[Pages S9887-S9897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 1210. A bill to authorize the acquisition of the geologic
formation known as the Valles Caldera currently managed by the Baca
Land and Cattle Co., and to provide for an effective management program
for this resource within the Department of Agriculture, and consistent
land management to protect the watershed of the Bandelier National
Monument; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

VALLE GRANDE VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION LEGISLATION

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this bill that I have just sent to the
desk, in my view, gives us a chance in this Congress to grasp a
historic opportunity to make a real difference for the American people
for generations to come.
Most Americans can name various geologic treasures and places of
wonder within our land. Places like Diamond Head in Hawaii, the
Sawtooth Mountains in Idaho, the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and Rocky
Mountain National Park in Colorado readily come to mind because our
people have access to them. However, there is a place in New Mexico
that rivals these areas in splendor and yet, few people know about, or
fully appreciate its significance. It is called the Valles Caldera.
The Valles Caldera is one of the world's greatest volcanic features.
A large circular crater 12-15 miles in diameter, the views from the rim
are awe inspiring. As one looks across the vast green valleys and
mountains that now sit within the ring of the caldera, and realizes
that they are all merely the cooled workings of a resurgent lava dome,
one is struck by the sheer magnitude of the natural forces that created
the Jemez Mountains in north central New Mexico.
The explosions that created the caldera, some 1.2 million years ago,
ejected over 100 cubic miles of earth, rock, and lava. It is estimated
that if the original mountain had come to a peak that it would have
been taller than Mount Everest.
However very few people, even in New Mexico, have ever been on this
land. Since 1860, it has been in private ownership. At that time it was
granted by the United States to the heirs of Don Luis Maria Cabeza de
Vaca as part of a settlement of Spanish land grant claims under the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and has since been known as the Baca Land
& Cattle Company.

It has passed through several owners since 1860, and about once in a
generation the United States has tried to purchase the land. The first
time was in the 1930's. Again, in the 1960's the late former Senator
from New Mexico, Clinton P. Anderson tried to negotiate a deal for the
land. Finally in 1980, the owner of the land, James ``Pat'' Dunigan,
was in negotiations with the Government to sell the land when he died a
premature death. Now, his family has come forward and said they would
like to fulfill his dream of seeing this land move into public
ownership.
Mr. President, this is an opportunity that we cannot let pass us by.
In 1993, the Forest Service completed a study of this land which lays
out the tremendous value it could have within public ownership:
First, the Valles Caldera is the classic example of a resurgent lava
dome. The study of its features has helped geologists to understand
volcanic processes throughout the world;
Second, the recreation potential is enormous. Hiking, camping, cross-
country skiing, photography, horse back riding, hunting, and fishing
are obvious possibilities.
The headwaters of the Jemez and San Antonio rivers are located on
this land, and represent some of the best trout fishing streams in New
Mexico. There are nearly 27 miles of trout streams on the ranch, most
of which meander through grass meadows perfect for fly fishing.
Also over 6,000 elk live on this land, making it ideal for hunting.
Perhaps the most unique features of this land are the seven enormous
open grassland valleys that are tailor made for horseback riding.
Third, finally, and perhaps most important, this land has been well
preserved. Through careful management of their grazing land, selective
timbering, and the use of proscribed fire, the current owners have
maintained the caldera as an ecological jewel. With over 65,000 acres
of conifer forests mixed with aspen, gamble oak, and broken rock known
as felsenmeer, and 30,000 acres of lush grasslands, the Caldera
supports an abundance of wildlife, including black bears and cougars.
Mr. President, words are a poor substitute for seeing this land, and
although pictures cannot convey its grandeur, they may provide my
colleagues with a sense of it:
First, to give people a sense of location, here is a map of north
central New Mexico. To the south is Albuquerque and then Santa Fe above
it. You'll notice that the Baca Ranch is nestled between the Santa Fe
National Forest, and Bandelier National Monument, which many members of
the public have visited.
Second, here is a satellite photo of the volcano. The black outline
represents the Baca Ranch, approximately 95,000 acres. For perspective,
on the right side of this photo is Los Alamos, NM, and just below it is
the Bandelier National Monument. This large yellow spot on the bottom
right corner of the caldera rim is known as the Valle Grande. It is the
only part of the Ranch that most people have seen because state highway
4 comes through on the side, but it is only one of seven valleys on the
property.
Third, here's a picture of the Valle Grande, it's about 4 miles wide
and 6 miles long covering over 17,000 acres.
Fourth, and here is the upper Jemez river which originates and
meanders through the Valle Grande.
Fifth, finally, here is a picture of the Valle Toledo the third
largest valley on the property, about 4,000 acres.
Mr. President, the legislation I'm introducing today does two things:
it gives the Forest Service the authority to start negotiating for the
purchase of this land in good faith by authorizing appropriations, land
exchanges, and the acceptance of donations; and it rationalizes the
boundaries between the Santa Fe National Forest and Bandelier National
Monument for consistent management of their respective watersheds.
Acquiring land of this quality and magnitude will not be cheap or
easy. It will take a lot of work on the part of this body and our
counterparts on the House, and on the part of the administration.
However, if we don't close this deal this time, I'm not sure the
American people will ever forgive us. Although the Dunigan's have been
great stewards of the land, they want to sell it. Who knows how future
owners may use this land.
When Senator Anderson tried to acquire this land for the United
States 35 years ago, we could have bought this land for less than $5
million. Now the costs will be much much greater, and if it is ever
subdivided, the costs will go up exponentially.
Mr. President, I know that many people will want to argue about the
management of this land. There are many, many uses that this land could
be put to, but I would caution my colleagues that now is not the time
to argue over future use. Let's worry about how we will acquire the
land first. Management options can be worked out later.
I think it will take additional time before a full management plan
can be put in place for the property. It would be an exercise in
futility for us to try to work all of that out before we move to take
advantage of this historic opportunity.
Mr. President, I understand that there is support for this effort to
bring this property into public ownership by others in the delegation.
I very much want to work with them and with people in the
administration to see this happen. It is a very important initiative
and a very important goal for us to pursue in the second session of
this Congress. So I hope very much that we can make progress on it.
______

By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 1212. A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 to clarify that records of arrival or
departure are not required to be collected for purposes of the
automated entry-exit control system developed under 110 of such act for
Canadians who are not otherwise required to possess a visa, passport,
or border crossing identification card; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

[[Page S9888]]

the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act
clarification amendment act of 1997

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, approximately 1 year ago the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act became law.
Next year at this time, September 30, 1998, section 110 of this act
will be implemented and will adversely--and unintentionally--affect our
neighbors in Canada. Section 110 requires the Immigration and
Naturalization Service [INS] to develop an automated entry and exit
system for the purpose of documenting the entry and departure of every
alien arriving and leaving the United States. The United States has
never had such an alien departure management system.
Unfortunately, section 110 as enacted fails to recognize the decades-
long practice of not requiring most Canadian nationals to fill out INS
documents--referred to as ``I-94s'' at the border.
In a December 18, 1996 letter to the Ambassador of Canada at the
time, Raymond Chretien, Senator Alan Simpson, and Representative Lamar
Smith, the chairmen of the Senate and the House Judiciary Subcommittees
on Immigration, respectively, indicated to Ambassador Chretien that it
was not the intention of the Judiciary Committee to impose any new
requirements for border crossing cards--so-called I-94's--on Canadians
who are not presently required to possess such documents.
The legislation which I am introducing today--which was introduced in
the House on September 16 by Congressman John LaFalce of New York--
would simply clarify the intent of Congress by exempting from the
section 110 provisions of the act Canadian nationals who are not now
required by law to possess a visa, passport, or border-crossing
identification card to enter the United States.
There is no logical reason to inhibit the flow of traffic between the
United States and Canada. If the committee's intention is not
clarified, and section 110 is implemented at the Canadian border,
congestion would become intolerable.
According to U.S. Customs, the port in Pembina, ND, saw 963,665
individuals cross into North Dakota in fiscal year 1996, averaging
2,640 people a day. Customs estimates that if the entry/exit system had
to be implemented on the Canadian border, providing the agent to spend
just 1 minute per person entering it would take two customs workers a
nonstop daily shift of 22 hours to process them.
An estimated 116 million persons cross into the United States at all
land points on the Canadian border. Of these, 76 million are Canadian
or United States permanent residents. More than $1 billion in goods and
services trade crosses the United States/Canadian border each day. I
urge the Judiciary Committee to consider soon mine or other legislation
to clarify the intent of the 1996 act.
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. 1212

