[Pages S7179-S7190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. BOXER:

S. 1910. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
expanding, intensifying, and coordinating activities of the National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute with respect to

[[Page S7180]]

heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women; to
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

The Women's Cardiovascular Diseases Research and Prevention Act

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Women's
Cardiovascular Diseases Research and Prevention Act, a bill to expand
and intensify research and educational outreach programs regarding
cardiovascular diseases in women. This bill will aid our Nation's
doctors and scientists in developing a coordinated and comprehensive
strategy for fighting this terrible disease.
Cardiovascular disease is the No. 1 killer of women in the United
States. Over 479,000 women die from cardiovascular disease each year
and 1 in 5 women has some form of the disease. Research is our best
hope for averting this national tragedy which strikes so many of our
grandmothers, mothers, aunts and daughters.
The Women's Cardiovascular Diseases Research and Prevention Act
authorizes $140 million to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute
to expand and intensify research, prevention, and educational outreach
programs for heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases in
women.
This bill will educate women and doctors about the dire threat heart
disease poses to women's health. It will help train doctors to better
recognize symptoms of cardiovascular disease which are unique to women.
It would also teach women about risk factors, such as smoking, obesity,
and physical inactivity, which greatly increase their chances of
developing coronary heart disease.
For years, women have been underrepresented in studies conducted on
heart disease and stroke. Models and tests for detection have been
conducted largely on men. This legislation will help ensure that women
are well represented in future heart and stroke research studies.
The Women's Cardiovascular Diseases Research and Prevention Act has
been introduced in the House by Representative Waters, and it has been
included in the Women's Health Equity Act, a broader package of bills
to bring national attention to women's health issues.
I urge my colleagues to commit to combating cardiovascular disease by
supporting this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 1910

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 ``women's Cardiovascular
Diseases Research and Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds as follows with respect to women in the
United States:
(1) Heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases
are the leading causes of death in women.
(2) Heart attacks and strokes are leading causes of
disability in women.
(3) Cardiovascular diseases claim the lives of more women
each year than does cancer. Each year more than 479,000
females die of cardiovascular diseases, while approximately
246,000 females die of cancer. Heart attack kills more than 5
times as many females as breast cancer. Stroke kills twice as
many females as breast cancer.
(4) One in 5 females has some form of cardiovascular
disease. Of females under age 65, each year more than 20,000
die of heart attacks. In the case of African-American women,
from ages 35 to 74 the death rate from heart attacks is
approximately twice that of white women and 3 times that of
women of other races.
(5) Each year since 1984, cardiovascular diseases have
claimed the lives of more females than males. In 1992, of the
number of individuals who died of such diseases, 52 percent
were females and 48 percent were males.
(6) The clinical course of cardiovascular diseases is
different in women than in men, and current diagnostic
capabilities are less accurate in women than in men. Once a
woman develops a cardiovascular disease, she is more likely
than a man to have continuing health problems, and she is
more likely to die.
(7) Of women who have had a heart attack, approximately 44
percent die within 1 year of the attack. Of men who have had
such an attack, 27 percent die within 1 year. At older ages,
women who have had a heart attack are twice as likely as men
to die from the attack within a few weeks. Women are more
likely than men to have stroke during the first 6 years
following a heart attack. More than 60 percent of women who
suffer a stroke die within 8 years. Long-term survivorship of
stroke is better in women than in men. Of individuals who die
from a stroke, each year approximately 61 percent are
females. In 1992, 87,124 females died from strokes. Women
have unrecognized heart attacks more frequently than men. Of
women who died suddenly from heart attack, 63 percent had no
previous evidence of disease.
(8) More than half of the annual health care costs that are
related to cardiovascular diseases are attributable to the
occurrence of the diseases in women, each year costing this
nation hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs
and lost productivity.

SEC. 3. EXPANSION AND INTENSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES REGARDING
HEART ATTACK, STROKE AND OTHER CARDIOVASCULAR
DISEASES IN WOMEN.

Subpart 2 of part C of title IV of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285b et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 424 the following section:

``heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women

``Sec. 424A. (a) In General.--The Director of the Institute
shall expand, intensify, and coordinate research and related
activities of the Institute with respect to heart attack,
stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women.
``(b) Coordination With Other Institutes.--The Director of
the Institute shall coordinate activities under subsection
(a) with similar activities conducted by the other national
research institutes and agencies of the National Institutes
of Health to the extent that such Institutes and agencies
have responsibilities that are related to heart attack,
stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women.
``(c) Certain Programs.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Director of the Institute shall conduct or support
research to expand the understanding of the causes of, and to
develop methods for preventing, cardiovascular diseases in
women. Activities under such subsection shall include
conducting and supporting the following:
``(1) Research to determine the reasons underlying the
prevalence of heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular
diseases in women, including African-American women and other
women who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups.
``(2) Basic research concerning the etiology and causes of
cardiovascular diseases in women.
``(3) Epidemiological studies to address the frequency and
natural history of such diseases and the differences among
men and women, and among racial and ethnic groups, with
respect to such diseases.
``(4) The development of safe, efficient, and cost-
effective diagnostic approaches to evaluating women with
suspected ischemic heart disease.
``(5) Clinical research for the development and evaluation
of new treatments for women, including rehabilitation.
``(6) Studies to gain a better understanding of methods of
preventing cardiovascular diseases in women, including
applications of effective methods for the control of blood
pressure, lipids, and obesity.
``(7) Information and education programs for patients and
health care providers on risk factors associated with heart
attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women,
and on the importance of the prevention or control of such
risk factors and timely referral with appropriate diagnosis
and treatment. Such programs shall include information and
education on health-related behaviors that can improve such
important risk factors as smoking, obesity, high blood
cholesterol, and lack of exercise.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated $140,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, and such sums
as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1998 and
1999. The authorization of appropriations established in the
preceding sentence is in addition to any other authorization
of appropriation that is available for such purpose.''.
______

By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 1911. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
encourage economic development through the creation of additional
empowerment zones and enterprise communities and to encourage the
cleanup of contaminated brownfield sites; to the Committee on Finance.

the community empowerment act of 1996

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure,
together with my colleagues, Senators D'Amato and Jeffords, to
introduce the Community Empowerment Act of 1996. This is economic
development legislation that will create new growth and new jobs, by
facilitating the cleanup and reuse of what are called brownfield
industrial and commercial sites, and by adding 20 additional
empowerment zones and 80 additional enterprise communities all across
the Nation.
Mr. President, this legislation provides a new opportunity for
cooperation between government and the private sector not only to help
rebuild

[[Page S7181]]

