Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - August 11, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12370-S12410] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Frist): S. 1181. A bill to provide cost savings in the Medicare Program through cost-effective coverage of positron emission tomography [PET]; to the Committee on Finance. the medicare pet coverage act of 1995 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in our quest for a balanced budget, it is incumbent on Congress to mobilize every weapon at it disposal. This is particularly true in Federal health care programs, which are targeted by the budget resolution for the lion's share of spending reductions. Accordingly I am introducing today for myself and Senator Frist the Medicare PET Coverage Act of 1995. Regrettably this is one major cost reduction option that we are ignoring. This is the utilization of positron emission tomography [PET] to reduce the Nation's health care costs by avoiding unnecessary surgery. Positron emission tomography [PET] is the latest advance in diagnosing diseases such as breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, heart disease, and epilepsy. Today, PET is emerging from its 20 year research and clinical research phase to widespread clinical use. With respect to Medicare alone, this would provide a net savings of approximately $1 billion a year. [[Page S 12371]] PET technology is the only diagnostic technology that is able noninvasively to measure metabolic activity in living tissue. Identifying tumors is one example of its diagnostic value. PET is able to diagnose the extent and severity of malignant tumors more accurately than existing clinical diagnostic techniques. Comparable improved diagnostic accuracy is also available for heart disease, epilepsy, and other neurological disorders. PET's diagnostic accuracy translates into hundreds of thousands of fewer cases of surgery annually for cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses. Recent peer research has identified over $5.3 billion in annual net savings to the Nation's total health care budget if PET is used clinically. Critical to these cost savings are the hundreds of thousands of procedures that PET renders unnecessary every year. Peer review scientific literature has identified that for lung cancer alone, over 91,000 CT scans, 10,000 surgeries, and 17,000 biopsies would be avoided each year. For breast cancer almost 74,000 women per year would be spared the morbidity and cost associated with axillary lymph node dissection. Similar cost and morbidity savings are available for other diseases. These savings could start today. PET has been performed clinically under appropriate State regulation. One million PET studies have been performed with no known negative reactions. Patients have avoided unneeded surgery because of PET. However, there will be no societal payback and no benefit to the average American from the use of PET under HCFA's current policy. Despite the fact that CHAMPUS and private insurers like Blue Cross/ Blue Shield currently reimburse for this safe, cost-effective procedure, Medicare and Medicaid do not. HCFA effectively shelved any decision on reimbursement while the FDA decides whether and how to regulate PET compounds--something the States are already doing. For over 7 years, the developers of PET have complied with HCFA and FDA procedures and requests only to have the rules changed and inquiries about progress met with minimal responses. While there has been some recent movement on the part of the FDA, the fact remains that we have no consistent regulatory scheme that applies industrywide and to all applications. It is time to move PET out of this needless bureaucratic quagmire. New, proven medical procedures should not be held back by regulatory inertia. This bill does not mandate the use of PET, but rather allow health care professionals to evaluate its usefulness. Easing the regulatory logjam has farreaching effects on reimbursement by private health plans and availability in the United States generally. Because PET is safe and is both diagnostically effective and cost effective and because the policies of the FDA and HCFA have prohibited the delivery of PET to the general public, congressional action is necessary. I am pleased to have the Senate's only surgeon join me in introducing this bill. 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. 1181 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 ``Medicare PET Coverage Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF MEDICARE COVERAGE OF, AND PAYMENT FOR, ITEMS AND SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY (PET) (a) In General.--Nothing in title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or any other provision of law, regulation, policy, or interpretative statement, shall be construed to prohibit under parts A and B of such title coverage of, and payment for, items and services associated with the use of positron emission tomography (PET) for a covered medical indication (as defined in subsection (b)(1) where the use meets the following conditions: (1) The PET is used as a substitute for other diagnostic procedures or to assist a physician in assessing whether exploratory surgery, surgical treatment, radiation, transplant, or any other diagnostic or therapeutic procedure is medically necessary. The PET is performed at a facility that is licensed under (or otherwise operating in compliance with) State law. (b) Covered Medical Indication Defined.-- (1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term ``covered medical indication'' means-- (A) any medical indication described in paragraph (2), or (B) any other medical indication where the carrier involved (or the Secretary of Health and Human Services) estimates that it will be less costly to the medicare program under such title (on average) to use the protocol using PET for the indication than to use any alternative protocol which has similar diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic outcome for that indication. (2) Specific medical indications covered.--The following are the medical indications described in this paragraph: (A) Localization of epileptogenic focus in patients with complex partial seizure disorders. (B) Differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis in patients who have previously received radiation therapy treatment. (C) Detection and assessment of tumors associated with breast cancer, lung cancer, or colorectal cancer. (D) Determination of cardiac perfusion and viability in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction or cardiomyopathy. (c) Definitions.--In this section: (1) The terms ``position emission tomography'' and ``PET'' mean a diagnostic imaging technology used, in a manner generally accepted by the medical community and recognized in the medical literature, to measure biochemical and physiologic function in the human body. (2) The term ``protocol'' means, with respect to a specific medical indication, a set of diagnostic procedures and resulting therapeutic procedures used in diagnosing and treating the indication. (d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to PET used on or after 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not regulations to carry out this section have been promulgated by such date. (e) Revision of National Coverage Determination.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall revise the medicare national coverage decision relating to coverage of PET to be consistent with this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the Secretary from expanding such coverage decision beyond the coverage required under this section. ______ By Mr. LEVIN: S. 1182. A bill entitled the ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act of 1995''; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. the burt lake band of ottawa and chippewa indians act of 1995 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to reaffirm the Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. This legislation will reestablish the government-to-government relations of the United States and the Burt Lake Band. This bill is similar to legislation introduced last Congress by my friend, Senator Riegle. I cosponsored the legislation last year and I am honored to introduce it to the 104th Congress. Federal recognition is vitally important for a variety of reasons. With this process completed the band can move on to the tasks of improving the economic and social welfare of its people. More importantly however, passage of this legislation will clarify that in the eyes of everyone, the Burt Lake Band is an historically independent tribe. The band is named after Burt Lake, a small inland lake about 20 miles south of the Straits of Mackinac. The band already had deep roots in the area when a surveyor named Burt inspected the area in 1840. During the 1800's, the Burt Lake Band was a signatory to several Federal treaties, including the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. These treaties were enacted for the purpose of securing territory for settlement and development. During the mid-1800's, the Federal Government turned over to the State of Michigan annuity moneys on the band's behalf in order to purchase land. This land was later lost by the band through tax sales, although trust land is nontaxable, and the band was evicted from their village. In 1911, the Federal Government brought a claim on behalf of Burt Lake against the State of Michigan. The autonomous existence of the band at this stage is clear. Although the band has never had its Federal status legally terminated, the Bureau of Indian Affairs since the [[Page S 12372]] 1930's has not accorded the band that status nor treated the band as a federally recognized tribe. The Burt Lake Band, as well as the other tribes located in Michigan's lower peninsula were improperly denied the right to reorganize under the terms of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 even though they were deemed eligible to do so by the Indian Service at that time. I am aware that a bipartisan group of my colleagues in the House of Representatives have sponsored a similar piece of legislation. I look forward to the consideration of this legislation by the respective committees in both the Senate and the House and its enactment into law. I also ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1182 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 ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that-- (1) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians are descendants and political successors to the Indians that signed the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa nations of Indians at Washington, D.C. on March 28, 1836, and the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan at Detroit on July 31, 1855; (2) the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose members are also descendants of the Indians that signed the treaties referred to in paragraph (1), have been recognized by the Federal Government as distinct Indian tribes; (3) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians consists of over 600 eligible members who continue to reside close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the reservations of lands under the treaties referred to in paragraph (1) in the area that is currently known as Cheboygan County, Michigan; (4) the Band continues to exist and carry out political and social activities with a viable tribal government; (5) the Band, along with other Michigan Odawa and Ottawa groups, including the tribes described in paragraph (2), formed the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association in 1948; (6) the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association subsequently submitted a successful land claim with the Indian Claims Commission; (7) during the period between 1948 and 1975, the Band carried out many governmental functions through the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association, and at the same time retained control over local decisions; (8) in 1975, the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association submitted a petition under the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), to form a government on behalf of the Band; (9) in spite of the eligibility of the Band to form a government under the Act of June 18, 1934, the Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to act on the petition referred to in paragraph (8); and (10) from 1836 to the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Government, the government of the State of Michigan, and political subdivisions of the State have had continuous dealings with the recognized political leaders of the Band. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall apply: (1) Band.--The term ``Band'' means the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. (2) Member.--The term ``member'' means any individual enrolled in the Band pursuant to section 7. (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior. SEC. 4. FEDERAL RECOGNITION. (a) Federal Recognition.--Congress hereby reaffirms the Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. (b) Applicability of Federal Laws.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each provision of Federal law (including any regulation) of general application to Indians or Indian nations, tribes, or bands, including the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), that is inconsistent with any specific provision of this Act shall not apply to the Band or any of its members. (c) Federal Services and Benefits.-- (1) In general.--The Band and its members shall be eligible for all services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to Indians because of their status as federally recognized Indians. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, those services and benefits shall be provided after the date of the enactment of this Act to the Band and its members without regard to-- (A) whether or not there is an Indian reservation for the Band; or (B) whether or not a member resides on or near an Indian reservation. (2) Service areas.-- (A) In general.--For purposes of the delivery of Federal services to the enrolled members of the Band, the area of the State of Michigan within a 70-mile radius of the boundaries of the reservation for the Burt Lake Band, as set forth in the seventh paragraph of Article I of the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan (done at Detroit on July 31, 1855) shall be deemed to be within or near an Indian reservation. (B) Effect of establishment of an indian reservation after the date of enactment of this act.--If an Indian reservation is established for the Band after the date of enactment of this Act, subparagraph (A) shall continue to apply on and after the date of the establishment of that reservation. (C) Provision of services and benefits outside the service area.--Unless prohibited by Federal law, the services and benefits referred to in paragraph (1) may be provided to members outside the service area described in subparagraph (A). SEC. 5. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS. (a) In General.--To the extent consistent with the reaffirmation of the recognition of the Band under section 4(a), all rights and privileges of the Band and its members, which may have been abrogated or diminished before the date of the enactment of this Act, are hereby reaffirmed. (b) Existing Rights of Tribe.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to diminish any right or privilege of the Band or its members that existed before the date of the enactment of this Act. Except as otherwise specifically provided, nothing in this Act may be construed as altering or affecting any legal or equitable claim the Band may have to enforce any right or privilege reserved by or granted to the Band that was wrongfully denied to the Band or taken from the Band before the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 6. TRIBAL LANDS. The tribal lands of the Band shall consist of all real property held by, or in trust for, the Band. The Secretary shall acquire real property for the Band. Any property acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Band and shall become part of the reservation of the Band. SEC. 7. MEMBERSHIP. (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Band shall submit to the Secretary a membership roll consisting of all individuals currently enrolled for membership in the Band at the time of the submission of the membership roll. (b) Qualifications.--The Band shall, in consultation with the Secretary, determine, pursuant to applicable laws (including ordinances) of the Band, the qualifications for including an individual on the membership roll. (c) Publication of Notice.--The Secretary shall publish notice of receipt of the membership roll in the Federal Register as soon as practicable after receiving the membership roll pursuant to subsection (a). (d) Maintenance of Roll.--The Band shall maintain the membership roll of the Band prepared pursuant to this section in such manner as to ensure that the membership roll is current. SEC. 8. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNING BODY. (a) Constitution.-- (1) Adoption.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct, by secret ballot, elections for the purpose of adopting a new constitution for the Band. The elections shall be held according to the procedures applicable to elections under section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 987, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 476). (2) Interim governing documents.--Until such time as a new constitution is adopted under paragraph (1), the governing documents in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be the interim governing documents for the Band. (b) Officials.-- (1) Elections.--Not later than 180 days after the Band adopts a constitution and bylaws pursuant to subsection (a), the Band shall conduct elections by secret ballot for the purpose of electing officials for the Band as provided in the governing constitution of the Band. The elections shall be conducted according to the procedures described in the governing constitution and bylaws of the Band. (2) Interim governments.--Until such time as the Band elects new officials pursuant to paragraph (1), the governing bodies of the Band shall include each governing body of the Band in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, or any succeeding governing body selected under the election procedures specified in the applicable interim governing documents of the Band. ______ By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself, Mr. Packwood, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Santorum): S. 1183. A bill to amend the act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act), to revise the standards for [[Page S 12373]] coverage under the act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. the davis-bacon act reform amendments of 1995 Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, for 64 years we have been working under the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act, and that has become a highly controversial issue. Many times this Senate has attempted to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. A few years ago, the State of Oregon reached a compromise through a coalition of contractors, particularly in the trade unions, and for the last 6 months a similar coalition has been meeting in my office trying to come up with a reform of Davis-Bacon that would be acceptable to the two major parties, namely the building construction trade unions and the contractors' coalition. This morning I am pleased to say that this has been completed, and I am introducing this bill, which I now send to the desk and ask for its printing, cosponsored by Senators Packwood, D'Amato, Campbell, Specter, and Santorum. I invite my colleagues to join in cosponsoring it. Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act was passed 64 years ago to prevent federally funded construction projects from undermining the wages and working conditions of locally employed laborers and mechanics. At the time, lawmakers saw that large Government projects elicited destructive competition between the contractors who would use the local labor pool and those who could rely on remote, but cheaper, sources of labor. Congressman Bacon, for whom the act is named, introduced the legislation when builders in his New York district were underbid for a veterans' hospital project by southern contractors who brought in cheap southern labor. Congress, intent on sustaining a construction industry already ravaged by the economic instability of the Great Depression, reasoned that the destructive practices of the southern contractors would be best resolved by requiring that federally contracted labor be paid the locally prevailing wage, thereby halting the tendency of Government contractors to drive down workers' wages in order to win lucrative projects. In the years after the Depression, many States have enacted analogous prevailing wage standards, dubbed little Davis-Bacon laws. As Governor of Oregon, I signed that State's little Davis-Bacon Act, S.185, into law on May 26, 1959. I have supported the intelligent use of the prevailing wage standard in Government contracts ever since. Other Members of this body have made numerous attempts to repeal the Davis- Bacon Act--despite its commendable purpose of preserving the middle- class livelihoods of American construction workers, but the proven necessity for the law has thus far prevailed. Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act, as it now stands, indeed deserves some of the criticism that my distinguished associates level against it. Nevertheless, its purpose of protecting the jobs of our Nation's construction workers must persuade us to reform, rather than repeal, the act. A half year ago, an idea was spawned in Oregon, a compromise if you will, among the contractors and laborers at the local level to reform their relationship. This concept of Davis-Bacon reform between workers and laborers was brought to Washington, DC, where the idea advanced to the national level of contractors and laborers. I dare say that I was astounded by the conferees, longtime adversaries attended the negotiations, intent on brokering a Davis-Bacon reform package. I am today introducing the product of those long and arduous negotiations, a reform package to revise and update the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. Last year, a compromise among Oregon legislators, contractors, and labor unions resulted in a reform bill very similar to this one. I am confident that reform of the Davis-Bacon Act can be successfully implemented at the Federal level, because it has already been so in my home State of Oregon. Currently, the act requires that federally funded construction contracts exceeding $2,000 in value trigger application of the prevailing wage and conditions standard. The prevailing wage, as my colleagues know, is determined county-by-county by the Labor Department, which uses the highest wage earned by at least half of the local workers in the craft. The act, as it is now implemented, also requires that workers, regardless of their training, be paid at least the prevailing wage for the craft at which they are working. Further, the companion to the Davis-Bacon Act, the Copeland Act of 1934, mandates that government contractors submit detailed wage and benefit schedules at weekly intervals. Critics of the Davis-Bacon Act rightly argue that the law impedes rather than facilitates fair wages and balanced competition. The low threshold value of contracts and the weekly reporting requirement hinder small, local, and minority-owned contractors in their competition with larger, often out-of-State contractors. Moreover, the application of the prevailing wage standard, since it does not calculate prevailing wages by level of experience, makes apprentices and other employees who require on-the-job training unrealistically expensive. My bill offers several reforms that would resolve many or all of the difficulties of these acts that advocates of repeal find objectionable. There are three principal amendments to the existing statutes that would permit the Department of Labor to pursue the goals of the Davis- Bacon Act without the problems so often cited by critics. First, the threshold at which the act becomes applicable to Federal projects would be raised from $2,000 to $100,000. Second, the frequency with which contractors are required to file wage and benefit schedules would be changed from weekly to monthly. Third, trainees and apprentices would be excluded from the prevailing wage standard if they are enrolled in a training program that is registered with the Department of Labor. Mr. President, critics who seek to repeal entirely rather than improve the Davis-Bacon Act contend that the act's problems are beyond repair and that this body must allow competition to devastate the middle class livelihoods of America's construction workers. They argue that the Davis-Bacon Act is obsolete, tremendously costly, and impractical, regardless of whatever changes might be made to it. I disagree, and feel that the costs of the Davis-Bacon Act are grossly overestimated, whereas the benefits that we would jeopardize with its repeal have been dangerously neglected. The advocates of repealing the Davis-Bacon Act have not adequately demonstrated that enforcing the prevailing wage standard in federally funded contracts is, all things considered, untenably expensive. I feel that the act is relatively cost-effective now and will be all the more so with the changes I propose today. Critics of the Davis-Bacon Act frequently cite a CBO estimate of the savings that the Federal Government would enjoy if the act were repealed, but this estimate fails to consider the hidden costs of repeal. Although the Government might save money directly through lower construction wages, lost wages are likely to push an even greater number of formerly productive construction workers onto the rosters of the unemployed seeking Government assistance. Tax revenues, too, would decline, since the average construction worker would lose nearly $1,500 in annual income after the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Moreover, the evidence that the Government would save a substantial sum of money from cutting the wages paid to workers on Federal projects is dubious. Contractors' experiences repeatedly show that higher wages are positively correlated with higher productivity. Lower wages do not necessarily mean lower labor costs. Indeed, figures from a 1995 University of Utah study indicate that it costs less to build a mile of road in States with higher wages than in States with lower wages; the study revealed that, in States that have analogs to the Davis-Bacon Act, it has cost an average of almost $250,000 less per mile of road than in States that do not observe prevailing wage standards. It is apparent, Mr. President, that the CBO study upon which critics of the Davis-Bacon Act rely overestimates the cost and impracticality of enforcing and complying with the act. The figures that CBO study uses for its estimate are 15 years old; they do not reflect the expansion of office technology that has occurred in the last decade. Advances in office technology have facilitated the periodic filing of [[Page S 12374]] wage and benefit schedules by Government contractors as well as the processing of those schedules by the Department of Labor. Furthermore, the proportion of all Federal contracts that would have to comply with the act would drop to less than half, if the higher threshold I