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ALIENS FROM ENTRY-EXIT
CONTROL SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--Section 110(a) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1221 note) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) System.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than
2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Attorney General shall develop an automated entry and exit
control system that will--
``(A) collect a record of departure for every alien
departing the United States and match the records of
departure with the record of the alien's arrival in the
United States; and
``(B) enable the Attorney General to identify, through on-
line searching procedures, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants
who remain in the United States beyond the period authorized
by the Attorney General.
``(2) Exemption for certain aliens.--The system under
paragraph (1) shall not collect a record of arrival or
departure for an alien--
``(A) who is--
``(i) a Canadian national; or
``(ii) an alien having a common nationality with Canadian
nationals and who has his or her residence in Canada; and
``(B) who is not otherwise required by law to be in
possession, for purposes of establishing eligibility for
admission into the United States, of--
``(i) a visa;
``(ii) a passport; or
``(iii) a border crossing identification card.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546).
______

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Breaux, Mr. McCain, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Biden, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Murkowski):
S. 1213. A bill to establish a National Ocean Council, a Commission
on Ocean Policy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.

the oceans act of 1997

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oceans Act
of 1997. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senators
Stevens, Kerry, Snowe, Breaux, McCain, Inouye, Kennedy, Boxer, Biden,
Lautenberg, Akaka, and Murkowski. Mr. President, plainly and simply,
this bill calls for a plan of action for the 21st century to explore,
protect, and use our oceans and coasts.
This is not the first time we have faced the need for a national
ocean policy. Three decades ago, our Nation roared into space,
investing tens of billions of dollars to investigate the Moon and the
Sea of Tranquility. During that golden era of science, some of us also
recognized the importance of exploring the seas on our own planet. In
1966, Congress enacted the Marine Resources and Engineering Development
Act in order to define national objectives and programs with respect to
the oceans. That legislation laid the foundation for U.S. ocean and
coastal policy and programs and has guided their development for three
decades. I was elected to the Senate just 3 months after the 1966 act
was enacted into law, but I am pleased that both Senators Inouye and
Kennedy, the two cosponsors of the 1966 act still serving in the
Senate, have agreed to join me today in introducing the Oceans Act.
One of the central elements of the 1966 act was establishment of a
Presidential commission to develop a plan for national action in the
oceans and atmosphere. Dr. Julius A. Stratton, a former president of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and then-chairman of the Ford
Foundation, led the Commission on an unprecedented, and since
unrepeated, investigation of this Nation's relationship with the oceans
and the atmosphere. The Stratton Commission and its congressional
advisers--including Senators Warren G. Magnuson and Norris Cotton--
worked together in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, the Commission was
established and carried out its mandate in the Democratic
administration of Lyndon Johnson and saw its findings implemented by
the Republicans under President Richard Nixon. With a staff of 35
people, the commissioners heard and consulted over 1,000 people,
visited every coastal area of this country, and submitted some 126
recommendations in a 1969 report to Congress entitled ``Our Nation and
the Sea.'' Those recommendations led directly to the creation of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1970, laid the
groundwork for enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA] in
1972, and established priorities for Federal ocean activities that have
guided this Nation for almost 30 years.
While the Stratton Commission performed its job with vision and
integrity, the world has changed since 1966. Today, half of the U.S.
population lives within 50 miles of our shores and more than 30 percent
of the gross domestic product is generated in the coastal zone. Ocean
and coastal resources once considered inexhaustible are severely
depleted, and wetlands and other marine habitats are threatened by
pollution and human activities. In addition, the U.S. regulatory and
legal framework has developed over the years with the passage of a
number of statutes in addition to CZMA. These include the Endangered
Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and
the

[[Page S9889]]

Oil Pollution Act. Finally, the United Nations has declared 1998 to be
the International Year of the Ocean, focusing global attention on the
state of the world's oceans. In short, it is time to reexamine our
Nation's relationship to the sea.
The Oceans Act is vital to the continued health of the oceans and
prosperity of our coasts. It is patterned after and would replace the
1966 act. Like that act, it is comprised of three major elements:
First, the bill calls for development and implementation of a
coherent national ocean and coastal policy to conserve and sustainably
use fisheries and other ocean and coastal resources, protect the marine
environment and human safety, explore ocean frontiers, create marine
technologies and economic opportunities, and preserve U.S. leadership
on ocean and coastal issues.
Second, the bill establishes a 15-member Commission, similar to the
Stratton Commission, to examine ocean and coastal activities and report
within 18 months on recommendations for a national policy. Commission
members would be appointed by the President and the Congress. In
developing its recommendations, the Commission would assess Federal
programs and funding priorities, ocean-related infrastructure
requirements, conflicts among marine users, and technological
opportunities. The bill authorizes appropriations of $6 million over 2
years to support Commission activities.
Third, the bill creates a high-level Federal interagency Council that
is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and includes the heads of the
Departments of Navy, State, Transportation, and the Interior, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and
Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the National Economic
Council. This new Council will advise the President and serve as a
forum for developing and implementing an ocean and coastal policy, will
provide for coordination of Federal budgets and programs, and will work
with non-Federal and international organizations.
By establishing an action plan for ocean and coastal activities, the
Oceans Act should contribute substantially to national goals and
objectives in the areas of education and research, economic
development, and public safety. With respect to education and research,
our view of the oceans 30 years ago was based on a remarkably small
amount of information. When Jack Kennedy was in the White House, we
were just beginning to develop the capability for exploring the oceans,
and the driving factor was the military need to hide our submarines
from the Soviets during the cold war. What we knew of the oceans at
that time was based as much on what fishermen brought up in their nets
as it was on reliable scientific investigation.