urban areas and rural areas and suburban areas to attract investments,
but also to effect the cleanup of what I sometimes refer to as an
``environmentally challenged area.''
The act refers to brownfields specifically and provides a tax
incentive rather for brownfield cleanups. Incentives exist in that
money spent by new owners for the cleanup of environmentally polluted
areas will accrue as an expense on their income tax.
Brownfields are contaminated industrial sites. Usually, the
facilities are abandoned and have problems selling because of the
contamination that was left on the property. These sites are well
suited for industrial and commercial redevelopment because the
transportation infrastructure already exist, the utilities are there
and the labor force is there. However, potential redevelopers usually
stay away from these sites, in no small part because current law forces
them to capitalize environmental cleanup costs. That constitutes a
daunting obstacle to redevelopment. Even small amounts of contamination
adds significantly to the cost and uncertainty of a reuse project.
Therefore, businesses have a significant incentive to move to areas
outside of the brownfield communities because of the cost associated
with the cleanup and redevelopment. Reversing this deterrent, therefore
will help to encourage businesses to reuse these brownfields.
Under the provisions of this legislation, qualifying brownfields
would be provided full first-year expensing of environmental cleanup
costs under the Federal tax code. Full first-year expensing simply
means that a tax deduction will be allowed for the cleanup costs in the
year that the costs are incurred.
At present, if an industrial property owner does environmental damage
to their property and then cleans up the site, the owner is allowed to
expense the cost of that cleanup. However, in a strange twist of logic,
someone who buys an environmentally damaged piece of property and who
cleans up that property is now allowed to expense these cleanup costs,
but instead must deduct the cost over many years.
The result? An urban landscape littered with vacant and abandoned
properties--properties which attract crime and bring down property
values in the surrounding neighborhoods.
This is an issue that directly affects the lives of literally
millions of Americans, and addressing it will empower communities
across the country. The collective efforts of everyone, particularly,
the nonprofit community, the private sector, the Government, developers
and grassroots community groups are essential to begin the process of
returning brownfield properties back to productive use, and to bring
economic growth back to the inner cities and disadvantaged rural areas.
In order to help communities across the Nation begin rebuilding their
economic base, reestablish viable areas for businesses to locate, and
to stimulate job growth, at the Federal level, we must provide the
appropriate mix of incentives and the right climate to encourage
private investment.
This legislation take a non bureaucratic approach to encouraging
investment because all of the funds go toward the cleanup and not to
administrative costs. This legislation opens up opportunity through
targeted tax incentives.
The Community Empowerment Act creates tax incentives, that we hope
will break through some of the current barriers preventing the private
industry from investing in brownfields cleanup projects. The
legislation's tax incentives will help bring thousands of
environmentally contaminated industrial sites back into productive use
again, help to rebuild neighborhoods, create jobs, and help restore our
Nation's cities, distressed communities and rural areas.
Particularly in my State of Illinois, the brownfields provisions
should have a major impact on efforts to help restore severely
neglected areas. It will allow for the cleanup of 300 to 500 sites in
Illinois with remediation costs ranging from $250,000 to $500,000. It
is expected that such cleanup will create hundreds of jobs.
This legislation will help companies all across America absorb the
costs of restoring brownfields. The Treasury Department estimates that
the Community Empowerment Act of 1996 will provide $2 billion in tax
incentives, and that it will leverage $10 billion in private
investment, returning an estimated 30,000 brownfields to productive use
again.
What makes this legislation so attractive, is that the Federal
dollars to cleanup these brownfields will be concentrated in the areas
with the most severe problems. The tax incentive would be available in
neighborhoods that are truly in need of an investment. The bill targets
four areas: First, existing EPA brownfields pilot areas; second, areas
with a poverty rate of 20 percent or more and in adjacent industrial or
commercial areas; third, areas with a population under 2,000 or more
than 75 percent of which is zoned for industrial or commercial use; and
fourth, Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities.
This legislation will assist efforts to cleanup these brownfields in
cities across the Nation, with the active primary participation of the
cities and community leaders. Such participation will make the
initiative efficient, and successful.
Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, has taken the initiative to establish
a brownfields pilot program. One example of a successful public/private
partnership pulling together to cleanup a brownfields site is the
Madison Equipment site located in Illinois. This abandoned industrial
building was a neighborhood eyesore. Scavengers had stolen most of the
wiring and plumbing and illegal or ``midnight'' dumping was rampant.
Madison Equipment needed expansion space but feared environmental
liability. However, in 1993, the city of Chicago invested just a little
over $3,000 in this project and 1 year later Madison had put $180,000
into redeveloping the building. The critical reason that lenders and
investors will look at this area is because the city committed public
money to spur private redevelopment and investment. When the local
government demonstrates the confidence to commit public funds, private
financial institutions are more likely to follow suit.
Chicago's pilot program successfully will return all of the pilot
sites to productive use for a total of about $850,000. It has helped to
retain and create hundreds of jobs, and stimulated private investment.
Chicago is a perfect example of what this legislation can accomplish on
a national level. But in order to make it all happen, cooperation is
key. Effective strategies require strong partnerships among government,
industry, organized labor, community groups, developers,
environmentalists, and financiers who all realize that when their
efforts are aligned, progress is easier.
Brownfields are both an environmental and an economic development
problem and brownfield initiatives should be viewed as one important
component of a larger strategy for revitalizing our Nation's
communities. Cleaning up sites is only half the goal. Cleanup must be
pursued along with redevelopment that will benefit not only the private
companies but the community at large.
That is why along with the brownfield tax incentives, the legislation
also establishes 20 more empowerment zones and 80 additional enterprise
communities. Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities receive a
variety of tools from the Federal Government: First, a package of tax
incentives and flexible grants available over a 10-year period; second,
priority consideration for other Federal empowerment programs; and
third, assistance in removing bureaucratic red tape and regulatory
barriers that prevent innovative uses of Federal funds.
This approach recognizes that top-down, big-government solutions are
not the answer to communities' problems, and that enhanced public-
private partnerships are essential.
Economic empowerment can be achieved but it is best done through
public/private partnerships. Economic revitalization in this Nation's
most distressed communities is essential to the growth of our entire
Nation. With the concept of team effort, we can rebuild our cities by
stimulating investment that creates jobs. Environmental protection can
be and is good business. With this legislation, we will begin the
effort to restore economic growth back into our countries industrial
centers and rural communities while improving the environment.

[[Page S7182]]

I would like to thank President Clinton, Vice President Gore and
Secretary Rubin for their leadership and work on this issue. I
appreciate my colleagues Senator D'amato and Jeffords for their
cosponsorship and in making this legislation a bipartisan effort. I
urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting the quick passage of
this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a
section-by-section analysis of the bill and the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
I urge my colleagues to take a good look at the legislation. I think
and I hope that it will receive bipartisan support.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1911

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
TITLE I--ADDITIONAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES

SEC. 101. ADDITIONAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 1391(b) (relating
to designations of empowerment zones and enterprise
communities) is amended--
(1) by striking ``9'' and inserting ``11'',
(2) by striking ``6'' and inserting ``8'', and
(3) by striking ``750,000'' and inserting ``1,000,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
except that designations of new empowerment zones made
pursuant to such amendments shall be made during the 180-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--NEW EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES

SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND
ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 1391 (relating to designation
procedure for empowerment zones and enterprise communities)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Additional Designations Permitted.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to the areas designated
under subsection (a)--
``(A) Enterprise communities.--The appropriate Secretaries
may designate in the aggregate an additional 80 nominated
areas as enterprise communities under this section, subject
to the availability of eligible nominated areas. Of that
number, not more than 50 may be designated in urban areas and
not more than 30 may be designated in rural areas.
``(B) Empowerment zones.--The appropriate Secretaries may
designate in the aggregate an additional 20 nominated areas
as empowerment zones under this section, subject to the
availability of eligible nominated areas. Of that number, not
more than 15 may be designated in urban areas and not more
than 5 may be designated in rural areas.
``(2) Period designations may be made.--A designation may
be made under this subsection after the date of the enactment
of this subsection and before January 1, 1998.
``(3) Modifications to eligibility criteria, etc.--
``(A) Poverty rate requirement.--
``(i) In general.--A nominated area shall be eligible for
designation under this subsection only if the poverty rate
for each population census tract within the nominated area is
not less than 20 percent and the poverty rate for at least 90
percent of the population census tracts within the nominated
area is not less than 25 percent.
``(ii) Treatment of census tracts with small populations.--
A population census tract with a population of less than
2,000 shall be treated as having a poverty rate of not less
than 25 percent if--

``(I) more than 75 percent of such tract is zoned for
commercial or industrial use, and
``(II) such tract is contiguous to 1 or more other
population census tracts which have a poverty rate of not
less than 25 percent (determined without regard to this
clause).