propose were promulgated. It is altogether unclear, therefore, whether the Federal Government can reasonably expect dramatic savings from an outright repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Even if the substantial savings that the CBO has predicted were possible with the repeal of the act, Mr. President, I would nevertheless urge my distinguished colleagues to consider the nonmonetary yet indispensable benefits of the act. A pressing concern of mine is the safety of America's builders. The 1995 University of Utah study to which I earlier referred indicates that the repeal of Davis-Bacon might lead to less training for construction workers and to more accidents and fatalities on work sites. That study examined nine States that repealed their own little Davis-Bacon laws. It reported that training declined in those States by 40 percent while occupational accidents rose by 15 percent. Better paid workers have fewer accidents and fewer fatalities--without the Davis-Bacon Act, better pay for workers will be the first cost that Government contractors cut. Is this body prepared to jeopardize the safety of American workers in pursuit of unproven savings? I myself am not. Another benefit of the prevailing wage standard is its contribution to the maintenance of a pool of well trained and motivated construction workers. This has become increasingly difficult with plummeting wages and unstable demand for labor in the construction industry. There are few incentives for young people to undertake the long-term training necessary to be a competent craftsman or mechanic if they can look forward to earning little more than the minimum wage and no benefits. Permitting the Federal Government, which provides between 10 and 20 percent of the construction industry's revenues, to invite competition that would inevitably depress wages further than they already have been is to imperil this Nation's ability to maintain and expand its infrastructure when the need arises. Mr. President, I cannot abide the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, although I do believe that it needs to be updated and revised. I am not convinced that repealing the act would permit the dramatic savings that have been predicted by critics of the act, primarily because the fiscal benefits of the act have been consistently underestimated or ignored. I understand, however, that the act as it is currently implemented is problematic and sometimes counterproductive in terms of its own purpose. This is why I have long supported, and propose today, fundamental reform of this absolutely vital law. The Davis-Bacon Act, with the correct revisions, can once again serve its purpose of protecting the livelihoods of America's builders and mechanics, preserving the sanctity of community standards, and ensuring that local contractors, young apprentices, and skilled workers have a chance to contribute to the growth and livelihood of both this Nation and their own families. Let us not confront this law with shortsighted and uninspired aspirations of abandoning it, but with the goal of rewriting it so that it can serve its original and laudable purpose. I ask unanimous consent that a list of members of the contractors- labor coalition be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record; as follows: Members of the Contractors-Labor Coalition Irv Fletcher, Oregon AFL-CIO; Bob Shiprack, Building and Trades Council; William G. Bernard, Asbestos Workers; Charles W. Jones, Boilermakers; John T. Joyce, Bricklayers; Sigurd Licassen, Carpenters; Dominic Martell, Cement Masons (plaster); J.J. Barry, Electrical Workers; John N. Russell, Elevator Constructors; Jake West, Iron Workers; Arthur Coia, Laborers; Frank Hanley, Operating Engineers; A.L. Monroe, Painters, Earl J. Kruse, Roofers; Arthur Moore, Sheet Metal Workers; Ron Carey, Teamsters; Jarvin J. Boede, United Association. Bill Supak, Kim Mingo, Sandy Barnes, Associated General Contractors Oregon-Columbia Chapter; Terry G. Bumpers, National Alliance for Fair Contracting; Stan Kolbe, Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association; Robert White, National Electrical Contractors Association; Patricia Fink, Mechanical Contractors Association of America. ______ By Mr. ASHCROFT: S. 1184. A bill to provide for the designation of distressed areas within qualifying cities as regulatory relief zones and for the selective waiver of Federal regulations within such zones, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. THE URBAN REGULATORY RELIEF ZONE ACT OF 1995 Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to rise today and discuss an opportunity to provide relief from many of the threats to the safety, security, and well-being of those individuals who populate our urban centers. Our cities today, especially our inner cities, have become areas of hopelessness and decay and despair. Consider these facts: America's urban areas suffer a murder every 22 minutes, a robbery every 49 seconds, and an aggravated assault every 30 seconds. In a survey of first and second graders in Washington, DC, 31 percent reported having witnessed a shooting, 39 percent said they had seen dead bodies. In addition, 40 percent of low-income parents worried a lot about their children being shot, compared to 10 percent of all parents who worry about their children being shot; 1 out of every 24 black males in this Nation, 1 out of every 24 black males in America, will have his life ended by a homicide. A report in The New England Journal of Medicine stated that a young black man living in Harlem is less likely to live until the age of 40 than a young man in Bangladesh, perhaps the poorest country on Earth. These are tragedies too great to comprehend. The roots of these pathologies are varied. They are partly cultural, partly economic, and partly social. Many people are born, live, and die without ever knowing what it is like to have a job, to feed a family, and to fulfill their dreams. In a number of the high schools in central cities, for example, the dropout rate rises as high as 80 percent. In 1990, 81 percent of young high school dropouts living in distressed urban areas were unemployed. In that same year, more than 40 percent of all adult men in the distressed inner cities of America did not work, while a significant number worked only sporadically or part time. Today, half of all residents of distressed neighborhoods live below the federally defined poverty threshold--in 1993, $14,763 for a family of four. Why do we have these problems in our inner cities? Well, as I have indicated, there are a variety of reasons. But I submit that one of the significant reasons for all of these facts is what I would call a ``regulatory redlining'' of our urban centers--a series of pervasive regulations promulgated by a variety of agencies that have literally driven jobs from the center of America's urban environments. As a matter of fact, the older the site is, the longer there has been industry, the longer there has been manufacturing, and the longer there has been industrial activity, the less likely the site is to qualify with and escape from the kind of onerous regulations which drive away jobs in these settings. As well meaning as many regulations may have been, the reality is that they have destroyed opportunity in our inner cities. There is a great debate about regulation and the regulatory burden in America. But the people who live in our inner cities bear not only their portion of the $600 billion in regulatory costs that are built into our products, they also experience and sustain a cost of regulation which is substantially higher in many circumstances. It is a cost of lost opportunity. It is a cost of poor health. It is a cost of the lack of personal security and safety. It is truly a major challenge. I have spoken on the Senate floor of situations in both Kansas City and St. Louis MO where Federal regulations designed to protect health and safety actually hurt Missouri's cities by essentially prohibiting new jobs while simultaneously forcing existing jobs from the city. Every large city has countless numbers of similar stories. Regulations, in particular environmental regulations, have attached so much liability to older industrial sites [[Page S 12375]] that, in many instances, these properties now have a negative market value--you'd have to pay someone else to take them. As a result, industries are headed for suburban and rural lands unspoiled by older industrial development. Tired of wading through open-ended regulations and liability laws that hold anyone even remotely responsible for cleanup costs, industries are moving to greener pastures. Perhaps Kathy Milberg, executive director of the Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision Project, says it best: You've got industries building all these nice clean plants in our suburbs * * * while environmentalists are telling us we can't build--in the cities--because we don't have a pristine environment. We've got to stabilize this neighborhood economically as well as environmentally. * * * They talk about environmental justice, but where's the justice when the suburbs are getting all the new factories and new jobs while we're stuck with a bunch of fences covered with ``Do not trespass'' signs? The rules and regulations that she laments make sense in certain areas, but frankly, the statistics tell us that the inhabitants of our urban centers are at far greater risk of the kind of lead poisoning that comes from a .38 than they are from the environmental concerns that drive so many jobs from the inner cities. We have to find a way to bring jobs back into our cities. The risks associated with unemployment are enormous--far greater than the risks associated with a door that may be 36 instead of 38 inches wide, or that do not comply with a particular statute. The risk of being shot in a drive-by shooting is much more pressing and demanding and challenging than the risk of being contaminated by impure dirt beneath a parking lot. Under the guise of noise abatement, we have merely exchanged the sounds of productivity for the sounds of silent factories. The crack of cocaine has been the only sound of productivity in our cities' centers. The wail of a family in the wake of a siren, the echoing clang of a cell door--those are the principal sounds of our inner cities. We need a common sense approach to risk in our inner cities. We literally have a substantial group of people in this country at the core of our urban centers and in our cities, whose opportunities have been diminished, whose safety has been impaired, whose health has been undermined, whose security has been threatened, and whose longevity has been shortened because of well-meaning but misapplied regulations. Our challenge is to find a way to make our urban centers places where people can thrive again. That is why I am introducing The Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act of 1995. The goal of the bill is this: to give the residents, government, and businesses of inner city areas the opportunity to restore their towns by reducing the often silly and senseless regulations that currently burden them. This bill will provide an opportunity for the mayor of a city, any city over 200,000, to appoint an Economic Development Commission which could assess rules and regulations which they believe impair the health, safety and well-being of their residents by keeping jobs out of the area; and to weigh whether or not waiving those regulations could give rise to an influx of opportunity which would provide an improvement in the health, an improvement in the security, an improvement in the education, and an improvement in the longevity of the individuals in that zone. These Economic Development Commissions will give all members of the community the opportunity to participate and work closely with one another to bring about real change and progress in the community. These Economic Development Commissions could then apply for modification or waiver of those rules. The Office of Management and Budget will process these requests and forward them to the appropriate Federal agencies. Ultimately we give the agencies the deference they deserve, and allow them to deny a waiver or modification request if the agency decides that the granting of the waiver would create a significant threat to human health and safety. I believe, however that the Economic Development Commissions will be able to readily identify those rules and regulations which prevent growth while achieving little or no benefit to the community. We have to give cities a chance to say to individuals: You can come in here, you don't have to be responsible for all the past sins of industry here; you don't have to make sure the dirt under your parking lot is so clean that it could be eaten by an individual for his or her entire 70 years of existence. We want to have jobs here because we know that an employed person is safer than an unemployed person; that an employed person is healthier than an unemployed person; that where there is economic vitality and industry, there is a far greater chance that the young people will persist in their education, avoiding the dropout situation; and will upgrade what happens in our very inner cities. The isolation of the distressed urban areas I have referred to conflicts with our national ideals. Equality of opportunity is a fundamental principle of American society and a right of all Americans. Extreme differences in the range of life chances between persons of one segment of American society and another, one racial or ethnic group and another, or one part of an urban area and another conflict harshly with this ethical standard. I believe the persistence of distressed urban areas is dangerous to America's future. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity. It is my sincere belief that the Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act which I introduce today can restore a sense of hope and real benefits in terms of economic opportunity and improved health and safety to our inner cities. I hope that we will have the good judgment to share with the people of the United States the opportunity to make sound decisions about improving the standing of those who are at peril in our inner cities, the core of our largest urban centers. I hope that we will give them the opportunity to get relief when that relief will increase their likelihood for safety, for health, for security, for productivity and for longevity. I hope that we will give them the opportunity to get relief when that relief will increase their likelihood for safety, for health, for security, for productivity, and for longevity. 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. 1184 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 ``Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that-- (1) the likelihood that a proposed business site will comply with many government regulations is inversely related to the length of time over which a site has been utilized for commercial or industrial purposes, thus rendering older sites in urban areas most unlikely to be chosen for new development and forcing new development away from the most areas most in need of economic growth and job creation; and (2) broad Federal regulations often have unintended consequences in urban areas where such regulations-- (A) offend basic notions of common sense, particularly when applied to individual sites; (B) adversely impact economic stability; (C) result in the unnecessary loss of existing businesses; (D) undermine new economic development, especially in previously used sites; (E) create undue economic hardships while failing significantly to protect human health, particularly in areas where economic development is urgently needed to improve the health and welfare of residents over a long period of time; and (F) contribute to social deterioration to such a degree that high unemployment, crime, and other economic and social problems create the greatest risk to the health and well- being of urban residents. SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are to-- (1) enable qualifying cities to provide for the general well-being, health, safety and security for their residents living in distressed areas by empowering such cities to obtain selective relief from Federal regulations that undermine economic stability and development in distressed areas within the city; and (2) authorize Federal agencies to waive the application of specific Federal regulations in distressed urban areas designated as urban regulatory relief zones by an economic development commission-- (A) upon application through the Office of Management and Budget by an economic development commission established by a qualifying city under section 5; and (B) upon a determination by the appropriate Federal agency that granting such a waiver will not substantially endanger health or safety. [[Page S 12376]] SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR WAIVERS. (a) Eligible Cities.--The mayor or chief executive officer of a city may establish an economic development commission to carry out the purposes of section 5 if the city population is greater than 200,000 according to-- (1) the United States Census Bureau's 1992 estimate for city populations; or (2) beginning 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States Census Bureau's latest estimate for city populations. (b) Distressed Area.--Any census tract within a city shall qualify as a distressed area if-- (1) 33 percent or more of the resident population in the census tract is below the poverty line; (2) 45 percent or more of out-of-school males aged 16 and over in the census tract worked less than 26 weeks in the preceding year; (3) 36 percent or more families with children under age 18 in the census tract have an unmarried parent as head of the household; or (4) 17 percent or more of the resident families in the census tract received public assistance income in the preceding year. SEC. 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS. (a) Purpose.--The mayor or chief executive officer of a qualifying city under section 4 may appoint an economic development commission for the purpose of-- (1) designating urban regulatory relief zones in a city composed of-- (A) a distressed area; (B) a combination of distressed areas; or (C) one or more distressed areas with adjacent industrial or commercial areas; and (2) making application through the Office of Management and Budget to waive the application of specific Federal regulations within such urban regulatory relief zones. (b) Composition.--To the greatest extent practicable, an economic development commission shall include-- (1) residents representing a demographic cross section of the city population; and (2) members of the business community, private civic organizations, employers, employees, elected officials, and State and local regulatory authorities. (c) Limitation.--No more than one economic development commission shall be established or designated within a qualifying city. SEC. 6. LOCAL PARTICIPATION. (a) Public Hearings.--Before designating an area as an urban regulatory relief zone, an economic development commission established under section 5 shall hold a public hearing, after giving adequate public notice, for the purpose of soliciting the opinions and suggestions of those persons who will be affected by such designation. (b) Individual Requests.--The economic development commission shall establish a process by which individuals may submit requests to the commission to include specific Federal regulations in the commission's application to the Office of Management and Budget seeking waivers of Federal regulations. (c) Availability of Commission Decisions.--After holding a hearing under subsection (a) and before submitting any waiver applications to the Office of Management and Budget under section 7, the economic development commission shall make publicly available-- (1) a list of all areas within the city to be designated as urban regulatory relief zones, if any; (2) a list of all regulations for which the economic development commission will request a waiver from a Federal agency; and (3) the basis for the city's findings that the waiver of a regulation would improve the health and safety and economic well-being of the city's residents and the data supporting such a determination. SEC. 7. WAIVER OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS. (a) Selection of Regulations.--An economic development commission may select for waiver, within an urban regulatory relief zone, Federal regulations that-- (1)(A) are unduly burdensome to business concerns located within an area designated as an urban regulatory relief zone; (B) discourages economic development within the zone; (C) creates undue economic hardships in the zone; or (D) contributes to the social deterioration of the zone; and (2) if waived, will not substantially endanger health or safety. (b) Request for Waiver.--(1) An economic development commission shall submit a request for the waiver of Federal regulations to the Office of Management and Budget. (2) Such request shall-- (A) identify the area designated as an urban regulatory relief zone by the economic development commission; (B) identify all regulations for which the economic development commission seeks a waiver; and (C) explain the reasons that waiver of the regulations would economically benefit the urban regulatory relief zone and the data supporting such determination. (c) Review of Waiver Request.--No later than 60 days after receiving the request for waiver, the Office of Management and Budget shall-- (1) review the request for waiver; (2) determine whether the request for waiver is complete and in compliance with this Act, using the most recent census data available at the time each application is submitted; and (3) after making a determination under paragraph (2)-- (A) submit the request for waiver to the Federal agency that promulgated the regulation and notify the requesting economic development commission of the date on which the request was submitted to such agency; or (B) notify the requesting economic development commission that the request is not in compliance with this Act with an explanation of the basis for such determination. (d) Modification of Waiver Requests.--An economic development commission may submit modifications to a waiver request. The provisions of subsection (c) shall apply to a modified waiver as of the date such modification is received by the Office of Management and Budget. (e) Waiver Determination.--(1) No later than 120 days after receiving a request for waiver under subsection (c) from the Office of Management and Budget, a Federal agency shall-- (A) make a determination of whether to waive a regulation in whole or in part; and (B) provide written notice to the requesting economic development commission of such determination. (2) Subject to subsection (g), a Federal agency shall deny a request for a waiver only if the waiver substantially endangers health or safety. (3) If a Federal agency grants a waiver under this subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to the requesting economic development commission that-- (A) describes the extent of the waiver in whole or in part; and (B) explains the application of the waiver, including guidance for business concerns, within the urban regulatory relief zone. (4) If a Federal agency denies a waiver under this subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to the requesting economic development commission that-- (A) explains the reasons that the waiver substantially endangers health or safety; and (B) provides a scientific basis for such determination. (f) Automatic Waiver.--If a Federal agency does not provide the written notice required under subsection (e) within the 120-day period as required under such subsection, the waiver shall be deemed to be granted by the Federal agency. (g) Limitation.--No provision of this Act shall be construed to authorize any Federal agency to waive any regulation or Executive order that prohibits, or the purpose of which is to protect persons against, discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. (h) Applicable Procedures.--A waiver of a regulation under subsection (e) shall not be considered to be a rule, rulemaking, or regulation under chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code. The Federal agency shall publish a notice in the Federal Register stating any waiver of a regulation under this section. (i) Effect of Subsequent Amendment of Regulations.--If a Federal agency amends a regulation for which a waiver under this section is in effect, the agency shall not change the waiver to impose additional requirements. (j) Expiration of Waivers.--No waiver of a regulation under this section shall expire unless the Federal agency determines that a continuation of the waiver substantially endangers health or safety. SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act, the term-- (1) ``industrial or commercial area'' means any part of a census tract zoned for industrial or commercial use which is adjacent to a census tract which is a distressed area under section 5(b); (2) ``poverty line'' has the same meaning as such term is defined under section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)); (3) ``qualifying city'' means a city which is eligible to establish an economic development commission under section 4; (4) ``regulation''-- (A) means-- (i) any rule as defined under section 551(4) of title 5, United States Code; or (ii) any rulemaking conducted on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing under sections 556 and 557 of such title; and (B) shall not include-- (i) a rule that involves the internal revenue laws of the United States, or the assessment and collection of taxes, duties, or other revenues or receipts; (ii) a rule relating to monetary policy or to the safety or soundness of federally insured depository institutions or any affiliate of such an institution (as defined in section 2(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(k))), credit unions, Federal Home Loan Banks, government sponsored housing enterprises, farm credit institutions, foreign banks that operate in the United States and their affiliates, branches, agencies, commercial lending companies, or representative offices, (as those terms are defined in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101)); or (iii) a rule promulgated under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); and (5) ``urban regulatory relief zone'' means an area designated under section 5. ______ By Mr. PRESSLER: [[Page S 12377]] S. 1185. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the State of South Dakota providing for maintenance, operation, and administration by the State, on a trial basis during a period not to exceed 10 years, of three National Park System units in the State, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. the south dakota national parks preservation act of 1995 Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow South Dakota's national parks to be managed by the State of South Dakota. Natural resources always have played a significant role in the heritage of my State. South Dakota is the proud home of three of our national treasures: Wind Cave National Park, Jewel Cave National Monument, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial, as well as a number of State parks, wildlife preserves, and recreation areas. It is not surprising that tourism is the second largest industry in the State. People travel thousands of miles to view South Dakota's natural wonders. Located just south of Custer State Park, Wind Cave National Park is one of the nation's oldest national parks. The park provides protection to hundreds of prairie wildlife, including bison, antelope, coyotes, elk, and prairie dogs. The cave itself is 70 miles of winding underground passageways. The natural formations of boxwork, flowstone, popcorn and frostwork combine with helictites and stalactites to amaze and educate visitors from around the world. Northwest of Wind Cave, is Jewel Cave National Monument--the fourth longest cave in the world. Ninety miles of underground passageways have been mapped to date, but many more miles are left to be discovered. The cave takes its name from glittering jewel-like calcite crystals which line the walls of many of the cave's rooms and tunnels. Finally, there is Mount Rushmore, set in the heart of the Black Hills National Forest. The Mount Rushmore National Memorial attracts more than 2 million visitors each year. It is truly America's Shrine of Democracy. The monument was designed in 1927 by Gutzon Borglum, the son of Danish immigrants. The Memorial is a shrine of American Presidential heroes: George Washington, father of the Nation; Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence; Theodore Roosevelt, conservationist and trustbuster; and Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator and preserver of the Union. More than 65 years later, Mount Rushmore is still one of the most powerful symbols of America. This year there has been a great deal of discussion about the ever diminishing funds for the National Park Service. In light of possible budget cuts, some even erroneously questioned whether the parks would be able to stay open. Mr. President, I agree that like most Federal Government programs and agencies, the Park Service is due for some belt tightening. However, fiscal responsibility should not place at risk the effective management of our national parks. Our Nation has some of the most spectacular scenery in the world and we must carefully preserve this natural legacy that has been placed in our care. The challenge that we face should not be the threat of a park closing. That is not an option. Such scare talk is no substitute for what is truly needed during these tough times--imagination. We need to consider new ways to do more with less. To paraphrase an adage used at dinner tables across America, we must lea

