by protecting volunteers against
liability.
All Americans, no matter who they are, where they live, or the color
of their skin, deserve the opportunity to provide for their families,
to pursue their aspirations and to share fully in the American dream.
History teaches us that there's no panacea for poverty and crime,
but, no matter how intractable the problem, it is the essence of the
American character to constantly advance our society so that the social
and economic progress of each generation exceeds that of its
predecessor. No American is unimportant. As a nation, we have a solemn
obligation to help those in need to help themselves. Our success in
that endeavor is bound only by the limits of our energy and
imagination.
It is painfully clear that the traditional welfare state response to
poverty and community decay has been a miserable failure. Over the past
30 years, we have spent over $5 trillion on poverty programs, yet
millions of Americans remain ensnared in the grinding cycle of
dependence and need. The time is now for new ideas and approaches to
restore hope and increase economic opportunity for all Americans.
The most effective way to revive American communities mired in
poverty and to improve the quality of life is to provide job
opportunities and sustainable economic development. A job and a
paycheck are the most effective welfare programs. And, as any mayor or
city council member in our country can attest, a healthy tax base
produced by an employed population is the most potent prescription for
community renewal.
Accordingly, the first title of the bill authorizes a battery of new
and expanded tax incentives to attract businesses to blighted areas and
to hire economically disadvantaged residents.
Four years ago, Congress designated 9 of the poorest communities in
America as enterprise zones and 90 others as enterprise communities.
The designation made these communities eligible for a host of tax
incentives and other community renewal programs. This was an excellent
step but inadequate in scope.
Currently, the law provides special tax benefits only to enterprise
zone businesses which hire at least 35 percent of their employees from
the local community. The bill I'm introducing would enhance the tax
incentive by allowing firms to take an additional ten percent tax
credit if they increase their local hiring rate to 50 percent.
Furthermore, the bill extends eligibility for the credit beyond
enterprise zones to include qualified businesses within the 90
enterprise communities, as well as 90 additional poverty stricken
economic recovery areas--areas

[[Page S500]]
which will be designated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development.
Many communities are suffering economic distress as deeply as the
areas we have officially designated as enterprise zones, and they
deserve the opportunity to attract the jobs and economic development
they so desperately need.
Mr. President, the 10-percent tax credit will serve as a strong
incentive for businesses to form within economically depressed areas
and to increase the hiring of local residents. However, the bill I'm
introducing today would also authorize what I believe might be an even
more powerful alternative inducement--a low 10-percent flat tax.
The bill would allow businesses within federally designated
enterprise zones, enterprise communities, and economic renewal areas
which hire at least half of their employees from the local community to
pay a simple 10-percent flat tax. Simplifying taxes and offering a low
incentive rate as an alternative to today's excessive and byzantine tax
rules, might prove to be the most potent inducement for businesses to
invest in places and in people that need the helping hand.
I look forward to hearing from employers on the relative merits of
the flat tax and the credit option.
No matter which option an employer might choose, it's clear that once
a company has opted to locate within a blighted area and to assume the
associated risk, one of the biggest challenges will be to attract the
capital and investment necessary for the enterprise to survive and
grow.
To address this need, the bill once again would use our tax system to
stimulate the necessary investment. Specifically, the bill would make
stock dividends from qualified enterprise zone and enterprise community
businesses nontaxable, and it would eliminate the capital gains tax for
investments held at least 5 years within designated enterprise zones,
enterprise communities and economic recovery areas. Exempting dividends
and capital gains within our poorest areas from taxes should attract a
healthy flow of job-producing capital investment.
So, Mr. President, this bill provides substantial new tax-based
incentives for companies to assume the risk of locating within blighted
areas and to invest in their human resources. However, we must
recognize that poverty and economic disadvantage do not confine
themselves within certain municipal boundaries. Economically
disadvantaged people reside in practically every community and we have
an obligation to help these Americans even if they do not happen to
live within areas of the most severe poverty.
Accordingly, the bill would expand the work opportunity tax credit
passed by Congress last year. The bill would raise the credit from 35
percent for the first $6,000 in wages for a targeted economically
disadvantaged employee to 35 percent for the first $12,000 in wages.
Expanding the credit will provide a greater incentive for businesses,
no matter where they are located, to hire economically disadvantaged
individuals; and will discourage the practice of rapidly turning over
employees in order to maximize the tax credit.
Most importantly, the bill expands the list of individuals who
qualify for the work opportunity tax credit. As currently conceived,
the credit would be available only to residents of enterprise zones and
enterprise communities; recipients of AFDC; vocational rehabilitation
recipients and Summer Youth. The bill extends the credit to individuals
who have been chronically unemployed, have few assets, and have been
living for a significant period of time under the poverty level.
A flexible, transportable, and more widely applied credit will help
needy individuals no matter where they reside or by whom they are
employed.
Mr. President, we all recognize that it's one thing to attract
businesses to the poorest communities and encourage them to hire the
most economically disadvantaged Americans by sweetening the tax
incentives, but ensuring that such firms are sustainable and can
overcome the many risks they assume to succeed in quite another.
Accordingly, the second major thrust of the bill's first title is to
use the purchasing power of the Federal Government to assist risk-
taking entrepreneurs and corporations who are willing to help poor
Americans.
The bill would accomplish that goal by reforming the Small Business
Administration's (8)(a) set-aside program. The current program provides
Federal contract set-asides to businesses based on the race or
ethnicity of the business owner. The bill would reorient the program by
making the set-asides available to businesses that hire economically
disadvantaged Americans regardless of their race, creed, or color.
As my colleagues are aware, the current (8)(a)program has been rife
with fraud and abuse. The record is replete with unsavory examples of
unscrupulous individuals establishing shell corporations to obtain set-
aside benefits and cases in which very wealthy and successful
enterprises remain in the program when they can and should compete
quite nicely through the normal competitive contracting process.
Mr. President, America is based on the concept of equality among all
people. As a society that aspires full equality and color blindness,
the time for special programs that focus on the race and ethnicity of
particular Americans rather than their economic status is past. A needy
American is a needy American no matter their race, creed, color, or
gender. Certainly, the Supreme Court's decision in the Adarand case
emphasized that reality that, by and large, race-based set-asides do
not comport with the fundamental tenets of equality and equal
protection.
The original purpose of the 8(a) program was to assist economically
disadvantaged Americans without regard to race or gender. I believe we
can return the program to its original intent, and assist far more
needy people than today's ownership-based program by providing set-
asides to businesses located within enterprise zones and communities as
well as to other firms which train and employ a significant percentage
of economically disadvantaged individuals.
Exactly how do we determine who is an ``economically disadvantaged
individual''? For purposes of this bill, EDI's are defined as: (1)
individuals who live within EZ's or EC's; (2) individuals who have
assets no greater than the ceiling allowed for AFDC eligibility; who
were not claimed as a dependent for 4 years preceding the date of their
hiring; and whose income did not exceed the poverty level in either the
year before their hiring nor in 3 of the 4 years before their hiring;
or (3) individuals with a dependent; who have assets no greater than
the ceiling allowed for AFDC eligibility; who were not claimed as a
dependent for 4 years preceding the date of their hiring; and whose
income did not exceed the poverty level during the year prior to their
hiring.
Once designated as an EDI an individual would retain the designation
for 5 years, which should be ample time for the employee to receive
training and to establish a work history. Reorienting the 8(a) program
as provided by this bill will help us to achieve the goals of assisting
economically disadvantaged individuals more fairly and effectively.
Finally, Mr. President, the first title of the bill recognizes the
important role private entrepreneurship can and should play in serving
the needs of our poorest communities and that we must do a better job
of promoting start-up enterprises. Toward that end, the bill would
establish a business mentor program under the auspices of the Small
Business Administration. The program would pair businesses owned by
economically disadvantaged individuals with mentor businesses and
lending institutions.
Pairing start-up enterprises owned by individuals who live within
poverty stricken areas with established mentor businesses will enhance
the success of first-time business owners creating additional jobs and
economic opportunity.
Mr. President, again, I want to stress a bill cannot be written that
will solve the problem of joblessness and poverty. But, I believe we
can make significant gains by employing the kinds of incentives
proposed by the bill I've introduced today. The incentives are not
perfect and I look forward to a detailed debate on the initiatives to
ensure that we craft incentives that will be as appropriate and cost-
effective as possible.
Mr. President, the second major title of this bill is designed to
assist depressed communities in improving their infrastructure. Strong
infrastructure and dependable public works such

[[Page S501]]
as roads, utilities, schools, and other public accommodations, are
critical to improving the quality of life and to fostering sustainable
community development. This bill would lower the cost of constructing
and operating public facilities by repealing the the Davis-Bacon Act
within enterprise zones and enterprise communities.
The Davis-Bacon Act requires that the prevailing union wages be paid
on all contracts and subcontracts for construction projects that
utilize Federal monies. This costly Federal mandate inflates the price
of infrastructure and disproportionately impacts poorer communities.
Moreover it makes it more difficult for entry level job seekers to
obtain training and work.
In addition, the bill would channel a greater share of Federal
Community Development Block Grant moneys to the neediest counties and
cities.
The Federal CDBG program was created to promote local economic and
community development. Current law requires that 70 percent of these
grant monies be channeled to disadvantaged communities. The bill
increases the amount to 75 percent and cuts the percentage allowed for
administrative overhead from 20 percent to 10 percent so that more
dollars can flow to bricks and mortar projects in needy areas.
Furthermore, the bill would require wealthier communities to cost-
share any CDBG grants they may receive. Greenwich, CT and Beverly
Hills, CA are fine communities, but we should not be spending scarce
Federal economic development aid in communities that can well afford to
meet their own needs, at the expense of much needier areas.
The third title of the bill seeks to improve educational
opportunities in the poorest communities. Quality education is the key
to improving the lives of our youth and helping to break the cycle of
poverty.
The bill authorizes a Federal school voucher system within enterprise
zones and enterprise communities. Empowering parents to send their
children to the schools that best meet their needs will increase the
quality of educational opportunity. The program would in no way require
the affected local school districts to diminish or reallocate their own
funding. The Federal monies would be additional to the local funds
currently used to run the affected school districts.
The fourth title of the bill seeks to make our streets safer. The
gravest threat to quality of life and community redevelopment within
blighted areas is violent crime. The streets must be made safer and
victims must be treated compassionately and justly.
The bill allows counties and cities which have a high rate of violent
crime to retain a higher share of Federal asset forfeiture proceeds
under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) statutes.
Current law allows local law enforcement agencies which participate
in a Federal RICO operation to have a share of the proceeds from asset
forfeiture. The bill would authorize an additional 25 percent share for
communities that suffer from inordinately high rates of violent crime.
The additional resources would be used for violent crime control
programs.
In addition, the safe streets title authorizes mandatory restitution
for certain violent crimes, and increases victim assistance resources
by boosting fines against Federal felons. This title mirrors
legislation that I had the privilege to work on with Senator Hatch,
Senator Nickles, Senator Biden, and other Members last year.
The bill's fifth title seeks to promote family opportunities for poor
children. The family unit is the foundation of our society. A loving
and supportive family is the key to a child's development into a
healthy and productive member of the community.
The bill prohibits racial discrimination in adoption. Many adoption
agencies make adoption decisions based on inappropriate racial
considerations. Consequently, countless children, many of them
minorities from the inner city remain in foster care, denied the
opportunity for a loving family.
Finally, the bill seeks to promote voluntarism. America has a proud
tradition of neighbor helping neighbor which must be nurtured and
sustained if we are to revitalize America's communities, particularly
those poverty stricken areas most needful of help.
The bill encourages states to pass laws protecting volunteers against
lawsuits. The provision is modeled after legislation introduced by
Congressman John Porter of Illinois. It's fundamentally unfair that we
continue to subject volunteers to the threat of liability when they
share their time, resources and expertise to help the community.
Increasing exposure to liability in our ever litigious society will
chill voluntarism to the detriment of all communities.
Mr. President, as I said, I do not pretend this bill is the answer to
all our inner city problems. Far from it. But, I believe it provides
some excellent initiatives which will help us make a real difference in
improving lives and communities of areas that need and deserve the help
of a caring nation.
Moreover, I am convinced we can enact these or very similar
initiatives without worsening the deficit. The programs that require
outlays or offsets, such as the package of tax credits, can be paid for
by reductions in non-essential programs that are of a lower priority
including, I might add, corporate pork.
This bill is by no means perfect or complete. I believe it is a
starting point for more vigorous debate and action to meet the
challenges of the poorest Americans and the neediest communities. I
look forward to a dialogue on the bill and the issues it raises, and to
hearing the many other suggestions about how most effectively to end
the cycle of poverty and dependence.
One suggestion I would make is that the appropriate committees hold
field hearings and engage the Americans who live in the poorest
communities in the debate over how best we can help them to meet the
needs of their families and their neighborhoods.
Too often politicians cloak themselves within the insulated, and many
times, out of touch environs of the Capitol as we devise the policies
that affect millions of lives. Perhaps it's time we more diligently
consult and work with real people and address their realities as we
endeavor to meet our oath of office and the needs of our great Nation.
I am pleased to note that his bill is strongly supported by Secretary
Jack Kemp of Empower America. Such an endorsement is germane and is as
fitting as it is welcome, because personal and community empowerment is
what this bill is about. It's about new alternatives to the failed
prescriptions of the past. It's about recognizing that every American
counts and that a leg up to self-sufficiency is more lasting,
meaningful, and compassionate than a handout; and that a caring nation
can and must help all of those who truly need assistance to participate
in the social, economic and political freedom that is the essence of
the American dream.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Community Renewal and Economic Opportunity Act of 1996