``(iii) Exception for developable sites.--Clause (i) shall
not apply to up to 3 noncontiguous parcels in a nominated
area which may be developed for commercial or industrial
purposes. The aggregate area of noncontiguous parcels to
which the preceding sentence applies with respect to any
nominated area shall not exceed 1000 acres (2,000 acres in
the case of an empowerment zone).
``(iv) Certain provisions not to apply.--Section 1392(a)(4)
(and so much of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1392(b) as
relate to section 1392(a)(4)) shall not apply to an area
nominated for designation under this subsection.
``(v) Special rule for rural empowerment zones and
enterprise communities.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
designate not more than 1 empowerment zone, and not more than
5 enterprise communities, in rural areas without regard to
clause (i) if such areas satisfy emigration criteria
specified by the Secretary of Agriculture.
``(B) Size limitation.--
``(i) In general.--The parcels described in subparagraph
(A)(iii) shall not be taken into account in determining
whether the requirement of subparagraph (A) or (B) of section
1392(a)(3) is met.
``(ii) Special rule for rural areas.--If a population
census tract (or equivalent division under section
1392(b)(4)) in a rural area exceeds 1,000 square miles or
includes a substantial amount of land owned by the Federal,
State, or local government, the nominated area may exclude
such excess square mileage or governmentally owned land and
the exclusion of that area will not be treated as violating
the continuous boundary requirement of section 1392(a)(3)(B).
``(C) Aggregate population limitation.--The aggregate
population limitation under the last sentence of subsection
(b)(2) shall not apply to a designation under paragraph
(1)(B).
``(D) Previously designated enterprise communities may be
included.--Subsection (e)(5) shall not apply to any
enterprise community designated under subsection (a) that is
also nominated for designation under this subsection.
``(E) Indian reservations may be nominated.--
``(i) In general.--Section 1393(a)(4) shall not apply to an
area nominated for designation under this subsection.
``(ii) Special rule.--An area in an Indian reservation
shall be treated as nominated by a State and a local
government if it is nominated by the reservation governing
body (as determined by the Secretary of Interior).''
(b) Employment Credit Not To Apply to New Empowerment
Zones.--Section 1396 (relating to empowerment zone employment
credit) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(e) Credit Not To Apply to Empowerment Zones Designated
Under Section 1391(g).--This section shall be applied without
regard to any empowerment zone designated under section
1391(g).''
(c) Increased Expensing Under Section 179 Not To Apply in
Developable Sites.--Section 1397A (relating to increase in
expensing under section 179) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(c) Limitation.--For purposes of this section, qualified
zone property shall not include any property substantially
all of the use of which is in any parcel described in section
1391(g)(3)(A)(iii).''
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsections (e) and (f) of section 1391 are each
amended by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``this
section''.
(2) Section 1391(c) is amended by striking ``this section''
and inserting ``subsection (a)''.

SEC. 202. VOLUME CAP NOT TO APPLY TO ENTERPRISE ZONE FACILITY
BONDS WITH RESPECT TO NEW EMPOWERMENT ZONES.

(a) In General.--Section 1394 (relating to tax-exempt
enterprise zone facility bonds) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(f) Bonds for Empowerment Zones Designated Under Section
1391(g).--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a new empowerment zone
facility bond--
``(A) such bond shall not be treated as a private activity
bond for purposes of section 146, and
``(B) subsection (c) of this section shall not apply.
``(2) Limitation on amount of bonds.--
``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to a new
empowerment zone facility bond only if such bond is
designated for purposes of this subsection by the local
government which nominated the area to which such bond
relates.
``(B) Limitation on bonds designated.--The aggregate face
amount of bonds which may be designated under subparagraph
(A) with respect to any empowerment zone shall not exceed--
``(i) $60,000,000 if such zone is in a rural area,
``(ii) $130,000,000 if such zone is in an urban area and
the zone has a population of less than 100,000, and
``(iii) $230,000,000 if such zone is in an urban area and
the zone has a population of at least 100,000.
``(C) Special rules.--
``(i) Coordination with limitation in subsection (c).--
Bonds to which paragraph (1) applies shall not be taken into
account in applying the limitation of subsection (c) to other
bonds.
``(ii) Current refunding not taken into account.--In the
case of a refunding (or series of refundings) of a bond
designated under this paragraph, the refunding obligation
shall be treated as designated under this paragraph (and
shall not be taken into account in applying subparagraph (B))
if--

``(I) the amount of the refunding bond does not exceed the
outstanding amount of the refunded bond, and
``(II) the refunded bond is redeemed not later than 90 days
after the date of issuance of the refunding bond.

``(3) New empowerment zone facility bond.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term `new empowerment zone facility
bond' means any bond which would be described in

[[Page S7183]]

subsection (a) if only empowerment zones designated under
section 1391(g) were taken into account under sections 1397B
and 1397C.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 203. MODIFICATIONS TO ENTERPRISE ZONE FACILITY BOND
RULES FOR ALL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE
COMMUNITIES.

(a) Modifications Relating to Enterprise Zone Business.--
Paragraph (3) of section 1394(b) (defining enterprise zone
business) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Enterprise zone business.--
``(A) In general.--Except as modified in this paragraph,
the term `enterprise zone business' has the meaning given
such term by section 1397B.
``(B) Modifications.--In applying section 1397B for
purposes of this section--
``(i) Businesses in enterprise communities eligible.--
References in section 1397B to empowerment zones shall be
treated as including references to enterprise communities.
``(ii) Waiver of requirements during startup period.--A
business shall not fail to be treated as an enterprise zone
business during the startup period if--

``(I) as of the beginning of the startup period, it is
reasonably expected that such business will be an enterprise
zone business (as defined in section 1397B as modified by
this paragraph) at the end of such period, and
``(II) such business makes bona fide efforts to be such a
business.

``(iii) Reduced requirements after testing period.--A
business shall not fail to be treated as an enterprise zone
business for any taxable year beginning after the testing
period by reason of failing to meet any requirement of
subsection (b) or (c) of section 1397B if at least 35 percent
of the employees of such business for such year are residents
of an empowerment zone or an enterprise community. The
preceding sentence shall not apply to any business which is
not a qualified business by reason of paragraph (1), (4), or
(5) of section 1397B(d).
``(C) Definitions relating to subparagraph (b).--For
purposes of subparagraph (B)--
``(i) Startup period.--The term `startup period' means,
with respect to any property being provided for any business,
the period before the first taxable year beginning more than
2 years after the later of--

``(I) the date of issuance of the issue providing such
property, or
``(II) the date such property is first placed in service
after such issuance (or, if earlier, the date which is 3
years after the date described in subclause (I)).

``(ii) Testing period.--The term `testing period' means the
first 3 taxable years beginning after the startup period.
``(D) Portions of business may be enterprise zone
business.--The term `enterprise zone business' includes any
trades or businesses which would qualify as an enterprise
zone business (determined after the modifications of
subparagraph (B)) if such trades or businesses were
separately incorporated.''
(b) Modifications Relating to Qualified Zone Property.--
Paragraph (2) of section 1394(b) (defining qualified zone
property) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Qualified zone property.--The term `qualified zone
property' has the meaning given such term by section 1397C;
except that--
``(A) the references to empowerment zones shall be treated
as including references to enterprise communities, and
``(B) section 1397C(a)(2) shall be applied by substituting
`an amount equal to 15 percent of the adjusted basis' for `an
amount equal to the adjusted basis'.''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 204. MODIFICATIONS TO ENTERPRISE ZONE BUSINESS
DEFINITION FOR ALL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND
ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 1397B (defining enterprise zone
business) is amended--
(1) by striking ``80 percent'' in subsections (b)(2) and
(c)(1) and inserting ``50 percent'',
(2) by striking ``substantially all'' each place it appears
in subsections (b) and (c) and inserting ``a substantial
portion'',
(3) by striking ``, and exclusively related to,'' in
subsections (b)(4) and (c)(3),
(4) by adding at the end of subsection (d)(2) the following
new flush sentence:

``For purposes of subparagraph (B), the lessor of the
property may rely on a lessee's certification that such
lessee is an enterprise zone business.'',
(5) by striking ``substantially all'' in subsection (d)(3)
and inserting ``at least 50 percent'', and
(6) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Treatment of Businesses Straddling Census Tract
Lines.--For purposes of this section, if--
``(1) a business entity or proprietorship uses real
property located within an empowerment zone,
``(2) the business entity or proprietorship also uses real
property located outside the empowerment zone,
``(3) the amount of real property described in paragraph
(1) is substantial compared to the amount of real property
described in paragraph (2), and
``(4) the real property described in paragraph (2) is
contiguous to part or all of the real property described in
paragraph (1),

then all the services performed by employees, all business
activities, all tangible property, and all intangible
property of the business entity or proprietorship that occur
in or is located on the real property described in paragraphs
(1) and (2) shall be treated as occurring or situated in an
empowerment zone.''
(b) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years beginning on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Special rule for enterprise zone facility bonds.--For
purposes of section 1394(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, the amendments made by this section shall apply to
obligations issued after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
TITLE III--EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS

SEC. 301. EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.