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - August 11, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12370-S12410] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Frist): S. 1181. A bill to provide cost savings in the Medicare Program through cost-effective coverage of positron emission tomography [PET]; to the Committee on Finance. the medicare pet coverage act of 1995 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in our quest for a balanced budget, it is incumbent on Congress to mobilize every weapon at it disposal. This is particularly true in Federal health care programs, which are targeted by the budget resolution for the lion's share of spending reductions. Accordingly I am introducing today for myself and Senator Frist the Medicare PET Coverage Act of 1995. Regrettably this is one major cost reduction option that we are ignoring. This is the utilization of positron emission tomography [PET] to reduce the Nation's health care costs by avoiding unnecessary surgery. Positron emission tomography [PET] is the latest advance in diagnosing diseases such as breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, heart disease, and epilepsy. Today, PET is emerging from its 20 year research and clinical research phase to widespread clinical use. With respect to Medicare alone, this would provide a net savings of approximately $1 billion a year. [[Page S 12371]] PET technology is the only diagnostic technology that is able noninvasively to measure metabolic activity in living tissue. Identifying tumors is one example of its diagnostic value. PET is able to diagnose the extent and severity of malignant tumors more accurately than existing clinical diagnostic techniques. Comparable improved diagnostic accuracy is also available for heart disease, epilepsy, and other neurological disorders. PET's diagnostic accuracy translates into hundreds of thousands of fewer cases of surgery annually for cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses. Recent peer research has identified over $5.3 billion in annual net savings to the Nation's total health care budget if PET is used clinically. Critical to these cost savings are the hundreds of thousands of procedures that PET renders unnecessary every year. Peer review scientific literature has identified that for lung cancer alone, over 91,000 CT scans, 10,000 surgeries, and 17,000 biopsies would be avoided each year. For breast cancer almost 74,000 women per year would be spared the morbidity and cost associated with axillary lymph node dissection. Similar cost and morbidity savings are available for other diseases. These savings could start today. PET has been performed clinically under appropriate State regulation. One million PET studies have been performed with no known negative reactions. Patients have avoided unneeded surgery because of PET. However, there will be no societal payback and no benefit to the average American from the use of PET under HCFA's current policy. Despite the fact that CHAMPUS and private insurers like Blue Cross/ Blue Shield currently reimburse for this safe, cost-effective procedure, Medicare and Medicaid do not. HCFA effectively shelved any decision on reimbursement while the FDA decides whether and how to regulate PET compounds--something the States are already doing. For over 7 years, the developers of PET have complied with HCFA and FDA procedures and requests only to have the rules changed and inquiries about progress met with minimal responses. While there has been some recent movement on the part of the FDA, the fact remains that we have no consistent regulatory scheme that applies industrywide and to all applications. It is time to move PET out of this needless bureaucratic quagmire. New, proven medical procedures should not be held back by regulatory inertia. This bill does not mandate the use of PET, but rather allow health care professionals to evaluate its usefulness. Easing the regulatory logjam has farreaching effects on reimbursement by private health plans and availability in the United States generally. Because PET is safe and is both diagnostically effective and cost effective and because the policies of the FDA and HCFA have prohibited the delivery of PET to the general public, congressional action is necessary. I am pleased to have the Senate's only surgeon join me in introducing this bill. 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. 1181 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 ``Medicare PET Coverage Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF MEDICARE COVERAGE OF, AND PAYMENT FOR, ITEMS AND SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY (PET) (a) In General.--Nothing in title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or any other provision of law, regulation, policy, or interpretative statement, shall be construed to prohibit under parts A and B of such title coverage of, and payment for, items and services associated with the use of positron emission tomography (PET) for a covered medical indication (as defined in subsection (b)(1) where the use meets the following conditions: (1) The PET is used as a substitute for other diagnostic procedures or to assist a physician in assessing whether exploratory surgery, surgical treatment, radiation, transplant, or any other diagnostic or therapeutic procedure is medically necessary. The PET is performed at a facility that is licensed under (or otherwise operating in compliance with) State law. (b) Covered Medical Indication Defined.-- (1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term ``covered medical indication'' means-- (A) any medical indication described in paragraph (2), or (B) any other medical indication where the carrier involved (or the Secretary of Health and Human Services) estimates that it will be less costly to the medicare program under such title (on average) to use the protocol using PET for the indication than to use any alternative protocol which has similar diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic outcome for that indication. (2) Specific medical indications covered.--The following are the medical indications described in this paragraph: (A) Localization of epileptogenic focus in patients with complex partial seizure disorders. (B) Differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis in patients who have previously received radiation therapy treatment. (C) Detection and assessment of tumors associated with breast cancer, lung cancer, or colorectal cancer. (D) Determination of cardiac perfusion and viability in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction or cardiomyopathy. (c) Definitions.--In this section: (1) The terms ``position emission tomography'' and ``PET'' mean a diagnostic imaging technology used, in a manner generally accepted by the medical community and recognized in the medical literature, to measure biochemical and physiologic function in the human body. (2) The term ``protocol'' means, with respect to a specific medical indication, a set of diagnostic procedures and resulting therapeutic procedures used in diagnosing and treating the indication. (d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to PET used on or after 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not regulations to carry out this section have been promulgated by such date. (e) Revision of National Coverage Determination.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall revise the medicare national coverage decision relating to coverage of PET to be consistent with this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the Secretary from expanding such coverage decision beyond the coverage required under this section. ______ By Mr. LEVIN: S. 1182. A bill entitled the ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act of 1995''; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. the burt lake band of ottawa and chippewa indians act of 1995 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to reaffirm the Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. This legislation will reestablish the government-to-government relations of the United States and the Burt Lake Band. This bill is similar to legislation introduced last Congress by my friend, Senator Riegle. I cosponsored the legislation last year and I am honored to introduce it to the 104th Congress. Federal recognition is vitally important for a variety of reasons. With this process completed the band can move on to the tasks of improving the economic and social welfare of its people. More importantly however, passage of this legislation will clarify that in the eyes of everyone, the Burt Lake Band is an historically independent tribe. The band is named after Burt Lake, a small inland lake about 20 miles south of the Straits of Mackinac. The band already had deep roots in the area when a surveyor named Burt inspected the area in 1840. During the 1800's, the Burt Lake Band was a signatory to several Federal treaties, including the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. These treaties were enacted for the purpose of securing territory for settlement and development. During the mid-1800's, the Federal Government turned over to the State of Michigan annuity moneys on the band's behalf in order to purchase land. This land was later lost by the band through tax sales, although trust land is nontaxable, and the band was evicted from their village. In 1911, the Federal Government brought a claim on behalf of Burt Lake against the State of Michigan. The autonomous existence of the band at this stage is clear. Although the band has never had its Federal status legally terminated, the Bureau of Indian Affairs since the [[Page S 12372]] 1930's has not accorded the band that status nor treated the band as a federally recognized tribe. The Burt Lake Band, as well as the other tribes located in Michigan's lower peninsula were improperly denied the right to reorganize under the terms of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 even though they were deemed eligible to do so by the Indian Service at that time. I am aware that a bipartisan group of my colleagues in the House of Representatives have sponsored a similar piece of legislation. I look forward to the consideration of this legislation by the respective committees in both the Senate and the House and its enactment into law. I also ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1182 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 ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that-- (1) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians are descendants and political successors to the Indians that signed the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa nations of Indians at Washington, D.C. on March 28, 1836, and the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan at Detroit on July 31, 1855; (2) the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose members are also descendants of the Indians that signed the treaties referred to in paragraph (1), have been recognized by the Federal Government as distinct Indian tribes; (3) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians consists of over 600 eligible members who continue to reside close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the reservations of lands under the treaties referred to in paragraph (1) in the area that is currently known as Cheboygan County, Michigan; (4) the Band continues to exist and carry out political and social activities with a viable tribal government; (5) the Band, along with other Michigan Odawa and Ottawa groups, including the tribes described in paragraph (2), formed the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association in 1948; (6) the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association subsequently submitted a successful land claim with the Indian Claims Commission; (7) during the period between 1948 and 1975, the Band carried out many governmental functions through the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association, and at the same time retained control over local decisions; (8) in 1975, the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association submitted a petition under the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), to form a government on behalf of the Band; (9) in spite of the eligibility of the Band to form a government under the Act of June 18, 1934, the Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to act on the petition referred to in paragraph (8); and (10) from 1836 to the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Government, the government of the State of Michigan, and political subdivisions of the State have had continuous dealings with the recognized political leaders of the Band. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall apply: (1) Band.--The term ``Band'' means the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. (2) Member.--The term ``member'' means any individual enrolled in the Band pursuant to section 7. (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior. SEC. 4. FEDERAL RECOGNITION. (a) Federal Recognition.--Congress hereby reaffirms the Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. (b) Applicability of Federal Laws.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each provision of Federal law (including any regulation) of general application to Indians or Indian nations, tribes, or bands, including the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), that is inconsistent with any specific provision of this Act shall not apply to the Band or any of its members. (c) Federal Services and Benefits.-- (1) In general.--The Band and its members shall be eligible for all services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to Indians because of their status as federally recognized Indians. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, those services and benefits shall be provided after the date of the enactment of this Act to the Band and its members without regard to-- (A) whether or not there is an Indian reservation for the Band; or (B) whether or not a member resides on or near an Indian reservation. (2) Service areas.-- (A) In general.--For purposes of the delivery of Federal services to the enrolled members of the Band, the area of the State of Michigan within a 70-mile radius of the boundaries of the reservation for the Burt Lake Band, as set forth in the seventh paragraph of Article I of the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan (done at Detroit on July 31, 1855) shall be deemed to be within or near an Indian reservation. (B) Effect of establishment of an indian reservation after the date of enactment of this act.--If an Indian reservation is established for the Band after the date of enactment of this Act, subparagraph (A) shall continue to apply on and after the date of the establishment of that reservation. (C) Provision of services and benefits outside the service area.--Unless prohibited by Federal law, the services and benefits referred to in paragraph (1) may be provided to members outside the service area described in subparagraph (A). SEC. 5. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS. (a) In General.--To the extent consistent with the reaffirmation of the recognition of the Band under section 4(a), all rights and privileges of the Band and its members, which may have been abrogated or diminished before the date of the enactment of this Act, are hereby reaffirmed. (b) Existing Rights of Tribe.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to diminish any right or privilege of the Band or its members that existed before the date of the enactment of this Act. Except as otherwise specifically provided, nothing in this Act may be construed as altering or affecting any legal or equitable claim the Band may have to enforce any right or privilege reserved by or granted to the Band that was wrongfully denied to the Band or taken from the Band before the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 6. TRIBAL LANDS. The tribal lands of the Band shall consist of all real property held by, or in trust for, the Band. The Secretary shall acquire real property for the Band. Any property acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Band and shall become part of the reservation of the Band. SEC. 7. MEMBERSHIP. (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Band shall submit to the Secretary a membership roll consisting of all individuals currently enrolled for membership in the Band at the time of the submission of the membership roll. (b) Qualifications.--The Band shall, in consultation with the Secretary, determine, pursuant to applicable laws (including ordinances) of the Band, the qualifications for including an individual on the membership roll. (c) Publication of Notice.--The Secretary shall publish notice of receipt of the membership roll in the Federal Register as soon as practicable after receiving the membership roll pursuant to subsection (a). (d) Maintenance of Roll.--The Band shall maintain the membership roll of the Band prepared pursuant to this section in such manner as to ensure that the membership roll is current. SEC. 8. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNING BODY. (a) Constitution.-- (1) Adoption.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct, by secret ballot, elections for the purpose of adopting a new constitution for the Band. The elections shall be held according to the procedures applicable to elections under section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 987, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 476). (2) Interim governing documents.--Until such time as a new constitution is adopted under paragraph (1), the governing documents in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be the interim governing documents for the Band. (b) Officials.-- (1) Elections.--Not later than 180 days after the Band adopts a constitution and bylaws pursuant to subsection (a), the Band shall conduct elections by secret ballot for the purpose of electing officials for the Band as provided in the governing constitution of the Band. The elections shall be conducted according to the procedures described in the governing constitution and bylaws of the Band. (2) Interim governments.--Until such time as the Band elects new officials pursuant to paragraph (1), the governing bodies of the Band shall include each governing body of the Band in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, or any succeeding governing body selected under the election procedures specified in the applicable interim governing documents of the Band. ______ By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself, Mr. Packwood, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Santorum): S. 1183. A bill to amend the act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act), to revise the standards for [[Page S 12373]] coverage under the act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. the davis-bacon act reform amendments of 1995 Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, for 64 years we have been working under the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act, and that has become a highly controversial issue. Many times this Senate has attempted to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. A few years ago, the State of Oregon reached a compromise through a coalition of contractors, particularly in the trade unions, and for the last 6 months a similar coalition has been meeting in my office trying to come up with a reform of Davis-Bacon that would be acceptable to the two major parties, namely the building construction trade unions and the contractors' coalition. This morning I am pleased to say that this has been completed, and I am introducing this bill, which I now send to the desk and ask for its printing, cosponsored by Senators Packwood, D'Amato, Campbell, Specter, and Santorum. I invite my colleagues to join in cosponsoring it. Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act was passed 64 years ago to prevent federally funded construction projects from undermining the wages and working conditions of locally employed laborers and mechanics. At the time, lawmakers saw that large Government projects elicited destructive competition between the contractors who would use the local labor pool and those who could rely on remote, but cheaper, sources of labor. Congressman Bacon, for whom the act is named, introduced the legislation when builders in his New York district were underbid for a veterans' hospital project by southern contractors who brought in cheap southern labor. Congress, intent on sustaining a construction industry already ravaged by the economic instability of the Great Depression, reasoned that the destructive practices of the southern contractors would be best resolved by requiring that federally contracted labor be paid the locally prevailing wage, thereby halting the tendency of Government contractors to drive down workers' wages in order to win lucrative projects. In the years after the Depression, many States have enacted analogous prevailing wage standards, dubbed little Davis-Bacon laws. As Governor of Oregon, I signed that State's little Davis-Bacon Act, S.185, into law on May 26, 1959. I have supported the intelligent use of the prevailing wage standard in Government contracts ever since. Other Members of this body have made numerous attempts to repeal the Davis- Bacon Act--despite its commendable purpose of preserving the middle- class livelihoods of American construction workers, but the proven necessity for the law has thus far prevailed. Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act, as it now stands, indeed deserves some of the criticism that my distinguished associates level against it. Nevertheless, its purpose of protecting the jobs of our Nation's construction workers must persuade us to reform, rather than repeal, the act. A half year ago, an idea was spawned in Oregon, a compromise if you will, among the contractors and laborers at the local level to reform their relationship. This concept of Davis-Bacon reform between workers and laborers was brought to Washington, DC, where the idea advanced to the national level of contractors and laborers. I dare say that I was astounded by the conferees, longtime adversaries attended the negotiations, intent on brokering a Davis-Bacon reform package. I am today introducing the product of those long and arduous negotiations, a reform package to revise and update the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. Last year, a compromise among Oregon legislators, contractors, and labor unions resulted in a reform bill very similar to this one. I am confident that reform of the Davis-Bacon Act can be successfully implemented at the Federal level, because it has already been so in my home State of Oregon. Currently, the act requires that federally funded construction contracts exceeding $2,000 in value trigger application of the prevailing wage and conditions standard. The prevailing wage, as my colleagues know, is determined county-by-county by the Labor Department, which uses the highest wage earned by at least half of the local workers in the craft. The act, as it is now implemented, also requires that workers, regardless of their training, be paid at least the prevailing wage for the craft at which they are working. Further, the companion to the Davis-Bacon Act, the Copeland Act of 1934, mandates that government contractors submit detailed wage and benefit schedules at weekly intervals. Critics of the Davis-Bacon Act rightly argue that the law impedes rather than facilitates fair wages and balanced competition. The low threshold value of contracts and the weekly reporting requirement hinder small, local, and minority-owned contractors in their competition with larger, often out-of-State contractors. Moreover, the application of the prevailing wage standard, since it does not calculate prevailing wages by level of experience, makes apprentices and other employees who require on-the-job training unrealistically expensive. My bill offers several reforms that would resolve many or all of the difficulties of these acts that advocates of repeal find objectionable. There are three principal amendments to the existing statutes that would permit the Department of Labor to pursue the goals of the Davis- Bacon Act without the problems so often cited by critics. First, the threshold at which the act becomes applicable to Federal projects would be raised from $2,000 to $100,000. Second, the frequency with which contractors are required to file wage and benefit schedules would be changed from weekly to monthly. Third, trainees and apprentices would be excluded from the prevailing wage standard if they are enrolled in a training program that is registered with the Department of Labor. Mr. President, critics who seek to repeal entirely rather than improve the Davis-Bacon Act contend that the act's problems are beyond repair and that this body must allow competition to devastate the middle class livelihoods of America's construction workers. They argue that the Davis-Bacon Act is obsolete, tremendously costly, and impractical, regardless of whatever changes might be made to it. I disagree, and feel that the costs of the Davis-Bacon Act are grossly overestimated, whereas the benefits that we would jeopardize with its repeal have been dangerously neglected. The advocates of repealing the Davis-Bacon Act have not adequately demonstrated that enforcing the prevailing wage standard in federally funded contracts is, all things considered, untenably expensive. I feel that the act is relatively cost-effective now and will be all the more so with the changes I propose today. Critics of the Davis-Bacon Act frequently cite a CBO estimate of the savings that the Federal Government would enjoy if the act were repealed, but this estimate fails to consider the hidden costs of repeal. Although the Government might save money directly through lower construction wages, lost wages are likely to push an even greater number of formerly productive construction workers onto the rosters of the unemployed seeking Government assistance. Tax revenues, too, would decline, since the average construction worker would lose nearly $1,500 in annual income after the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Moreover, the evidence that the Government would save a substantial sum of money from cutting the wages paid to workers on Federal projects is dubious. Contractors' experiences repeatedly show that higher wages are positively correlated with higher productivity. Lower wages do not necessarily mean lower labor costs. Indeed, figures from a 1995 University of Utah study indicate that it costs less to build a mile of road in States with higher wages than in States with lower wages; the study revealed that, in States that have analogs to the Davis-Bacon Act, it has cost an average of almost $250,000 less per mile of road than in States that do not observe prevailing wage standards. It is apparent, Mr. President, that the CBO study upon which critics of the Davis-Bacon Act rely overestimates the cost and impracticality of enforcing and complying with the act. The figures that CBO study uses for its estimate are 15 years old; they do not reflect the expansion of office technology that has occurred in the last decade. Advances in office technology have facilitated the periodic filing of [[Page S 12374]] wage and benefit schedules by Government contractors as well as the processing of those schedules by the Department of Labor. Furthermore, the proportion of all Federal contracts that would have to comply with the act would drop to less than half, if the higher threshold I propose were promulgated. It is altogether unclear, therefore, whether the Federal Government can reasonably expect dramatic savings from an outright repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Even if the substantial savings that the CBO has predicted were possible with the repeal of the act, Mr. President, I would nevertheless urge my distinguished colleagues to consider the nonmonetary yet indispensable benefits of the act. A pressing concern of mine is the safety of America's builders. The 1995 University of Utah study to which I earlier referred indicates that the repeal of Davis-Bacon might lead to less training for construction workers and to more accidents and fatalities on work sites. That study examined nine States that repealed their own little Davis-Bacon laws. It reported that training declined in those States by 40 percent while occupational accidents rose by 15 percent. Better paid workers have fewer accidents and fewer fatalities--without the Davis-Bacon Act, better pay for workers will be the first cost that Government contractors cut. Is this body prepared to jeopardize the safety of American workers in pursuit of unproven savings? I myself am not. Another benefit of the prevailing wage standard is its contribution to the maintenance of a pool of well trained and motivated construction workers. This has become increasingly difficult with plummeting wages and unstable demand for labor in the construction industry. There are few incentives for young people to undertake the long-term training necessary to be a competent craftsman or mechanic if they can look forward to earning little more than the minimum wage and no benefits. Permitting the Federal Government, which provides between 10 and 20 percent of the construction industry's revenues, to invite competition that would inevitably depress wages further than they already have been is to imperil this Nation's ability to maintain and expand its infrastructure when the need arises. Mr. President, I cannot abide the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, although I do believe that it needs to be updated and revised. I am not convinced that repealing the act would permit the dramatic savings that have been predicted by critics of the act, primarily because the fiscal benefits of the act have been consistently underestimated or ignored. I understand, however, that the act as it is currently implemented is problematic and sometimes counterproductive in terms of its own purpose. This is why I have long supported, and propose today, fundamental reform of this absolutely vital law. The Davis-Bacon Act, with the correct revisions, can once again serve its purpose of protecting the livelihoods of America's builders and mechanics, preserving the sanctity of community standards, and ensuring that local contractors, young apprentices, and skilled workers have a chance to contribute to the growth and livelihood of both this Nation and their own families. Let us not confront this law with shortsighted and uninspired aspirations of abandoning it, but with the goal of rewriting it so that it can serve its original and laudable purpose. I ask unanimous consent that a list of members of the contractors- labor coalition be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record; as follows: Members of the Contractors-Labor Coalition Irv Fletcher, Oregon AFL-CIO; Bob Shiprack, Building and Trades Council; William G. Bernard, Asbestos Workers; Charles W. Jones, Boilermakers; John T. Joyce, Bricklayers; Sigurd Licassen, Carpenters; Dominic Martell, Cement Masons (plaster); J.J. Barry, Electrical Workers; John N. Russell, Elevator Constructors; Jake West, Iron Workers; Arthur Coia, Laborers; Frank Hanley, Operating Engineers; A.L. Monroe, Painters, Earl J. Kruse, Roofers; Arthur Moore, Sheet Metal Workers; Ron Carey, Teamsters; Jarvin J. Boede, United Association. Bill Supak, Kim Mingo, Sandy Barnes, Associated General Contractors Oregon-Columbia Chapter; Terry G. Bumpers, National Alliance for Fair Contracting; Stan Kolbe, Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association; Robert White, National Electrical Contractors Association; Patricia Fink, Mechanical Contractors Association of America. ______ By Mr. ASHCROFT: S. 1184. A bill to provide for the designation of distressed areas within qualifying cities as regulatory relief zones and for the selective waiver of Federal regulations within such zones, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. THE URBAN REGULATORY RELIEF ZONE ACT OF 1995 Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to rise today and discuss an opportunity to provide relief from many of the threats to the safety, security, and well-being of those individuals who populate our urban centers. Our cities today, especially our inner cities, have become areas of hopelessness and decay and despair. Consider these facts: America's urban areas suffer a murder every 22 minutes, a robbery every 49 seconds, and an aggravated assault every 30 seconds. In a survey of first and second graders in Washington, DC, 31 percent reported having witnessed a shooting, 39 percent said they had seen dead bodies. In addition, 40 percent of low-income parents worried a lot about their children being shot, compared to 10 percent of all parents who worry about their children being shot; 1 out of every 24 black males in this Nation, 1 out of every 24 black males in America, will have his life ended by a homicide. A report in The New England Journal of Medicine stated that a young black man living in Harlem is less likely to live until the age of 40 than a young man in Bangladesh, perhaps the poorest country on Earth. These are tragedies too great to comprehend. The roots of these pathologies are varied. They are partly cultural, partly economic, and partly social. Many people are born, live, and die without ever knowing what it is like to have a job, to feed a family, and to fulfill their dreams. In a number of the high schools in central cities, for example, the dropout rate rises as high as 80 percent. In 1990, 81 percent of young high school dropouts living in distressed urban areas were unemployed. In that same year, more than 40 percent of all adult men in the distressed inner cities of America did not work, while a significant number worked only sporadically or part time. Today, half of all residents of distressed neighborhoods live below the federally defined poverty threshold--in 1993, $14,763 for a family of four. Why do we have these problems in our inner cities? Well, as I have indicated, there are a variety of reasons. But I submit that one of the significant reasons for all of these facts is what I would call a ``regulatory redlining'' of our urban centers--a series of pervasive regulations promulgated by a variety of agencies that have literally driven jobs from the center of America's urban environments. As a matter of fact, the older the site is, the longer there has been industry, the longer there has been manufacturing, and the longer there has been industrial activity, the less likely the site is to qualify with and escape from the kind of onerous regulations which drive away jobs in these settings. As well meaning as many regulations may have been, the reality is that they have destroyed opportunity in our inner cities. There is a great debate about regulation and the regulatory burden in America. But the people who live in our inner cities bear not only their portion of the $600 billion in regulatory costs that are built into our products, they also experience and sustain a cost of regulation which is substantially higher in many circumstances. It is a cost of lost opportunity. It is a cost of poor health. It is a cost of the lack of personal security and safety. It is truly a major challenge. I have spoken on the Senate floor of situations in both Kansas City and St. Louis MO where Federal regulations designed to protect health and safety actually hurt Missouri's cities by essentially prohibiting new jobs while simultaneously forcing existing jobs from the city. Every large city has countless numbers of similar stories. Regulations, in particular environmental regulations, have attached so much liability to older industrial sites [[Page S 12375]] that, in many instances, these properties now have a negative market value--you'd have to pay someone else to take them. As a result, industries are headed for suburban and rural lands unspoiled by older industrial development. Tired of wading through open-ended regulations and liability laws that hold anyone even remotely responsible for cleanup costs, industries are moving to greener pastures. Perhaps Kathy Milberg, executive director of the Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision Project, says it best: You've got industries building all these nice clean plants in our suburbs * * * while environmentalists are telling us we can't build--in the cities--because we don't have a pristine environment. We've got to stabilize this neighborhood economically as well as environmentally. * * * They talk about environmental justice, but where's the justice when the suburbs are getting all the new factories and new jobs while we're stuck with a bunch of fences covered with ``Do not trespass'' signs? The rules and regulations that she laments make sense in certain areas, but frankly, the statistics tell us that the inhabitants of our urban centers are at far greater risk of the kind of lead poisoning that comes from a .38 than they are from the environmental concerns that drive so many jobs from the inner cities. We have to find a way to bring jobs back into our cities. The risks associated with unemployment are enormous--far greater than the risks associated with a door that may be 36 instead of 38 inches wide, or that do not comply with a particular statute. The risk of being shot in a drive-by shooting is much more pressing and demanding and challenging than the risk of being contaminated by impure dirt beneath a parking lot. Under the guise of noise abatement, we have merely exchanged the sounds of productivity for the sounds of silent factories. The crack of cocaine has been the only sound of productivity in our cities' centers. The wail of a family in the wake of a siren, the echoing clang of a cell door--those are the principal sounds of our inner cities. We need a common sense approach to risk in our inner cities. We literally have a substantial group of people in this country at the core of our urban centers and in our cities, whose opportunities have been diminished, whose safety has been impaired, whose health has been undermined, whose security has been threatened, and whose longevity has been shortened because of well-meaning but misapplied regulations. Our challenge is to find a way to make our urban centers places where people can thrive again. That is why I am introducing The Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act of 1995. The goal of the bill is this: to give the residents, government, and businesses of inner city areas the opportunity to restore their towns by reducing the often silly and senseless regulations that currently burden them. This bill will provide an opportunity for the mayor of a city, any city over 200,000, to appoint an Economic Development Commission which could assess rules and regulations which they believe impair the health, safety and well-being of their residents by keeping jobs out of the area; and to weigh whether or not waiving those regulations could give rise to an influx of opportunity which would provide an improvement in the health, an improvement in the security, an improvement in the education, and an improvement in the longevity of the individuals in that zone. These Economic Development Commissions will give all members of the community the opportunity to participate and work closely with one another to bring about real change and progress in the community. These Economic Development Commissions could then apply for modification or waiver of those rules. The Office of Management and Budget will process these requests and forward them to the appropriate Federal agencies. Ultimately we give the agencies the deference they deserve, and allow them to deny a waiver or modification request if the agency decides that the granting of the waiver would create a significant threat to human health and safety. I believe, however that the Economic Development Commissions will be able to readily identify those rules and regulations which prevent growth while achieving little or no benefit to the community. We have to give cities a chance to say to individuals: You can come in here, you don't have to be responsible for all the past sins of industry here; you don't have to make sure the dirt under your parking lot is so clean that it could be eaten by an individual for his or her entire 70 years of existence. We want to have jobs here because we know that an employed person is safer than an unemployed person; that an employed person is healthier than an unemployed person; that where there is economic vitality and industry, there is a far greater chance that the young people will persist in their education, avoiding the dropout situation; and will upgrade what happens in our very inner cities. The isolation of the distressed urban areas I have referred to conflicts with our national ideals. Equality of opportunity is a fundamental principle of American society and a right of all Americans. Extreme differences in the range of life chances between persons of one segment of American society and another, one racial or ethnic group and another, or one part of an urban area and another conflict harshly with this ethical standard. I believe the persistence of distressed urban areas is dangerous to America's future. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity. It is my sincere belief that the Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act which I introduce today can restore a sense of hope and real benefits in terms of economic opportunity and improved health and safety to our inner cities. I hope that we will have the good judgment to share with the people of the United States the opportunity to make sound decisions about improving the standing of those who are at peril in our inner cities, the core of our largest urban centers. I hope that we will give them the opportunity to get relief when that relief will increase their likelihood for safety, for health, for security, for productivity and for longevity. I hope that we will give them the opportunity to get relief when that relief will increase their likelihood for safety, for health, for security, for productivity, and for longevity. 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. 1184 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 ``Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that-- (1) the likelihood that a proposed business site will comply with many government regulations is inversely related to the length of time over which a site has been utilized for commercial or industrial purposes, thus rendering older sites in urban areas most unlikely to be chosen for new development and forcing new development away from the most areas most in need of economic growth and job creation; and (2) broad Federal regulations often have unintended consequences in urban areas where such regulations-- (A) offend basic notions of common sense, particularly when applied to individual sites; (B) adversely impact economic stability; (C) result in the unnecessary loss of existing businesses; (D) undermine new economic development, especially in previously used sites; (E) create undue economic hardships while failing significantly to protect human health, particularly in areas where economic development is urgently needed to improve the health and welfare of residents over a long period of time; and (F) contribute to social deterioration to such a degree that high unemployment, crime, and other economic and social problems create the greatest risk to the health and well- being of urban residents. SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are to-- (1) enable qualifying cities to provide for the general well-being, health, safety and security for their residents living in distressed areas by empowering such cities to obtain selective relief from Federal regulations that undermine economic stability and development in distressed areas within the city; and (2) authorize Federal agencies to waive the application of specific Federal regulations in distressed urban areas designated as urban regulatory relief zones by an economic development commission-- (A) upon application through the Office of Management and Budget by an economic development commission established by a qualifying city under section 5; and (B) upon a determination by the appropriate Federal agency that granting such a waiver will not substantially endanger health or safety. [[Page S 12376]] SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR WAIVERS. (a) Eligible Cities.--The mayor or chief executive officer of a city may establish an economic development commission to carry out the purposes of section 5 if the city population is greater than 200,000 according to-- (1) the United States Census Bureau's 1992 estimate for city populations; or (2) beginning 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States Census Bureau's latest estimate for city populations. (b) Distressed Area.--Any census tract within a city shall qualify as a distressed area if-- (1) 33 percent or more of the resident population in the census tract is below the poverty line; (2) 45 percent or more of out-of-school males aged 16 and over in the census tract worked less than 26 weeks in the preceding year; (3) 36 percent or more families with children under age 18 in the census tract have an unmarried parent as head of the household; or (4) 17 percent or more of the resident families in the census tract received public assistance income in the preceding year. SEC. 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS. (a) Purpose.--The mayor or chief executive officer of a qualifying city under section 4 may appoint an economic development commission for the purpose of-- (1) designating urban regulatory relief zones in a city composed of-- (A) a distressed area; (B) a combination of distressed areas; or (C) one or more distressed areas with adjacent industrial or commercial areas; and (2) making application through the Office of Management and Budget to waive the application of specific Federal regulations within such urban regulatory relief zones. (b) Composition.--To the greatest extent practicable, an economic development commission shall include-- (1) residents representing a demographic cross section of the city population; and (2) members of the business community, private civic organizations, employers, employees, elected officials, and State and local regulatory authorities. (c) Limitation.--No more than one economic development commission shall be established or designated within a qualifying city. SEC. 6. LOCAL PARTICIPATION. (a) Public Hearings.--Before designating an area as an urban regulatory relief zone, an economic development commission established under section 5 shall hold a public hearing, after giving adequate public notice, for the purpose of soliciting the opinions and suggestions of those persons who will be affected by such designation. (b) Individual Requests.--The economic development commission shall establish a process by which individuals may submit requests to the commission to include specific Federal regulations in the commission's application to the Office of Management and Budget seeking waivers of Federal regulations. (c) Availability of Commission Decisions.--After holding a hearing under subsection (a) and before submitting any waiver applications to the Office of Management and Budget under section 7, the economic development commission shall make publicly available-- (1) a list of all areas within the city to be designated as urban regulatory relief zones, if any; (2) a list of all regulations for which the economic development commission will request a waiver from a Federal agency; and (3) the basis for the city's findings that the waiver of a regulation would improve the health and safety and economic well-being of the city's residents and the data supporting such a determination. SEC. 7. WAIVER OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS. (a) Selection of Regulations.--An economic development commission may select for waiver, within an urban regulatory relief zone, Federal regulations that-- (1)(A) are unduly burdensome to business concerns located within an area designated as an urban regulatory relief zone; (B) discourages economic development within the zone; (C) creates undue economic hardships in the zone; or (D) contributes to the social deterioration of the zone; and (2) if waived, will not substantially endanger health or safety. (b) Request for Waiver.--(1) An economic development commission shall submit a request for the waiver of Federal regulations to the Office of Management and Budget. (2) Such request shall-- (A) identify the area designated as an urban regulatory relief zone by the economic development commission; (B) identify all regulations for which the economic development commission seeks a waiver; and (C) explain the reasons that waiver of the regulations would economically benefit the urban regulatory relief zone and the data supporting such determination. (c) Review of Waiver Request.--No later than 60 days after receiving the request for waiver, the Office of Management and Budget shall-- (1) review the request for waiver; (2) determine whether the request for waiver is complete and in compliance with this Act, using the most recent census data available at the time each application is submitted; and (3) after making a determination under paragraph (2)-- (A) submit the request for waiver to the Federal agency that promulgated the regulation and notify the requesting economic development commission of the date on which the request was submitted to such agency; or (B) notify the requesting economic development commission that the request is not in compliance with this Act with an explanation of the basis for such determination. (d) Modification of Waiver Requests.--An economic development commission may submit modifications to a waiver request. The provisions of subsection (c) shall apply to a modified waiver as of the date such modification is received by the Office of Management and Budget. (e) Waiver Determination.--(1) No later than 120 days after receiving a request for waiver under subsection (c) from the Office of Management and Budget, a Federal agency shall-- (A) make a determination of whether to waive a regulation in whole or in part; and (B) provide written notice to the requesting economic development commission of such determination. (2) Subject to subsection (g), a Federal agency shall deny a request for a waiver only if the waiver substantially endangers health or safety. (3) If a Federal agency grants a waiver under this subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to the requesting economic development commission that-- (A) describes the extent of the waiver in whole or in part; and (B) explains the application of the waiver, including guidance for business concerns, within the urban regulatory relief zone. (4) If a Federal agency denies a waiver under this subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to the requesting economic development commission that-- (A) explains the reasons that the waiver substantially endangers health or safety; and (B) provides a scientific basis for such determination. (f) Automatic Waiver.--If a Federal agency does not provide the written notice required under subsection (e) within the 120-day period as required under such subsection, the waiver shall be deemed to be granted by the Federal agency. (g) Limitation.--No provision of this Act shall be construed to authorize any Federal agency to waive any regulation or Executive order that prohibits, or the purpose of which is to protect persons against, discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. (h) Applicable Procedures.--A waiver of a regulation under subsection (e) shall not be considered to be a rule, rulemaking, or regulation under chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code. The Federal agency shall publish a notice in the Federal Register stating any waiver of a regulation under this section. (i) Effect of Subsequent Amendment of Regulations.--If a Federal agency amends a regulation for which a waiver under this section is in effect, the agency shall not change the waiver to impose additional requirements. (j) Expiration of Waivers.