title i--jobs, paychecks, and tax base

The most effective way to revive America's poverty stricken
communities and to improve the quality of life for
economically disadvantaged residents is to stimulate job
creation and sustainable economic development--jobs,
paychecks and tax base. This title provides a battery of new
and expanded incentives for businesses to form and capitalize
within blighted areas and to hire local residents.
I. Tax credits and businesses that hire economically
disadvantaged individuals within blighted areas
Enables each qualified business located within a federally
designated Enterprise Zone and Enterprise Community to deduct
ten percent of its tax liability if 50 percent of its
employees are residents of the zone.
Current law provides special tax incentives to businesses
within the 9 designated Enterprise Zones if 35 percent of
their employees are residents of the area. Increasing the
incentive and expanding it to the 90 enterprise communities
and beyond (see below) will increase employment opportunities
for residents of blighted areas.
Authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
to designate an additional 90 poverty stricken communities in
which businesses would be eligible for the 10 percent
negative surtax.
Many communities are suffering the same economic distress
as areas designated to be Enterprise Zones and Communities.
Extending the credit to other economically distressed areas
will stimulate job creation and tax base.

[[Page S502]]

Authorizes zero capital gains tax for investments held for
at least five years within Enterprise Zones and Economic
Communities.
A zero capital gains tax will spur investment and economic
activity within economically depressed areas.
II. Tax incentives for hiring economically disadvantaged
individuals regardless of business location or employee
residence
Expands the Work opportunity Tax Credit from 35 percent for
the first $6,000 in wages for a targeted economically
disadvantaged employee to, 35 percent for the first $12,000
in wages.
Expanding the credit will provide a greater incentive for
businesses, no matter where they are located, to hire
economically disadvantaged individuals; and will reduce the
rapid turnover of economically disadvantaged employees in
order for businesses to take maximum advantage of the credit.
Expands the list of individuals who qualify for the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit to include individuals who have been
chronically unemployable.
The current Work Opportunity Tax Credit is available to
residents within Economic Zones and Enterprise Communities;
Recipients of AFDC; Vocational Rehabilitation recipients; and
Summer Youth. The bill expands the list to include
individuals who have been chronically unemployed, have few
assets and have been living for a period of time under the
poverty level.
III. Alternative flat tax for firms located in blighted areas
which hire local residents
Authorizes businesses within enterprise Zones ad Enterprise
Communities to replace their current tax liability with a 10-
percent flat tax option if 50 percent of their employees
reside within the zone.
A low flat tax can be a powerful incentive for businesses
to locate within economically distressed areas, and to hire
residents of those communities.
IV. Investor incentives to attract capital for firms located
in blighted areas
Makes stock dividends from businesses within Enterprise
Zones and Economic Communities non-taxable.
Tax free dividends will spur capital formation for
businesses which locate in economically distressed
communities and employ residents of high unemployment areas.
V. Contracting set-asides for business who hire and train
economically disadvantaged individuals
Transforms the SBA (8)(a) set-aside program from one that
provides federal contracting set-asides to businesses based
on the race or ethnicity of the owner, to one based on the
economic disadvantage of the business' employees.
Providing set-aside contracts to businesses located within
EZ and EC's or which hire economically disadvantaged people
will enable the federal government to utilize its purchasing
power to help a greater number of needy people in a more fair
and racially blind manner.
EDI's are defined as: (1) individuals who live within EZ's
or EC's, or (2) Individuals who have assets no greater than
the ceiling allowed for AFDC eligibility; who were not
claimed as a dependent for four years preceding the date of
their hiring; and whose income did not exceed the poverty
level in the year before their hiring nor in three of the
four years before their hiring, or (3) Individuals with a
dependent; who have assets no greater than the ceiling
allowed for AFDC eligibility; who were not claimed as a
dependent for four years preceding the date of their hiring;
and whose income did not exceed the poverty level during the
year prior to their hiring. Once designated as an EDI for
purposes of this program an individual retains the EDI
designation for a period of five years.
VI. Business ownership mentor program
Establishes a mentor program under the SBA to pair
businesses owned by economically disadvantaged individuals
with mentor businesses and lending institutions.
Pairing start-up enterprises owned by individuals who live
within poverty stricken areas with mentor businesses will
enhance the success of first time business owners.

title ii--utilities, schools and infrastructure

Successful and sustainable community development depends
upon healthy infrastructure and public works including
transportation, utilities, schools and other public
accommodations. Lowering the cost of constructing and
operating public facilities and providing additional
resources to poverty stricken communities is vital to
improving the quality of life within these areas.
Repeals Davis-Bacon within Enterprise Zones and Enterprise
Communities.
The Davis-Bacon Act requires the payment of prevailing
union wages for any contract or subcontract which utilizes
federal funding. The rule inflates the cost of public
facilities and disproportionately impacts poverty stricken
communities which have fewer resources.
Channels a greater share of federal Community Development
Block Grant monies to the neediest counties and cities.
The federal CDBG program was created to assist communities
with economic and community development project. Currently,
70 percent of these grant monies are to be channeled to
disadvantaged communities. The bill increases the amount to
75 percent and cuts the percentage allowed for administrative
overhead from 20 to 10 percent and calls on wealthier
communities to cost share CDBG grants so that more dollars
can flow to bricks and mortar projects in needy areas.

title iii--educational choice

Quality education is the key to improving the lives of our
youth and helping to break the cycle of poverty.
Authorizes a federal school voucher program within
enterprise zones and enterprise communities.
Empowering parents to send their children to the schools
that best meet their needs will increase and improve the
educational opportunity of Americans who reside within
blighted communities. Educational quality will dramatically
improve with competition. The bill would authorize voucher
payments to families within EZ and EC and would not redirect
or diminish the local funding of area schools.

title iv--safe streets

The gravest threat to quality of life and community
redevelopment within blighted areas is violent crime. The
streets must be made safer and victims must be treated
compassionately and justly.
Allows counties and cities which have a high rate of
violent crime to retain a higher share of federal asset
forfeiture proceeds under the Racketeer Influence Corrupt
Organization (RICO) statutes.
Current law allows local law enforcement agencies which
participate in a federal asset seizure to a percentage of the
asset proceeds. The percentage reflects the level of
participation by the local agency. The bill allows an
additional 20 percent of the asset proceed to go to
communities that are disproportionately affected by violent
crime.
Authorizes mandatory restitution for certain violent
crimes, and increases the federal Crime Victim Fund by
increasing fines against federal felons.
Current law does not mandate that violent criminal
compensate their victims.

title vi--family opportunity

The family unit is the foundation of our society. A loving
and supportive family is the key to a child's development
into a healthy and productive member of the community.
Prohibits racial discrimination in adoption which deprives
millions of children from the opportunity to have a family.
Many adoption agencies make adoption decisions based on
racial consideration. Consequently countless children, many
of them minorities from the inner city remain in foster care,
denied the opportunity for permanent family placement.

title vii--voluntarism

America has a proud tradition of neighbor helping neighbor
which must be nurtured and sustained if we are to revitalize
America's communities, particularly those poverty stricken
areas most in need of a helping hand.
Encourages states to pass laws protecting volunteers
against lawsuits.
It's fundamentally unfair that we continue to subject
volunteers to the threat of liability when they share their
time, resources and expertise to help the community. The
exposure to liability in our increasingly litigious society
will chill voluntarism to the detriment of all
communities.<bullet>
______

By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):

S. 1534. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
additional support for and to expand clinical research programs, and
for other purposes; to the Commission on Labor and Human Resources.

THE CLINICAL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1996

<bullet> Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the proud tradition of American
leadership in science and health care has been an important factor in
our international stature and our domestic quality of life. This
tradition is however vulnerable and may wither if not nurtured. The CBO
predicts that national expenditures for health will reach the
astonishing sum of $1,613 billion by the year 2000. This an
astronomical sum for a nation who seemingly can meet its health care
needs. Investments in biomedical research offer the only reasonable
hope of reducing not only monetary costs, but, more importantly, human
suffering.
Biomedical research is commonly thought of as existing in two
spheres. The first is ``basic'' research in which fundamental
biological principles are studied primarily in laboratories using
molecules, cells or animals. The second is ``clinical'' or patient
oriented research [POR], in which the scientific principles discovered
in the lab are applied to patients with disease. To determine which of
several medicines is most effective in curing a cancer, careful
comparison of these drugs is necessary in large groups of real people.
To understand which of several different types of treatment: medical,
surgical, or nutritional is best in helping patients not merely for the
short run but over time, the various treatment

[[Page S503]]
options must be tried systematically on real people. The emphasis is on
people. We must use the knowledge gained by biomedical research to help
people get better.
Both aspects of biomedical research are essential because they depend
upon each other--without the foundation of basic research, clinical
research would be impossible. For example the current successful
treatment of sickle cell Anemia which so cruelly strikes young people,
had its origins in basic research from the development of chicken
embryos. Medications which modified chicken embryonic cells were found
to also enable monkeys to manufacture certain types of hemoglobin,
hemoglobin a component of blood cells necessary to combat thalassemia
and sickle cell disease. The studies moved from basic research in
chickens to monkeys and finally to clinical research in humans leading
to a successful therapy for a previously terrible disorder.
Yet despite their mutual importance clinical research has failed to
receive the support necessary to permit us to fully benefit from the
advances of basic research. The proposal for a national fund for health
research which Senator Harkin and I have introduced goes a long way to
prevent the possibility of robbing funds from Peter to pay Paul. We
need more money in the system, but we also will have a better balance
between basic and clinical research.
The Institute of Medicine has recently published an exhaustive report
which concludes that clinical research is in a state of crisis. A state
which if not addressed will result in: a serious deficiency of clinical
expertise; a paucity of effective clinical interventions; an increase
in human suffering and disability; and ultimately an increase in the
cost of medical care.
Historically clinical research has resulted in marked improvements in
care and costs. A $1.2 million investment in neonatal screening for
subnormal thyroid has saved $206 million in treatment costs annually. A
$679,000 investment in developing a treatment for recurring renal
stones has resulted in an estimated savings of $300 million annually. A
multicenter clinical trial of interventions in stroke prevention cost
approximately $4.6 million. Its results could prevent 20 to 30,000
strokes per year with an annual savings of $200 million. All of these
and many other achievements have occurred because of the ability of
clinical research to take knowledge derived from basic research to the
bedside, bridging the gap between the laboratory and the patient.
Yet despite its clear societal and economic benefits, clinical
research is in crisis. The amount and proportion of personnel and
fiscal resources devoted to clinical research, particularly at the NIH
has fallen to levels which place our Nation at a severe disadvantage.
Unable to capitalize on new discoveries, the quality of life of our
patients slowly falls as ironically our costs continue to rise. The
nature of this crisis is threefold a relative lack of: people involved
in clinical research; an infrastructure to adequately select and
support the best clinical research; and declining fiscal investment in
biomedical research overall.