Today, we still have explored only a tiny fraction of the sea, but
with the use of new technologies what we have found is truly
incredible. For example, hydrothermal vents, hot water geysers on the
deep ocean floor, were discovered just 20 years ago by oceanographers
trying to understand the formation of the earth's crust. Now this
discovery has led to the identification of nearly 300 new types of
marine animals with untold pharmaceutical and biomedical potential.
Many of our marine research efforts could have profound impacts on
our economic well-being. For example, research on coastal ocean
currents and other processes that affect shoreline erosion is critical
to effective management of the shoreline. Oceanographers are working
with Federal, State, and local managers to use this new understanding
in protecting beachfront property and the lives of those who reside and
work in coastal communities.
Development of underwater cameras and sonar, begun in the 1940's for
the U.S. Navy, has led to major strides not only for military uses, but
for marine archaeologists and scientists exploring unknown stretches of
sea floor. Consumers have benefited from the technology now used in
video cameras. Sonar has broad applications in both the military and
commercial sector.
Finally, marine biotechnology research is thought to be one of the
greatest remaining technological and industrial frontiers. Among the
opportunities which it may offer are to: restore and protect marine
ecosystems; monitor human health and treat disease; increase food
supplies through aquaculture; enhance seafood safety and quality;
provide new types and sources of industrial materials and processes;
and understand biological and geochemical processes in the world ocean.
In addition to the economic opportunities offered by our marine
research investment, traditional marine activities play an important
role in our national economic outlook. Ninety-five percent of our
international trade is shipped on the ocean and each year products
valued at more than $220 billion are shipped within the United States
via the water. In 1996, commercial fishermen in the United States
landed almost 10 billion pounds of fish with a value of $3.5 billion.
Their fishing-related activities contributed over $42 billion to the
U.S. economy. During the same period, marine anglers contributed
another $20 billion. Travel and tourism also contribute over $700
billion to our economy, much of which is generated in coastal areas.
Last year, in South Carolina alone, the total impact of tourism in
coastal areas was almost $6 billion. With a sound national ocean and
coastal policy and effective marine resource management, these numbers
have nowhere to go but up.
With respect to public safety, it is particularly important to
develop ocean and coastal priorities that reflect the changes we have
seen in recent years. Before World War II, most of the U.S. shoreline
was sparsely populated. There were long, wild stretches of coast,
dotted with an occasional port city, fishing village, or sleepy resort.
Most barrier islands had few residents or were uninhabited. After the
war, people began pouring in, and coastal development began a period of
explosive growth. In my State of South Carolina, our beaches attract
millions of visitors every year, and more and more people are choosing
to move to the coast--making the coastal counties the fastest growing
ones in the State. Seventeen of the 20 fastest growing states in the
Nation are coastal states--which compounds the situation that the most
densely populated regions already border the ocean. With population
growth comes the demand for highways, shopping centers, schools, and
sewers that permanently alter the landscape. If people are to continue
to live and work on the coast, we must do a better job of planning how
we impact the very regions in which we all want to live.
There is no better example of how our ocean and coastal policies
affect public safety, than to look at the effects of hurricanes.
Throughout the 1920's, hurricanes killed 2,122 Americans while causing
about $1.8 billion in property damages. By contrast, in the first 5
years of the 1990's, hurricanes killed 111 Americans, and resulted in
damages of about $35 billion. While we have made notable advances in
early warning and evacuation systems to protect human lives, the risk
of property loss continues to escalate and coastal inhabitants are more
vulnerable to major storms than they ever have been. In 1989, Hurricane
Hugo came ashore in South Carolina, leaving more than $6 billion in
damages. Of that total from Hugo, the Federal Government paid out more
than $2.8 billion in disaster assistance and more than $400 million
from the National Flood Insurance Program. The payments from private
insurance companies were equally staggering. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew
struck southern Florida and slammed into low-lying areas of Louisiana,
forever changing the lives of more than a quarter of a million people
and causing an estimated $25 to $30 billion in damage. Hurricanes
demonstrate that the human desire to live near the oceans and along the
coast comes with both a responsibility and a cost.
The oceans are part of our culture, part of our heritage, part of our
economy, and part of our future. Therefore, we need to be smart about
ocean policy--we need the best minds to come together and take a look
at what the real challenges are. It is not enough to sit back and
assume the role of caretakers. We must be proactive and develop a plan
for the future.
Mr. President, Members who doubt the need for this legislation need
only pick up a newspaper and they will be

[[Page S9890]]

face to face with pressing ocean and coastal issues: fish covered with
lesions in the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina; a powerful El Nino
brewing in the Pacific; condemnation of vacation homes as the beaches
beneath them erode; U.S. ships held hostage over fishing disputes; and
the list could go on. Deciding how to manage these problems and use the
seas is one of the most complicated tasks we can tackle. There are no
boundaries at sea, no national borders with fences and checkpoints. The
resources of the sea are a common heritage, shared by all. While our
coastal waters are governed by the United States for all of us, there
are few rules on the high seas and progress relies primarily on
international cooperation.
The United Nations has declared 1998 to the be the Year of the Ocean.
One reason for launching the International Year of the Ocean is to wake
up the governments and the public so we pay adequate attention to the
need to protect the marine environment and to ensure a healthy ocean.
This is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate and enhance what has
been accomplished in understanding and managing the ocean.
The Stratton Commission stated in 1969: ``How fully and wisely the
United States uses the sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly
its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing demands for
food and raw materials, its position and influence in the world
community, and the quality of the environment in which its people
live.'' Those words are as true today as they were 30 years ago.
Mr. President, it is time to look toward the next 30 years. This bill
offers us the vision and understanding needed to establish sound ocean
and coastal policies for the 21st century. I thank the cosponsors of
the legislation for joining with me in recognizing its significance and
trust that this body will work quickly to enact it into law. 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. 1213

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 ``Ocean Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS; PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Covering more than two-thirds of the Earth's surface,
the oceans and Great Lakes play a critical role in the global
water cycle and in regulating climate, sustain a large part
of Earth's biodiversity, provide an important source of food
and a wealth of other natural products, act as a frontier to
scientific exploration, are critical to national security,
and provide a vital means of transportation. The coasts,
transition between land and open ocean, are regions of
remarkably high biological productivity, contribute more than
30 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, and are of
considerable importance for recreation, waste disposal, and
mineral exploration.
(2) Ocean and coastal resources are susceptible to change
as a direct and indirect result of human activities, and such
changes can significantly impact the ability of the oceans
and Great Lakes to provide the benefits upon which the Nation
depends. Changes in ocean and coastal processes could affect
global climate patterns, marine productivity and
biodiversity, environmental quality, national security,
economic competitiveness, availability of energy,
vulnerability to natural hazards, and transportation safety
and efficiency.
(3) Ocean and coastal resources are not infinite, and human
pressure on them is increasing. One half of the Nation's
population lives within 50 miles of the coast, ocean and
coastal resources once considered inexhaustible are now
threatened with depletion, and if population trends continue
as expected, pressure on and conflicting demands for ocean
and coastal resources will increase further as will
vulnerability to coastal hazards.
(4) Marine technologies hold tremendous promise for
expanding the range and increasing the utility of products
from the oceans and Great Lakes, improving the stewardship of
ocean and coastal resources, and contributing to business and
manufacturing innovations and the creation of new jobs.
(5) Marine research has uncovered the link between oceanic
and atmospheric processes and improved understanding of world
climate patterns and forecasts. Important new advances,
including availability of military technology, have made
feasible the exploration of large areas of the ocean which
were inaccessible several years ago. In designating 1998 as
``The Year of the Ocean'', the United Nations highlights the
value of increasing our knowledge of the oceans.
(6) It has been 30 years since the Commission on Marine
Science, Engineering, and Resources (known as the Stratton
Commission) conducted a comprehensive examination of ocean
and coastal activities that led to enactment of major
legislation and the establishment of key oceanic and
atmospheric institutions.
(7) A review of existing activities is essential to respond
to the changes that have occurred over the past three decades
and to develop an effective new policy for the twenty-first
century to conserve and use sustainable ocean and coastal
resources, protect the marine environment, explore ocean
frontiers, protect human safety, and create marine
technologies and economic opportunities.
(8) While significant Federal ocean and coastal programs
are underway, those programs would benefit from a coherent
national ocean and coastal policy that reflects the need for
cost-effective allocation of fiscal resources, improved
interagency coordination, and strengthened partnerships with
State, private, and international entities engaged in ocean
and coastal activities.
(b) Purpose and Objectives.--The purpose of this Act is to
develop and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive, and long-
range national policy with respect to ocean and coastal
activities that will assist the Nation in meeting the
following objectives:
(1) The protection of life and property against natural and
manmade hazards.
(2) Responsible stewardship, including use, of fishery
resources and other ocean and coastal resources.
(3) The protection of the marine environment and prevention
of marine pollution.
(4) The enhancement of marine-related commerce,
transportation, and national security, and the resolution of
conflicts among users of the marine environment.
(5) The expansion of human knowledge of the marine
environment including the role of the oceans in climate and
global environmental change and the advancement of education
and training in fields related to ocean and coastal
activities.
(6) The continued investment in and development and
improvement of the capabilities, performance, use, and
efficiency of technologies for use in ocean and coastal
activities.
(7) Close cooperation among all government agencies and
departments to ensure--
(A) coherent regulation of ocean and coastal activities;
(B) availability and appropriate allocation of Federal
funding, personnel, facilities, and equipment for such
activities; and
(C) cost-effective and efficient operation of Federal
departments, agencies, and programs involved in ocean and
coastal activities.
(8) The preservation of the role of the United States as a
leader in ocean and coastal activities, and, when it is in
the national interest, the cooperation by the United States
with other nations and international organizations in ocean
and coastal activities.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act--
(1) The term ``Commission'' means the Commission on Ocean
Policy.
(2) The term ``Council'' means the National Ocean Council.
(3) The term ``marine research'' means scientific
exploration, including basic science, engineering, mapping,
surveying, monitoring, assessment, and information
management, of the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes--
(A) to describe and advance understanding of--
(i) the role of the oceans, coasts and Great Lakes in
weather and climate, natural hazards, and the processes that
regulate the marine environment; and
(ii) the manner in which such role, processes, and
environment are affected by human actions;
(B) for the conservation, management and sustainable use of
living and nonliving resources; and
(C) to develop and implement new technologies related to
sustainable use of the marine environment.
(4) The term ``marine environment'' includes--
(A) the oceans, including coastal and offshore waters and
the adjacent shore lands;
(B) the continental shelf;
(C) the Great Lakes; and
(D) the ocean and coastal resources thereof.
(5) The term ``ocean and coastal activities'' includes
activities related to marine research, fisheries and other
ocean and coastal resource stewardship and use, marine
aquaculture, energy and mineral resource extraction, national
security, marine transportation, recreation and tourism,
waste management, pollution mitigation and prevention, and
natural hazard reduction.
(6) The term ``ocean and coastal resource'' means, with
respect to the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes, any living or
non-living natural resource (including all forms of animal
and plant life found in the marine environment, habitat,
biodiversity, water quality, minerals, oil, and gas) and any
significant historic, cultural or aesthetic resource.