--No waiver of a regulation under this section shall expire unless the Federal agency determines that a continuation of the waiver substantially endangers health or safety. SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act, the term-- (1) ``industrial or commercial area'' means any part of a census tract zoned for industrial or commercial use which is adjacent to a census tract which is a distressed area under section 5(b); (2) ``poverty line'' has the same meaning as such term is defined under section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)); (3) ``qualifying city'' means a city which is eligible to establish an economic development commission under section 4; (4) ``regulation''-- (A) means-- (i) any rule as defined under section 551(4) of title 5, United States Code; or (ii) any rulemaking conducted on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing under sections 556 and 557 of such title; and (B) shall not include-- (i) a rule that involves the internal revenue laws of the United States, or the assessment and collection of taxes, duties, or other revenues or receipts; (ii) a rule relating to monetary policy or to the safety or soundness of federally insured depository institutions or any affiliate of such an institution (as defined in section 2(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(k))), credit unions, Federal Home Loan Banks, government sponsored housing enterprises, farm credit institutions, foreign banks that operate in the United States and their affiliates, branches, agencies, commercial lending companies, or representative offices, (as those terms are defined in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101)); or (iii) a rule promulgated under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); and (5) ``urban regulatory relief zone'' means an area designated under section 5. ______ By Mr. PRESSLER: [[Page S 12377]] S. 1185. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the State of South Dakota providing for maintenance, operation, and administration by the State, on a trial basis during a period not to exceed 10 years, of three National Park System units in the State, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. the south dakota national parks preservation act of 1995 Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow South Dakota's national parks to be managed by the State of South Dakota. Natural resources always have played a significant role in the heritage of my State. South Dakota is the proud home of three of our national treasures: Wind Cave National Park, Jewel Cave National Monument, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial, as well as a number of State parks, wildlife preserves, and recreation areas. It is not surprising that tourism is the second largest industry in the State. People travel thousands of miles to view South Dakota's natural wonders. Located just south of Custer State Park, Wind Cave National Park is one of the nation's oldest national parks. The park provides protection to hundreds of prairie wildlife, including bison, antelope, coyotes, elk, and prairie dogs. The cave itself is 70 miles of winding underground passageways. The natural formations of boxwork, flowstone, popcorn and frostwork combine with helictites and stalactites to amaze and educate visitors from around the world. Northwest of Wind Cave, is Jewel Cave National Monument--the fourth longest cave in the world. Ninety miles of underground passageways have been mapped to date, but many more miles are left to be discovered. The cave takes its name from glittering jewel-like calcite crystals which line the walls of many of the cave's rooms and tunnels. Finally, there is Mount Rushmore, set in the heart of the Black Hills National Forest. The Mount Rushmore National Memorial attracts more than 2 million visitors each year. It is truly America's Shrine of Democracy. The monument was designed in 1927 by Gutzon Borglum, the son of Danish immigrants. The Memorial is a shrine of American Presidential heroes: George Washington, father of the Nation; Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence; Theodore Roosevelt, conservationist and trustbuster; and Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator and preserver of the Union. More than 65 years later, Mount Rushmore is still one of the most powerful symbols of America. This year there has been a great deal of discussion about the ever diminishing funds for the National Park Service. In light of possible budget cuts, some even erroneously questioned whether the parks would be able to stay open. Mr. President, I agree that like most Federal Government programs and agencies, the Park Service is due for some belt tightening. However, fiscal responsibility should not place at risk the effective management of our national parks. Our Nation has some of the most spectacular scenery in the world and we must carefully preserve this natural legacy that has been placed in our care. The challenge that we face should not be the threat of a park closing. That is not an option. Such scare talk is no substitute for what is truly needed during these tough times--imagination. We need to consider new ways to do more with less. To paraphrase an adage used at dinner tables across America, we must learn to stretch our Park Service

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - August 11, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12370-S12410] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Frist): S. 1181. A bill to provide cost savings in the Medicare Program through cost-effective coverage of positron emission tomography [PET]; to the Committee on Finance. the medicare pet coverage act of 1995 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in our quest for a balanced budget, it is incumbent on Congress to mobilize every weapon at it disposal. This is particularly true in Federal health care programs, which are targeted by the budget resolution for the lion's share of spending reductions. Accordingly I am introducing today for myself and Senator Frist the Medicare PET Coverage Act of 1995. Regrettably this is one major cost reduction option that we are ignoring. This is the utilization of positron emission tomography [PET] to reduce the Nation's health care costs by avoiding unnecessary surgery. Positron emission tomography [PET] is the latest advance in diagnosing diseases such as breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, heart disease, and epilepsy. Today, PET is emerging from its 20 year research and clinical research phase to widespread clinical use. With respect to Medicare alone, this would provide a net savings of approximately $1 billion a year. [[Page S 12371]] PET technology is the only diagnostic technology that is able noninvasively to measure metabolic activity in living tissue. Identifying tumors is one example of its diagnostic value. PET is able to diagnose the extent and severity of malignant tumors more accurately than existing clinical diagnostic techniques. Comparable improved diagnostic accuracy is also available for heart disease, epilepsy, and other neurological disorders. PET's diagnostic accuracy translates into hundreds of thousands of fewer cases of surgery annually for cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses. Recent peer research has identified over $5.3 billion in annual net savings to the Nation's total health care budget if PET is used clinically. Critical to these cost savings are the hundreds of thousands of procedures that PET renders unnecessary every year. Peer review scientific literature has identified that for lung cancer alone, over 91,000 CT scans, 10,000 surgeries, and 17,000 biopsies would be avoided each year. For breast cancer almost 74,000 women per year would be spared the morbidity and cost associated with axillary lymph node dissection. Similar cost and morbidity savings are available for other diseases. These savings could start today. PET has been performed clinically under appropriate State regulation. One million PET studies have been performed with no known negative reactions. Patients have avoided unneeded surgery because of PET. However, there will be no societal payback and no benefit to the average American from the use of PET under HCFA's current policy. Despite the fact that CHAMPUS and private insurers like Blue Cross/ Blue Shield currently reimburse for this safe, cost-effective procedure, Medicare and Medicaid do not. HCFA effectively shelved any decision on reimbursement while the FDA decides whether and how to regulate PET compounds--something the States are already doing. For over 7 years, the developers of PET have complied with HCFA and FDA procedures and requests only to have the rules changed and inquiries about progress met with minimal responses. While there has been some recent movement on the part of the FDA, the fact remains that we have no consistent regulatory scheme that applies industrywide and to all applications. It is time to move PET out of this needless bureaucratic quagmire. New, proven medical procedures should not be held back by regulatory inertia. This bill does not mandate the use of PET, but rather allow health care professionals to evaluate its usefulness. Easing the regulatory logjam has farreaching effects on reimbursement by private health plans and availability in the United States generally. Because PET is safe and is both diagnostically effective and cost effective and because the policies of the FDA and HCFA have prohibited the delivery of PET to the general public, congressional action is necessary. I am pleased to have the Senate's only surgeon join me in introducing this bill. 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. 1181 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 ``Medicare PET Coverage Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF MEDICARE COVERAGE OF, AND PAYMENT FOR, ITEMS AND SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY (PET) (a) In General.--Nothing in title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or any other provision of law, regulation, policy, or interpretative statement, shall be construed to prohibit under parts A and B of such title coverage of, and payment for, items and services associated with the use of positron emission tomography (PET) for a covered medical indication (as defined in subsection (b)(1) where the use meets the following conditions: (1) The PET is used as a substitute for other diagnostic procedures or to assist a physician in assessing whether exploratory surgery, surgical treatment, radiation, transplant, or any other diagnostic or therapeutic procedure is medically necessary. The PET is performed at a facility that is licensed under (or otherwise operating in compliance with) State law. (b) Covered Medical Indication Defined.-- (1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term ``covered medical indication'' means-- (A) any medical indication described in paragraph (2), or (B) any other medical indication where the carrier involved (or the Secretary of Health and Human Services) estimates that it will be less costly to the medicare program under such title (on average) to use the protocol using PET for the indication than to use any alternative protocol which has similar diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic outcome for that indication. (2) Specific medical indications covered.--The following are the medical indications described in this paragraph: (A) Localization of epileptogenic focus in patients with complex partial seizure disorders. (B) Differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis in patients who have previously received radiation therapy treatment. (C) Detection and assessment of tumors associated with breast cancer, lung cancer, or colorectal cancer. (D) Determination of cardiac perfusion and viability in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction or cardiomyopathy. (c) Definitions.--In this section: (1) The terms ``position emission tomography'' and ``PET'' mean a diagnostic imaging technology used, in a manner generally accepted by the medical community and recognized in the medical literature, to measure biochemical and physiologic function in the human body. (2) The term ``protocol'' means, with respect to a specific medical indication, a set of diagnostic procedures and resulting therapeutic procedures used in diagnosing and treating the indication. (d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to PET used on or after 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not regulations to carry out this section have been promulgated by such date. (e) Revision of National Coverage Determination.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall revise the medicare national coverage decision relating to coverage of PET to be consistent with this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the Secretary from expanding such coverage decision beyond the coverage required under this section. ______ By Mr. LEVIN: S. 1182. A bill entitled the ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act of 1995''; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. the burt lake band of ottawa and chippewa indians act of 1995 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to reaffirm the Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. This legislation will reestablish the government-to-government relations of the United States and the Burt Lake Band. This bill is similar to legislation introduced last Congress by my friend, Senator Riegle. I cosponsored the legislation last year and I am honored to introduce it to the 104th Congress. Federal recognition is vitally important for a variety of reasons. With this process completed the band can move on to the tasks of improving the economic and social welfare of its people. More importantly however, passage of this legislation will clarify that in the eyes of everyone, the Burt Lake Band is an historically independent tribe. The band is named after Burt Lake, a small inland lake about 20 miles south of the Straits of Mackinac. The band already had deep roots in the area when a surveyor named Burt inspected the area in 1840. During the 1800's, the Burt Lake Band was a signatory to several Federal treaties, including the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. These treaties were enacted for the purpose of securing territory for settlement and development. During the mid-1800's, the Federal Government turned over to the State of Michigan annuity moneys on the band's behalf in order to purchase land. This land was later lost by the band through tax sales, although trust land is nontaxable, and the band was evicted from their village. In 1911, the Federal Government brought a claim on behalf of Burt Lake against the State of Michigan. The autonomous existence of the band at this stage is clear. Although the band has never had its Federal status legally terminated, the Bureau of Indian Affairs since the [[Page S 12372]] 1930's has not accorded the band that status nor treated the band as a federally recognized tribe. The Burt Lake Band, as well as the other tribes located in Michigan's lower peninsula were improperly denied the right to reorganize under the terms of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 even though they were deemed eligible to do so by the Indian Service at that time. I am aware that a bipartisan group of my colleagues in the House of Representatives have sponsored a similar piece of legislation. I look forward to the consideration of this legislation by the respective committees in both the Senate and the House and its enactment into law. I also ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1182 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 ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that-- (1) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians are descendants and political successors to the Indians that signed the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa nations of Indians at Washington, D.C. on March 28, 1836, and the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan at Detroit on July 31, 1855; (2) the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose members are also descendants of the Indians that signed the treaties referred to in paragraph (1), have been recognized by the Federal Government as distinct Indian tribes; (3) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians consists of over 600 eligible members who continue to reside close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the reservations of lands under the treaties referred to in paragraph (1) in the area that is currently known as Cheboygan County, Michigan; (4) the Band continues to exist and carry out political and social activities with a viable tribal government; (5) the Band, along with other Michigan Odawa and Ottawa groups, including the tribes described in paragraph (2), formed the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association in 1948; (6) the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association subsequently submitted a successful land claim with the Indian Claims Commission; (7) during the period between 1948 and 1975, the Band carried out many governmental functions through the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association, and at the same time retained control over local decisions; (8) in 1975, the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association submitted a petition under the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), to form a government on behalf of the Band; (9) in spite of the eligibility of the Band to form a government under the Act of June 18, 1934, the Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to act on the petition referred to in paragraph (8); and (10) from 1836 to the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Government, the government of the State of Michigan, and political subdivisions of the State have had continuous dealings with the recognized political leaders of the Band. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall apply: (1) Band.--The term ``Band'' means the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. (2) Member.--The term ``member'' means any individual enrolled in the Band pursuant to section 7. (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior. SEC. 4. FEDERAL RECOGNITION. (a) Federal Recognition.--Congress hereby reaffirms the Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. (b) Applicability of Federal Laws.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each provision of Federal law (including any regulation) of general application to Indians or Indian nations, tribes, or bands, including the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), that is inconsistent with any specific provision of this Act shall not apply to the Band or any of its members. (c) Federal Services and Benefits.-- (1) In general.--The Band and its members shall be eligible for all services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to Indians because of their status as federally recognized Indians. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, those services and benefits shall be provided after the date of the enactment of this Act to the Band and its members without regard to-- (A) whether or not there is an Indian reservation for the Band; or (B) whether or not a member resides on or near an Indian reservation. (2) Service areas.-- (A) In general.--For purposes of the delivery of Federal services to the enrolled members of the Band, the area of the State of Michigan within a 70-mile radius of the boundaries of the reservation for the Burt Lake Band, as set forth in the seventh paragraph of Article I of the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan (done at Detroit on July 31, 1855) shall be deemed to be within or near an Indian reservation. (B) Effect of establishment of an indian reservation after the date of enactment of this act.--If an Indian reservation is established for the Band after the date of enactment of this Act, subparagraph (A) shall continue to apply on and after the date of the establishment of that reservation. (C) Provision of services and benefits outside the service area.--Unless prohibited by Federal law, the services and benefits referred to in paragraph (1) may be provided to members outside the service area described in subparagraph (A). SEC. 5. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS. (a) In General.--To the extent consistent with the reaffirmation of the recognition of the Band under section 4(a), all rights and privileges of the Band and its members, which may have been abrogated or diminished before the date of the enactment of this Act, are hereby reaffirmed. (b) Existing Rights of Tribe.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to diminish any right or privilege of the Band or its members that existed before the date of the enactment of this Act. Except as otherwise specifically provided, nothing in this Act may be construed as altering or affecting any legal or equitable claim the Band may have to enforce any right or privilege reserved by or granted to the Band that was wrongfully denied to the Band or taken from the Band before the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 6. TRIBAL LANDS. The tribal lands of the Band shall consist of all real property held by, or in trust for, the Band. The Secretary shall acquire real property for the Band. Any property acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Band and shall become part of the reservation of the Band. SEC. 7. MEMBERSHIP. (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Band shall submit to the Secretary a membership roll consisting of all individuals currently enrolled for membership in the Band at the time of the submission of the membership roll. (b) Qualifications.--The Band shall, in consultation with the Secretary, determine, pursuant to applicable laws (including ordinances) of the Band, the qualifications for including an individual on the membership roll. (c) Publication of Notice.--The Secretary shall publish notice of receipt of the membership roll in the Federal Register as soon as practicable after receiving the membership roll pursuant to subsection (a). (d) Maintenance of Roll.--The Band shall maintain the membership roll of the Band prepared pursuant to this section in such manner as to ensure that the membership roll is current. SEC. 8. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNING BODY. (a) Constitution.-- (1) Adoption.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct, by secret ballot, elections for the purpose of adopting a new constitution for the Band. The elections shall be held according to the procedures applicable to elections under section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 987, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 476). (2) Interim governing documents.--Until such time as a new constitution is adopted under paragraph (1), the governing documents in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be the interim governing documents for the Band. (b) Officials.-- (1) Elections.--Not later than 180 days after the Band adopts a constitution and bylaws pursuant to subsection (a), the Band shall conduct elections by secret ballot for the purpose of electing officials for the Band as provided in the governing constitution of the Band. The elections shall be conducted according to the procedures described in the governing constitution and bylaws of the Band. (2) Interim governments.--Until such time as the Band elects new officials pursuant to paragraph (1), the governing bodies of the Band shall include each governing body of the Band in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, or any succeeding governing body selected under the election procedures specified in the applicable interim governing documents of the Band. ______ By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself, Mr. Packwood, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Santorum): S. 1183. A bill to amend the act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act), to revise the standards for [[Page S 12373]] coverage under the act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. the davis-bacon act reform amendments of 1995 Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, for 64 years we have been working under the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act, and that has become a highly controversial issue. Many times this Senate has attempted to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. A few years ago, the State of Oregon reached a compromise through a coalition of contractors, particularly in the trade unions, and for the last 6 months a similar coalition has been meeting in my office trying to come up with a reform of Davis-Bacon that would be acceptable to the two major parties, namely the building construction trade unions and the contractors' coalition. This morning I am pleased to say that this has been completed, and I am introducing this bill, which I now send to the desk and ask for its printing, cosponsored by Senators Packwood, D'Amato, Campbell, Specter, and Santorum. I invite my colleagues to join in cosponsoring it. Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act was passed 64 years ago to prevent federally funded construction projects from undermining the wages and working conditions of locally employed laborers and mechanics. At the time, lawmakers saw that large Government projects elicited destructive competition between the contractors who would use the local labor pool and those who could rely on remote, but cheaper, sources of labor. Congressman Bacon, for whom the act is named, introduced the legislation when builders in his New York district were underbid for a veterans' hospital project by southern contractors who brought in cheap southern labor. Congress, intent on sustaining a construction industry already ravaged by the economic instability of the Great Depression, reasoned that the destructive practices of the southern contractors would be best resolved by requiring that federally contracted labor be paid the locally prevailing wage, thereby halting the tendency of Government contractors to drive down workers' wages in order to win lucrative projects. In the years after the Depression, many States have enacted analogous prevailing wage standards, dubbed little Davis-Bacon laws. As Governor of Oregon, I signed that State's little Davis-Bacon Act, S.185, into law on May 26, 1959. I have supported the intelligent use of the prevailing wage standard in Government contracts ever since. Other Members of this body have made numerous attempts to repeal the Davis- Bacon Act--despite its commendable purpose of preserving the middle- class livelihoods of American construction workers, but the proven necessity for the law has thus far prevailed. Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act, as it now stands, indeed deserves some of the criticism that my distinguished associates level against it. Nevertheless, its purpose of protecting the jobs of our Nation's construction workers must persuade us to reform, rather than repeal, the act. A half year ago, an idea was spawned in Oregon, a compromise if you will, among the contractors and laborers at the local level to reform their relationship. This concept of Davis-Bacon reform between workers and laborers was brought to Washington, DC, where the idea advanced to the national level of contractors and laborers. I dare say that I was astounded by the conferees, longtime adversaries attended the negotiations, intent on brokering a Davis-Bacon reform package. I am today introducing the product of those long and arduous negotiations, a reform package to revise and update the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. Last year, a compromise among Oregon legislators, contractors, and labor unions resulted in a reform bill very similar to this one. I am confident that reform of the Davis-Bacon Act can be successfully implemented at the Federal level, because it has already been so in my home State of Oregon. Currently, the act requires that federally funded construction contracts exceeding $2,000 in value trigger application of the prevailing wage and conditions standard. The prevailing wage, as my colleagues know, is determined county-by-county by the Labor Department, which uses the highest wage earned by at least half of the local workers in the craft. The act, as it is now implemented, also requires that workers, regardless of their training, be paid at least the prevailing wage for the craft at which they are working. Further, the companion to the Davis-Bacon Act, the Copeland Act of 1934, mandates that government contractors submit detailed wage and benefit schedules at weekly intervals. Critics of the Davis-Bacon Act rightly argue that the law impedes rather than facilitates fair wages and balanced competition. The low threshold value of contracts and the weekly reporting requirement hinder small, local, and minority-owned contractors in their competition with larger, often out-of-State contractors. Moreover, the application of the prevailing wage standard, since it does not calculate prevailing wages by level of experience, makes apprentices and other employees who require on-the-job training unrealistically expensive. My bill offers several reforms that would resolve many or all of the difficulties of these acts that advocates of repeal find objectionable. There are three principal amendments to the existing statutes that would permit the Department of Labor to pursue the goals of the Davis- Bacon Act without the problems so often cited by critics. First, the threshold at which the act becomes applicable to Federal projects would be raised from $2,000 to $100,000. Second, the frequency with which contractors are required to file wage and benefit schedules would be changed from weekly to monthly. Third, trainees and apprentices would be excluded from the prevailing wage standard if they are enrolled in a training program that is registered with the Department of Labor. Mr. President, critics who seek to repeal entirely rather than improve the Davis-Bacon Act contend that the act's problems are beyond repair and that this body must allow competition to devastate the middle class livelihoods of America's construction workers. They argue that the Davis-Bacon Act is obsolete, tremendously costly, and impractical, regardless of whatever changes might be made to it. I disagree, and feel that the costs of the Davis-Bacon Act are grossly overestimated, whereas the benefits that we would jeopardize with its repeal have been dangerously neglected. The advocates of repealing the Davis-Bacon Act have not adequately demonstrated that enforcing the prevailing wage standard in federally funded contracts is, all things considered, untenably expensive. I feel that the act is relatively cost-effective now and will be all the more so with the changes I propose today. Critics of the Davis-Bacon Act frequently cite a CBO estimate of the savings that the Federal Government would enjoy if the act were repealed, but this estimate fails to consider the hidden costs of repeal. Although the Government might save money directly through lower construction wages, lost wages are likely to push an even greater number of formerly productive construction workers onto the rosters of the unemployed seeking Government assistance. Tax revenues, too, would decline, since the average construction worker would lose nearly $1,500 in annual income after the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Moreover, the evidence that the Government would save a substantial sum of money from cutting the wages paid to workers on Federal projects is dubious. Contractors' experiences repeatedly show that higher wages are positively correlated with higher productivity. Lower wages do not necessarily mean lower labor costs. Indeed, figures from a 1995 University of Utah study indicate that it costs less to build a mile of road in States with higher wages than in States with lower wages; the study revealed that, in States that have analogs to the Davis-Bacon Act, it has cost an average of almost $250,000 less per mile of road than in States that do not observe prevailing wage standards. It is apparent, Mr. President, that the CBO study upon which critics of the Davis-Bacon Act rely overestimates the cost and impracticality of enforcing and complying with the act. The figures that CBO study uses for its estimate are 15 years old; they do not reflect the expansion of office technology that has occurred in the last decade. Advances in office technology have facilitated the periodic filing of [[Page S 12374]] wage and benefit schedules by Government contractors as well as the processing of those schedules by the Department of Labor. Furthermore, the proportion of all Federal contracts that would have to comply with the act would drop to less than half, if the higher threshold I propose were promulgated. It is altogether unclear, therefore, whether the Federal Government can reasonably expect dramatic savings from an outright repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Even if the substantial savings that the CBO has predicted were possible with the repeal of the act, Mr. President, I would nevertheless urge my distinguished colleagues to consider the nonmonetary yet indispensable benefits of the act. A pressing concern of mine is the safety of America's builders. The 1995 University of Utah study to which I earlier referred indicates that the repeal of Davis-Bacon might lead to less training for construction workers and to more accidents and fatalities on work sites. That study examined nine States that repealed their own little Davis-Bacon laws. It reported that training declined in those States by 40 percent while occupational accidents rose by 15 percent. Better paid workers have fewer accidents and fewer fatalities--without the Davis-Bacon Act, better pay for workers will be the first cost that Government contractors cut. Is this body prepared to jeopardize the safety of American workers in pursuit of unproven savings? I myself am not. Another benefit of the prevailing wage standard is its contribution to the maintenance of a pool of well trained and motivated construction workers. This has become increasingly difficult with plummeting wages and unstable demand for labor in the construction industry. There are few incentives for young people to undertake the long-term training necessary to be a competent craftsman or mechanic if they can look forward to earning little more than the minimum wage and no benefits. Permitting the Federal Government, which provides between 10 and 20 percent of the construction industry's revenues, to invite competition that would inevitably depress wages further than they already have been is to imperil this Nation's ability to maintain and expand its infrastructure when the need arises. Mr. President, I cannot abide the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, although I do believe that it needs to be updated and revised. I am not convinced that repealing the act would permit the dramatic savings that have been predicted by critics of the act, primarily because the fiscal benefits of the act have been consistently underestimated or ignored. I understand, however, that the act as it is currently implemented is problematic and sometimes counterproductive in terms of its own purpose. This is why I have long supported, and propose today, fundamental reform of this absolutely vital law. The Davis-Bacon Act, with the correct revisions, can once again serve its purpose of protecting the livelihoods of America's builders and mechanics, preserving the sanctity of community standards, and ensuring that local contractors, young apprentices, and skilled workers have a chance to contribute to the growth and livelihood of both this Nation and their own families. Let us not confront this law with shortsighted and uninspired aspirations of abandoning it, but with the goal of rewriting it so that it can serve its original and laudable purpose. I ask unanimous consent that a list of members of the contractors- labor coalition be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record; as follows: Members of the Contractors-Labor Coalition Irv Fletcher, Oregon AFL-CIO; Bob Shiprack, Building and Trades Council; William G. Bernard, Asbestos Workers; Charles W. Jones, Boilermakers; John T. Joyce, Bricklayers; Sigurd Licassen, Carpenters; Dominic Martell, Cement Masons (plaster); J.J. Barry, Electrical Workers; John N. Russell, Elevator Constructors; Jake West, Iron Workers; Arthur Coia, Laborers; Frank Hanley, Operating Engineers; A.L. Monroe, Painters, Earl J. Kruse, Roofers; Arthur Moore, Sheet Metal Workers; Ron Carey, Teamsters; Jarvin J. Boede, United Association. Bill Supak, Kim Mingo, Sandy Barnes, Associated General Contractors Oregon-Columbia Chapter; Terry G. Bumpers, National Alliance for Fair Contracting; Stan Kolbe, Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association; Robert White, National Electrical Contractors Association; Patricia Fink, Mechanical Contractors Association of America. ______ By Mr. ASHCROFT: S. 1184. A bill to provide for the designation of distressed areas within qualifying cities as regulatory relief zones and for the selective waiver of Federal regulations within such zones, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. THE URBAN REGULATORY RELIEF ZONE ACT OF 1995 Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to rise today and discuss an opportunity to provide relief from many of the threats to the safety, security, and well-being of those individuals who populate our urban centers. Our cities today, especially our inner cities, have become areas of hopelessness and decay and despair. Consider these facts: America's urban areas suffer a murder every 22 minutes, a robbery every 49 seconds, and an aggravated assault every 30 seconds. In a survey of first and second graders in Washington, DC, 31 percent reported having witnessed a shooting, 39 percent said they had seen dead bodies. In addition, 40 percent of low-income parents worried a lot about their children being shot, compared to 10 percent of all parents who worry about their children being shot; 1 out of every 24 black males in this Nation, 1 out of every 24 black males in America, will have his life ended by a homicide. A report in The New England Journal of Medicine stated that a young black man living in Harlem is less likely to live until the age of 40 than a young man in Bangladesh, perhaps the poorest country on Earth. These are tragedies too great to comprehend. The roots of these pathologies are varied. They are partly cultural, partly economic, and partly social. Many people are born, live, and die without ever knowing what it is like to have a job, to feed a family, and to fulfill their dreams. In a number of the high schools in central cities, for example, the dropout rate rises as high as 80 percent. In 1990, 81 percent of young high school dropouts living in distressed urban areas were unemployed. In that same year, more than 40 percent of all adult men in the distressed inner cities of America did not work, while a significant number worked only sporadically or part time. Today, half of all residents of distressed neighborhoods live below the federally defined poverty threshold--in 1993, $14,763 for a family of four. Why do we have these problems in our inner cities? Well, as I have indicated, there are a variety of reasons. But I submit that one of the significant reasons for all of these facts is what I would call a ``regulatory redlining'' of our urban centers--a series of pervasive regulations promulgated by a variety of agencies that have literally driven jobs from the center of America's urban environments. As a matter of fact, the older the site is, the longer there has been industry, the longer there has been manufacturing, and the longer there has been industrial activity, the less likely the site is to qualify with and escape from the kind of onerous regulations which drive away jobs in these settings. As well meaning as many regulations may have been, the reality is that they have destroyed opportunity in our inner cities. There is a great debate about regulation and the regulatory burden in America. But the people who live in our inner cities bear not only their portion of the $600 billion in regulatory costs that are built into our products, they also experience and sustain a cost of regulation which is substantially higher in many circumstances. It is a cost of lost opportunity. It is a cost of poor health. It is a cost of the lack of personal security and safety. It is truly a major challenge. I have spoken on the Senate floor of situations in both Kansas City and St. Louis MO where Federal regulations designed to protect health and safety actually hurt Missouri's cities by essentially prohibiting new jobs while simultaneously forcing existing jobs from the city. Every large city has countless numbers of similar stories. Regulations, in particular environmental regulations, have attached so much liability to older industrial sites [[Page S 12375]] that, in many instances, these properties now have a negative market value--you'd have to pay someone else to take them. As a result, industries are headed for suburban and rural lands unspoiled by older industrial development. Tired of wading through open-ended regulations and liability laws that hold anyone even remotely responsible for cleanup costs, industries are moving to greener pastures. Perhaps Kathy Milberg, executive director of the Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision Project, says it best: You've got industries building all these nice clean plants in our suburbs * * * while environmentalists are telling us we can't build--in the cities--because we don't have a pristine environment. We've got to stabilize this neighborhood economically as well as environmentally. * * * They talk about environmental justice, but where's the justice when the suburbs are getting all the new factories and new jobs while we're stuck with a bunch of fences covered with ``Do not trespass'' signs? The rules and regulations that she laments make sense in certain areas, but frankly, the statistics tell us that the inhabitants of our urban centers are at far greater risk of the kind of lead poisoning that comes from a .38 than they are from the environmental concerns that drive so many jobs from the inner cities. We have to find a way to bring jobs back into our cities. The risks associated with unemployment are enormous--far greater than the risks associated with a door that may be 36 instead of 38 inches wide, or that do not comply with a particular statute. The risk of being shot in a drive-by shooting is much more pressing and demanding and challenging than the risk of being contaminated by impure dirt beneath a parking lot. Under the guise of noise abatement, we have merely exchanged the sounds of productivity for the sounds of silent factories. The crack of cocaine has been the only sound of productivity in our cities' centers. The wail of a family in the wake of a siren, the echoing clang of a cell door--those are the principal sounds of our inner cities. We need a common sense approach to risk in our inner cities. We literally have a substantial group of people in this country at the core of our urban centers and in our cities, whose opportunities have been diminished, whose safety has been impaired, whose health has been undermined, whose security has been threatened, and whose longevity has been shortened because of well-meaning but misapplied regulations. Our challenge is to find a way to make our urban centers places where people can thrive again. That is why I am introducing The Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act of 1995. The goal of the bill is this: to give the residents, government, and businesses of inner city areas the opportunity to restore their towns by reducing the often silly and senseless regulations that currently burden them. This bill will provide an opportunity for the mayor of a city, any city over 200,000, to appoint an Economic Development Commission which could assess rules and regulations which they believe impair the health, safety and well-being of their residents by keeping jobs out of the area; and to weigh whether or not waiving those regulations could give rise to an influx of opportunity which would provide an improvement in the health, an improvement in the security, an improvement in the education, and an improvement in the longevity of the individuals in that zone. These Economic Development Commissions will give all members of the community the opportunity to participate and work closely with one another to bring about real change and progress in the community. These Economic Development Commissions could then apply for modification or waiver of those rules. The Office of Management and Budget will process these requests and forward them to the appropriate Federal agencies. Ultimately we give the agencies the deference they deserve, and allow them to deny a waiver or modification request if the agency decides that the granting of the waiver would create a significant threat to human health and safety. I believe, however that the Economic Development Commissions will be able to readily identify those rules and regulations which prevent growth while achieving little or no benefit to the community. We have to give cities a chance to say to individuals: You can come in here, you don't have to be responsible for all the past sins of industry here; you don't have to make sure the dirt under your parking lot is so clean that it could be eaten by an individual for his or her entire 70 years of existence. We want to have jobs here because we know that an employed person is safer than an unemployed person; that an employed person is healthier than an unemployed person; that where there is economic vitality and industry, there is a far greater chance that the young people will persist in their education, avoiding the dropout situation; and will upgrade what happens in our very inner cities. The isolation of the distressed urban areas I have referred to conflicts with our national ideals. Equality of opportunity is a fundamental principle of American society and a right of all Americans. Extreme differences in the range of life chances between persons of one segment of American society and another, one racial or ethnic group and another, or one part of an urban area and another conflict harshly with this ethical standard. I believe the persistence of distressed urban areas is dangerous to America's future. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity. It is my sincere belief that the Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act which I introduce today can restore a sense of hope and real benefits in terms of economic opportunity and improved health and safety to our inner cities. I hope that we will have the good judgment to share with the people of the United States the opportunity to make sound decisions about improving the standing of those who are at peril in our inner cities, the core of our largest urban centers. I hope that we will give them the opportunity to get relief when that relief will increase their likelihood for safety, for health, for security, for productivity and for longevity. I hope that we will give them the opportunity to get relief when that relief will increase their likelihood for safety, for health, for security, for productivity, and for longevity. 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. 1184 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 ``Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that-- (1) the likelihood that a proposed business site will comply with many government regulations is inversely related to the length of time over which a site has been utilized for commercial or industrial purposes, thus rendering older sites in urban areas most unlikely to be chosen for new development and forcing new development away from the most areas most in need of economic growth and job creation; and (2) broad Federal regulations often have unintended consequences in urban areas where such regulations-- (A) offend basic notions of common sense, particularly when applied to individual sites; (B) adversely impact economic stability; (C) result in the unnecessary loss of existing businesses; (D) undermine new economic development, especially in previously used sites; (E) create undue economic hardships while failing significantly to protect human health, particularly in areas where economic development is urgently needed to improve the health and welfare of residents over a long period of time; and (F) contribute to social deterioration to such a degree that high unemployment, crime, and other economic and social problems create the greatest risk to the health and well- being of urban residents. SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are to-- (1) enable qualifying cities to provide for the general well-being, health, safety and security for their residents living in distressed areas by empowering such cities to obtain selective relief from Federal regulations that undermine economic stability and development in distressed areas within the city; and (2) authorize Federal agencies to waive the application of specific Federal regulations in distressed urban areas designated as urban regulatory relief zones by an economic development commission-- (A) upon application through the Office of Management and Budget by an economic development commission established by a qualifying city under section 5; and (B) upon a determination by the appropriate Federal agency that granting such a waiver will not substantially endanger health or safety. [[Page S 12376]] SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR WAIVERS. (a) Eligible Cities.--The mayor or chief executive officer of a city may establish an economic development commission to carry out the purposes of section 5 if the city population is greater than 200,000 according to-- (1) the United States Census Bureau's 1992 estimate for city populations; or (2) beginning 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States Census Bureau's latest estimate for city populations. (b) Distressed Area.--Any census tract within a city shall qualify as a distressed area if-- (1) 33 percent or more of the resident population in the census tract is below the poverty line; (2) 45 percent or more of out-of-school males aged 16 and over in the census tract worked less than 26 weeks in the preceding year; (3) 36 percent or more families with children under age 18 in the census tract have an unmarried parent as head of the household; or (4) 17 percent or more of the resident families in the census tract received public assistance income in the preceding year. SEC. 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS. (a) Purpose.--The mayor or chief executive officer of a qualifying city under section 4 may appoint an economic development commission for the purpose of-- (1) designating urban regulatory relief zones in a city composed of-- (A) a distressed area; (B) a combination of distressed areas; or (C) one or more distressed areas with adjacent industrial or commercial areas; and (2) making application through the Office of Management and Budget to waive the application of specific Federal regulations within such urban regulatory relief zones. (b) Composition.--To the greatest extent practicable, an economic development commission shall include-- (1) residents representing a demographic cross section of the city population; and (2) members of the business community, private civic organizations, employers, employees, elected officials, and State and local regulatory authorities. (c) Limitation.--No more than one economic development commission shall be established or designated within a qualifying city. SEC. 6. LOCAL PARTICIPATION. (a) Public Hearings.--Before designating an area as an urban regulatory relief zone, an economic development commission established under section 5 shall hold a public hearing, after giving adequate public notice, for the purpose of soliciting the opinions and suggestions of those persons who will be affected by such designation. (b) Individual Requests.--The economic development commission shall establish a process by which individuals may submit requests to the commission to include specific Federal regulations in the commission's application to the Office of Management and Budget seeking waivers of Federal regulations. (c) Availability of Commission Decisions.--After holding a hearing under subsection (a) and before submitting any waiver applications to the Office of Management and Budget under section 7, the economic development commission shall make publicly available-- (1) a list of all areas within the city to be designated as urban regulatory relief zones, if any; (2) a list of all regulations for which the economic development commission will request a waiver from a Federal agency; and (3) the basis for the city's findings that the waiver of a regulation would improve the health and safety and economic well-being of the city's residents and the data supporting such a determination. SEC. 7. WAIVER OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS. (a) Selection of Regulations.--An economic development commission may select for waiver, within an urban regulatory relief zone, Federal regulations that-- (1)(A) are unduly burdensome to business concerns located within an area designated as an urban regulatory relief zone; (B) discourages economic development within the zone; (C) creates undue economic hardships in the zone; or (D) contributes to the social deterioration of the zone; and (2) if waived, will not substantially endanger health or safety. (b) Request for Waiver.--(1) An economic development commission shall submit a request for the waiver of Federal regulations to the Office of Management and Budget. (2) Such request shall-- (A) identify the area designated as an urban regulatory relief zone by the economic development commission; (B) identify all regulations for which the economic development commission seeks a waiver; and (C) explain the reasons that waiver of the regulations would economically benefit the urban regulatory relief zone and the data supporting such determination. (c) Review of Waiver Request.--No later than 60 days after receiving the request for waiver, the Office of Management and Budget shall-- (1) review the request for waiver; (2) determine whether the request for waiver is complete and in compliance with this Act, using the most recent census data available at the time each application is submitted; and (3) after making a determination under paragraph (2)-- (A) submit the request for waiver to the Federal agency that promulgated the regulation and notify the requesting economic development commission of the date on which the request was submitted to such agency; or (B) notify the requesting economic development commission that the request is not in compliance with this Act with an explanation of the basis for such determination. (d) Modification of Waiver Requests.--An economic development commission may submit modifications to a waiver request. The provisions of subsection (c) shall apply to a modified waiver as of the date such modification is received by the Office of Management and Budget. (e) Waiver Determination.--(1) No later than 120 days after receiving a request for waiver under subsection (c) from the Office of Management and Budget, a Federal agency shall-- (A) make a determination of whether to waive a regulation in whole or in part; and (B) provide written notice to the requesting economic development commission of such determination. (2) Subject to subsection (g), a Federal agency shall deny a request for a waiver only if the waiver substantially endangers health or safety. (3) If a Federal agency grants a waiver under this subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to the requesting economic development commission that-- (A) describes the extent of the waiver in whole or in part; and (B) explains the application of the waiver, including guidance for business concerns, within the urban regulatory relief zone. (4) If a Federal agency denies a waiver under this subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to the requesting economic development commission that-- (A) explains the reasons that the waiver substantially endangers health or safety; and (B) provides a scientific basis for such determination. (f) Automatic Waiver.