PEOPLE

While the United States continues to train large numbers of excellent
young physicians the proportion of those choosing careers in clinical
research becomes ever smaller. The Association of American Medical
Colleges [AAMC] survey of 1994 medical graduates found that only 10
percent of these young physicians intended to enter research careers.
Students enrolled in public medical schools were much less likely to
choose research careers than those attending private institutions.
America's teaching hospitals have of necessity increased the
proportion of their income derived from service from 12.2 percent
1971-- to 38.5 percent--1988. As a result the proportion of physicians
in those institutions who are active in research has fallen from 40 to
25 percent. This leaves fewer clinicians available for instruction of
students and fewer investigators for clinical research.

INSTITUTIONS

Our medical schools need to increase their focus on the training of
students for clinical research careers. Fully 58 percent of 1994
graduates reported inadequate instruction in research techniques.
Unlike the situation in Ph.D. programs for basic research, there is no
clear academic pathway into a clinical research career. Only 11 percent
of physicians in clinical departments are principle investigators of
NIH grants. This compares unfavorably to 27 percent rate for Ph.D.'s.
As a result there are relatively fewer role models for young clinical
researchers.
Our ability to fund new research ideas has not been able to keep pace
with the development of new initiatives. It is extremely difficult for
young clinical investigators to even obtain research funding. Only 55
percent of all applicants for NIH grants are ever funded. The overall
number of research grant applications has increased by 42 percent from
14,142 in 1980 to 20,154 in 1990. The number of new grant applications
funded has actually fallen by 15 percent from 5,400 in 1989 to 4,600 in
1990. This is complicated by the fact that the greatest proportion of
research grants goes to continue funding previously granted awards, 70
percent. So that ever increasing number of new projects compete with an
ever smaller pool of resources.
The emphasis is so heavily weighted toward basic research that the
NIH has difficulty determining just what proportion of funded studies
are directed at patients. The Institute of Medicine estimates that only
10.4 percent of all NIH funded research is clinical research. Only 20
percent of grant reviewers are physicians, therefore the expertise
necessary to critically review clinical research applications is
considerably less than that for basic research. With the proportion of
funded proposals falling to approximately 25 percent of submissions the
odds of gaining grant funding are now low enough that young
investigators are turning away from clinical research careers. The NIH
has recognized these deficiencies and has made recommendations to
reverse this trend. Implementation however requires more resources.
Implementation also requires cooperation from the community of health
care providers. Many insurance companies and managed care plans
discourage or prevent persons from participating in clinical studies.
This limits access to potentially helpful therapies for patients, and
inhibits the ability of researchers to find patients to work with and
hence make new discoveries. Insurers who eventually benefit from new
treatments which by alleviating illness lowers costs, must contribute
to the process by encouraging rather than discouraging patient
participation.

FUNDING

The level of support for biomedical research, particularly for the 75
general clinical research centers, has been relatively flat over the
past 5 years, just barely keeping up with inflation.
The resulting increased competition by more investigators for a piece
of an ever smaller pie results in a stagnation and atmosphere where
innovation and clinical research is sublimated for short term
laboratory based projects which produce publishable results quickly.
The legislation I and my colleague Senator Kennedy are introducing
today, the Clinical Research Enhancement Act, will rectify these
problems by: First, establishing a President's Research Advisory Panel
within the Office of Science and Technology Policy, [OSTP]. This panel
will regularly evaluate the status of clinical research in the United
States so that we are continually aware of our progress. It will make
recommendations for any necessary improvements in clinical research and
monitor them to ensure that we reach our goals.
Second, we will increase the involvement of the NIH in clinical
research. The Director of NIH will establish intramural clinical
research fellowship programs to train clinical researchers. There will
be increases in the number of FIRST Grants for young investigators, and
by implementing the recommendations of the NIH's own Clinical Research
Study Group improve the merit review process for evaluating
applications.
Third, we will stabilize the funding of general clinical research
centers. It is within these centers that much of the training of young
investigators as well as actual clinical research is done.
Fourth, we will create new opportunities for career development in
clinical research. This through the development of clinical research
career enhancement awards, and expansion of

[[Page S504]]
the Loan Repayment Program for Clinical Researchers.
Fifth, we will establish innovative medial service awards to
stimulate the development of new and creative clinical research
proposals.
Rectifying the disparagement between support of basic and clinical
research will serve to more effectively promote the types of
discoveries that we have all come to expect. It is my hope that this
proposal for clinical research enhancement is not seen as simply
another cost of health care, but as a way, really the only way to
eventually reduce costs both in terms of dollars and human life.
I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting legislation to enhance
the pipeline for clinical researchers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Clinical Research Enhancement Act of 1996--Section-by-Section
Summary

Section 1--Short Title: The Clinical Research Enhancement
Act of 1996
Section 2--Findings and Purposes: Clinical research,
patient-oriented research requiring the participation of a
human subject, is in decline. Independent studies at the
National Research Council, the National Institute of Medicare
and the National Academy of Sciences have all addressed the
current problems in clinical research. The decline in young
clinical investigators is attributed to a heavy debt burden,
lack of a federal support system, and lack of a formal
training regime. It is the purpose of this Act to provide for
a mechanism to address these problems and a stimulus for
physicians to enter clinical research.
Section 3--President's Clinical Research Panel: The
President shall establish within the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, a panel, to evaluate the status of the
national clinical research environment, and prepare periodic
progress reports to the President. It will be composed of
representatives from clinical research, insurance and
pharmaceutical companies, health maintenance organizations,
accreditation and certification organizations, academic
research administrators and patients. Its members will be
nominated by the President of the Institute of Medicine.
Section 4--NIH Director's Advisory Committee on Clinical
Research: The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
designate the advisory committee established by the Director
of NIH. This committee will report to the Director and the
President's Panel. It will review the status of clinical
research within NIH and implement changes as necessary.
Section 5--Study Section Review: The President's Clinical
Research Panel shall direct the Office for Science and
Technology to review study section activities of all federal
agencies conducting or funding clinical research.
Section 6--Increase the Involvement of the National
Institutes of Health in Clinical Research: The Director of
NIH shall:
1. Increase the number of FIRST grants.
2. Design test pilot projects.
3. Establish an intramural clinical research fellowship
program at NIH.
4. Support and expand resources available for the clinical
research community.
5. Establish peer review mechanisms to evaluate
applications: for Instramural Fellowships; Clinical Research
Career Enhancement Awards; & Innovative Medical Science
Awards.
Section 7--General Clinical Research Centers: The Director
shall award grants for General Clinical Research Centers to
provide the infrastructure for clinical research, training
and enhancement. Expand the activities of the centers through
increased use of telecommunications and telemedicine.
Establish grant programs at the centers. The Director of the
National Center for research Resources shall establish:
Clinical Career Enhancement Awards; and Innovative Medical
Science Awards.
Section 8--Clinical Research Assistance: Expand the current
Loan Repayment Program Regarding Clinical Researchers from
Disadvantaged Backgrounds to include students with heavy debt
burdens. Increase the numbers of awards from 50 to 100.
Establish a minority set-aside of 50%.
Section 9--Insurance coverage of investigational
treatments: A health plan shall allow individuals when
medically appropriate to participate in investigational
therapy.
Section 10--Definition: Define ``clinical research'' as
``patient oriented clinical research requiring the
participation of a human subject, or research on the causes
and consequences of disease in human populations.''
____

Supporters of Hatfield Clinical Research Bill (79)

Academy of Radiology Research.
Alzheimer's Association.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
American Academy of Dermatology.
American Academy of Neurology.
American Academy of Ophthalmology.
American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery.
American Association of Anatomists.
American College of Clinical Pharmacology.
American College of Medical Genetics.
American Diabetes Association.
American Federation for Clinical Research.
American Geriatrics Society.
American Gastroenterological Association.
American Neurological Association.
American Nurses Association.
American Orthopaedic Association.
American Podiatric Medical Association.
American Society for bone and Mineral Research.
American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and
Therapeutics.
American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.
American Society for Addiction Medicine.
American Society of Hematology.
American Society of Human Genetics.
American Society of Nephrology.
American Veterinary Medical Association.
Arthritis Foundation.
Association for Behavioral Sciences and Medical Education.
Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Neurobiology
Chairs.
Association of Behavioral Sciences and Medical Education
Association.
Association of Academic Health Centers.
Association of American Cancer Institutes.
Association of Medical and Graduate Departments of
Biochemistry.
Association of Pathology Chairs.
Association of Professors of Dermatology.
Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine.
Association of Schools of Public Health.
Association of Subspecialty Professors.
Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine.
Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology.
Association of University Radiologists.
Central Society for Clinical Research.
Citizens for Public Action on Blood Pressure and
Cholesterol, Inc.
Coalition for American Trauma Care.
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
Department of Orthopaedics/Rehabilitation at the University
of New Mexico.
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the
University of Southern California.
Department of Physiology at the University of Florida
College of Medicine.
Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association of
America.
The Epilepsy Foundation of America.
Federation of Behavioral/Psychological and Cognitive
Sciences.
Foundation for Ichthyosis and Related Skin Types.
General Clinical Research Center Program Directors'
Association.
General Clinical Research Center at the University of
Alabama at Birmingham.
Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.
Lupus Foundation of America, Inc.
National Alopecia Areata Foundation.
National Caucus of Basic Biomedical Science Chairs.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare.
National Foundation for Ectodermal Dysplasias.
National Marfan Foundation.
National Osteoporosis Foundation.
National Organizations for Rare Disorders, Inc.
National Perinatal Association.
National Psoriasis Foundation.
National Tuberous Sclerosis Association.
The Orton Dyslexia Society.
Scleroderma Research Foundation.
Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
Society for Investigative Dermatology.
Society for Neuroscience.
Society for the Advancement of Women's Health Research.
Society of Medical College Director of Continuing Medical
Education.
Society of University Urologists.
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.
The Endocrine Society.
Tourette Syndrome Association.
United Scleraderma Foundation.
University of Alabama at Birmingham.
____

American Federation for

Clinical Research,

January 25, 1996.
Hon. Mark Hatfield,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatfield: On behalf of the American Federation
for Clinical Research, I write in strong support of the
``Clinical Research Enhancement Act.'' The legislation you
are introducing today addresses critical problems facing our
country: the loss of a generation of young physician
scientists because of medical school tuition debts and
limited funding opportunities, the loss of our international
competitiveness in medicine as scientists in other nations
move ahead to capitalize on basic science discoveries with
new therapies and products, and the increasing difficulties
confronting patients who wish to participate in clinical
research but are limited by the unwillingness of insurance
companies to cover any investigational therapies.
The Clinical Research Enhancement Act addresses these
problems through the creation of new career development and
research programs, the expansion of existing

[[Page S505]]
NIH loan repayment opportunities for physician scientist, and mandates
on insurance companies to expand coverage of investigational
treatments. Further, the creation of a Presidential
commission on clinical research will bring to the attention
of our nation's leaders critical obstacles to the advancement
of medical science.
The 11,000 members of the American Federation for Clinical
Research are in strong support of this legislation and call
on the Congress to pass the Clinical Research Enhancement Act
before adjourning in the fall. America has led the world in
medical science. The bill you introduce today will help to
assure that we maintain that leadership.
Sincerely,
Veronica Catanese, M.D.,