SEC. 4. NATIONAL OCEAN AND COASTAL POLICY.

(a) Executive Responsibilities.--The President, with the
assistance of the Council and the advice of the Commission,
shall--
(1) develop and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive, and
long-range national policy with respect to ocean and coastal
activities; and

[[Page S9891]]

(2) with regard to Federal agencies and departments--
(A) review significant ocean and coastal activities,
including plans, priorities, accomplishments, and
infrastructure requirements;
(B) plan and implement an integrated and cost-effective
program of ocean and coastal activities including, but not
limited to, marine research, stewardship of ocean and coastal
resources, protection of the marine environment, maritime
transportation safety and efficiency, the marine aspects of
national security, marine recreation and tourism, and marine
aspects of weather, climate, and natural hazards;
(C) designate responsibility for funding and conducting
ocean and coastal activities; and
(D) ensure cooperation and resolve differences arising from
laws and regulations applicable to ocean and coastal
activities which result in conflicts among participants in
such activities.
(b) Cooperation and Consultation.--In carrying out
responsibilities under this Act, the President and the
Council may use such staff, interagency, and advisory
arrangements as they find necessary and appropriate and shall
consult with non-Federal organizations and individuals
involved in ocean and coastal activities.

SEC. 5. NATIONAL OCEAN COUNCIL.

(a) Establishment.--The President shall establish a
National Ocean Council which shall consist of--
(1) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall be Chairman of the
Council;
(2) the Secretary of the Navy;
(3) the Secretary of State;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation;
(5) the Secretary of the Interior;
(6) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(7) the Director of the National Science Foundation;
(8) the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy;
(9) the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality;
(10) the Chairman of the National Economic Council;
(11) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
and
(12) such other Federal officers and officials as the
President considers appropriate.
(b) Administration.--
(1) The President or the Chairman of the Council may from
time to time designate one of the members of the Council to
preside over meetings of the Council during the absence or
unavailability of such Chairman.
(2) Each member of the Council may designate an officer of
his or her agency or department appointed with the advice and
consent of the Senate to serve on the Council as an alternate
in the event of the unavoidable absence of such member.
(3) An executive secretary shall be appointed by the
Chairman of the Council, with the approval of the Council.
The executive secretary shall be a permanent employee of one
of the agencies or departments represented on the Council and
shall remain in the employ of such agency or department.
(4) For the purpose of carrying out the functions of the
Council, each Federal agency or department represented on the
Council shall furnish necessary assistance to the Council.
Such assistance may include--
(A) detailing employees to the Council to perform such
functions, consistent with the purposes of this section, as
the Chairman of the Council may assign to them; and
(B) undertaking, upon request of the Chairman of the
Council, such special studies for the Council as are
necessary to carry out its functions.
(5) The Chairman of the Council shall have the authority to
make personnel decisions regarding any employees detailed to
the Council.
(c) Functions.--The Council shall--
(1) serve as the forum for developing an ocean and coastal
policy and program, taking into consideration the Commission
report, and for overseeing implementation of such policy and
program;
(2) improve coordination and cooperation, and eliminate
duplication, among Federal agencies and departments with
respect to ocean and coastal activities;
(3) work with academic, State, industry, public interest,
and other groups involved in ocean and coastal activities to
provide for periodic review of the Nation's ocean and coastal
policy;
(4) cooperate with the Secretary of State in--
(A) providing representation at international meetings and
conferences on ocean and coastal activities in which the
United States participates; and
(B) coordinating the Federal activities of the United
States with programs of other nations; and
(5) report at least biennially on Federal ocean and coastal
programs, priorities, and accomplishments and provide
budgetary advice as specified in section 7.

SEC. 6. COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) The President shall, within 90 days of the enactment of
this Act, establish a Commission on Ocean Policy. The
Commission shall be composed of 15 members including
individuals drawn from Federal and State governments,
industry, academic and technical institutions, and public
interest organizations involved with ocean and coastal
activities. Members shall be appointed for the life of the
Commission as follows:
(A) 7 shall be appointed by the President of the United
States, no more than 3 of whom may be from the executive
branch of the Government.
(B) 2 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate in consultation with the Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
(C) 2 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the
Senate in consultation with the Ranking Member of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
(D) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives in consultation with the Chairman of the
House Committee on Resources and the Chairman of the House
Committee on Science.
(E) 2 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives in consultation with the Ranking
Member of the House Committee on Resources and the Ranking
Member of the House Committee on Science.
(2) Chairman.--The President shall select a Chairman and
Vice Chairman from Among such 15 members.
(3) Advisory members to the commission.--The President
shall appoint 4 advisory members from among the Members of
the Senate and House of Representatives as follows:
(A) Two Members, one from each party, selected from the
Senate.
(B) Two Members, one from each party, selected from the
House of Representatives.
(b) Findings and Recommendations.--The Commission shall
report to the President and the Congress on a comprehensive
national ocean and coastal policy to carry out the purpose
and objectives of this Act. In developing the findings and
recommendations of the report, the Commission shall--
(1) review and suggest any necessary modifications to
United States laws, regulations, and practices necessary to
define and implement such policy;
(2) assess the condition and adequacy of investment in
existing and planned facilities and equipment associated with
ocean and coastal activities including human resources,
vessels, computers, satellites, and other appropriate
technologies and platforms;
(3) review existing and planned ocean and coastal
activities of Federal agencies and departments, assess the
contribution of such activities to development of an
integrated long-range program for marine research, ocean and
coastal resource management, and protection of the marine
environment, and identify any such activities in need of
reform to improve efficiency and effectiveness;
(4) examine and suggest mechanisms to address the
interrelationships among ocean and coastal activities, the
legal and regulatory framework in which they occur, and their
inter-connected and cumulative effects on the marine
environment, ocean and coastal resources, and marine
productivity and biodiversity;
(5) review the known and anticipated demands for ocean and
coastal resources, including an examination of opportunities
and limitations with respect to the use of ocean and coastal
resources within the exclusive economic zone, projected
impacts in coastal areas, and the adequacy of existing
efforts to manage such use and minimize user conflicts;
(6) evaluate relationships among Federal, State, and local
governments and the private sector for planning and carrying
out ocean and coastal activities and address the most
appropriate division of responsibility for such activities;
(7) identify opportunities for the development of or
investment in new products, technologies, or markets that
could contribute to the objectives of this Act;
(8) consider the relationship of the ocean and coastal
policy of the United States to the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea and other international agreements, and
actions available to the United States to effect
collaborations between the United States and other nations,
including the development of cooperative international
programs for marine research, protection of the marine
environment, and ocean and coastal resource management; and
(9) engage in any other preparatory work deemed necessary
to carry out the duties of the Commission pursuant to this
Act.
(c) Duties of Chairman.--In carrying out the provisions of
this subsection, the Chairman of the Commission shall be
responsible for--
(1) the assignment of duties and responsibilities among
staff personnel and their continuing supervision; and
(2) the use and expenditures of funds available to the
Commission.
(d) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government,
or whose compensation is not precluded by a State, local, or
Native American tribal government position, shall be
compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the
annual rate payable for Level IV of the Executive Schedule
under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each
day (including travel time) during which such member is
engaged in the performance of the duties of the Commission.
All members of the Commission who are officers or employees
of the United States shall serve without compensation in
addition to that received for their services as officers or
employees of the United States.
(e) Staff.--
(1) The Chairman of the Commission may, without regard to
the civil service laws and