(a) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 198. EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.

``(a) In General.--A taxpayer may elect to treat any
qualified environmental remediation expenditure which is paid
or incurred by the taxpayer as an expense which is not
chargeable to capital account. Any expenditure which is so
treated shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year
in which it is paid or incurred.
``(b) Qualified Environmental Remediation Expenditure.--For
purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified environmental
remediation expenditure' means any expenditure--
``(A) which is otherwise chargeable to capital account, and
``(B) which is paid or incurred in connection with the
abatement or control of hazardous substances at a qualified
contaminated site.
``(2) Special rule for expenditures for depreciable
property.--Such term shall not include any expenditure for
the acquisition of property of a character subject to the
allowance for depreciation which is used in connection with
the abatement or control of hazardous substances at a
qualified contaminated site; except that the portion of the
allowance under section 167 for such property which is
otherwise allocated to such site shall be treated as a
qualified environmental remediation expenditure.
``(c) Qualified Contaminated Site.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Qualified contaminated site.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified contaminated site'
means any area--
``(i) which is held by the taxpayer for use in a trade or
business or for the production of income, or which is
property described in section 1221(1) in the hands of the
taxpayer,
``(ii) which is within a targeted area, and
``(iii) which contains (or potentially contains) any
hazardous substance.
``(B) Taxpayer must receive statement from state
environmental agency.--An area shall be treated as a
qualified contaminated site with respect to expenditures paid
or incurred during any taxable year only if the taxpayer
receives a statement from the appropriate agency of the State
in which such area is located that such area meets the
requirements of clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (A).
``(C) Appropriate state agency.-- For purposes of
subparagraph (B), the appropriate agency of a State is the
agency designated by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency for purposes of this section. If no agency
of a State is designated under the preceding sentence, the
appropriate agency for such State shall be the Environmental
Protection Agency.
``(2) Targeted area.--
``(A) In general.--The term `targeted area' means--
``(i) any population census tract with a poverty rate of
not less than 20 percent,
``(ii) a population census tract with a population of less
than 2,000 if--

``(I) more than 75 percent of such tract is zoned for
commercial or industrial use, and
``(II) such tract is contiguous to 1 or more other
population census tracts which meet the requirement of clause
(i) without regard to this clause,

``(iii) any empowerment zone or enterprise community (and
any supplemental zone designated on December 21, 1994), and
``(iv) any site announced before February 1, 1996, as being
included as a brownfields pilot project of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
``(B) National priorities listed sites not included.--Such
term shall not include any site which is on the national
priorities list under section 105(a)(8)(B) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (as in effect on the date of the
enactment of this section).
``(C) Certain rules to apply.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the rules of sections 1392(b)(4) and 1393(a)(9)
shall apply.
``(D) Treatment of certain sites.--For purposes of this
paragraph, a single contaminated site shall be treated as
within a targeted area if--
``(i) a substantial portion of the site is located within a
targeted area described in

[[Page S7184]]

subparagraph (A) (determined without regard to this
subparagraph), and
``(ii) the remaining portions are contiguous to, but
outside, such targeted area.
``(d) Hazardous Substance.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `hazardous substance' means--
``(A) any substance which is a hazardous substance as
defined in section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and
``(B) any substance which is designated as a hazardous
substance under section 102 of such Act.
``(2) Exception.--Such term shall not include any substance
with respect to which a removal or remedial action is not
permitted under section 104 of such Act by reason of
subsection (a)(3) thereof.
``(e) Deduction Recaptured as Ordinary Income on Sale,
Etc.--Solely for purposes of section 1245, in the case of
property to which a qualified environmental remediation
expenditure would have been capitalized but for this
section--
``(1) the deduction allowed by this section for such
expenditure shall be treated as a deduction for depreciation,
and
``(2) such property (if not otherwise section 1245
property) shall be treated as section 1245 property solely
for purposes of applying section 1245 to such deduction.
``(f) Coordination With Other Provisions.--Sections 280B
and 468 shall not apply to amounts which are treated as
expenses under this section.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this section.''
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VI
of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:

``Sec. 198. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.''

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred after the date
of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after
such date.
____

Section-by-Section Analysis

Title I--Additional Empowerment Zones

Section 101 would authorize the designation of an
additional two urban empowerment zones under the 1994 first
round.

Title II--New Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities

Section 201 authorizes a second round of designations,
consisting of 80 enterprise communities and 20 empowerment
zones. Of the 80 enterprise communities, 50 would be in urban
areas and 30 would be in rural areas. Of the 20 empowerment
zones, 15 would be in urban areas and 5 would be in rural
areas. The designations would be made before January 1, 1998.
Certain of the eligibility criteria applicable in the first
round would be modified for the second round of designations.
First, the poverty criteria would be relaxed somewhat, so
that unlike the first round there would be no requirement
that at least 50 percent of the population census tracts have
a poverty rate of 35 percent or more. In addition, the
poverty criteria will not be applicable to areas specified in
the application as developable for commercial or industrial
purposes (1,000 acres in the case of an enterprise community,
2,000 acres in the case of an empowerment zone), and these
areas will not be taken into account in applying the size
limitations (e.g., 20 square miles for urban areas, 1,000
square miles for rural areas). The Secretary of Agriculture
will be authorized to designate up to one rural empowerment
zone and five rural enterprise communities based on specified
emigration criteria without regard to the minimum poverty
rates set forth in the statute. Rural census tracts in excess
of 1,000 square miles or including a substantial amount of
governmentally owned land may exclude such excess mileage or
governmentally owned land from the nominated area. Unlike the
first round, Indian reservations will be eligible to be
nominated (and the nomination may be submitted by the
reservation governing body without the State government's
participation). The empowerment zone employment credit will
not be available to businesses in the new empowerment zones,
and the increased expending under section 179 will not be
available in the developable acreage areas of empowerment
zones.
Section 202 authorizes a new category of tax-exempt
financing for financing for businesses in the new empowerment
zones. These bonds, rather than being subject to the current
State volume caps, will be subject to zone-specific caps. For
each rural empowerment zones, up to $60 million in such bonds
may be issued. For an urban empowerment zone with a
population under 100,000, $130 million of these bonds may be
issued. For each urban empowerment zone with a population of
100,000 or more, $230 million of these bonds may be issued.
Section 203 liberalizes the current definition of an
``enterprise zone business'' for purpose of the tax-exempt
financing available under both the first and second rounds.
Businesses will be treated as satisfying the applicable
requirements during a 2-year start-up period if it is
reasonably expected that the business will satisfy those
requirements by the end of the start-up period and the
business makes bona fide efforts to that end. Following
the start-up period a 3-year testing period will begin,
after which certain enterprise zone business requirements
will no longer be applicable (as long as more than 35
percent of the business' employees are residents of the
empowerment zone or enterprise community). The rules under
which substantially renovated property may be ``qualified
zone property,'' and thereby be eligible to be financed
with tax-exempt bonds, would also be liberalized slightly.
Section 204 liberalizes the definition of enterprise
business for purposes of both the tax-exempt financing
provisions and the additional section 179 expensing by
reducing from 80 percent to 50 percent the amount of total
gross income that must be derived within the empowerment zone
or enterprise community, by reducing how much of the
business' property and employees' services must be located in
or provided within the zone or community, and by easing the
restrictions governing when rental businesses will qualify as
enterprise zone businesses. A special rule is also provided
to clarify how a business that straddles the boundary of an
empowerment zone or enterprise community (e.g., by straddling
a population census tract boundary) is treated for purposes
of the enterprise zone business definition.