President.<bullet>

______

By Mr. ABRAHAM:
S. 1535. A bill to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws of
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

the illegal immigration control and enforcement act of 1996

<bullet> Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce the Illegal
Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 1996. This bill would crack
down on the problem of illegal immigration without retreating from our
historic commitment to legal immigration.
There is a broad consensus that illegal immigration is a significant
problem that demands immediate attention. But in addressing that
problem, we must not blur the distinction between illegal and legal
immigrants. The overwhelming majority of legal immigrants are law-
abiding, hard-working people who make a positive contribution to our
economy and our society.
An omnibus immigration bill recently reported out of the Judiciary
Subcommittee for Immigration overlooks this distinction. Rather than
focus on illegal immigration, the omnibus bill would reduce the quotas
for certain categories of legal immigration, eliminate other categories
altogether, and impose stifling new taxes and red tape on American
businesses that employ talented immigrants. The omnibus bill would also
burden every American worker and business with a new national-
identification system that would vastly expand the power of the Federal
Government in the workplace.
The bill I introduce today has a more targeted approach. First, the
bill aims to take back control of our borders. It would nearly double
the number of border patrol agents, adding 900 such agents for each of
the next 5 fiscal years. It would provide new equipment and support
personnel for these agents. And it would significantly increase the
criminal penalties for the practice of smuggling aliens across our
border.
Second, the bill would for the first time address the problem caused
by persons who overstay their visas. According to the INS, roughly half
of all illegal aliens enter the United States with legal, nonimmigrant
visas and then remain here after their visas expire. Yet, incredibly,
under current law there is no penalty for overstaying one's visa.
Moreover, visa overstayers are virtually never caught by the INS, so
overstaying is for many aliens a risk-free choice. But the Illegal
Immigration Control and Enforcement Act would change all this. Persons
who overstay a visa would be ineligible for additional visas for at
least 3 to 5 years. Since many visa overstayers hope to reside here
legally one day, this penalty would have a significant deterrent
effect. To help catch those persons who nevertheless stay here after
their visas expire, the bill would authorize the addition of 300 new
INS investigators in each of the next 3 fiscal years, who would focus
exclusively on visa overstayers. The upshot should be a significant
reduction in the numbers of these illegal aliens.
Third, the bill would streamline the deportation of criminal aliens.
Although, under current law, aliens convicted of felonies after entry
are deportable, they are, in fact, rarely deported because of their
ability to seek repeated judicial review of their deportation order.
That would change under the provisions in my bill, which are stronger
than those in the omnibus immigration bill. Under my bill, aliens who
are convicted of serious crimes would simply be deported upon
completion of their sentences without any further judicial review of
their deportation order. These provisions would apply to nearly half a
million alien felons currently residing in this country.
Fourth, my bill would also respond to the pleas of businesses,
particularly small businesses, who wish to follow the law but whose
efforts to do so are thwarted by the bewildering array of documents
that, under current law, are acceptable for employment verification. To
help these employers, the bill would reduce the number of acceptable
employment verification to a relative handful of documents familiar to
all employers.
Finally, Mr. President, the bill I introduce today also includes
important welfare reforms similar to those in H.R. 4, the bill that was
sent to the President and vetoed. Like H.R. 4, my bill would deny
Federal means-tested benefits like welfare, food stamps, and SSI to
illegal aliens and sharply restrict the eligibility of legal aliens to
receive these benefits. Unlike the omnibus bill reported out of the
Judiciary Subcommittee for Immigration, however, my bill would not
continue to apply these provisions to immigrants who become citizens of
the United States. In my view, we should not create classes of American
citizens for this purpose.
In summary, Mr. President, we need to focus our efforts on those
areas where the real problem lies. By doing so, my bill would address
our legitimate concerns about illegal immigration and welfare abuse
without abandoning our commitment to family reunification, imposing new
taxes and fees on American employers, or handing the Federal Government
sweeping new powers in the workplace.<bullet>
______

By Mr. THOMPSON:
S. 1536. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to permit
Federal firearms licenses to conduct firearms business with other such
licensees at out-of-State gun shows; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

THE FIREARMS DEALERS REGULATORY RELIEF ACT OF 1996

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
will serve to correct and clarify section 923 of title 18 of the United
States Code affecting licensed firearms dealers. The bill amends the
United States Code to permit the 200,000 Federal firearms licensees to
conduct firearms business with other licensees at out-of-State gun
shows.
This legislation is needed to address the problem that federally
licensed gun dealers have when they buy, sell, or trade high-end
collector's arms at out-of-State gun shows. Most of these firearms are
in the $2,000 to $10,000 range and are not the target of illegal arms
traffickers. Under current law, when licensed dealers meet at an out-
of-State gun show and conduct business, they must return home and ship
the firearms via common carrier from their respective States of
residence. In doing so, the dealers take great risk of loss, theft, or
damage and great expense of shipping and insurance of what may be one-
of-a-kind items.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, [BATF], has indicated
that they would be willing to work with us ``to enact legislation which
will reduce the regulatory burden on the legitimate firearms industry
while maintaining adequate controls to combat the criminal misuse of
firearms.'' They said they would have changed the regulations to allow
these types of commerce if not for the prohibitions that they interpret
to be in the law. I welcome this spirit of cooperation.
This bill would make Congress' intent clear to the BATF that Federal
firearms license holders are not the source of illegal gun trafficking.
Federal firearms license [FFL] holders are already closely regulated by
the Bureau as legitimate businesses. If a person is responsible enough
to obtain a Federal firearms license in Tennessee, then he is
responsible enough to conduct business in Kentucky, North Carolina, or
California. The BATF already recognizes this fact but, because of the
way the current law is written, it must, nonetheless, enforce the
byzantine route to conduct business.
All those concerned by the illegal use of firearms should support
this bill, as direct transfer of firearms will improve the atmosphere
ensuring that all guns will be recorded on dealers' books, thereby
providing law enforcement agencies the records they need when firearms
are used illegally.

[[Page S506]]

This bill has the support of the Collector Arms Dealer's Association
which represents 50,000 gun dealers and collectors.
______

By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Simpson):
S. 1537. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to issue a regulation that consolidates all
environmental laws and health and safety laws applicable to the
construction, maintenance, and operation of aboveground storage tanks,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.

the aboveground storage tank consolidation and regulatory improvement
act

<bullet> Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to address an
important gap in Federal environmental law: The regulation of
underground releases from aboveground storage tanks.
With this bill, we have an opportunity to work together with both
industry and environmental groups to reform the Federal AST--
aboveground storage tank--program, reduce the regulatory burden on
industry, and improve the environment. Following efforts in the 103d
Congress to improve the safety of AST's, I am introducing the
Aboveground Storage Tank Consolidation and Regulatory Improvement Act.
For the past 6 years, those of us who live in northern Virginia have
received an education on just how flawed the current Federal law is.
In September 1990, a petroleum sheen was discovered in a neighborhood
creek in the Mantua-Stockbridge community in Fairfax County, VA.
It was the beginning of a continuing nightmare for a number of local
residents, who have had to live with the knowledge that more than
200,000 gallons of petroleum product-diesel oil, jet fuel and gasoline
has leaked from the nearby Pickett Road tank farm.
The exact size of the leak, and its precise causes, are still
unknown. What we have seen however, is the fallout: negative health
effects, environmental damage, and needless losses of millions of
dollars. Some residents were temporarily relocated, others have simply
moved, and still others continue to live with a cloud over their heads.
All of these residents are still wondering when the Federal Government
will move to address the issue of leaking aboveground storage tanks.
To date, Star Enterprise, a Texaco affiliate, has expended in excess
of $100 million in remediation costs, real estate transactions,
settlement of claims, and compliance with new State AST requirements.
Fairfax County has had to spend $500,000 to provide enforcement,
oversight and community relations regarding the Pickett Road tank farm
incident.
Unfortunately, problems with leaking AST's are not restricted to
northern Virginia. Across the Nation, there are hundreds of similar
leaks from aboveground petroleum storage tanks.
Major petroleum releases have occurred in Anchorage, AK; Torrance,
CA; Port Everglades, FL; Hartford IL; Granger, IN; Cattlettsburg, KY;
Charlotte, NC; Sparks, NV; Paulsboro, NJ; Syracuse, NY; Greensboro, NC;
Ponca City, OK; Philadelphia, PA; Spartanburg, SC; Austin, TX; and
Tacoma, WA.
At least five involve releases larger than the Exxon Valdez oil
tanker catastrophe.
Whereas the Exxon Valdez spilled some 11 million gallons of oil,
aboveground tanks in El Segundo, CA have released between 84 and 252
million gallons.
In Martinez, CA, 28 million gallons have been released.
A Tulsa, OK facility has released between 25 and 28 million gallons,
and a Whiting, IN facility released 17 million gallons.
In Brooklyn, NY, residents are sitting on top of a 13 to million
gallon release.
According to the Environmental Defense Fund [EDF], between 20 and 25
percent of AST's nationwide and their associated piping are likely to
be leaking. A July 1994 American Petroleum Institute industry survey
showed that over 85 percent of monitored refining and marketing
facilities have confirmed ground water contamination; of the facilities
with ground water contamination, a high percentage have off-site
contamination--44 percent of refineries, at least 35 percent of
marketing facilities, and 27 percent of transportation facilities.
A 1995 General Accounting Office [GAO] study on aboveground oil
storage tanks that I requested, reported that EPA has found leaks
typically originate from the bases of tanks where contact with soil
causes corrosion; from underground piping; and from overflows
associated with the transfer of stored product.
On the basis of age, the likelihood of developing corrosion leaks,
and leak detection thresholds, EPA's preliminary estimates show that
AST's with a storage capacity in excess of 42,000 gallons could be
leaking between 43 million and 54 million gallons of oil annually.
Because petroleum contracts and expands as temperatures vary, it is
often difficult to detect leaks. And because petroleum is relatively
cheap, it is often less expensive to allow a known leak to continue
than to interrupt operations and make a repair.
Because AST leaks are often slow and underground, they frequently do
not receive the attention of the big oil tanker catastrophes, but are
nonetheless dangerous.
Petroleum releases can present serious health, safety, and
environmental risks. Petroleum, including gasoline, contains extremely
toxic compounds, like benzene.
A plume of petroleum product can seep into basements and sewers,
reaching toxic levels and causing explosions and the threat of fire.