[[Page S9892]]

regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director who
is knowledgeable in administrative management and ocean and
coastal policy and such other additional personnel as may be
necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties. The
employment and termination of an executive director shall be
subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the
Commission.
(2) The executive director shall be compensated at a rate
not to exceed the rate payable for Level V of the Executive
Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
The Chairman may fix the compensation of other personnel
without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to
classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates,
except that the rate of pay for such personnel may not exceed
the rate payable for GS-15, step 7, of the General Schedule
under section 5332 of such title.
(3) Upon request of the Chairman of the Commission, the
head of any Federal Agency shall detail appropriate personnel
of the agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in
carrying out its functions under this Act. Federal Government
employees detailed to the Commission shall serve without
reimbursement from the Commission, and such detailee shall
retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her
regular employment without interruption.
(4) The Commission may accept and use the services of
volunteers serving without compensation, and to reimburse
volunteers for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United
States Code. Except for the purposes of chapter 81 of title
5, United States Code, relating to compensation for work
injuries, and chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code,
relating to tort claims, a volunteer under this section may
not be considered to be an employee of the United States for
any purpose.
(5) The Commission is authorized to procure the temporary
and intermittent services of experts and consultants in
accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
but at rates not to exceed the daily rate payable for GS-15,
step 7, of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title
5, United States Code.
(f) Administration.--
(1) All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the
public, except when the Chairman of the Commission or a
majority of the members of the Commission determine that the
meeting or any portion of it may be closed to the public.
Interested persons shall be permitted to appear at open
meetings and present oral or written statements on the
subject matter of the meeting. The Commission may administer
oaths or affirmations to any person appearing before it.
(2) All open meetings of the Commission shall be preceded
by timely public notice in the Federal Register of the time,
place, and subject to the meeting.
(3) Minutes of each meeting shall be kept and shall contain
a record of the people present, a description of the
discussion that occurred, and copies of all statements filed.
Subject to section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the
minutes and records of all meetings and other documents that
were made available to or prepared for the Commission shall
be available for public inspection and copying at a single
location in the offices of the Commission.
(4) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does
not apply to the Commission.
(g) Cooperation With Other Agencies.--
(1) The Commission is authorized to secure directly from
any Federal agency or department any information it deems
necessary to carry out its functions under this Act. Each
such agency or department is authorized to cooperate with the
Commission and, to the extent permitted by law, to furnish
such information to the Commission, upon the request of the
Chairman of the Commission.
(2) The Commission may use the United States mails in the
same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the United States.
(3) The General Services Administration shall provide to
the Commission on a reimbursable basis the administrative
support services that the Commission may request.
(4) The Commission may enter into contracts with Federal
and State agencies, private firms, institutions, and
individuals to assist the Commission in carrying out its
duties. The Commission may purchase and contract without
regard to section 303 of the Federal Property and
Administration Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253), section
18 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
416), and section 8 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637), pertaining to competition and publication requirements,
and may arrange for printing without regard to the provisions
of title 44, United States Code. The contracting authority of
the Commission under this Act is effective only to the extent
that appropriations are available for contracting purposes.
(h) Report.--The Commission shall submit to the President,
via the Council, and to the Congress not later than 18 months
after the establishment of the Commission, a final report of
its findings and recommendations. The Commission shall cease
to exist 30 days after it has submitted its final report.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to support the activities of the
Commission a total of $6,000,000 for fiscal years 1998 and
1999. Any sums appropriated shall remain available without
fiscal year limitation until expended.

SEC. 7. REPORT AND BUDGET COORDINATION.

(a) Biennial Report.--Beginning in January, 1999, the
President, through the Council, shall transmit to the
Congress biennially a report, which shall include--
(1) a comprehensive description of the ocean and coastal
activities and related accomplishments of all agencies and
departments of the United States during the preceding two
fiscal years; and
(2) an evaluation of such activities and accomplishments in
terms of the purpose and objectives of this Act. Reports made
under this section shall contain such recommendations for
legislation as the President may consider necessary or
desirable.
(b) Budget Coordination.--
(1) Each year the Council shall provide general guidance to
each Federal agency or department involved in ocean or
coastal activities with respect to the preparation of
requests for appropriations.
(2) Working in conjunction with the Council, each agency or
department involved in such activities shall include with its
annual request for appropriations a report which--
(A) identifies significant elements of the proposed agency
or department budget relating to ocean and coastal
activities; and
(B) specifies how each such element contributes to the
implementation of a national ocean and coastal policy.
(3) Each agency or department that submits a report under
paragraph (1) shall submit such report simultaneously to the
Council.
(4) The President shall, in a timely fashion, provide the
Council with an opportunity to review and comment on the
budget estimate of each such agency or department.
(5) The President shall identify in each annual budget
submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of title 31,
United States Code, those elements of agency or department
budget that contribute to the implementation of a national
ocean and coastal policy.

SEC. 8. REPEAL OR 1966 STATUTE.

The Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of
1966 (33 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is repealed.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am pleased to be an original
cosponsor of Senator Hollings' bill to require a wholesale review of
the Nation's oceans and coastal policies to prepare for the 21st
century. We have not done this since the 1960's, and the time has come.
The bill has three important components: First, it calls for the
development of a coherent national ocean and coastal policy; second, it
establishes a 15-member commission similar to the Stratton Commission
to make recommendations within 18 months on this national ocean and
coastal policy; and third, it creates an interagency council of all the
Federal agencies involved in oceans and coastal matters, chaired by the
Secretary of Commerce, to coordinate the implementation of the national
policy.
I applaud Senator Hollings for developing this legislation. As has
been pointed out, over half of the U.S. population lives within 50
miles of our shores. In my State, the oceans employ more people in the
private sector than any other industry. The demands on our oceans and
coastal resources continues to grow, and we must be prepared to meet
these demands in the 21st century.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of my
esteemed colleagues, particularly the ranking member of the Commerce
Committee, Senator Hollings, and the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, Senator Stevens, and to cosponsor the Oceans Act of 1997. I
have great respect for Senators Hollings and Stevens and their
stewardship of our ocean and coastal resources.
Since the day I first arrived in the Senate nearly 12 years ago, I
have worked hard to address the many challenges confronting our common
ocean and coastal resources. I have led this effort principally through
my participation and leadership on the Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee, and particularly as ranking member on the
Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee and as cochair of its predecessor,
the national ocean policy study [NOPS].
Over the last 25 years, Congress has worked to develop innovative
policy solutions to enable the long-term protection, conservation,
utilization, and management of our vulnerable marine resources. We have
acted to ensure strong coastal economies in Massachusetts and a clean,
healthy coastal environment from the Gulf of Maine to the Gulf of
Alaska.
In that vein therefore, I believe that it is time for us, like the
Stratton Commission did over 30 years ago, to