title iii--expensing of environmental remediation costs

Section 301 would provide a current deduction for certain
remediation costs incurred with respect to qualified sites.
Generally, these expenses would be limited to those paid or
incurred in connection with the abatement or control of
environmental contaminants. This deduction would apply for
alternative minimum tax purposes as well as for regular tax
purposes.
Qualified sites would be limited to those properties that
satisfy use, geographic, and contamination requirements. The
use requirement would be satisfied if the property is held by
the taxpayer incurring the eligible expenses for use in a
trade or business or for the production of income, or if the
property is of a kind properly included in the inventory of
the taxpayer. The geographic requirement would be satisfied
if the property is located in (i) any census tract that has a
poverty rate of 20 percent or more, (ii) any other census
tract (a) that has a population under 2,000, (b) 75 percent
or more of which is zoned for industrial or commercial use,
and (c) that is contiguous to one or more census tracts with
a poverty rate of 20 percent or more, (iii) an area
designated as a federal EZ or EC, or (iv) an area subject to
one of the 40 EPA Brownfields Pilots announced prior to
February 1996. Both urban and rural sites may qualify.
Superfund National Priority listed sites would be excluded.
The contamination requirement would be satisfied if
hazardous substances are present or potentially present on
the property. Hazardous substances would be defined generally
by reference to sections 101(14) and 102 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), subject to additional limitations applicable to
asbestos and similar substances within buildings, certain
naturally occurring substances such as radon, and certain
other substances released into drinking water supplies due
to deterioration through ordinary use.
To claim the deduction under this provision, the taxpayer
would be required to obtain a statement that the site
satisfies the geographic and contamination requirements from
a State environmental agency designated by the Environmental
Protection Agency for such purposes or, if no such agency has
been designated by the EPA, by the EPA itself.
This deduction would be subject to recapture under current-
law section 1245. Thus, any gain realized on disposition
generally would be treated as ordinary income, rather than
capital gain, up to the amount of deductions taken with
respect to the property.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and
colleague, Senator Moseley-Braun, in introducing legislation that will
provide a new tax incentive to encourage the private sector to clean up
thousands of contaminated, abandoned sites known as ``brownfields.''
Brownfield sites are abandoned or vacant commercial and industrial
properties suspected of being environmentally contaminated.
Under current law, the IRS has determined that costs incurred to
clean up land and ground water are deductible as business expenses, as
long as the costs are incurred by the same taxpayer that contaminated
the land, and that taxpayer plans to use the land after the cleanup for
the same purposes used prior to the cleanup. That means that new owners
who wish to use land suspected of environmental contamination for a new
purpose, would be precluded from deducting the costs of cleanup in the
year incurred. They would only be allowed to capitalize the costs and
depreciate them over time. Therefore, it is time for us to recognize
the need for aggressive economic development policies for the future
economic health of communities around the country, and to recognize the
inequity of current tax law. Senator Moseley-Braun and I believe that
our

[[Page S7185]]

legislation is the type of initiative the Federal Government needs to
encourage development of once-abandoned, unproductive sites that will
bring real economic benefits to urban distressed and rural areas across
the United States. By encouraging redevelopment, jobs will be created,
economic growth will continue, property values will increase, as well
as local tax revenues.
Mr. President, I am proud to say that in my State of New York, the
city of Elmira has been selected as a fourth round finalist for the
EPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative Demonstration Pilot
Program. The city of Elmira has primed an unsightly and unsafe urban
brownfield and is now in the final stages of turning it into a revenue
and jobs producing venture. The city of Elmira initiated this important
project with no guarantees of public or private funding and has done
this at very minimal cost to taxpayers. Can you imagine what could and
would be done if the public and private sector had the encouragement to
also become involved?
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
join Senator Moseley-Braun and me in cosponsoring this important
legislation.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators
Moseley-Braun and D'Amato to introduce a bill that will give tax
incentives to businesses that cleanup these contaminated industrial
sites known as brownfields. This bill will put us on a path that will
bring environmental renewal and economic revitalization to our
communities.
Mr. President, brownfields are like scars on the American landscape,
a legacy of the dramatic shift of industry from inner cities to
suburban greenfields during the 1970's and 1980's. Once bustling
factories are now abandoned eyesores. In communities across the
country, some 500,000 abandoned and contaminated sites and facilities
are in desperate need of revitalization.
Vermont may not have as many brownfield sites as some of the more
industrial States, but we are just as interested in seeing these cites
cleaned up and put back to use. In Vermont, we see the reuse of
brownfield sites as a way to keep development downtown and reduce the
pressure to pave pastureland.
Mr. President, we treasure our open spaces in Vermont and this
legislation will give incentives to companies around the country to
invest in the downtowns of our States. When a company builds a facility
on a brownfield site it takes advantage of existing infrastructure. The
revitalization of a brownfield site means one less farm or field is
paved over or forest cut down for the sake of a new plant or facility.
The redevelopment of brownfield sites also has important social
implications for our towns and cites. It means that jobs stay downtown
and that our urban centers can continue to be places of commerce and
social interaction. I am pleased that the EPA recently awarded one of
its brownfields pilot projects to Burlington, VT.
Mr. President, since the early 1800's, Burlington has been the
largest and most important industrial center of Vermont and the Lake
Champlain region. The city is among the least well-off in the State and
was recently designated as an Urban Enterprise Community.
There are currently 19 polluted commercial and industrial sites in
Burlington. The city now has only one unpolluted site available for
industrial development. The lack of sites has been a major obstacle in
the city's efforts to attract quality jobs and has contributed to the
development of prime agricultural soil, suburban sprawl, and all the
associated environmental problems. Mr. President, most of the city's
brownfields are located either within or adjacent to low- and moderate-
income neighborhoods, contributing to a trend of disinvestment and
increased health hazards.
While this legislation won't solve all of our problems, it is an
important step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to join
us in cosponsoring this significant bill.
______

By Mr. PRYOR:
S. 1912. A bill to clarify the provision of section 3626(b) of title
39, United States Code, defining an ``institution of higher
education''; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

elderhostel catalog legislation

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, to day I am introducing legislation that
will address a situation facing Elderhostel. Elderhostel, for those who
have not heard of this organization, is an independent, non-profit
organization which operates a central course catalog and registration
system for college level classes for people over the age of 60. These
courses are sponsored by colleges and universities at more than 1,900
colleges, universities, museums, national parks, and environmental
education centers in the United States, Canada, and 47 other countries.
Elderhostel receives no Federal or State support.
Elderhostel provides easy access to these continuing education
programs through the mailing of its course catalog. Unfortunately, a
U.S. Postal Service definition prevents Elderhostel from mailing their
catalog at a second-class catalog rate. This catalog rate is used, for
example, by the American Bar Associations' continuing legal education
material. Elderhostel is barred from using that rate because rather
than being a catalog of one institution of higher learning, it is a
compilation of courses offered by otherwise eligible ``regularly
incorporated non-profit institutions of learning.''
The legislation I am introducing today simply expands the definition
of an institution of higher education eligible to mail at second-class
rates to include a nonprofit organization that coordinates a network of
college level courses that non-profit colleges and universities offer
to older adults. The National Federal of Nonprofits, the Advertising
Mail Marketing Association and the Direct Marketing Association have no
objection to this legislation.
Mr. President, this bill solves a problem caused by the fact that
Elderhostel does not fit neatly into the Postal Services' definitions
and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
______

By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 1913. A bill to establish the Lower East Side Tenement Museum
National Historic Site, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.