In addition, leaking AST's can permanently contaminate groundwater, a
source of drinking water for more than half the Nation. And in many
cases, groundwater contamination will inevitably lead to surface water
contamination.
While the extent of injuries is unknown, the 1995 GAO study reported
that most injuries to human beings from exposure to oil have occurred
as a result of inhaling its vapors. Effects on humans from exposure to
petroleum include everything from lethargy, dizziness, and convulsions
to coma, blood cancers (such as leukemia) and generalized suppression
of the immune system from chronic exposure by inhalation.
And we know now that these threats present unique challenges for
sensitive subpopulations such as infants, pregnant women, the elderly,
and those with AIDS and other debilitating diseases.
What is astounding is that where underground storage tanks are highly
regulated by a comprehensive Federal program, aboveground storage
tanks, used to store some 100 billion gallons of oil nationwide, are
only loosely regulated by a patchwork of confusing Federal regulations.
In many cases, State fire codes regulate AST's.
State authorities are beginning to take notice of the leaking AST
problem, but only 20 States have regulations on the books, and only 5
of these currently require genuine secondary containment, such as a
double bottom or liner under a tank or piping.
Unfortunately, State programs vary widely and present problems for
tank owners with multistate operations.
This is an enormous problem today; and it will likely continue to
grow as storage tank owners seek to exploit the gaps in current Federal
law by acquiring AST's over the more highly regulated underground
storage tanks.
According to a January 1993 survey conducted by the Steel Tank
Institute, new tank purchases of aboveground tanks are running ahead of
underground tanks by a 5:2 ratio. And according to many State
regulators and industry experts, this trend is continuing into the
future.
This is troublesome from an environmental standpoint, and also from a
fire safety perspective since aboveground tanks pose a much greater
risk of fire hazard than underground tanks.
In 1989, the GAO conducted a study of inland oil spills and found
existing laws deficient. In its report GAO proposed seven
recommendations to EPA that if implemented, would improve the safety of
aboveground oil storage tanks.
In 1995, Senator Daschle, Representative Moran, and I asked GAO to
investigate the progress of EPA's implementation of the
recommendations. This report found that overall EPA has failed to
implement or take any action on the majority of the recommendations.
At the most elementary level, current law does not even require
comprehensive data collection or reporting

[[Page S507]]
to know exactly how many aboveground storage tanks are leaking.
In the 103d Congress, I sponsored legislation that would have
established a comprehensive regulatory program for AST's and I
cosponsored legislation offered by the distinguished Senator from South
Dakota, Senator Daschle, to regulate the estimated 800,000 to 900,000
petroleum aboveground tanks, nationwide.
Residents in Senator Daschle's home State were victims in 1987 of a
disastrous 20,000-gallon leak in which an elementary school had to be
evacuated and abandoned after vapors began filtering up into the
building.
AST's are largely unregulated by Federal law; no single statute fully
addresses prevention and cleanup of petroleum releases.
The legislation I am introducing today in the Senate, and will be
introduced by Representatives Jim Moran and Tom Davis in the House,
takes a new approach to dealing with leaking AST's, but maintains the
goal of improving the safety of aboveground storage tanks.
The problem of leaking AST's has been gaining national attention. In
the last 5 years, EPA has conducted studies and consulted with industry
experts to better define the causes of AST leaks of petroleum; more
States have begun to contemplate AST programs; and the petroleum
industry has recently issued standards for aboveground storage tanks.
In developing Federal legislation for the 104th Congress we moved
away from the idea of a comprehensive regulatory program for
aboveground storage tanks. Instead, the bill seeks to enhance, not
duplicate efforts undertaken by States and the petroleum industry to
improve AST safety.
There is a patchwork of AST regulations and no less than five Federal
offices with AST responsibilities. This is confusing to tank owners,
costly to taxpayers and harmful to the environment.
Tank owners and operators need to have clear, concise guidance on how
to comply with Federal regulations.
This new legislative proposal replaces the need for comprehensive
reform; instead, it improves the organization of the current program
and allows EPA to do more with less, while permitting tank owners the
opportunity to embrace the newly developed industry standards.
Reform in the Federal program will improve the effectiveness of
current regulations, lead to greater prevention and containment of
releases from AST's and improve the environment.
Prevention is the key to avoiding costly and damaging petroleum
releases.
Specifically, the bill will:
Consolidate all of the Federal offices responsible for AST regulation
into one office at EPA. This will increase efficiency and improve
organization at EPA;
Require EPA to consolidate and streamline the current AST program.
These steps will eliminate duplicative and conflicting regulations,
create a user-friendly aboveground storage tank program and promote
prevention measures such as secondary containment and corrosion
protection;
After consolidation, the bill allows EPA to correct gaps in the
regulation of large--42,000 gallons and above--aboveground petroleum
tanks and encourage prevention with narrow regulations based on
industry standards and cost-benefit analysis; and
Require reporting of releases and give limited emergency powers to
the EPA Administrator to better assist tank owners and operators with
speedier cleanups.
Should a petroleum release occur, the bill gives EPA the authority to
close the troublesome part of the storage tank facility, prohibiting
further operation until the Administrator determines that the closure
is not necessary to protect human health, public safety, or the
environment.
That is to say, after a release, the burden shifts to the tank owner
to cease operations until it can prove there is no ongoing threat.
The citizens in Fairfax were outraged when told that EPA lacked such
authority; this bill provides it. These provisions are essential to
provide predictability and peace of mind to residents living near large
aboveground storage tanks that store petroleum.
With reform of the Federal program it is estimated that $17.4 billion
in savings will result from reduced leak cleanup costs, saved petroleum
product, and decreased costs associated with compensating affected
residents.
This bill has been developed with the guidance and support of a
diverse coalition of industry and environmental groups because it is a
common sense proposal to regulatory reform.
Although the bill could easily be incorporated into Clean Water Act
reauthorization or Superfund reform legislation, I think the problem is
of sufficient magnitude that the bill can and should move on its own.
With the bill's broad support, I don't see a need to have it hung up in
the complexity of reauthorization of the larger environmental statutes.
It is my hope that the introduction of this legislation today will
help move this issue forward.
I would like to thank Senators Daschle and Simpson for their
leadership on this issue. As original cosponsors, they have contributed
greatly to my effort to reach consensus on this issue.
We have tried to offer a more targeted version of earlier
legislation, which will impose less cost on business, and pose less
political obstacles, but still get to the heart of the problem: The
large marketing and refining facilities which hold the potential for
environmental catastrophe.
In closing, Mr. President, I think the time has come to write the
Aboveground Storage Tank Consolidation and Regulatory Improvement Act
into law.
The County of Fairfax, VA, has recently voted to endorse this bill
because it is convinced that this legislation is necessary to prevent
or reduce the impact of similar releases of petroleum in the future. I
have a letter of support for the bill from the Fairfax County Board of
Supervisors and I request unanimous consent that it be included in the
Record.
I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and with the
chairman of the relevant congressional committees to make this
legislation a reality.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1537

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 ``Aboveground Storage Tank
Consolidation and Regulatory Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) improvement of Federal regulation of aboveground
storage tanks will lead to greater prevention and containment
of releases from aboveground storage tanks and improvement of
the environment;
(2) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency has not fully implemented any of the 7 recommendations
made in the 1989 report of the General Accounting Office on
inland oil spills;
(3) consolidation of Federal aboveground storage tank
provisions will lead to simplification of the regulatory
program and will allow the Administrator to eliminate
duplication and conflicting aboveground storage tank
regulations; and
(4) in order to promote environmental protection,
aboveground storage tank secondary containment structures
should meet a minimum permeability standard.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to promote protection of the environment;
(2) to streamline the offices in the Environmental
Protection Agency and other departments and agencies that
administer laws governing aboveground storage tanks and
underground storage tanks;
(3) to consolidate the laws governing aboveground storage
tanks and eliminate duplicative regulations; and
(4) to encourage release prevention and fire protection
measures in the operation of aboveground storage tanks.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Aboveground petroleum storage tank.--The term
``aboveground petroleum storage tank''--
(A) means an aboveground storage tank that--
(i) has a capacity of 42,000 gallons or more; and
(ii) is or was at any time used to contain any accumulation
of a regulated petroleum substance; but
(B) does not include an aboveground storage tank that is
used directly in the production of crude oil or natural gas.

[[Page S508]]

(2) Aboveground storage tank.--The term ``aboveground
storage tank''--
(A) means a stationary tank, including underground pipes
and dispensing systems connected to the stationary tank
within the facility in which the stationary tank is located,
that is or was at any time used to contain an accumulation of
a regulated substance, the volume of which tank (including
the volume of all piping within the facility) is greater than
90 percent above ground; and
(B) includes any tank that is capable of being visually
inspected; but
(C) does not include--
(i) a surface impoundment, pit, pond, or lagoon;
(ii) a storm water or wastewater collection system;
(iii) a flow-through process tank (including a pressure
vessel or process vessel and oil and water separators);
(iv) an intermediate bulk container or similar tank that
may be moved within a facility;
(v) a tank that is regulated under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.);
(vi) a tank that is used for the storage of products
regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.);
(vii) a tank (including piping and collection and treatment
systems) that is used in the management of leachate, methane
gas, or methane gas condensate, unless the tank is used for
storage of a regulated substance;
(viii) a tank that is used to store propane gas;
(ix) any other tank excluded by the Administrator by
regulation issued under this Act; or
(x) any pipe that is connected to a tank or other facility
described in this subparagraph.
(3) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(4) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office.
(5) Environmental law.--The term ``environmental law''
means 1 of the following statutes (and includes a regulation
issued under any such statute):
(A) The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
(B) The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
(C) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.).
(D) The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
(E) The Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).
(F) Any other statute administered by the Administrator.
(6) Model fire code.--The term ``model fire code'' means--
(A) fire code 30 or 30-a issued by the National Fire
Protection Association;
(B) the fire code issued by the Uniform Fire Code
Institute;
(C) the fire code issued by the Southern Building Code
Congress International; or
(D) the fire code issued by the Building Offices and Code
Administrators International.
(7) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of
Storage Tanks established by section 5(a).
(8) Petroleum.--The term ``petroleum'' means--
(A) crude oil; and
(B) any fraction of crude oil that is liquid at standard
conditions of temperature and pressure (60 degrees Fahrenheit
and 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute).
(9) Regulated petroleum substance.--The term ``regulated
petroleum substance'' means--
(A) petroleum; and
(B) a petroleum-based substance comprised of a complex
blend of hydrocarbons derived from crude oil through
processes of separation, conversion, upgrading and finishing,
such as a motor fuel, jet fuel, distillate fuel oil, residual
fuel oil, lubricant, petroleum solvent, or used or waste oil.
(10) Regulated substance.--The term ``regulated substance''
means--
(A) a substance (as defined in section 101 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601)), but not including a
substance that is regulated as a hazardous waste under
subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et
seq.); and
(B) a regulated petroleum substance.
(11) Underground storage tank.--The term ``underground
storage tank'' has the meaning stated in section 9001 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991).

SEC. 5. CONSOLIDATION OF OFFICES.

(a) Office of Storage Tanks.--
(1) Establishment.--The Office of Underground Storage Tanks
of the Environmental Protection Agency is redesignated and
established as the Office of Storage Tanks.
(2) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director
appointed by the Administrator.
(3) Functions.--The Director shall perform--
(A) the functions that were vested in the Director of the
Office of Underground Storage Tanks on the day before the
date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) the functions transferred to the Director (or to the
Administrator, acting through the Director) by subsection
(b).
(b) Transfers of Authority.--
(1) Intra-agency transfers.--There are transferred to the
Director all of the authorities of the following officers of
the Environmental Protection Agency, insofar as the
authorities relate to the regulation of aboveground storage
tanks and underground storage tanks under the environmental
laws:
(A) The Assistant Administrator for Air.
(B) The Assistant Administrator for Water.
(C) The Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response.
(D) Any other officer to whom the Administrator has
delegated authority.
(2) Transfer from the secretary of labor.--There are
transferred to the Administrator, acting through the
Director, all of the authorities of the Secretary of Labor,
acting through the Assistant Secretary for Occupational
Safety and Health, insofar as the authorities relate to the
regulation of aboveground storage tanks and underground
storage tanks under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) and section 126 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
499; 29 U.S.C. 655 note).
(3) Transfer from the secretary of transportation.--There
are transferred to the Administrator, acting through the
Director, all of the authorities of the Secretary of
Transportation, acting through the Administrator for Research
and Special Programs, acting through the Associate
Administrator for Pipeline Safety and the Associate
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Technology, insofar as
the authorities relate to the regulation of aboveground
storage tanks and underground storage tanks under chapter 601
of title 49, United States Code.
(c) Transfer and Allocations of Appropriations and
Personnel.--There are transferred to the Environmental
Protection Agency, in accordance with section 1531 of title
31, United States Code--
(1) the assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records,
and unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations,
allocations, and other funds employed, used, held, arising
from, available to, or to be made available in connection
with the functions transferred by subsection (b) (2) and (3);
and
(2)(A) the personnel employed in connection with those
functions; or
(B) the amount of unexpended balances of appropriations
necessary to enable the Administrator to employ persons in
the number of full time equivalent positions as the persons
employed in connection with those functions on the day before
the date of enactment of this Act,

as determined by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, in consultation with the Administrator, the Secretary
of Labor, and the Secretary of Transportation.