[[Page S9893]]

take an inventory of where our Nation has been and where we are going
regarding the great responsibility of stewardship of our coastal
resources. The Oceans Act of 1997 will provide the framework for that
effort.
The bill contains three major provisions. First, it calls for
development of a national ocean and coastal policy to provide for
protection from natural hazards, stewardship of fisheries and coastal
resources, protection of the marine environment, enhanced marine
transportation and security, continued investment in marine
technologies, ocean monitoring and exploration, Government cooperation
and coordination, and continued U.S. international leadership. Second,
it establishes a Commission on Ocean Policy to complete an 18-month
examination and evaluation of ocean and coastal activities and provide
recommendations for national policy. Third, it creates an interagency
National Ocean Council, headed by the Secretary of Commerce to advise
the President and serve as a forum for developing and implementing
ocean and coastal policy programs, designate funding responsibilities,
provide coordination of Federal budgets, and work with non-Federal
organizations to periodically review the Nation's ocean and coastal
policy.
The time for this legislation is now, the world population will
double to over 10 billion by the middle of the next century. Today over
50 percent of world population resides in coastal areas. The United
States and its insular areas have more than 95,000 miles of coastline
and the offshore U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ] encompasses more
than 3.4 million square miles, nearly equal to the land area of the
United States.
Over the last 30 years the coastal area populations have increased
from 80 to over 110 million and is projected to reach 127 million by
2010. If these trends continue, much heavier demands will be placed on
ocean and coastal resources, that is, need for food from the sea for
world protein requirements and energy and mineral production from
offshore deposits. Ocean threats from this vast expansion include;
sewage, chemical, and garbage disposal, runoff from agricultural and
forested lands, exploitation of fisheries resources, development of
energy and mineral resources, and coastal infrastructure development.
Moreover, recent years have yielded a degradation of coastal water
quality, loss of wetlands, closure of beach and recreational areas,
pollution of fishery and shellfish management resources that diminish
the resource base, contaminate seafood, and endanger human health. In
fact over 70 percent of U.S. commercial and recreational fish and
shellfish depend on estuaries at some point in their life cycle.
Toxic chemicals and sewage dumped have contaminated the Nation's
harbors and waterways. More than 20,000 combined sewer overflows
[CSO's], sewers that combine storm water and sanitary flows empty
directly into rivers and coastal waters. In 1992 heavy rains and
flooding caused severe CSO overflows in Los Angeles which forced the
temporary closing of over 70 miles of adjacent coastal areas. Coastal
area real estate development has accelerated to the point that over 50
percent of annual U.S. residential construction during the past two
decades has occurred in coastal areas. This trend is expected to
continue and is expected to stress coastal ecosystems even further
mostly in California and Florida, two of the Nation's most productive
coastal areas. This also increases risk to life and property due to
hurricanes and other major storms. For example the price tag for
Hurricane Andrew, one of the largest storms in history, was estimated
to be $25 to $30 billion. Further sea level rise from global warming
will exacerbate this already growing problem.
Further, as the world population grows, we will become more and more
dependent on food from the sea. Since 1977 total fish harvest from the
EEZ increased more than 325 percent to a peak of 6.65 billion pounds
annually in 1986-88, but has subsequently declined--only 6.32 in 1993.
Alaska pollock and Gulf of Mexico shrimp were the leading fisheries in
1993. Imported seafood comprised 57 percent of U.S. consumption during
1996, a 3 percent increase from 1995.
Many problems exist however in the way we manage the world's
fisheries. A Time magazine article of August 11, 1997, on the world
overfishing problem, stated that ``fish of all kinds are being hauled
from the sea faster than they can reproduce.'' We addressed many of
those concerns with the passage of ``Sustainable Fisheries Act'' last
year. With a focus on overfishing, we established National goals to
rebuild most currently overfished stocks in 10 years, provided for the
protection of fish habitats and Pacific Insular Areas, established a
by-catch reduction program, and encouraged the development of
underutilized species.
However, more can be done, particularly on an international level.
Fish stocks migrate across jurisdictions. Nations approach fisheries
conservation and manage differently. Development of conversation
objectives of nations harvesting common fish stocks often clash, and
overcapitalized fleets are over-harvesting the available resources in
many areas.
Again, much work remains and we must be vigilant in our duty to
preserve and protect the oceans and coastal resources as we start the
next century.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the ranking member of
the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, in the introduction of the
Oceans Act of 1997. This bill will establish a commission like the
Stratton Commission of 1966 to review the many ocean and coastal issues
facing the United States, and to develop a comprehensive, coordinated,
national ocean and coastal policy.
Prior to introduction, I raised a few concerns with Senator Hollings
on some provisions of the draft bill. Basically, I had recommended some
language that made it clear that as we develop a new ocean and coastal
policy for the Nation, we keep in mind the facts that our fiscal
resources are limited, and that our Federal investments in ocean and
coastal resources must be spent efficiently and wisely. I also raised
some concerns about the fact that the original draft had the President
appointing all of the members of this important commission.
Mr. President, Senator Hollings has graciously agreed to make some
changes to the bill pursuant to my recommendations. For instance, the
bill now authorizes the Congress to appoint more than half of the
commission members, and the commission is directed to identify
opportunities to reform Federal ocean programs to improve efficiency
and effectiveness. I commend Senator Hollings for his willingness to
work with me and other Republican Senators before introduction of the
bill. After introduction, I look forward to working with the
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, a Senator who worked on the
original Stratton Commission bill 30 years ago and who is a true
champion of ocean protection, in the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee
on any further refinements along these lines that might be
constructive.
Again, I thank Senator Hollings and commend him upon introduction of
this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to join as a
sponsor of the Oceans Act of 1997. Our goal in this legislation is to
deal more effectively with one of the most important aspects of our
overall policy for the environment--our efforts to preserve and protect
our management ocean and coastal resources.
I commend Senator Hollings for his leadership on this important
legislation.
______

By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 1214. A bill to amend the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996 to eliminate
the requirement that a Federal budget deficit must exist in order for
the President to use the line-item veto authority; to the Committee on
the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant
to the order of August 4, 1977, as modified by the order of April 11,
1986, with instructions that if one committee reports, the other
committee have 30 days to report or be discharged.

legislation to strengthen the line-item veto

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation that will strengthen the recently enacted line-item veto.
Currently, the line-item veto can only be exercised by the President

[[Page S9894]]

when there is a deficit. This legislation would eliminate that
restriction and provide for line-item veto authority whether there is a
deficit or a surplus.
Mr. President, the purpose of the line-item veto should be to reduce
wasteful Government programs, as well as reduce deficits.
Last year the Congress approved legislation that granted the
President line-item veto authority beginning in 1997. The Congress did
this out of principle. Members did not wait to see which candidate won
the election before deciding whether to grant the new authority, and in
August history was made when President Clinton became the first
President to exercise the line-item veto.
While some Members of Congress may not agree with the specific
provisions that the President selected to line-item veto, the important
point is that any President should have this power as a check on narrow
special interest spending and tax provisions. If Congress wishes to
restore a vetoed provision it can do so with the requisite two-thirds
vote.
I have long been a supporter of line-item veto authority for the
President. In my view it will serve as a powerful check on Congress'
ability to load up bills with wasteful provisions.
I think it is safe to say that the President's use of the line-item
veto has created an environment in which narrow spending and tax
provisions are going to be scrutinized much more carefully before they
are loaded onto legislation.
I recognize that there have been court challenges concerning the
constitutionality of the statutory line-item veto. I believe that this
authority is constitutional and I certainly hope that the Supreme Court
comes down on that side. However, this issue is important enough that
we should amend the Constitution if necessary. That is why earlier this
year I introduced a line-item veto constitutional amendment.
Today, however we should focus on the line-item veto that is before
us and look for ways to improve that law. That is the purpose of this
legislation.
In the last several years our economy has been very healthy and tax
revenues have come in at much higher levels than previously forecast.
This has created a situation where we may actually see a budget surplus
at some point in the next several years. Does this mean we should
rescind the line-item veto authority we have given the President? Of
course not, but that would be the result as the law was drafted in
1996.
My view is that the line-item veto should be used in both deficit and
surplus times. While we may have some surplus years on the horizon, it
is clear that without entitlement reform massive deficits will return
just after the turn of the century. This means that we must be
constantly working to eliminate wasteful Government programs. A line-
item veto is one way to help do that.
Mr. President, I cast my vote for a permanent line-item veto. The
President and Congress cannot afford to take a vacation from the battle
against wasteful Government programs.
______

By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 1215. A bill to prohibit spending Federal education funds on
national testing; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