The Lower East Side Tenement Museum National Historic Site Act of 1996

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, most of us have heard the stories of how
the great wave of immigrants of generations ago entered our Nation, but
few really know what happened to them after Ellis Island. At the Lower
East Side Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard Street in New York City, one is
able to follow the lives of the immigrants beyond the first hours on
our shores. The museum tells their history, displays their courage and
showcases their values in an interpretive setting that brings the
visitor back to an era from which many of us came. The museum presents
to many of us an awareness of our ancestral roots that we may never
have known existed. Through the legislation being introduced by my
friend Senator Moynihan and I, the museum will be declared a national
historic site and able to affiliate itself with the National Park
Service. Enactment of this legislation will bestow national recognition
on the humble beginnings of millions of our ancestors.
The Tenement Museum is unique in that it not only traces the quality
of life inside the tenement, but presents a picture of the immigrant's
outside world as well. Due to the cramped and dingy nature of the
tenement, as much time as possible was spent outside. Thus, in order to
fully explore their lives, it is essential to look toward their work,
their houses of worship, their organizations, and their entertainment.
The museum incorporates the experiences of yesteryear's immigrants and
interprets them for today's generations. Besides on-site programs, the
museum utilizes the surrounding neighborhood; an area which continues
to this day in its role as a receiver of immigrants.
Throughout our Nation we have preserved, remembered and cherished
places of national significance and beauty. We have put enormous energy
in maintaining homes of noted Americans and protecting vast areas of
wilderness. What we do not have, though, is a monument to the socalled
``ordinary citizen.'' The Tenement Museum will fill that role.

[[Page S7186]]

It is unlikely that many of those who lived in buildings like the one
at 97 Orchard Street felt that they were special. Rather, they were
probably grateful for the chance to come to America to try to make a
better life for themselves and their families. Given the living and
working conditions that we now take for granted, the language and
cultural obstacles they had to overcome, we should be in awe of their
ability to take hold of an opportunity and not only survive, but
thrive. It is their contributions to society in the face of
overwhelming obstacles that defined an era and established an ethic
that survives to this day. It is their spirit that we admire, and that,
in retrospect, makes these otherwise ordinary individuals special. The
Tenement Museum is their monument, and as their descendants, it is ours
as well.
Congress has an opportunity to recognize the pioneer spirit of our
ancestors and deliver it to future generations of Americans. The museum
reminds us all of an important and often forgotten chapter in our
immigrant heritage, mainly, that millions of families made their first
stand in our Nation not in a log cabin or farm house or mansion, but in
a city tenement. Designating the Lower East Side Tenement Museum a
National Historic Site and granting it affiliated area status within
the National Park Service will shed light on that chapter in our
history while linking it to the chain of the Statue of Liberty, Ellis
Islands and Castle Clinton in the story of our urban immigrant
heritage. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Moynihan and me in
cosponsoring this bill, and I urge its speedy consideration by the
Senate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1913

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Lower East Side Tenement
Museum National Historic Site Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Lower East Side Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard
Street is an outstanding survivor of the vast number of
humble buildings that housed immigrants to New York City
during the greatest wave of immigration in American history;
(2) the Museum is well suited to represent a profound
social movement involving great numbers of unexceptional but
courageous people;
(3) no single identifiable neighborhood in the United
States absorbed a comparable number of immigrants;
(4) the Lower East Side Tenement Museum is dedicated to
interpreting immigrant life on the Lower East Side and its
importance to United States history, within a neighborhood
long associated with the immigrant experience in America; and
(5) the National Park Service found the Lower East Side
Tenement Museum to be nationally significant, suitable, and
feasible for inclusion in the National Park System.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to ensure the preservation, maintenance, and
interpretation of this site and to interpret in the site and
in the surrounding neighborhood, the themes of early tenement
life, the housing reform movement, and tenement architecture
in the United States;
(2) to ensure the continuation of the Museum at this site,
the preservation of which is necessary for the continued
interpretation of the nationally significant immigrant
phenomenon associated with the New York City's Lower East
Side, and its role in the history of immigration to the
United States; and
(3) to enhance the interpretation of the Castle Clinton
National Historic Monument and Ellis Island National Historic
Monument through cooperation with the Museum.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act:
(1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the
Lower East Side Tenement Museum designated as a national
historic site by section 4.
(2) Museum.--The term ``Museum'' means the Lower East Side
Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard Street, New York City, in the
State of New York, and related facilities owned or operated
by the Museum.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC SITE.

To further the purposes of this Act and the Act entitled
``An act to provide for the preservation of historic American
sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national
significance, and for other purposes'', approved August 21,
1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Lower East Side Tenement
Museum at 97 Orchard Street, in the city of New York, State
of New York, is designated as a national historic site.

SEC. 5. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into a cooperative
agreement with the Lower East Side Tenement Museum to carry
out this Act.
(b) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The agreement may
include provisions by which the Secretary will provide--
(1) technical assistance to mark, restore, interpret,
operate, and maintain the historic site; and
(2) financial assistance to the Museum to mark, interpret,
and restore the historic site, including the making of
preservation-related capital improvements and repairs.
(c) Additional Provisions.--The agreement may also contain
provisions that permit the Secretary acting through the
National Park Service, to have a right of access at all
reasonable times to all public portions of the property
covered by the agreement for the purpose of conducting
visitors through the properties and interpreting the portions
to the public.

SEC. 6. APPROPRIATIONS.

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

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

[[Page S7187]]

further integrating the past and present immigrant experience on the
Lower East Side.
This bill designates the Tenement Museum a national historic site. It
also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative
agreements with the Museum. Such agreements could include technical or
financial assistance to help restore, operate, maintain, or interpret
the site. Agreements can also be made with the Statue of Liberty/Ellis
Island and Castle Clinton to help with the interpretation of life as an
immigrant. It will be a productive partnership.
Mr. President, I believe the Tenement Museum provides an outstanding
opportunity to preserve and present an important stage of the immigrant
experience and the move for social change in our cities at the turn of
the century. I know of no better place than 97 Orchard Street to do so,
and no other place in the National Park System doing so already. I look
forward to the realization of this grand idea, and I ask my colleagues
for their support.
______

By Mr. HATCH:
S. 1914. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify
the treatment of research related to an existing business component; to
the Committee on Finance.

clarification legislation

Mr. HATCH. 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. 1914

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF RESEARCH ON EXISTING BUSINESS
COMPONENTS ELIGIBLE FOR RESEARCH CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 41(d)(4) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to activities for
which credit is not allowed) is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``The preceding sentence shall
not apply to research related to the development of a
business component of a taxpayer which is an original
alternative to achieve the equivalent result of an existing
business component of a competitor of the taxpayer.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS:
S. 1915. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to
prohibit the sale of products labeled as containing endangered species,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.

The Rhino and Tiger Products Labeling Act

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to
introduce legislation aimed at helping to stem the dramatic decrease in
populations of some of the Earth's most exotic and magnificent animals.
Animals such as the African black rhino, the white rhino, the Bengal
tiger and other endangered species are on the brink of extinction.
Rhinos and tigers are disappearing faster than any other large mammal
on the planet. No more than 5,000 to 7,500 Bengal tigers and fewer than
650 Sumatran tigers remain in the world.
Ironically, in many ways their rarity and mystique are contributing
to the problem. The parts of these animals are advertised as having
powerful medicinal qualities. For example, tiger bone and rhino horn
are considered to calm convulsions and enhance longevity. The business
of trade in endangered species parts and products is becoming big
business and encouraging increased poaching of these animals--
threatening international recovery efforts. A booming underground
market has developed around the trade of endangered species parts and
products.
Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will address a
remaining loophole in the Endangered Species Act that allows the sale
of products labeled as containing endangered species. My legislation
will amend section 9 of the Endangered Species Act to prohibit the sale
of products labeled as containing any species of fish or wildlife
listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species.
Through this legislation, we will be addressing the increasing trade
in endangered species in two ways--first, by giving U.S. law
enforcement officers the ability to prosecute the retailers of these
products; and--second, by curbing the marketing of endangered species
parts as key ingredients in medicinal products.
First, there is currently no legal mechanism to confiscate or
prosecute for sale or display of these products once they are on store
shelves. Through this legislation, law enforcement officers will be
able to start addressing the increasing promotion and sale of products
labeled as containing endangered species.
By addressing the marketing of these products, this legislation will
help curb the expanding domestic U.S. market for medicines that
contain, or claim to contain, endangered species parts. By allowing
these products to remain on the shelves of stores across the country,
we are perpetuating the reliance upon and perception of the efficacy of
endangered species I addressing health ailments. Again, this perception
is fueling increased poaching and smuggling of endangered species
around the world.
Mr. President, in order to eliminate the domestic market for patented
medicines and other products containing critically endangered tigers,
rhinos and other species, and to increase the success and frequency of
prosecutions of merchants and traffickers of these items, this change
in current law is needed. Let us send a message to these merchants and
traffickers of endangered species that the United States will not help
feed the global demand for endangered species. Mr. President, let us
send a strong and forceful message to our wildlife enforcement officers
that we support their efforts to stem the increasing trade in these
magnificent animals.
______