SEC. 6. CONSOLIDATION OF APPLICABLE LAWS.

(a) Restatement in Consolidated Form.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director, in consultation with the
States, shall evaluate all laws (including regulations)
administered by the Director and, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, issue a regulation that
restates those laws in consolidated form and streamlines, to
the extent practicable, the application of those laws to
owners and operators of aboveground storage tanks and
underground storage tanks.
(2) Intent of congress.--In directing the Director in
paragraph (1) to restate the laws in consolidated form, it is
not the intent of Congress to direct or authorize the
Director to modify the requirements of those laws in any way,
except as necessary or appropriate to eliminate any
duplication or inconsistencies or to reduce any unnecessary
regulatory burdens and except as provided in subsections (b),
(c), and (d).
(b) Model Fire Codes.--The regulation under subsection (a)
shall be consistent with and based on the model fire codes,
as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act or as they
may be amended.
(c) Releases.--
(1) Reporting requirements applicable to all aboveground
storage tanks.--The regulation under subsection (a) shall
require that an owner or operator of an aboveground storage
tank shall report a release of 42 gallons or more of a
regulated substance that occurs during a period of time
specified by the director, not to exceed 5 calendar days,
including a description of the corrective action taken in
response to the release, to the national response center
established under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), unless the release is required to be
reported, and is reported, under other Federal law.
(2) Orders applicable to aboveground storage tanks.--After
a release from an aboveground storage tank containing a
regulated substance that is determined to be an imminent
threat to human health, public safety, or the environment,
the Administrator may issue an order prohibiting the use or
operation of all or any portion of a storage tank farm within
a facility in which the aboveground petroleum storage tank is
located, until the Administrator determines that--
(A) the prohibition is not necessary to protect human
health, public safety, or the environment; or
(B) adequate corrective action has been taken, in
accordance with the law regulating corrective action that is
in effect on the date on which the determination is made.
(d) Correction of Deficiencies in the Law Applicable to
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks.--
(1) Additional authority.--In addition to the authority
transferred to the Director by

[[Page S509]]
section 5(b), the Director shall have authority to issue, and shall
include in the regulation under subsection (a), release
detection, prevention, and correction regulations applicable
to owners and operators of aboveground petroleum storage
tanks, as necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
(2) Correction of deficiencies.--In conducting the
evaluation of laws and issuing the regulation under
subsection (a), the Director shall--
(A) determine whether there are any deficiencies in the law
applicable to aboveground petroleum storage tanks on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act, specifically with
reference to secondary containment, overfill prevention,
testing, inspection, compatibility, installation, corrosion
protection, and structural integrity of aboveground petroleum
storage tanks; and
(B) if the Director determines that any such deficiencies
exist--
(i) examine industry standards that address the
deficiencies;
(ii) give substantial weight to industry standards in
formulating the regulations required by paragraph (1); and
(iii) design the regulation in the most cost-effective
manner to address the deficiencies.
(e) Enforcement.--
(1) In general.--The regulation under subsection (a) shall
make clear the statutory enforcement provisions and other
statutory provisions that apply to each provision of the
regulation.
(2) Additional authority.--Any provision of the regulation
under subsection (c) or (d) that implements authority
conferred by this Act in addition to authority under law in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act
shall be enforced under and in accordance with the procedures
stated in section 9006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6991e).

SEC. 7. REPORTS.

(a) Interim Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit to
Congress a report describing the progress made and any
tentative conclusions drawn in the evaluation process under
section 6(a)(1).
(b) Final Report.--Simultaneously with the issuance of the
regulation under section 6(a)(1), the Director shall submit
to Congress a final report that--
(1) describes the evaluation made and the regulation issued
under section 6(a)(1); and
(2)(A) states the extent to which the regulation implements
the recommendations made in the 1989 report of the General
Accounting Office on inland oil spills and the 1995 report of
the General Accounting Office on the status of the
Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to improve the
safety of aboveground storage tanks; and
(B) to the extent that the consolidated regulation does not
implement the recommendations, describes the Director's plans
regarding the recommendations.
____

Commonwealth of Virginia,

County of Fairfax,

Fairfax, VA, January 25, 1996.
Hon. Charles S. Robb,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chuck Robb: Fairfax County is aware that legislation
entitled ``The Aboveground Storage Tank Consolidation and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1995'' is to be introduced in
the United States Congress in the very near future. It is the
County's impression that this bill is designed to consolidate
authorities and regulatory functions associated with both
aboveground and underground storage tanks for the purpose of
strengthening oversight and enforcement, as well as to
improve upon the development of regulations for those
facilities. We believe that the legislation as proposed has
the potential to positively impact the organization and focus
of responsibilities and authorities pertinent to the
regulation of storage tanks.
Fairfax County is home to more than 20,000 commercial and
residential aboveground and underground storage tanks. During
the last several years the County has had first-hand
experience with the potential impacts these facilities pose
on public health, safety, and the environment. It has become
evident to the County that more focused, concise, and
adequate oversight is required to both prevent and correct
potential problems associated with storage tank facilities.
This view is supported by the County's experiences with the
hundreds of leaking underground storage tanks and the more
notable problems of the Fairax Bulk Petroleum Terminal
release in which over 189,000 gallons of petroleum was
discharged into the groundwater traveling into the
neighboring Mantua/Stockbridge residential community. The
proposed legislation provides the potential for a more
focused approach which might prevent or reduce the impact of
similar events in the future.
On behalf of the citizens of Fairfax County, the Board of
Supervisors urges the members of Congress to seriously
consider the benefits of the proposed legislation. ``The
Aboveground Storage Tank Consolidation and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1995'' and provide the appropriate support
to ensure its enactment during the current legislative
session. If the County or its staff can be of further
assistance with this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Your consideration of the County's position is
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Katherine K. Hanley,
Chairman.<bullet>
______

By Mr. GLENN (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
S. 1538. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for the treatment of excess benefit arrangements for certain tax-exempt
group medical practices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.

GROUP MEDICAL PRACTICES LEGISLATION

<bullet> Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, our Nation's few nonprofit medical
practices have a well-deserved, international reputation for medical
excellence. Among those prestigious institutions is the Cleveland
Clinic, considered one of the world's finest medical facilities. The
Cleveland Clinic and other outstanding facilities such as the Virginia
Mason Clinic in Seattle, WA, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN,
provide significant charity care, offer outstanding medical education
and training, lead in medical research and are deeply involved in
community service.
However, compensation rules for non-profit employers--including
teaching hospitals, community clinics, and integrated health systems,
are governed by stringent limits on reasonable compensation which do
not apply to physicians in private practice or in the for-profit
sector.
Today I am introducing along with the distinguished Senator from
Washington [Mr. Gorton], legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code
to provide a limited exemption from IRC section 457 to eligible group
medical practices. It would increase the dollar limitations for members
and employees of those practices from the limitations of section
457(c)(2).
I believe that this change in law would be good public policy. With
flexibility to offer reasonable deferred compensation packages, these
clinics can continue to recruit and retain the high quality individuals
whose training, skills, and experience are crucial to the patient
population they serve.
An important way to encourage physician groups and other medical
professionals to continue to organize in a not-for-profit status.
However, current law provides for disincentives for this not-for-profit
status. This legislation would remove these obstacles.
Mr. President, companion legislation has already been introduced in
the House. I urge the Senate Finance to carefully review the issues
that we raise in this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me
in support of this measure.<bullet>
<bullet> Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today Senator Glenn and I are
introducing a limited, but important piece of legislation. This
legislation will provide a solution to a vexing problem that afflicts
many of the most distinguished not-for-profit group medical practices
in this country, such as Virginia Mason Clinic in Seattle, the Mayo
Clinic in Rochester, and the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland.
Our Nation's not-for-profit medical practices, which include teaching
hospitals, community clinics, and integrated health systems, perform
essential public services. They provide significant charity care to our
Nation's poor and elderly, offer some of the finest medical education
and training in the world, and are acknowledged leaders in medical
research. Furthermore, not-for-profits perform these public services
while maintaining a well-deserved, international reputation for medical
excellence.
Despite their excellent delivery of essential medical services, tax
laws restrict not-for-profit group medical practices from offering
their medical professionals a level of deferred compensation that is
competitive with that available to physicians in the for-profit sector.
These limits on deferred compensation exist even though medical
professionals in nonprofit practices already sacrifice substantial
personal benefits and competitive salaries in order to serve the most
needy in their communities. This sacrifice on the part of nonprofit
physicians has potentially damaging repercussions for society when
physicians leave the nonprofit sector for the benefits of the private
sector.
Today, we seek to remove some of the disincentive that exist for
medical professions to enter into the nonprofit area of health care.
The bill we are introducing amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide
a limited exemption from IRC section 457 to eligible group

[[Page S510]]
medical practices. This amendment would increase the dollar limitations
for members and employees of those practices, index the deferred amount
for inflation, and exempt eligible medical group practices from
limitations of section 457(c)(2).
By providing nonprofit, teaching, medical centers the ability to
offer deferred compensation packages to their professions at levels
that are competitive with the for-profit sector, our nonprofit medical
centers will be able to recruit and retain the caliber of individuals
whose training skills, and expertise are crucial to the often inner-
city or rural patients they serve.<bullet>
______

By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
S. 1539. A bill to establish the Los Caminos del Rio National
Heritage Area along the Lower Rio Grande Texas-Mexico border, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

the los caminos del rio national heritage area act of 1996

<bullet> Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, along the Lower Rio Grande from
Laredo, TX to the Gulf of Mexico, are found resources of immense
economic, natural, scenic, historical, and cultural value. On both the
United States and Mexican sides of the Rio Grande, important historical
themes and resources of local, State, national, and international
importance characterize the river communities and counties along the
Lower Rio Grande. These include early 16th- and 17th-century Spanish
and French explorations, 18th-century river settlements founded under
the Spanish Crown, 18th-century ranches where the first American
cowboys rode, Texas independence and establishment of the Republic of
the Rio Grande in 1840, the first battle of the Mexican-American War in
1846, the last land battle of the American Civil War fought near the
mouth of the Rio Grande in 1865, a thriving steamboat trade in the late
19th-century, and the development of the Rio Grande Valley as an
agricultural empire. Today, the Lower Rio Grande is one of the most
complex ecological systems in the United States, with a remarkable
variety of species including 600 different vertebrates, such as the
plain chachalaca, the only member of the curassow family found in the
United States, and 11,000 different and unique plants, like the Texas
strawberry cactus.
Given the remarkable diversity and international importance of this
area, local and regional governments, Federal and State agencies,
businesses, private citizens and organizations in the United States and
Mexico have expressed a desire to work cooperatively to preserve the
most significant components of the natural and cultural heritage
throughout the region, while accommodating sustainable growth and
development.
Mr. President, in conjunction with these efforts, I am pleased to
introduce today the Los Caminos del Rio National Heritage Area Act of
1996. This act will designate the Lower Rio Grande as a congressionally
authorized national heritage area, thereby recognizing the unique and
binational importance of the Lower Rio Grande region.
The Los Caminos del Rio National Heritage Area Act of 1996 recognizes
the special importance of the Lower Rio Grande region as a living
historical legacy of the United States and Mexico. Los Caminos del Rio
will create partnerships between public and private entities to finance
projects and initiatives throughout the Lower Rio Grande while
requiring local governments and private entities to share costs with
the Federal Government. Furthermore, it will promote cooperation
between Mexico and the United States while enhancing the economies of
the many Rio Grande communities.
Mr. President, in a time of fiscal constraints, national heritage
areas are fiscally sound, budget-conscious alternatives to the
traditional national park designation. That is why Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell has introduced legislation to encourage such
partnerships as an alternative to the traditional national park
designation and why I am now introducing the Los Caminos del Rio
National Heritage Area Act of 1996.
Additionally, I should like to point out that my bill pays particular
and close attention to the rights of private property owners. I have
listened to and worked with various property advocacy groups in order
to craft a bill that specifically addresses concerns through concrete
protections preventing property rights infringement and diminishment of
value. For example, my bill prohibits conditioning of Federal
assistance on enactment or modification of any land-use restrictions,
mandates quarterly public hearings within the heritage area, and
specifically states that nothing in the bill shall modify, enlarge, or
diminish any authority of Federal, State, or local government to
regulate any zoning or use of land, including fish and wildlife
management. I hope to continue working with these property groups as
this legislation moves toward passage.
The Los Caminos del Rio heritage project, which began in 1990 with a
grant awarded to the Texas Historical Commission, has become a crucial
unifier of the Lower Rio Grande region, facilitating contacts between
small communities and their State and Federal Governments and with
private philanthropy. That same process has occurred in Mexico, where
border communities that have traditionally felt abandoned and
overlooked have been able to take advantage of Los Caminos del Rio.
Because they are part of a regional project, they are now part of
national and State tourism and conservation programs.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Campbell and
others in passing this legislation to designate Los Caminos del Rio as
a National Heritage Area, to establish guidelines for the designation
of other such areas, and to offer security for owners of private
property within such areas.<bullet>
______