National Testing Legislation

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
prohibit the Federal Government from developing and/or imposing new
national individualized tests on students across the country.
During his State of the Union Address this year, President Clinton
announced his intentions to establish national tests for students in
fourth grade reading and eighth grade mathematics. Without waiting for
congressional authority, the Department of Education surged ahead and
began development of uniform national tests, with plans to administer
them starting in 1999. In August, the Department announced the award of
a $13 million contract for its national testing initiative, and plans
to spend an estimated $50.6 million under the contract from fiscal year
1998 through fiscal year 2001, including $12.3 million for fiscal year
1998.
In response, Representative Bill Goodling, chairman of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce, offered an amendment in the House which
prohibits the expenditure of fiscal year 1998 funds for a new national
testing program. While the Senate failed to consider fully and vote on
the Goodling approach during its debate of the Labor-HHS appropriations
bill, the House embraced the Goodling amendment, approving it by a
resounding vote of 295 to 125.
The House vote sends a clear and strong signal that Congress should
prohibit Federal funds for national testing in education. In fact, the
alliance of members from both sides of the political spectrum
demonstrates the universal concern that the administration's proposal
is besieged by problems. Here are just a few of the many reasons why
national tests should be opposed:
First, education experts such as Dr. Donald J. Senese, former
Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement during the
Reagan administration, warn that national testing will lead to a
national curriculum.
Second, Lynne Cheney, former chairperson of the National Endowment
for the Humanities, reminds us that Federal efforts to set standards
and tests have been disastrous. She points to the politically correct
Federal history standards and the English-language arts standards,
which were such an ill-considered muddle that even the Clinton
Department of Education cut off funding for them after having spent
more than $1 million in taxpayer funds.
Third, the proposed math test is steeped in the new, unproven whole
math or fuzzy math philosophy, which encourages students to rely on
calculators, discourages basic math skills, and has resulted in
declines in math performance. For example, the median percentile
computation scores on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills taken by
more than 37,000 DODDS students one year after the Defense Department
introduced whole math dropped 9 points for third graders, 12 for fourth
graders, 11 for fifth graders, 10 for sixth graders, 10 for seventh
graders, and 4 for eighth graders.
Finally, Federal testing takes away local control and parental
involvement. The Federal Government should not impose its will on
school boards, parents, and teachers about the education of their
children. Rather, education should be controlled by school boards in
local communities, where parents have the greatest opportunity to be
involved in the education of their child, by participating in the
development of school curriculum and testing. After all, research
confirms that parental involvement is the single most important element
in educating our children.
Mr. President, the big losers from national tests will be students,
parents, teachers, and local school boards. Once Federal exams are in
place, teachers and schools will teach the test. In other words, they
will change their classes to fit the Federal tests, in order to get
higher scores. Textbooks and instructional materials will follow suit,
even in areas that attempt to avoid national tests. As a result,
Washington bureaucrats who design the tests will shape local curriculum
decisions. National control of curriculum is absolutely unacceptable to
me. Once the Federal Government is using tests to shape curriculum,
parental control through local school boards will be doomed.
Who should control local education? I believe our schools should
remain under the control of parents, teachers, and school boards, in
cooperation with the States. The flawed whole math approach which
brought major losses in computation test scores demonstrates the
central threat in national control: When the bureaucrats make a
mistake, everybody pays, from coast to coast.
Parents are looking to Congress to protect their right and their
ability to shape the education of their children. A national testing
system would deprive parents of this vital opportunity. As Members of
Congress, we can show our support for education by saying ``no'' to
national testing and ``yes'' to parental control of their children's
learning.
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:

[[Page S9895]]

S. 1215

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON NATIONAL TESTING.

Part C of the General Education Provision Act (20 U.S.C.
1231 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 447. PROHIBITION ON NATIONAL TESTING.

``(a) General Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal law, funds provided to the Department or
for an applicable program may not be used to develop, plan,
implement, or administer any national testing program.
``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
following:
``(1) The National Assessment of Educational Progress
carried out under section 411 of the National Education
Statistics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9010).
``(2) The Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS).''.
______

By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 1217. A bill for the relief of Olga Gorgiladze; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.

PRIVATE RELIEF LEGISLATION

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that will
grant permanent residency in the United States to Olga Gorgiladze.

I serve as the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that
has jurisdiction and oversight over both the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
I can tell you that with respect to Mrs. Gorgiladze's case--they have
missed the mark. They have done this woman an injustice. It is a wrong
that this Senate and this Congress should make right.
Olga Gorgiladze's case is a special situation that involves the
turmoil and changes that came with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the
collapse of the Soviet Union. In September 1991, Mrs. Gorgiladze came
to the United States to stay with her lifelong friend, Merilyn Hodgson.
Three months later the Soviet Union was dissolved and civil and ethnic
war broke out in Georgia, the Soviet Republic where Mrs. Gorgiladze's
husband was from. She applied for asylum in this country in March 1992.
INS and the Executive Office of Immigration Review finally got to her
case in late 1995 and turned down her request. They instructed Mrs.
Gorgiladze to obtain Georgian citizenship and to leave for that
country. The irony, of course, is that Olga Gorgiladze is not now and
never has been a Georgian citizen. In fact, quite the contrary she
fears for her safety should she be forced to go to that nation. She
loves the United States. She loves our democratic society that protects
freedom of speech and religion. Most importantly, she feels safe in a
nation that has racial and ethnic diversity. The reality is that Olga
Gorgiladze wants to become an American, not a Georgian citizen.
Olga Gorgiladze is not even ethnically Georgian. She is half Chinese
and half Russian. She was born in China in 1940 to a Russian father and
a Chinese mother. Her father was a naval officer in the Tsarist navy
and fought against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution. Her
mother met Mrs. Gorgiladze's father in Shanghai where he had fled after
the war. Olga grew up in China, speaking Chinese. But, once again in
1954, her family had to flee another violent Communist takeover--and
her father moved the family back to the Soviet Union. They were sent to
work on the undeveloped desert lands of Kazakhstan. In 1959, after her
father died of cancer she was given permission by the Soviet
authorities to move to Sukhami, Georgia, near the Russian border.
In 1971, Olga graduated from the Teachers College of Foreign
Languages where she majored in English. However, she was denied a
teaching position because preference was given to Georgians. She
finally got a job as a part-time teacher at the college from which she
graduated, but was later fired when all classes for Russian speaking
groups were terminated. Despite her advanced education--equivalent to a
masters degree in this country--she has continually been forced to take
low-paying clerk positions because of discrimination against her as a
non-Georgian. Other discriminations displayed against her included
housing which is controlled by the state and purchasing of food and
supplies.
Since 1991, the Caucasus nations have been plagued by ethnic strife
and warfare. We have all watched the violence and bloodshed in the
Abkhaszia region of Georgia, between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-
Karabakh, and the war in Chechneya. Less well televised is the
hostility and persecution of outsiders and ethnic minorities. In
Georgia, there is hostility to anything or anyone affiliated with
Russia. As a woman who looks Chinese, speaks only Russian and English,
Olga Gorgiladze has been subject to countless incidents of verbal,
physical, and mental abuse. Mrs. Gorgiladze does not and cannot blend
into the Georgian population. She has been beaten, spit on, verbally
and physically abused. Her safety and livelihood have always felt
threatened every minute of every day while living in Georgia. For
example, while riding the bus, Mrs. Gorgiladze has been beaten and
threatened with knifes, chains, and various other weapons.
Her husband of 25 years, Malkhaz Gorgiladze, stayed in Georgia and
warned Olga of the dangers posed to her if she returned to that
country. He encouraged her to seek asylum in the United States and
collected evidence for her hearing. He especially worked to document
police inactivity and the Georgian officials' complicity in attacks on
non-Georgians by violent nationalist groups. The police warned him to
stop his efforts. Malkhaz Gorgiladze began to receive anonymous phone
calls and threats and warnings to stop criticizing the police. In 1996,
while returning home from a New Year's Eve gathering, his car was
rammed by a Georgian police car and Olga's husband was killed.
When asked by the immigration judges at Justice, our State Department
reported that Georgia is in a state of cease-fire and everybody is
getting along with each other. Further, the Justice Department
conjectured that if the Georgian police wanted Olga's husband killed,
the would have used means other than an auto accident involving a
police car. The INS and immigration judges down there at the Justice
Department have used this information and conclusions to deny Mrs.
Gorgiladze's request for asylum. Yet, there were numerous letters and
affidavits by witnesses regarding Malkhaz Gorgiladze's murder. And, in
Georgia, the ultranationalists blame non-Georgians, and in particular
blame Russians, for all their misfortunes and lack of economic
development. Friends and relatives of Olga Gorgiladze have warned her
that she should not return. They tell her that she will never be able
to get a job and always will be an outcast. They say she will be
considered a traitor. And, Malkhaz will not be there to try and defend
her as in the past. In short, they fear for her safety, as do I.
Mrs. Gorgiladze's case is truly heart-wrenching. And, here is a woman
I might add--that has worked for the last 5 years at MCI Customer
Service Representative International Department and turned around and
paid her taxes to the State of Virginia and the U.S. Government. In my
view, she has been an outstanding resident in our Nation who serves as
an example of the American dream. She has never broken any law and has
never been on welfare or asked the Government for handouts. She has
followed the immigration rules every step of the way. She is what
America is all about. What astonishes me is why the Justice Department
would want to deport this 57-year-old woman.
Mr. President, I have served in the U.S. Senate over 30 years. Every
now and then we get an opportunity to stand up for someone who the
Federal bureaucracy has mistreated. This is one of those times. Olga
Gorgiladze's situation has touched me. Since her friend brought the
case to my attention, I can't stop thinking about how unfair it seems.
I've sat in Senate hearing after hearing on the Immigration and
Naturalization Service asking why action is not taken to deport illegal
aliens who got into this country through deception. I have listened to
this administration try to explain how in 1996 they naturalized
thousands of aliens with criminal backgrounds. And, I find it
astonishing, these very same Justice immigration judges have ruled in
separate cases that homosexuality per se does constitute a legitimate
claim for asylum. But, in this case we have a woman who came to the
United States legally, who is not and never has been a citizen of
Georgia, who had her husband killed by