By Mr. DeWINE:
S. 1916. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey to
the village of Mariemont, OH, a parcel of land referred to as the
``Ohio River Division Laboratory of the Army Corps of Engineers'', and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

the army corps of engineers legislation

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that provides
for the transfer of 3.22 acres of land owned by the Army Corps of
Engineers at an appraised value to the Village of Mariemont, OH. The
proceeds of the sale will be deposited in the general fund of the
Treasury and credited as miscellaneous receipts. The General Services
Administration conducted a 30-day Federal screening of the property and
informed the minority side of the Governmental Affairs Committee and me
that no Federal agency expressed interest in the property.
______

By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Shelby):

S. 1917. A bill to authorize the State of Michigan to implement the
demonstration project known as ``To Strengthen Michigan Families''; to
the Committee on Finance.

Michigan Welfare Waiver Legislation

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from
Alabama, Senator Shelby, to introduce legislation that will allow the
State of Michigan to proceed with the third phase of its comprehensive
welfare reform program, known as ``To Strengthen Michigan Families.''
This legislation is similar to legislation which recently passed the
House of Representatives that authorized the State of Wisconsin to
proceed with its latest welfare reform initiatives without requiring
formal waiver approval by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
In 1992, Michigan began a comprehensive overhaul of its welfare
reform programs. This effort, called ``To Strengthen Michigan
Families,'' was guided by four major principles that distinguished it
from existing Federal welfare policy.
First, Michigan sought to eliminate many of the existing
disincentives for welfare recipients to find work and to earn money.
Second, Michigan proposed to end the elements in the current system
which serve either as an incentive for families to split up or as a
disincentive for couples to become or to remain married.
Third, Michigan sought to instill increased personal responsibility
among welfare recipients by making greater demands of them with respect
to finding work or obtaining the education

[[Page S7188]]

and skills necessary to finding future employment.
Fourth, Michigan sought to supplement these changes in personal and
familial behavior with a commitment to greater involvement on the part
of community-based institutions, especially faith-based organizations.
With reforms in each of these areas, Michigan began its crusade to
end long-term, chronic welfare dependency. It required executive action
by the Governor, acts of the State Legislature, and waivers from HHS
from many burdensome or counterproductive regulations that were
symptomatic of the existing failed system. And in 1994, Michigan
enacted and began implementation of its second set of comprehensive
welfare reforms, building on the foundation established by the original
reform initiatives.
The results of Michigan's reforms to date have been impressive and
demonstrate Michigan's success in moving people off of welfare.
Michigan's AFDC caseload has dropped from 221,884 cases in September
1992 to 176,634 cases in May 1996--a decrease of 45,250 cases. The
current AFDC caseload level is the lowest in nearly 25 years in
Michigan. Caseloads in our State have decreased for 26 straight months
and have fallen by more than 20 percent over the past 2 years.
There is similar evidence that Michigan's emphasis on placing welfare
recipients into employment activities has been effective. During fiscal
year 1994 alone, nearly 30,000 individuals were placed into employment.
In addition, by January 1996, the number of cases with earned income
had risen to 31.1 percent, compared to the 15.7 percent of cases with
earned income in September 1992. The most recent figures available--May
1996--for percentage of caseload with earned income is 29.1 percent.
Since September 1992, over 90,000 AFDC cases have been closed as a
result of earned income from employment.
In developing the latest round of reform initiatives, Michigan
created advisory committees to make policy recommendations in four core
areas of public assistance: AFDC and other cash assistance, child care,
child protection, and Medicaid. These advisory committees were each
comprised of 50 to 100 people selected to represent a broad cross-
section of community leaders, service providers and advocates, and
users of services. These advisory committees conducted over 400 focus
group meetings involving more than 4,000 participants. Their objective
was to analyze the current system and identify barriers to greater
program efficiency and to moving people more quickly and
compassionately from welfare to self-sufficiency.
The advisory committees were a key reason why these reforms received
such strong bipartisan support in the Michigan State Legislature. The
Michigan State Senate adopted the reform package on a vote of 30 to 7.
The State house of representatives passed the legislation by a margin
of 85 to 22.
In the latest series of reforms, we impose tougher requirements on
welfare recipients, but we also pledge more assistance--including child
care, transportation and health care--in helping those who are
attempting to make the transition from welfare to work. The goal is not
to punish people who receive welfare. Rather, we believe people who are
in need of assistance and receive it have some important
responsibilities of their own. We stand ready to assist them as long as
they are willing to make genuine efforts toward becoming self-
sufficient.
Mr. President, if Congress and the President cannot agree on
comprehensive welfare reform legislation at the national level, I
believe individual States must be allowed to implement their own bold
and innovative new approaches to ending welfare dependency. Under the
present system, States are required to obtain prior approval from HHS
before they implement many types of reform. The latest package of
Michigan reforms would require 76 waivers. When you consider that
during the 3\1/2\ years of the Clinton administration HHS has only
approved 67 waivers nationwide, there is tremendous concern as to how
long it will likely take for all of Michigan's waivers to become
approved--if they ever are all approved.
The bill I am introducing today will provide the State of Michigan
the latitude it needs and deserves to conduct effective welfare reform
until it can be enacted at the national level. As I discussed earlier
in my remarks, Michigan's leadership in the area of welfare reform is
well-known. To date, the reforms have been very successful--both in
moving people off of welfare and in improving the quality of life for
those who remain on welfare. The latest round of reforms follows in the
tradition of tough but compassionate welfare policies that we in
Michigan started in 1992. The people of Michigan deserve to be allowed
to move forward expeditiously with these latest reform initiatives.
It is my hope that the Clinton administration will move quickly to
approve all of the necessary waivers that have been requested. If that
does not happen, the legislation that I have introduced in the Senate
today--and that my friend and colleague Representative Dave Camp is
introducing today in the other body--will be available for us to bring
to the floor for debate and hopefully passage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the
reforms included in the most recent proposed reforms in the Michigan
program be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record; as follows:

MICHIGAN'S LATEST ROUND OF PROPOSED WELFARE REFORMS IN THE ``TO
STRENGTHEN MICHIGAN FAMILIES'' PROGRAM

The third phase of Michigan's on-going efforts at comprehensive
welfare reform, called ``To Strengthen Michigan's Families,'' passed
the Michigan State Legislature and were signed into law by Governor
Engler in December 1995. These reforms affect five major Federal public
assistance programs: AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, child day care, and
refugee assistance.
The proposed reforms require a total of--at last count--76 waivers
approved by the Department of Health and Human Services. The major
components of the reform package fall into four general categories:

(1) Increased Personal Responsibility for Individuals
Receiving Assistance:
Require attendance for all adult AFDC, Food Stamps, and
State General Assistance applicants/recipients at a joint
orientation meeting with Family Independence Agency and
Michigan Job Commission personnel as a condition for
eligibility.
Require recipients to enter into a Family Independence
Contract.
Require compliance with work activity requirements within
60 days. Failure to comply will result in the loss of the
family's AFDC benefits and food stamps for a minimum of one
month and until there is compliance with work requirements.
Require teen parents to live in an adult-supervised setting
and stay in school. Failure to comply will result in case
closure.
(2) Assistance and Incentives for Those Seeking Employment:
Provide greater employment-related services.
Guarantee access to child care.
Guarantee transportation.
Guarantee access to health care for anyone leaving welfare
for work.
Provide more resources to welfare recipients who work by
providing monthly EITC payments instead of one lump sum
payment.
(3) Remove Unnecessary or Overly Burdensome Regulations:
Provide for a vastly simplified application form--reduced
from the current 30 pages to 6 pages in length.
Provide for the most dramatic simplification of AFDC, Food
Stamps, and Medical Assistance anywhere in the country.
Streamline services by establishing a single point of
contact with the welfare office for each welfare recipient--
regardless of the mix of benefits received.
(4) Strengthening Families and Increasing Community
Involvement:
Provide additional funding for prevention services to help
keep children safe and strengthen families.
Allow faith-based organizations to work with communities to
address the needs of welfare recipients.
______