By Mr. HATCH:

S. 1540. A bill to amend chapter 14 of title 35, United States Code,
to preserve the full term of patents; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

THE FULL PATENT TERM PRESERVATION ACT OF 1996

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce S.
1540, the Full Patent Term Preservation Act of 1996. Very simply
stated, this legislation will allow the Patent and Trademark Office
[PTO] to restore patent term in cases in which patent life has been
shortened due to unusual and unavoidable administrative delay.
I wish to commend the majority leader, my good friend from Kansas,
for first bringing this matter to my attention. I share Senator Dole's
concern that patent term not be eroded due to unusual delays in
evaluating patent applications by the PTO. The recent adoption of the
new 20 year from time of filing patent term has created a need for
legislation to address the issues giving rise to the Dole/Rohrabacher
measure.
As my colleagues are aware, the legislation implementing the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] passed by the Congress and signed
by the President in December, 1994, contained a provision designed to
achieve harmonization of patent standards in the international
community. This was accomplished by changing our old system, which
allowed for a patent term equal to 17 years from the date the patent
was issued, to a new system in which patents are valid for 20 years
from the date of application.
There has been some concern expressed that the transition under GATT
from a ``17-year from issuance'' to a ``20-year from filing'' patent
term will cause some inventors to lose valuable patent term. This can
occur when patent applications are under review at PTO for unusually
long periods of time. To remedy this potential loss of patent term, the
bill I am introducing today will allow the PTO to restore patent term
for up to 10 years if such term are lost because of unusual and
unavoidable administrative delay. The bill also provides an opportunity
for an independent review of the Commissioner's determination.
At present, the patent code does not allow for patent term
restoration on the basis of ``unusual administrative delay.'' Such a
provision was not included in previous legislation because it was
believed that there were too few cases to warrant its inclusion.
Nevertheless, the changes made by the GATT implementing legislation and
several cited cases in which patent applications have taken up to 10
years to be

[[Page S511]]
processed have heightened an awareness of the need to address the
potential diminution of patent life. If enacted, the Full Patent Term
Preservation Act of 1996 will allow inventors to regain patent term
lost due to unusual administrative delay.
S. 1540 addresses the same general issue expressed by the
distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, and by Congressman
Rohrabacher in their legislation this Congress. I am very sympathetic
to the problem which led them to introduce their legislation and I want
to work closely with them to resolve the matter. At the same time I
must note my concern that previous legislative proposals pose at least
two problems. First, a provision that allows each applicant to select
the way in which the patent term will be measured could pose
significant administrative problems. And second, I am still concerned
that we have not done enough to address the problem of so-called
submarine patents which was one of the motivating factors behind
adopting the GATT change.
As with the Dole/Rohrabacher legislation, the Full Patent Term
Preservation Act of 1996 attempts to preserve a full term of patent
protection for American inventors, thereby promoting creativity and
investment and maintaining U.S. competitiveness in the rapidly growing
high-tech global marketplace. However, by retaining the basic principle
of measuring the patent term from the earliest filing date, my proposed
legislation preserves the necessary incentives for patent applicants to
diligently and expeditiously pursue the issuance of their patent.
As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to hold
hearings on these issues in the near future. I want to make clear to my
colleagues that the measure I introduce today is an effort to start the
process of finding a middle ground which will accommodate the interests
of all parties. I intend for the Judiciary Committee to examine this
issue very closely over the next few months and I look forward to
working with Senator Dole and all other interested parties to make any
necessary modifications.
Before closing, I want to mention my interest in soliciting input on
one particular provision of this legislation. Section 2 grants the PTO
the authority to determine the circumstances under which a patent
adjustment can be made. Some have questioned whether providing this
authority to the very agency which caused the delay would be the most
appropriate way to address the adjustment issue.
Mr. President, I believe that S. 1540, the Full Patent Term
Preservation Act of 1996 is a balanced legislative response to the
problem of potential loss of patent term. It will protect the
legitimate patent rights of American inventors, uphold our
international treaty obligations under GATT, and provide the necessary
incentives to ensure the responsible and timely pursuance of patent
applications. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and look
forward to its timely consideration.
I ask unanimous consent that the text and a section-by-section
analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1540

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 ``Full Patent Term
Preservation Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. PATENT TERM DETERMINATION AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Section 154(b) of title 35, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Determination of Patent Term.--
``(1) Basis for patent term adjustment.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the term of a
patent shall be adjusted to include the period of time for
which the issue of the original patent was delayed due to--
``(i) a proceeding under section 135(a) of this title;
``(ii) the imposition of an order pursuant to section 181
of this title;
``(iii) appellate review by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences or by a Federal court where the patent was
issued pursuant to a decision in the review reversing an
adverse determination of patentability; or
``(iv) an unusual administrative delay by the Office in
issuing the patent.
``(B) Regulations.--The Commissioner shall prescribe
regulations to govern the determination of the period of
delay, including the particular circumstances determined to
be an unusual administrative delay under subparagraph (A).
``(2) Limitations.--
``(A) Maximum period of adjustment.--The total duration of
all adjustments of a patent term under this subsection shall
not exceed 10 years. No patent term may be adjusted by a
period greater than the actual period of time that the
issue of a patent was delayed as determined by the
Commissioner. To the extent that periods of delay
attributable to grounds specified in paragraph (1)
overlap, the period of any adjustment granted under this
subsection shall not exceed the actual number of days the
issuance of the patent was delayed.
``(B) Due diligence.--The period of adjustment of the term
of a patent under this subsection shall be reduced by a
period equal to the time during the processing or examination
of the application leading to the patent in which the
applicant did not act with due diligence to conclude
processing or examination of the application. The
Commissioner shall prescribe regulations establishing the
circumstances that constitute a failure of an applicant to
act with due diligence to conclude processing or examination
of an application.
``(C) Terminal disclaimer.--No patent, the term of which
has been disclaimed beyond a specified date, may be adjusted
under this section beyond the expiration date specified in
the disclaimer.
``(3) Notice to commissioner.--In a case in which a patent
term is adjusted under this subsection, the Commissioner
shall determine the period of any patent term adjustment
available under this section and shall include a copy of that
determination with the final notice. The Commissioner shall
prescribe regulations establishing procedures for the
application for, and notification of, patent term adjustments
granted by the Commissioner under this subsection.
``(4) Judicial review.--Any applicant dissatisfied with a
determination by the Commissioner under paragraph (3) may
have remedy by civil action in the United States Court of
Federal Claims if commenced within 60 days after the mailing
of the notice of allowance as the Commissioner appoints. The
initiation of a civil action under this section shall not
delay the issuance of a patent.''.
(c) Technical Clarification.--Section 156(a) of title 35,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ``,
which shall include any patent term adjustment granted under
section 154(b),'' after ``the original expiration date of the
patent''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting before the semicolon ``,
except as provided under section 154(b)''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any
application filed on or after June 8, 1995.

Full Patent Term Preservation Act Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short Title.--This section titles the bill the
``Full Patent Term Preservation Act of 1996.''
Section 2. Patent Term Determination Authority.--This
section makes certain that the term of a patent will be
adjusted to include time attributable to certain delays in
review of patent applications.
Specifically, section 2(b)(1) mandates that adjustments
will be made for time elapsed due to: proceedings designed to
determine the priority of invention (``interference'' under
section 135(a) Title 35 U.S.C.); orders pertaining to a
determination that the patent would be detrimental to the
national security (section 181 of Title 35); and cases in
which the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences or a
Federal court reverses an adverse finding of patentability.
In addition, the Commissioner shall make adjustments due to
unusual administrative delay by the Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO) in issuing the patent.
The PTO Commissioner is authorized to promulgate
regulations to govern how the period of delay is to be
determined, including the circumstances that constitute
``unusual administrative delay.''
Section 2(b) also establishes a 10 year limitation for
adjustments in patent terms under this section and precludes
adjustments in patent term beyond the actual number of days
that a patent was delayed. No adjustment in patent term may
be granted for time periods when the applicant did not act
with ``due diligence.'' The Commissioner is authorized to
promulgate regulations to define the application of the ``due
diligence'' provisions.
Section 2(b) also instructs the Commissioner to notify the
applicant, on the day the patent issues, of any patent term
restoration the applicant is entitled to under this section.
Finally, section 2(b) provides the right to judicial review
in the United States Court of Federal Claims for those patent
applicants

[[Page S512]]
dissatisfied with the determination of the Commissioner with respect to
patent term adjustments.
Section 2(c) makes certain technical conforming changes
between sections 154 and 156 of the patent provisions of
Title 35, U.S.C. Section 2(c) allows the patent term
adjustments provided in section 156 to restore patent term
lost due to Food and Drug Administration regulatory review to
be additive to any patent term restoration granted under
section 154 to compensate for patent term unavoidably lost in
the patent prosection process.
Section 3. Effective Date.--This section makes the new
provisions contained in section 2 effective for any patent
application filed on or after June 8, 1995.
______

By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Helms, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Pressler, and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 1541. a bill to extend, reform, and improve agricultural
commodity, trade, conservation, and other programs, and for other
purposes; read the first time.

agricultural market transition act

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to support the Agricultural Market
Transition Act of 1996. This legislation is identical to Title I of the
Balanced Budget Act, with two changes which I shall mention shortly.
Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act and the President, most
unfortunately for the country, vetoed it. We hope that some spending
cuts can be added to legislation raising the Federal debt limit.
However, the veto creates a problem for U.S. agriculture.
The problem is that commodity support programs for the next 7 years
were part of the BBA. Existing authority for these programs has now
expired. All that remain are outdated statutes from 1938 and 1949. The
Clinton administration confirms that implementing these statues could
add $10 to $12 billion to the cost of running farm programs for 1996
crops alone.
That is intolerable for taxpayers. Farmers do not support such an
irresponsible policy. The solution is to enact a new farm bill.
Farmers need to know what farm policies will be--not just for the
next 12 months but for the next several years. We owe it to U.S.
agriculture to enact a long-term plan, not a stopgap measure.
This bill's agricultural provisions are a long-term plan endorsed by
a broad spectrum of agricultural groups. From national groups like the
American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Corn Growers
Association, to state groups like the Kansas Association of Wheat
Growers and the North Dakota Grain Growers, U.S. producer and
agribusiness organizations support this plan.
It is simple, in contrast to the needless complexity of current
programs.
It offers certainty. Farmers will know what their future payments
will be. Taxpayers will know how much will be spent. U.S. agriculture
will have security against future budget cuts.
Finally, it is market-oriented. Farmers' payments will be the same
even if they plant alternate crops. Producers' planting decisions will
be based on the market--as they should be. Under the BBA, there will be
full planting freedom, not arbitrary government production controls.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a brief summary of this
bill's provisions be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Subtitle A--Agricultural Market Transition Program