[[Page S9896]]

Georgian authorities, who legitimately fears for her safety if sent
there, who has complied with all the United States immigration laws,
and who has paid her own way and has not been a burden to taxpayers in
this country--and this is who the Justice Department wants to deny
asylum and deport? Maybe I should forgo this bill and simply tell Olga
to pretend that she is homosexual. This is injustice. This is just
simply wrong.
Mr. President, I am introducing this bill today because the system is
not working. I believe that Olga Gorgiladze has legitimate reasons to
fear being deported to Georgia. She is not Georgian and does not belong
in that country. It is ludicrous for the United States Government to be
ordering her to apply for Georgian citizenship. What she has
demonstrated is that she does belong in this country. In her case the
system has failed and I think it is incumbent upon the United States
Senate to put things right. I am pleased to sponsor this bill. I intend
to work with the Judiciary Committee, with Senators Abraham, Kennedy,
Hatch, and Leahy, to ensure that Mrs. Olga Gorgiladze is permitted to
remain in the United States.
______

By Mr. KERREY.
S. 1218. A bill to assure the integrity of information,
transportation, and telecommunications upon the arrival of the year
2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

the millennium act

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, one of the challenges of the 21st century
is already upon us. It is commonly known as the year 2000 computer
problem or the millennium bug. At issue is a programming technique that
could lead to the malfunction of computer systems worldwide on January
1, 2000. It is essential that government, business, and personal
computer users take adequate steps to fix this problem in advance of
December 31, 1999, to ensure that cyberspace enters the next millennium
without a hitch.
During the early years of computing, computer storage space was
incredibly expensive. Storage space that costs only 10 cents per
megabyte today, cost $36 per megabyte in 1972. In an effort to reduce
storage costs, computer programmers commonly programmed date
information using only two digits to indicate the year. For example,
1999 would be programmed as 99. This clever space saving trick saved
computer users millions of dollars and became industry practice because
programmers believed that by the time the year 2000 arrived any code
they were working on would be obsolete and out of service.
Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom was wrong and many computer
systems still use these programs. Computers and computer software
programmed in this fashion may misinterpret the year 2000 as 1900. This
electronic confusion could lead to serious malfunction or collapse of
computers and computer networks around the world.
Date information plays a significant role in almost all computer
applications developed over the last 30 years. The year 2000 problem
has many practical implications from the relatively benign to the very
serious. Credit cards may be read as invalid, traffic lights may not
operate, 99 years of bank records could be destroyed or the Nation's
air traffic control systems could fail. The list of possible failures
is nearly endless and can be found in systems used by the government,
the business community, and personal computer users worldwide. Personal
computers are less susceptible to the problem and in most cases can be
quickly fixed. However, business and government leaders should be
working night and day to ensure that the computer systems the country
depends on are reprogrammed to correctly recognize the date in time for
the arrival of New Year's Day 2000.
The time and financial commitment necessary to replace the
problematic date code is stunning. The Gartner Group estimates that
costs could exceed $600 billion. Newsweek magazine points out that this
sum is enough to fund a year's worth of education costs, preschool
through graduate school. Correcting the problem is technically simple,
however in order to find the date information the entire program must
be manually scanned line for line. Often, the programs are written in
the outdated COBAL programming language and finding programmers skilled
in older languages to solve the problem is very difficult because the
demand for their services is sky rocketing. After a competent
technician is hired and they have analyzed the code and made the
necessary changes, the programs must go through a time consuming
testing phase. In sum, it is a very complex task and it is quickly
becoming too late to begin the reprogramming process.
Many companies and government offices have already taken steps to
avert this problem and are well on their way to making their systems
year 2000 compliant. Unfortunately, many others have not addressed the
problem and the time needed to analyze, modify, and test the code used
by these entities is quickly slipping away. I am very concerned that
further delays will leave the government and many private companies
unprepared to carry out normal transactions in the early days of the
next century. In order to address this problem, I have joined Senator
Moynihan as a cosponsor of S. 22. S. 22 would create a commission that
would be required to report to the President, by July 3, 1997, with
proposals for new procedures or regulations to address the year 2000
computer problem for systems of Federal, State, and local governments
and would make recommendations for funding levels that might be needed
to address this problem.

In addition I am introducing a bill today that would instruct the
Federal Communications Commission to initiate a proceeding to determine
the integrity of the telecommunications networks as the year 2000
arrives. It also requires the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to review the risks to personal computers and requires the
Department of Transportation to assure that transportation safety is
not compromised.
Inconvenience can be tolerated, but every effort must be taken to
assure that the health and safety of humans and the security and
integrity of networks and data are not compromised by what we know to
be a significant weakness in our computer networks and software.
In conclusion, I am also very concerned by reports that small and
midsize businesses are experiencing difficulty in determining if their
computer systems are year 2000 compliant because some third-party
systems vendors are not forthcoming with information about their
products. An already difficult task is further complicated by
uncooperative third party vendors who fail to help these companies
understand how the year 2000 problem could affect their businesses.
These companies have a responsibility to provide their customers with
the information they need to make their systems year 2000 compliant.
There is still time to act and prevent dangerous disruptions in
computer, transportation and computer networks and the loss of valuable
data. If the private and public sector does that, then Americans can
party, and not panic when the clock strikes midnight on New Year's eve
1999. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1218

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be referred to as the ``Millennium Act.''

SEC. 101. TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS.

(a) The Federal Communications Commission shall initiate a
proceeding to evaluate the potential dangers to the nation's
telecommunications networks from to software and systems
which are unable to effectively toll the passage of time from
December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000.
(b) The Commission shall make necessary and appropriate
regulatory changes within their jurisdiction to ensure the
integrity of the nation's telecommunications networks.

SEC. 102. PERSONAL COMPUTERS.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology shall
evaluate the potential risks to information stored on
personal computers from to software and systems which are
unable to effectively toll the passage of time from December
31, 1999 to January 1, 2000 and shall take necessary and
appropriate actions within its jurisdiction to propose
solutions and inform the public.

SEC. 103. TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS.

The Secretary of Transportation shall initiate a
comprehensive plan to assure that

[[Page S9897]]

computer hardware and software in transportation systems
which are unable to effectively toll the passage of time from
December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000 do not create a safety
risk to transportation workers and the general public. Should
a risk to safety be identified, the Department shall take
necessary and appropriate measures to assure safety and
inform the public of such risks.

____________________