By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Simpson, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr.
Bradley, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Nickles, Mr.
Pryor, Mr. Graham, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Gramm, Mr. D'Amato, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Pressler, and Mr. Lott):
S. 1918. A bill to amend trade laws and related provisions to clarify
the designation of normal trade relations; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page S7189]]

the normal trade relations act

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, since the founding of our Republic, the
cornerstone of United States international trade policy has been the
principle of nondiscrimination. What this principle means is that every
country will give equal treatment to all products it imports from any
other country. For example, the United States applies the same tariff
duty rate on a particular product imported from one country as it
applies to imports of the same product from all other countries.
However, the principle of nondiscrimination goes beyond just trade in
goods. For example, if a foreign company wants to set up a branch in
the United States, it is subject to the same rules for establishing and
running its operations as companies from all other countries operating
in the United States.
The traditional term for this principle of nondiscrimination is most-
favored-nation treatment, or MFN for short. This term is rooted in a
very old concept in international law which states that in trade
relations, all countries will receive the same treatment as the most
favored nation.
While the term ``most-favored-nation'' is very old, it is a misnomer
that has created much confusion as to its exact meaning. There is no
such thing as a most favored nation--it is merely a hypothetical
concept. Yet, many mistakenly believe that a country that has MFN
status is being singled out for special status or preferential
treatment.
Despite its name, however, MFN is not a special trading privilege or
reward, nor is it the most favorable trade treatment that the United
States gives to its trading partners. Rather, MFN refers to the uniform
trade treatment that the United States gives to nearly every country in
the world. Because there are only seven countries in the world to which
the United States does not give MFN status, MFN denotes the ordinary,
not the exceptional, trading relationship.
To help correct the misconception created by the term ``most-favored-
nation'', Senator Moynihan and Senator Chafee have argued for some time
that the term should be changed. I agree with my colleagues that a
better term is needed. After working with them and Senator Baucus on
this issue, I am now introducing a bill, with the cosponsorship of the
entire membership of the Committee on Finance, that would establish a
new term--``normal trade relations'' as a more accurate description in
U.S. law and regulation of the principle of nondiscrimination. Creating
this new term does not in any way alter the international rights and
obligations of the United States. Rather, we merely seek to clarify
that the principle of nondiscrimination under U.S. law denotes the
standard and normal trade relationship that we have with nearly every
country in the world.
I urge my colleagues to support this modest, but important piece of
legislation.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I join with the chairman of the
Committee on Finance in introducing legislation to bring new clarity to
the muddled language of U.S. trade policy. The unanimity of support for
this legislation is demonstrated by the fact that each and every Member
of the Finance Committee is an original cosponsor.
Since the 18th century, the United States has pursued a policy of
nondiscrimination among its trading partners. This policy has created
considerable equality in the trading conditions we extend to the great
majority of countries with which we trade. If the United States has
normal trade relations with a country, that country receives treatment
equal to most others under our trade laws.
The legislation we introduce today is designed to call this policy of
equal treatment what it is--normal trade relations. For it has become
increasingly clear that the 18th century term used to describe this
policy of equal treatment, the term that still prevails in our
international agreements, our laws, and our usage, has served only to
confuse. By confusing, it is complicating the conduct of American
foreign trade policy.
Much of international and American law would have one believe that
there is a select handful of countries that are most favored. Not at
all the case, so it is time to stop suggesting so.
The legislation we introduce today states that it is the sense of the
Congress that henceforth U.S. law should more clearly reflect the
underlying principles of U.S. trade policy by substituting the term
``normal trade relations'' for the term ``most-favored-nation.'' In
each instance in U.S. trade law where it is appropriate to make such a
change, the legislation does so.
To our trading partners, let me say that there is no intention to
alter our international rights or obligations by virtue of this
legislation. ``MFN'' is a term with a long history of application and
interpretation. We mean no substantive change here. Our purpose is
solely linguistic--to change the language, not the content, or our
trade policy so that it is more comprehensible.
I hope the Senate will have an opportunity to act on this legislation
soon. I commend it to the attention of the Senate.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1920. A bill to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act, and for other purposes: to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.

THE ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT AMENDMENT ACT OF
1996

<bullet> Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to
amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]. I
introduce this so that we can return to the original intentions of the
act and clarify the blurring of lines that have occurred over the
years.
Fifteen years ago, Congress enacted the ANILCA. Over the opposition
of many Alaskans, over 100 million acres of land was set aside in a
series of vast Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness units. Much of
the concern about the act was the impact of these Federal units, and
related management restrictions, on traditional activities and
lifestyles.
To allay these concerns, ANILCA included a series of unique
provisions designed to ensure that traditional activities and
lifestyles would continue, that Alaskans would not be subjected to a
permit lifestyle, and that the agencies would be required to recognize
the crucial distinction between managing small units surrounded by
millions of people in the lower 48 and vast multi-million acre units
encompassing a relative handful of individuals and communities in
Alaska. The sponsors of ANILCA issued repeated assurances that the
establishment of these units would in fact protect traditional
activities and lifestyles and not place them in jeopardy.
Early implementation of the act closely reflected these promises.
However, as the years have passed, many of the Federal managers seem to
have lost sight of these important representations to the people of
Alaska. Agency personnel, trained primarily in lower 48 circumstances,
have brought the mentality of restriction and regulation to Alaska. The
critical distinctions between management of Parks, Refuges and
Wilderness areas in the 49th State and the lower 48 have blurred. The
result is the spread of restriction and regulation and the creation of
the exact permit lifestyle which we were promised would never happen.
I have become increasingly aware of this disturbing trend. In my
conversations with Alaskans, I hear many complaints about every
increasing restraints on traditional activities and requirements for
more and more paperwork and permits. A whole new industry has sprung up
to help Alaskans navigate the bureaucratic shoals that have built up
during the past few years.
Let me cite a few of the incidents that have come to our attention
and were discussed last year during oversight hearings held by the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service decides it wants to establish a wilderness management regime
and eliminate motorboat use on a river. It proceeds with the plan until
protests cause the Regional Solicitor to advise the Service that its
plan violates section 1110(a) of ANILCA. Owners of cabins built,
occupied, and used long before ANILCA are told they must give up their
interests in the cabins although section 1303 expressly enables cabin
owners to retain

[[Page S7190]]

their possessory interests in their cabins. Visitor services contracts
are awarded and then revoked because the agencies failed to adhere to
the requirements of section 1307. Small landowners of inholdings seek
to secure access to their property and are informed that they must file
for a right-of-way as a transportation and utility system and pay the
U.S. hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare a totally unnecessary
environmental impact statement. An outfitter spends substantial time
and money responding to a request for proposals, submits an apparently
winning proposal, and has the agency arbitrarily change its mind and
decide to withdraw its request--it does not offer to compensate the
outfitter for his efforts.
State fish and game regulations are circumvented by agency review
boards that give benefits to guide applicants willing to limit their
take of animals consistent with the Federal agencies' desires rather
than management rules of the Alaska Game Board.
Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today will ensure that
agencies are fairly implementing ANILCA consistent with its written
provisions and promises. These technical corrections to ANILCA will
ensure that its implementation is consistent with the intent of
Congress.
Mr. President, conditions have changed in the 15 years since the
passage of ANILCA and we have all had a great deal of experience with
the act's implementation. It is time to make the law clearer and to
make the Federal manager's job easier. We want to turn to the original
intent of Congress in some cases to make sure that intent is being
carried out.
Next month I plan on holding a hearing on this bill and look forward
to gaining the support of my colleagues for passage of this
legislation.<bullet>

____________________