Production flexibility contracts--Eligible producers (those
who had participated in the wheat, feed grains, cotton and
rice programs in any one of the past five years) can enter
into seven-year ``production flexibility contracts'' between
1996 and 2002. The deadline for entering into the contract
would be April 15, 1996. Payments would be made on September
30 of each year beginning in 1996. Farmers would also have
the option of receiving half of their annual payment by
December 15 of the previous year (except in 1996 when the
advance payment would be due within 60 days of the signing of
the contract.)
Payment would be made on 85 percent of a farm's contract
acreage. On this acreage participants would be free to plant
any program crop, oilseed, industrial or experimental crop,
mung beans, lentils and dry peas. Planting of fruits and
vegetables would be prohibited on contract acres. These
commodity program changes will result in $8.6 billion in
budget savings over the next seven years.
Peanuts--The legislation saves $434 million from the
federal peanut program, making it a no-cost program. The
price support program for peanuts is extended through 2002,
but the quota support rate is lowered from $678/tone to $610/
ton. The price support escalator is eliminated. The
legislation eliminates the national poundage quota floor
(currently 1,350,000 tons) and undermarketing provisions of
current law. Previously considered reforms for quota
reduction, the sale, lease and transfer of quota across
county lines, and offers from handlers were removed from the
bill due to Byrd rule considerations. These reforms will
likely be taken up later as part of separate legislation.
Sugar--In order to make the program more market-oriented, a
recourse loan system is implemented until imports reach 1.5
million short tons for FY 1997 1997-2002. The bill terminates
marketing allotments and implements a one cent penalty on
forfeited sugar. Provisions of current law that require the
Sugar Program to operate at no-net cost are retained in this
bill. It also retains the loan rate of raw cane sugar and
refined beet sugar at the 1995 levels, 18 cents and 22.9
cents respectively, and retains a nine-month loan. The
legislation would raise the assessment on sugar processors to
achieve $52 million in budget savings over seven years toward
deficit reduction.
Nonrecourse marketing assistance loans--The conference
agreement establishes maximum loan rates at the following
(1995) levels: Rice: $6.50/cwt; Upland Cotton: $0.5192/lb;
Wheat: $2.58/bu; Corn: $1.89/bu; Soybeans: $4.92/bu; ELS
Cotton: $0.7965/lb.
The Secretary would retain authority to make downward
adjustments to wheat and feed grains loan rates based on
specified stocks-to-use criteria. The bill also establishes a
minimum loan rate for rice at $6.50/cwt and cotton at $0.50/
lb. The conference agreement also eliminates the 8-month
cotton loan extension. The loan rate provisions of the
conference agreement will save $107 million.
Payment limitations--The conference agreement reduces the
current payment limitation by 20 percent, from $50,000 to
$40,000. The bill extends provisions of current law that
limit marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments to
$75,000 per person per year. The payment limitation reduction
achieves $150 million in budget savings.
Program authority elimination--This legislation repeals the
Agriculture Act of 1949 as well as the permanent law
provisions of the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938. Also
eliminated are authorities for the Farmer Owned Reserve and
the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Program.

subtitle b--conservation

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)--The CRP is capped at
the current level of 36.4 million acres for a savings of $569
million over seven years. Also adopted was an ``early out''
provision to allow contract holders to terminate CRP
contracts upon written notification of the Secretary.
Livestock Environmental Assistance Program (LEAP)--The
program is established to help livestock producers improve
environmental and water quality. The program makes available
$100 million annually to provide technical and cost-share
assistance in implementing structural and management
practices to protect water, soil and related resources from
degradation associated with livestock production.

subtitle c--agricultural promotion and export programs

Market Promotion Program (MPP)--MPP expenditures are capped
at $100 million through 2002 producing a savings of $60
million.
Export Enhancement Program (EEP)--EEP expenditures are
capped at $350 million in 1996 and 1997; $500 million in
1998; $550 million in 1999; $579 million in 2000 and $478
million for 2001 and 2002. Total savings for EEP will be
$1.27 billion.

subtitle d--miscellaneous

Crop insurance--The bill eliminates the mandatory nature of
catastrophic crop insurance, but requires producers to waive
all federal disaster assistance if they opt not to purchase
insurance. Dual delivery of crop insurance is eliminated in
those states that have adequate private crop insurance
delivery. The bill also corrects a provision of current law
by amending the Federal Crop Insurance Act to include seed
crops. The crop insurance provisions of the bill result in
net savings of $130 million.
Agriculture quarantine and inspection--The bill amends the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 to
allow the Secretary to collect and spend fees collected over
$100 million to cover the cost of providing quarantine and
inspection services for imports.
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) interest rates--Rates on
CCC agriculture commodity loans are increased by 100 basis
points for a savings of $260 million over seven years.
Mr. LUGAR. I would also like to mention two changes from the BBA as
it passed the House and Senate.
Under the Livestock Environmental Assistance Program, limits are
placed on the size of operations that may receive benefits. The BBA
contained

[[Page S513]]
these limits but some felt that for dairy operations, the limits were
too strict. Therefore, dairy operations of 700 or fewer cows will now
be eligible.
The other change deals with which crops may be planted on acres
enrolled in income support contracts. The bill introduced today will
treat fruit and vegetable crops in the same manner as current law--that
is, they may not be planted on contract acres.
Mr. President, the Agricultural Market Transition Act of 1996
represents a bold departure from the past. It is a new direction for
American agriculture. It will reduce Federal spending, reform price
support programs, and prepare U.S. farmers for what promises to be an
exciting new century, full of opportunities for the most efficient food
producers in the world.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues
Senators Craig, Dole, Lugar, Cochran, and Grassley, supporting a farm
bill that will let our farmers farm according to the marketplace and
stop the Federal Government from telling our farmers what crop to
plant, when to plant, and how much to plant. These decisions belong to
the farmer--not the Federal Government.
On September 30 of last year the farm bill expired. Farmers in my
State of Washington and across the country need to know what the farm
program will be. They cannot wait any longer. Currently, farmers in my
State are meeting with their bankers, making plans for this year's
crop, determining their financial situation, and evaluating their
equipment needs. As my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, said on
Tuesday, ``farmers of this country deserve to know what the farm
program will be this year and they need to know as soon as possible.''
The senior Senator from Iowa is correct. We cannot in good conscience
delay in passing a farm bill. We owe it to the American farmer to take
action.
Farmers in my State tell me that they want less Government, less red
tape, and less paperwork. Farmers in my State simply want more
flexibility; they want the Federal Government out of their lives. A
market transition style farm program gives them what they have asked
for and provides a seven year transition to full market-oriented
farming.
A market transition style farm program could not come at a better
time. Many important developments have taken place since the completion
of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade
[GATT]. I believe that GATT will continue to open new world markets for
the United States, and with a farm program that allows our farmers to
farm according to the marketplace we will provide them with the
flexibility they need to respond quickly to the demands of emerging
world markets.
A market transition style farm program also moves us towards a
balanced budget, saving nearly $13 billion in budget outlays over 7
years. Since 1969, the last year in which there was a balanced budget
in this country, we have piled debt on our shoulders and on the
shoulders of our children and grandchildren of almost $5 trillion. That
means, Mr. President, that a child born today inherits an obligation of
some $187,000 during his or her life simply to pay interest on the
national debt. This statistic alone starkly illustrates not just the
fiscal and financial necessity, but the moral necessity of a sharp
change in direction. This country can no longer continue goods and
services for which it is unwilling to pay. If we do not change the way
we do things here in Washington, DC, our children and grandchildren
will suffer terribly.
If we do balance the Federal budget we will provide American families
and American farmers with better jobs, higher wages, lower interest
rates, and economic certainty. All of this means more money in the
pockets of American farmers. One thing is for certain, Mr. President:
we must balance the budget and we must balance it now.
For all of these reasons, Mr. President, I support my colleagues,
Senators Craig, Dole, Lugar, Cochran, and Grassley, as we work together
to provide American farmers with the flexibility they need to do what
they do best: provide healthy, safe, and abundant food for families
around the world.
______

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S.J. Res. 48. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and
expenditures intended to affect elections; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

campaign expenditures constitutional amendment

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today for
purposes, with the cosponsorship of the distinguished Senator from
South Carolina, Senator Hollings, to introduce a constitutional
amendment which is broader than any yet pending, which would authorize
the Congress and the State legislatures to set spending limits on what
any individual can spend of his or her own money in the context of a
candidacy.

I had wanted to introduce this amendment on January 30, which is next
Tuesday, because January 30 is the 20th anniversary of the decision of
the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo, which said that an
individual can promote his or her candidacy to the maximum extent he or
she chooses with their own personal funds as a matter of first
amendment protection of freedom of speech.
It has always been a little hard for me to understand how anything
from the freedom of speech is implicated in a matter of campaign
financing. For the past 6 years, Senator Hollings and I and others have
tried to advance this constitutional amendment, which is difficult
because it picks on the first amendment.
But in seeking to amend the first amendment, we do not seek to change
the language of the first amendment, which I think is sacrosanct. What
we seek to do is to overrule, in effect, a split decision by the
Supreme Court of the United States in interpreting the first amendment.
Money is the scourge of politics, and to buy high public office is,
obviously, against public policy. There are many who have, in effect,
bought public office, including some seats of the U.S. Senate. But it
is only recently that this matter has come into sharp focus when a
candidate for the Presidency of the United States, who is reputed to
have assets in excess of $400 million, set out to, in effect, buy the
White House.
According to this morning's New York Times, some $15 million has
already been expended on that effort. I think it is especially
problemsome when a substantial part of that money is dedicated to
negative advertising which, in effect, seeks to impugn the reputation
of an opponent who spent more than 40 years in public life.
I believe what is going on in the Presidential primaries, the
Republican primaries, today has caused a great deal of focus of
attention, and it is high time that we took some action to stop someone
from buying public office, especially the Presidency of the United
States, especially the White House.
I will add, Mr. President, that I personally feel especially strong
about this particular matter, because I filed for the U.S. Senate
during the first election cycle following the enactment of the 1974
legislation which limited the amount of moneys which could be spent on
Federal elections.
That 1974 statute said that for a State the size of Pennsylvania,
with 12 million people, the most anyone could spend of his or her own
money was $35,000. That year, I contested for that office with then-
Congressman John Heinz, who later I served with in the Senate as a
colleague and who became one of my very, very best friends, a Senator
we sorely miss in this body.
But with the playing field somewhat leveled with the $35,000 maximum
individual expenditure, I thought that race was one to be undertaken.
Then, right in the middle of the campaign, on January 30--we had an
August 22 primary in 1976; I declared my candidacy in November of
1975--right in the middle of the campaign, the Supreme Court of the
United States said any candidate can spend as much of his or her money
that he or she wanted.
Somewhat anomalous, my brother, who could have bankrolled my
campaign--I do not know he would have, but he could have--was limited
to $1,000 under the act, and that remained in place by the Supreme
Court decision.
It is a little hard to see the first amendment freedom of speech
rights of

[[Page S514]]
Specter being different than the freedom of speech rights of a
candidate. We have lived with Buckley versus Valeo for 20 years, and it
is bad legal construction. There is nothing in the first amendment,
there is nothing in the logic of the law which suggests the first
amendment gives an individual the right to spend as much of his or her
own money as he or she chooses.
It certainly is bad public policy to have someone seek to buy an
office, especially the Presidency of the United States.
So I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hollings and myself. As we
have talked in the quarters and in the cloakrooms and on the floor of
the Senate in these past several days, I believe that there is a
growing sentiment in the Congress to do something about Buckley versus
Valeo, to see to it that we do not have high public office up for sale
in this great country.

____________________