--If a Federal agency does not provide the written notice required under subsection (e) within the 120-day period as required under such subsection, the waiver shall be deemed to be granted by the Federal agency. (g) Limitation.--No provision of this Act shall be construed to authorize any Federal agency to waive any regulation or Executive order that prohibits, or the purpose of which is to protect persons against, discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. (h) Applicable Procedures.--A waiver of a regulation under subsection (e) shall not be considered to be a rule, rulemaking, or regulation under chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code. The Federal agency shall publish a notice in the Federal Register stating any waiver of a regulation under this section. (i) Effect of Subsequent Amendment of Regulations.--If a Federal agency amends a regulation for which a waiver under this section is in effect, the agency shall not change the waiver to impose additional requirements. (j) Expiration of Waivers.--No waiver of a regulation under this section shall expire unless the Federal agency determines that a continuation of the waiver substantially endangers health or safety. SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act, the term-- (1) ``industrial or commercial area'' means any part of a census tract zoned for industrial or commercial use which is adjacent to a census tract which is a distressed area under section 5(b); (2) ``poverty line'' has the same meaning as such term is defined under section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)); (3) ``qualifying city'' means a city which is eligible to establish an economic development commission under section 4; (4) ``regulation''-- (A) means-- (i) any rule as defined under section 551(4) of title 5, United States Code; or (ii) any rulemaking conducted on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing under sections 556 and 557 of such title; and (B) shall not include-- (i) a rule that involves the internal revenue laws of the United States, or the assessment and collection of taxes, duties, or other revenues or receipts; (ii) a rule relating to monetary policy or to the safety or soundness of federally insured depository institutions or any affiliate of such an institution (as defined in section 2(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(k))), credit unions, Federal Home Loan Banks, government sponsored housing enterprises, farm credit institutions, foreign banks that operate in the United States and their affiliates, branches, agencies, commercial lending companies, or representative offices, (as those terms are defined in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101)); or (iii) a rule promulgated under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); and (5) ``urban regulatory relief zone'' means an area designated under section 5. ______ By Mr. PRESSLER: [[Page S 12377]] S. 1185. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the State of South Dakota providing for maintenance, operation, and administration by the State, on a trial basis during a period not to exceed 10 years, of three National Park System units in the State, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. the south dakota national parks preservation act of 1995 Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow South Dakota's national parks to be managed by the State of South Dakota. Natural resources always have played a significant role in the heritage of my State. South Dakota is the proud home of three of our national treasures: Wind Cave National Park, Jewel Cave National Monument, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial, as well as a number of State parks, wildlife preserves, and recreation areas. It is not surprising that tourism is the second largest industry in the State. People travel thousands of miles to view South Dakota's natural wonders. Located just south of Custer State Park, Wind Cave National Park is one of the nation's oldest national parks. The park provides protection to hundreds of prairie wildlife, including bison, antelope, coyotes, elk, and prairie dogs. The cave itself is 70 miles of winding underground passageways. The natural formations of boxwork, flowstone, popcorn and frostwork combine with helictites and stalactites to amaze and educate visitors from around the world. Northwest of Wind Cave, is Jewel Cave National Monument--the fourth longest cave in the world. Ninety miles of underground passageways have been mapped to date, but many more miles are left to be discovered. The cave takes its name from glittering jewel-like calcite crystals which line the walls of many of the cave's rooms and tunnels. Finally, there is Mount Rushmore, set in the heart of the Black Hills National Forest. The Mount Rushmore National Memorial attracts more than 2 million visitors each year. It is truly America's Shrine of Democracy. The monument was designed in 1927 by Gutzon Borglum, the son of Danish immigrants. The Memorial is a shrine of American Presidential heroes: George Washington, father of the Nation; Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence; Theodore Roosevelt, conservationist and trustbuster; and Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator and preserver of the Union. More than 65 years later, Mount Rushmore is still one of the most powerful symbols of America. This year there has been a great deal of discussion about the ever diminishing funds for the National Park Service. In light of possible budget cuts, some even erroneously questioned whether the parks would be able to stay open. Mr. President, I agree that like most Federal Government programs and agencies, the Park Service is due for some belt tightening. However, fiscal responsibility should not place at risk the effective management of our national parks. Our Nation has some of the most spectacular scenery in the world and we must carefully preserve this natural legacy that has been placed in our care. The challenge that we face should not be the threat of a park closing. That is not an option. Such scare talk is no substitute for what is truly needed during these tough times--imagination. We need to consider new ways to do more with less. To paraphrase an adage used at dinner tables across America, we must lea

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - August 11, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12370-S12410] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Frist): S. 1181. A bill to provide cost savings in the Medicare Program through cost-effective coverage of positron emission tomography [PET]; to the Committee on Finance. the medicare pet coverage act of 1995 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in our quest for a balanced budget, it is incumbent on Congress to mobilize every weapon at it disposal. This is particularly true in Federal health care programs, which are targeted by the budget resolution for the lion's share of spending reductions. Accordingly I am introducing today for myself and Senator Frist the Medicare PET Coverage Act of 1995. Regrettably this is one major cost reduction option that we are ignoring. This is the utilization of positron emission tomography [PET] to reduce the Nation's health care costs by avoiding unnecessary surgery. Positron emission tomography [PET] is the latest advance in diagnosing diseases such as breast cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, heart disease, and epilepsy. Today, PET is emerging from its 20 year research and clinical research phase to widespread clinical use. With respect to Medicare alone, this would provide a net savings of approximately $1 billion a year. [[Page S 12371]] PET technology is the only diagnostic technology that is able noninvasively to measure metabolic activity in living tissue. Identifying tumors is one example of its diagnostic value. PET is able to diagnose the extent and severity of malignant tumors more accurately than existing clinical diagnostic techniques. Comparable improved diagnostic accuracy is also available for heart disease, epilepsy, and other neurological disorders. PET's diagnostic accuracy translates into hundreds of thousands of fewer cases of surgery annually for cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses. Recent peer research has identified over $5.3 billion in annual net savings to the Nation's total health care budget if PET is used clinically. Critical to these cost savings are the hundreds of thousands of procedures that PET renders unnecessary every year. Peer review scientific literature has identified that for lung cancer alone, over 91,000 CT scans, 10,000 surgeries, and 17,000 biopsies would be avoided each year. For breast cancer almost 74,000 women per year would be spared the morbidity and cost associated with axillary lymph node dissection. Similar cost and morbidity savings are available for other diseases. These savings could start today. PET has been performed clinically under appropriate State regulation. One million PET studies have been performed with no known negative reactions. Patients have avoided unneeded surgery because of PET. However, there will be no societal payback and no benefit to the average American from the use of PET under HCFA's current policy. Despite the fact that CHAMPUS and private insurers like Blue Cross/ Blue Shield currently reimburse for this safe, cost-effective procedure, Medicare and Medicaid do not. HCFA effectively shelved any decision on reimbursement while the FDA decides whether and how to regulate PET compounds--something the States are already doing. For over 7 years, the developers of PET have complied with HCFA and FDA procedures and requests only to have the rules changed and inquiries about progress met with minimal responses. While there has been some recent movement on the part of the FDA, the fact remains that we have no consistent regulatory scheme that applies industrywide and to all applications. It is time to move PET out of this needless bureaucratic quagmire. New, proven medical procedures should not be held back by regulatory inertia. This bill does not mandate the use of PET, but rather allow health care professionals to evaluate its usefulness. Easing the regulatory logjam has farreaching effects on reimbursement by private health plans and availability in the United States generally. Because PET is safe and is both diagnostically effective and cost effective and because the policies of the FDA and HCFA have prohibited the delivery of PET to the general public, congressional action is necessary. I am pleased to have the Senate's only surgeon join me in introducing this bill. 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. 1181 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 ``Medicare PET Coverage Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF MEDICARE COVERAGE OF, AND PAYMENT FOR, ITEMS AND SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY (PET) (a) In General.--Nothing in title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or any other provision of law, regulation, policy, or interpretative statement, shall be construed to prohibit under parts A and B of such title coverage of, and payment for, items and services associated with the use of positron emission tomography (PET) for a covered medical indication (as defined in subsection (b)(1) where the use meets the following conditions: (1) The PET is used as a substitute for other diagnostic procedures or to assist a physician in assessing whether exploratory surgery, surgical treatment, radiation, transplant, or any other diagnostic or therapeutic procedure is medically necessary. The PET is performed at a facility that is licensed under (or otherwise operating in compliance with) State law. (b) Covered Medical Indication Defined.-- (1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term ``covered medical indication'' means-- (A) any medical indication described in paragraph (2), or (B) any other medical indication where the carrier involved (or the Secretary of Health and Human Services) estimates that it will be less costly to the medicare program under such title (on average) to use the protocol using PET for the indication than to use any alternative protocol which has similar diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic outcome for that indication. (2) Specific medical indications covered.--The following are the medical indications described in this paragraph: (A) Localization of epileptogenic focus in patients with complex partial seizure disorders. (B) Differentiation of recurrent brain tumors from radiation necrosis in patients who have previously received radiation therapy treatment. (C) Detection and assessment of tumors associated with breast cancer, lung cancer, or colorectal cancer. (D) Determination of cardiac perfusion and viability in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction or cardiomyopathy. (c) Definitions.--In this section: (1) The terms ``position emission tomography'' and ``PET'' mean a diagnostic imaging technology used, in a manner generally accepted by the medical community and recognized in the medical literature, to measure biochemical and physiologic function in the human body. (2) The term ``protocol'' means, with respect to a specific medical indication, a set of diagnostic procedures and resulting therapeutic procedures used in diagnosing and treating the indication. (d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to PET used on or after 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not regulations to carry out this section have been promulgated by such date. (e) Revision of National Coverage Determination.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall revise the medicare national coverage decision relating to coverage of PET to be consistent with this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the Secretary from expanding such coverage decision beyond the coverage required under this section. ______ By Mr. LEVIN: S. 1182. A bill entitled the ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act of 1995''; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. the burt lake band of ottawa and chippewa indians act of 1995 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to reaffirm the Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. This legislation will reestablish the government-to-government relations of the United States and the Burt Lake Band. This bill is similar to legislation introduced last Congress by my friend, Senator Riegle. I cosponsored the legislation last year and I am honored to introduce it to the 104th Congress. Federal recognition is vitally important for a variety of reasons. With this process completed the band can move on to the tasks of improving the economic and social welfare of its people. More importantly however, passage of this legislation will clarify that in the eyes of everyone, the Burt Lake Band is an historically independent tribe. The band is named after Burt Lake, a small inland lake about 20 miles south of the Straits of Mackinac. The band already had deep roots in the area when a surveyor named Burt inspected the area in 1840. During the 1800's, the Burt Lake Band was a signatory to several Federal treaties, including the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. These treaties were enacted for the purpose of securing territory for settlement and development. During the mid-1800's, the Federal Government turned over to the State of Michigan annuity moneys on the band's behalf in order to purchase land. This land was later lost by the band through tax sales, although trust land is nontaxable, and the band was evicted from their village. In 1911, the Federal Government brought a claim on behalf of Burt Lake against the State of Michigan. The autonomous existence of the band at this stage is clear. Although the band has never had its Federal status legally terminated, the Bureau of Indian Affairs since the [[Page S 12372]] 1930's has not accorded the band that status nor treated the band as a federally recognized tribe. The Burt Lake Band, as well as the other tribes located in Michigan's lower peninsula were improperly denied the right to reorganize under the terms of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 even though they were deemed eligible to do so by the Indian Service at that time. I am aware that a bipartisan group of my colleagues in the House of Representatives have sponsored a similar piece of legislation. I look forward to the consideration of this legislation by the respective committees in both the Senate and the House and its enactment into law. I also ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1182 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 ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that-- (1) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians are descendants and political successors to the Indians that signed the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa nations of Indians at Washington, D.C. on March 28, 1836, and the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan at Detroit on July 31, 1855; (2) the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose members are also descendants of the Indians that signed the treaties referred to in paragraph (1), have been recognized by the Federal Government as distinct Indian tribes; (3) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians consists of over 600 eligible members who continue to reside close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the reservations of lands under the treaties referred to in paragraph (1) in the area that is currently known as Cheboygan County, Michigan; (4) the Band continues to exist and carry out political and social activities with a viable tribal government; (5) the Band, along with other Michigan Odawa and Ottawa groups, including the tribes described in paragraph (2), formed the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association in 1948; (6) the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association subsequently submitted a successful land claim with the Indian Claims Commission; (7) during the period between 1948 and 1975, the Band carried out many governmental functions through the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association, and at the same time retained control over local decisions; (8) in 1975, the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association submitted a petition under the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), to form a government on behalf of the Band; (9) in spite of the eligibility of the Band to form a government under the Act of June 18, 1934, the Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to act on the petition referred to in paragraph (8); and (10) from 1836 to the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Government, the government of the State of Michigan, and political subdivisions of the State have had continuous dealings with the recognized political leaders of the Band. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall apply: (1) Band.--The term ``Band'' means the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. (2) Member.--The term ``member'' means any individual enrolled in the Band pursuant to section 7. (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior. SEC. 4. FEDERAL RECOGNITION. (a) Federal Recognition.--Congress hereby reaffirms the Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. (b) Applicability of Federal Laws.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each provision of Federal law (including any regulation) of general application to Indians or Indian nations, tribes, or bands, including the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), that is inconsistent with any specific provision of this Act shall not apply to the Band or any of its members. (c) Federal Services and Benefits.-- (1) In general.--The Band and its members shall be eligible for all services and benefits provided by the Federal Government to Indians because of their status as federally recognized Indians. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, those services and benefits shall be provided after the date of the enactment of this Act to the Band and its members without regard to-- (A) whether or not there is an Indian reservation for the Band; or (B) whether or not a member resides on or near an Indian reservation. (2) Service areas.-- (A) In general.--For purposes of the delivery of Federal services to the enrolled members of the Band, the area of the State of Michigan within a 70-mile radius of the boundaries of the reservation for the Burt Lake Band, as set forth in the seventh paragraph of Article I of the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan (done at Detroit on July 31, 1855) shall be deemed to be within or near an Indian reservation. (B) Effect of establishment of an indian reservation after the date of enactment of this act.--If an Indian reservation is established for the Band after the date of enactment of this Act, subparagraph (A) shall continue to apply on and after the date of the establishment of that reservation. (C) Provision of services and benefits outside the service area.--Unless prohibited by Federal law, the services and benefits referred to in paragraph (1) may be provided to members outside the service area described in subparagraph (A). SEC. 5. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS. (a) In General.--To the extent consistent with the reaffirmation of the recognition of the Band under section 4(a), all rights and privileges of the Band and its members, which may have been abrogated or diminished before the date of the enactment of this Act, are hereby reaffirmed. (b) Existing Rights of Tribe.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to diminish any right or privilege of the Band or its members that existed before the date of the enactment of this Act. Except as otherwise specifically provided, nothing in this Act may be construed as altering or affecting any legal or equitable claim the Band may have to enforce any right or privilege reserved by or granted to the Band that was wrongfully denied to the Band or taken from the Band before the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 6. TRIBAL LANDS. The tribal lands of the Band shall consist of all real property held by, or in trust for, the Band. The Secretary shall acquire real property for the Band. Any property acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Band and shall become part of the reservation of the Band. SEC. 7. MEMBERSHIP. (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Band shall submit to the Secretary a membership roll consisting of all individuals currently enrolled for membership in the Band at the time of the submission of the membership roll. (b) Qualifications.--The Band shall, in consultation with the Secretary, determine, pursuant to applicable laws (including ordinances) of the Band, the qualifications for including an individual on the membership roll. (c) Publication of Notice.--The Secretary shall publish notice of receipt of the membership roll in the Federal Register as soon as practicable after receiving the membership roll pursuant to subsection (a). (d) Maintenance of Roll.--The Band shall maintain the membership roll of the Band prepared pursuant to this section in such manner as to ensure that the membership roll is current. SEC. 8. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNING BODY. (a) Constitution.-- (1) Adoption.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct, by secret ballot, elections for the purpose of adopting a new constitution for the Band. The elections shall be held according to the procedures applicable to elections under section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 987, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 476). (2) Interim governing documents.--Until such time as a new constitution is adopted under paragraph (1), the governing documents in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be the interim governing documents for the Band. (b) Officials.-- (1) Elections.--Not later than 180 days after the Band adopts a constitution and bylaws pursuant to subsection (a), the Band shall conduct elections by secret ballot for the purpose of electing officials for the Band as provided in the governing constitution of the Band. The elections shall be conducted according to the procedures described in the governing constitution and bylaws of the Band. (2) Interim governments.--Until such time as the Band elects new officials pursuant to paragraph (1), the governing bodies of the Band shall include each governing body of the Band in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, or any succeeding governing body selected under the election procedures specified in the applicable interim governing documents of the Band. ______ By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself, Mr. Packwood, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Santorum): S. 1183. A bill to amend the act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act), to revise the standards for [[Page S 12373]] coverage under the act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. the davis-bacon act reform amendments of 1995 Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, for 64 years we have been working under the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act, and that has become a highly controversial issue. Many times this Senate has attempted to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. A few years ago, the State of Oregon reached a compromise through a coalition of contractors, particularly in the trade unions, and for the last 6 months a similar coalition has been meeting in my office trying to come up with a reform of Davis-Bacon that would be acceptable to the two major parties, namely the building construction trade unions and the contractors' coalition. This morning I am pleased to say that this has been completed, and I am introducing this bill, which I now send to the desk and ask for its printing, cosponsored by Senators Packwood, D'Amato, Campbell, Specter, and Santorum. I invite my colleagues to join in cosponsoring it. Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act was passed 64 years ago to prevent federally funded construction projects from undermining the wages and working conditions of locally employed laborers and mechanics. At the time, lawmakers saw that large Government projects elicited destructive competition between the contractors who would use the local labor pool and those who could rely on remote, but cheaper, sources of labor. Congressman Bacon, for whom the act is named, introduced the legislation when builders in his New York district were underbid for a veterans' hospital project by southern contractors who brought in cheap southern labor. Congress, intent on sustaining a construction industry already ravaged by the economic instability of the Great Depression, reasoned that the destructive practices of the southern contractors would be best resolved by requiring that federally contracted labor be paid the locally prevailing wage, thereby halting the tendency of Government contractors to drive down workers' wages in order to win lucrative projects. In the years after the Depression, many States have enacted analogous prevailing wage standards, dubbed little Davis-Bacon laws. As Governor of Oregon, I signed that State's little Davis-Bacon Act, S.185, into law on May 26, 1959. I have supported the intelligent use of the prevailing wage standard in Government contracts ever since. Other Members of this body have made numerous attempts to repeal the Davis- Bacon Act--despite its commendable purpose of preserving the middle- class livelihoods of American construction workers, but the proven necessity for the law has thus far prevailed. Mr. President, the Davis-Bacon Act, as it now stands, indeed deserves some of the criticism that my distinguished associates level against it. Nevertheless, its purpose of protecting the jobs of our Nation's construction workers must persuade us to reform, rather than repeal, the act. A half year ago, an idea was spawned in Oregon, a compromise if you will, among the contractors and laborers at the local level to reform their relationship. This concept of Davis-Bacon reform between workers and laborers was brought to Washington, DC, where the idea advanced to the national level of contractors and laborers. I dare say that I was astounded by the conferees, longtime adversaries attended the negotiations, intent on brokering a Davis-Bacon reform package. I am today introducing the product of those long and arduous negotiations, a reform package to revise and update the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. Last year, a compromise among Oregon legislators, contractors, and labor unions resulted in a reform bill very similar to this one. I am confident that reform of the Davis-Bacon Act can be successfully implemented at the Federal level, because it has already been so in my home State of Oregon. Currently, the act requires that federally funded construction contracts exceeding $2,000 in value trigger application of the prevailing wage and conditions standard. The prevailing wage, as my colleagues know, is determined county-by-county by the Labor Department, which uses the highest wage earned by at least half of the local workers in the craft. The act, as it is now implemented, also requires that workers, regardless of their training, be paid at least the prevailing wage for the craft at which they are working. Further, the companion to the Davis-Bacon Act, the Copeland Act of 1934, mandates that government contractors submit detailed wage and benefit schedules at weekly intervals. Critics of the Davis-Bacon Act rightly argue that the law impedes rather than facilitates fair wages and balanced competition. The low threshold value of contracts and the weekly reporting requirement hinder small, local, and minority-owned contractors in their competition with larger, often out-of-State contractors. Moreover, the application of the prevailing wage standard, since it does not calculate prevailing wages by level of experience, makes apprentices and other employees who require on-the-job training unrealistically expensive. My bill offers several reforms that would resolve many or all of the difficulties of these acts that advocates of repeal find objectionable. There are three principal amendments to the existing statutes that would permit the Department of Labor to pursue the goals of the Davis- Bacon Act without the problems so often cited by critics. First, the threshold at which the act becomes applicable to Federal projects would be raised from $2,000 to $100,000. Second, the frequency with which contractors are required to file wage and benefit schedules would be changed from weekly to monthly. Third, trainees and apprentices would be excluded from the prevailing wage standard if they are enrolled in a training program that is registered with the Department of Labor. Mr. President, critics who seek to repeal entirely rather than improve the Davis-Bacon Act contend that the act's problems are beyond repair and that this body must allow competition to devastate the middle class livelihoods of America's construction workers. They argue that the Davis-Bacon Act is obsolete, tremendously costly, and impractical, regardless of whatever changes might be made to it. I disagree, and feel that the costs of the Davis-Bacon Act are grossly overestimated, whereas the benefits that we would jeopardize with its repeal have been dangerously neglected. The advocates of repealing the Davis-Bacon Act have not adequately demonstrated that enforcing the prevailing wage standard in federally funded contracts is, all things considered, untenably expensive. I feel that the act is relatively cost-effective now and will be all the more so with the changes I propose today. Critics of the Davis-Bacon Act frequently cite a CBO estimate of the savings that the Federal Government would enjoy if the act were repealed, but this estimate fails to consider the hidden costs of repeal. Although the Government might save money directly through lower construction wages, lost wages are likely to push an even greater number of formerly productive construction workers onto the rosters of the unemployed seeking Government assistance. Tax revenues, too, would decline, since the average construction worker would lose nearly $1,500 in annual income after the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Moreover, the evidence that the Government would save a substantial sum of money from cutting the wages paid to workers on Federal projects is dubious. Contractors' experiences repeatedly show that higher wages are positively correlated with higher productivity. Lower wages do not necessarily mean lower labor costs. Indeed, figures from a 1995 University of Utah study indicate that it costs less to build a mile of road in States with higher wages than in States with lower wages; the study revealed that, in States that have analogs to the Davis-Bacon Act, it has cost an average of almost $250,000 less per mile of road than in States that do not observe prevailing wage standards. It is apparent, Mr. President, that the CBO study upon which critics of the Davis-Bacon Act rely overestimates the cost and impracticality of enforcing and complying with the act. The figures that CBO study uses for its estimate are 15 years old; they do not reflect the expansion of office technology that has occurred in the last decade. Advances in office technology have facilitated the periodic filing of [[Page S 12374]] wage and benefit schedules by Government contractors as well as the processing of those schedules by the Department of Labor. Furthermore, the proportion of all Federal contracts that would have to comply with the act would drop to less than half, if the higher threshold I propose were promulgated. It is altogether unclear, therefore, whether the Federal Government can reasonably expect dramatic savings from an outright repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Even if the substantial savings that the CBO has predicted were possible with the repeal of the act, Mr. President, I would nevertheless urge my distinguished colleagues to consider the nonmonetary yet indispensable benefits of the act. A pressing concern of mine is the safety of America's builders. The 1995 University of Utah study to which I earlier referred indicates that the repeal of Davis-Bacon might lead to less training for construction workers and to more accidents and fatalities on work sites. That study examined nine States that repealed their own little Davis-Bacon laws. It reported that training declined in those States by 40 percent while occupational accidents rose by 15 percent. Better paid workers have fewer accidents and fewer fatalities--without the Davis-Bacon Act, better pay for workers will be the first cost that Government contractors cut. Is this body prepared to jeopardize the safety of American workers in pursuit of unproven savings? I myself am not. Another benefit of the prevailing wage standard is its contribution to the maintenance of a pool of well trained and motivated construction workers. This has become increasingly difficult with plummeting wages and unstable demand for labor in the construction industry. There are few incentives for young people to undertake the long-term training necessary to be a competent craftsman or mechanic if they can look forward to earning little more than the minimum wage and no benefits. Permitting the Federal Government, which provides between 10 and 20 percent of the construction industry's revenues, to invite competition that would inevitably depress wages further than they already have been is to imperil this Nation's ability to maintain and expand its infrastructure when the need arises. Mr. President, I cannot abide the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, although I do believe that it needs to be updated and revised. I am not convinced that repealing the act would permit the dramatic savings that have been predicted by critics of the act, primarily because the fiscal benefits of the act have been consistently underestimated or ignored. I understand, however, that the act as it is currently implemented is problematic and sometimes counterproductive in terms of its own purpose. This is why I have long supported, and propose today, fundamental reform of this absolutely vital law. The Davis-Bacon Act, with the correct revisions, can once again serve its purpose of protecting the livelihoods of America's builders and mechanics, preserving the sanctity of community standards, and ensuring that local contractors, young apprentices, and skilled workers have a chance to contribute to the growth and livelihood of both this Nation and their own families. Let us not confront this law with shortsighted and uninspired aspirations of abandoning it, but with the goal of rewriting it so that it can serve its original and laudable purpose. I ask unanimous consent that a list of members of the contractors- labor coalition be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record; as follows: Members of the Contractors-Labor Coalition Irv Fletcher, Oregon AFL-CIO; Bob Shiprack, Building and Trades Council; William G. Bernard, Asbestos Workers; Charles W. Jones, Boilermakers; John T. Joyce, Bricklayers; Sigurd Licassen, Carpenters; Dominic Martell, Cement Masons (plaster); J.J. Barry, Electrical Workers; John N. Russell, Elevator Constructors; Jake West, Iron Workers; Arthur Coia, Laborers; Frank Hanley, Operating Engineers; A.L. Monroe, Painters, Earl J. Kruse, Roofers; Arthur Moore, Sheet Metal Workers; Ron Carey, Teamsters; Jarvin J. Boede, United Association. Bill Supak, Kim Mingo, Sandy Barnes, Associated General Contractors Oregon-Columbia Chapter; Terry G. Bumpers, National Alliance for Fair Contracting; Stan Kolbe, Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association; Robert White, National Electrical Contractors Association; Patricia Fink, Mechanical Contractors Association of America. ______ By Mr. ASHCROFT: S. 1184. A bill to provide for the designation of distressed areas within qualifying cities as regulatory relief zones and for the selective waiver of Federal regulations within such zones, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. THE URBAN REGULATORY RELIEF ZONE ACT OF 1995 Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to rise today and discuss an opportunity to provide relief from many of the threats to the safety, security, and well-being of those individuals who populate our urban centers. Our cities today, especially our inner cities, have become areas of hopelessness and decay and despair. Consider these facts: America's urban areas suffer a murder every 22 minutes, a robbery every 49 seconds, and an aggravated assault every 30 seconds. In a survey of first and second graders in Washington, DC, 31 percent reported having witnessed a shooting, 39 percent said they had seen dead bodies. In addition, 40 percent of low-income parents worried a lot about their children being shot, compared to 10 percent of all parents who worry about their children being shot; 1 out of every 24 black males in this Nation, 1 out of every 24 black males in America, will have his life ended by a homicide. A report in The New England Journal of Medicine stated that a young black man living in Harlem is less likely to live until the age of 40 than a young man in Bangladesh, perhaps the poorest country on Earth. These are tragedies too great to comprehend. The roots of these pathologies are varied. They are partly cultural, partly economic, and partly social. Many people are born, live, and die without ever knowing what it is like to have a job, to feed a family, and to fulfill their dreams. In a number of the high schools in central cities, for example, the dropout rate rises as high as 80 percent. In 1990, 81 percent of young high school dropouts living in distressed urban areas were unemployed. In that same year, more than 40 percent of all adult men in the distressed inner cities of America did not work, while a significant number worked only sporadically or part time. Today, half of all residents of distressed neighborhoods live below the federally defined poverty threshold--in 1993, $14,763 for a family of four. Why do we have these problems in our inner cities? Well, as I have indicated, there are a variety of reasons. But I submit that one of the significant reasons for all of these facts is what I would call a ``regulatory redlining'' of our urban centers--a series of pervasive regulations promulgated by a variety of agencies that have literally driven jobs from the center of America's urban environments. As a matter of fact, the older the site is, the longer there has been industry, the longer there has been manufacturing, and the longer there has been industrial activity, the less likely the site is to qualify with and escape from the kind of onerous regulations which drive away jobs in these settings. As well meaning as many regulations may have been, the reality is that they have destroyed opportunity in our inner cities. There is a great debate about regulation and the regulatory burden in America. But the people who live in our inner cities bear not only their portion of the $600 billion in regulatory costs that are built into our products, they also experience and sustain a cost of regulation which is substantially higher in many circumstances. It is a cost of lost opportunity. It is a cost of poor health. It is a cost of the lack of personal security and safety. It is truly a major challenge. I have spoken on the Senate floor of situations in both Kansas City and St. Louis MO where Federal regulations designed to protect health and safety actually hurt Missouri's cities by essentially prohibiting new jobs while simultaneously forcing existing jobs from the city. Every large city has countless numbers of similar stories. Regulations, in particular environmental regulations, have attached so much liability to older industrial sites [[Page S 12375]] that, in many instances, these properties now have a negative market value--you'd have to pay someone else to take them. As a result, industries are headed for suburban and rural lands unspoiled by older industrial development. Tired of wading through open-ended regulations and liability laws that hold anyone even remotely responsible for cleanup costs, industries are moving to greener pastures. Perhaps Kathy Milberg, executive director of the Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision Project, says it best: You've got industries building all these nice clean plants in our suburbs * * * while environmentalists are telling us we can't build--in the cities--because we don't have a pristine environment. We've got to stabilize this neighborhood economically as well as environmentally. * * * They talk about environmental justice, but where's the justice when the suburbs are getting all the new factories and new jobs while we're stuck with a bunch of fences covered with ``Do not trespass'' signs? The rules and regulations that she laments make sense in certain areas, but frankly, the statistics tell us that the inhabitants of our urban centers are at far greater risk of the kind of lead poisoning that comes from a .38 than they are from the environmental concerns that drive so many jobs from the inner cities. We have to find a way to bring jobs back into our cities. The risks associated with unemployment are enormous--far greater than the risks associated with a door that may be 36 instead of 38 inches wide, or that do not comply with a particular statute. The risk of being shot in a drive-by shooting is much more pressing and demanding and challenging than the risk of being contaminated by impure dirt beneath a parking lot. Under the guise of noise abatement, we have merely exchanged the sounds of productivity for the sounds of silent factories. The crack of cocaine has been the only sound of productivity in our cities' centers. The wail of a family in the wake of a siren, the echoing clang of a cell door--those are the principal sounds of our inner cities. We need a common sense approach to risk in our inner cities. We literally have a substantial group of people in this country at the core of our urban centers and in our cities, whose opportunities have been diminished, whose safety has been impaired, whose health has been undermined, whose security has been threatened, and whose longevity has been shortened because of well-meaning but misapplied regulations. Our challenge is to find a way to make our urban centers places where people can thrive again. That is why I am introducing The Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act of 1995. The goal of the bill is this: to give the residents, government, and businesses of inner city areas the opportunity to restore their towns by reducing the often silly and senseless regulations that currently burden them. This bill will provide an opportunity for the mayor of a city, any city over 200,000, to appoint an Economic Development Commission which could assess rules and regulations which they believe impair the health, safety and well-being of their residents by keeping jobs out of the area; and to weigh whether or not waiving those regulations could give rise to an influx of opportunity which would provide an improvement in the health, an improvement in the security, an improvement in the education, and an improvement in the longevity of the individuals in that zone. These Economic Development Commissions will give all members of the community the opportunity to participate and work closely with one another to bring about real change and progress in the community. These Economic Development Commissions could then apply for modification or waiver of those rules. The Office of Management and Budget will process these requests and forward them to the appropriate Federal agencies. Ultimately we give the agencies the deference they deserve, and allow them to deny a waiver or modification request if the agency decides that the granting of the waiver would create a significant threat to human health and safety. I believe, however that the Economic Development Commissions will be able to readily identify those rules and regulations which prevent growth while achieving little or no benefit to the community. We have to give cities a chance to say to individuals: You can come in here, you don't have to be responsible for all the past sins of industry here; you don't have to make sure the dirt under your parking lot is so clean that it could be eaten by an individual for his or her entire 70 years of existence. We want to have jobs here because we know that an employed person is safer than an unemployed person; that an employed person is healthier than an unemployed person; that where there is economic vitality and industry, there is a far greater chance that the young people will persist in their education, avoiding the dropout situation; and will upgrade what happens in our very inner cities. The isolation of the distressed urban areas I have referred to conflicts with our national ideals. Equality of opportunity is a fundamental principle of American society and a right of all Americans. Extreme differences in the range of life chances between persons of one segment of American society and another, one racial or ethnic group and another, or one part of an urban area and another conflict harshly with this ethical standard. I believe the persistence of distressed urban areas is dangerous to America's future. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity. It is my sincere belief that the Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act which I introduce today can restore a sense of hope and real benefits in terms of economic opportunity and improved health and safety to our inner cities. I hope that we will have the good judgment to share with the people of the United States the opportunity to make sound decisions about improving the standing of those who are at peril in our inner cities, the core of our largest urban centers. I hope that we will give them the opportunity to get relief when that relief will increase their likelihood for safety, for health, for security, for productivity and for longevity. I hope that we will give them the opportunity to get relief when that relief will increase their likelihood for safety, for health, for security, for productivity, and for longevity. 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. 1184 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 ``Urban Regulatory Relief Zone Act of 1995''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that-- (1) the likelihood that a proposed business site will comply with many government regulations is inversely related to the length of time over which a site has been utilized for commercial or industrial purposes, thus rendering older sites in urban areas most unlikely to be chosen for new development and forcing new development away from the most areas most in need of economic growth and job creation; and (2) broad Federal regulations often have unintended consequences in urban areas where such regulations-- (A) offend basic notions of common sense, particularly when applied to individual sites; (B) adversely impact economic stability; (C) result in the unnecessary loss of existing businesses; (D) undermine new economic development, especially in previously used sites; (E) create undue economic hardships while failing significantly to protect human health, particularly in areas where economic development is urgently needed to improve the health and welfare of residents over a long period of time; and (F) contribute to social deterioration to such a degree that high unemployment, crime, and other economic and social problems create the greatest risk to the health and well- being of urban residents. SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are to-- (1) enable qualifying cities to provide for the general well-being, health, safety and security for their residents living in distressed areas by empowering such cities to obtain selective relief from Federal regulations that undermine economic stability and development in distressed areas within the city; and (2) authorize Federal agencies to waive the application of specific Federal regulations in distressed urban areas designated as urban regulatory relief zones by an economic development commission-- (A) upon application through the Office of Management and Budget by an economic development commission established by a qualifying city under section 5; and (B) upon a determination by the appropriate Federal agency that granting such a waiver will not substantially endanger health or safety. [[Page S 12376]] SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR WAIVERS. (a) Eligible Cities.--The mayor or chief executive officer of a city may establish an economic development commission to carry out the purposes of section 5 if the city population is greater than 200,000 according to-- (1) the United States Census Bureau's 1992 estimate for city populations; or (2) beginning 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States Census Bureau's latest estimate for city populations. (b) Distressed Area.--Any census tract within a city shall qualify as a distressed area if-- (1) 33 percent or more of the resident population in the census tract is below the poverty line; (2) 45 percent or more of out-of-school males aged 16 and over in the census tract worked less than 26 weeks in the preceding year; (3) 36 percent or more families with children under age 18 in the census tract have an unmarried parent as head of the household; or (4) 17 percent or more of the resident families in the census tract received public assistance income in the preceding year. SEC. 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS. (a) Purpose.--The mayor or chief executive officer of a qualifying city under section 4 may appoint an economic development commission for the purpose of-- (1) designating urban regulatory relief zones in a city composed of-- (A) a distressed area; (B) a combination of distressed areas; or (C) one or more distressed areas with adjacent industrial or commercial areas; and (2) making application through the Office of Management and Budget to waive the application of specific Federal regulations within such urban regulatory relief zones. (b) Composition.--To the greatest extent practicable, an economic development commission shall include-- (1) residents representing a demographic cross section of the city population; and (2) members of the business community, private civic organizations, employers, employees, elected officials, and State and local regulatory authorities. (c) Limitation.--No more than one economic development commission shall be established or designated within a qualifying city. SEC. 6. LOCAL PARTICIPATION. (a) Public Hearings.--Before designating an area as an urban regulatory relief zone, an economic development commission established under section 5 shall hold a public hearing, after giving adequate public notice, for the purpose of soliciting the opinions and suggestions of those persons who will be affected by such designation. (b) Individual Requests.--The economic development commission shall establish a process by which individuals may submit requests to the commission to include specific Federal regulations in the commission's application to the Office of Management and Budget seeking waivers of Federal regulations. (c) Availability of Commission Decisions.--After holding a hearing under subsection (a) and before submitting any waiver applications to the Office of Management and Budget under section 7, the economic development commission shall make publicly available-- (1) a list of all areas within the city to be designated as urban regulatory relief zones, if any; (2) a list of all regulations for which the economic development commission will request a waiver from a Federal agency; and (3) the basis for the city's findings that the waiver of a regulation would improve the health and safety and economic well-being of the city's residents and the data supporting such a determination. SEC. 7. WAIVER OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS. (a) Selection of Regulations.--An economic development commission may select for waiver, within an urban regulatory relief zone, Federal regulations that-- (1)(A) are unduly burdensome to business concerns located within an area designated as an urban regulatory relief zone; (B) discourages economic development within the zone; (C) creates undue economic hardships in the zone; or (D) contributes to the social deterioration of the zone; and (2) if waived, will not substantially endanger health or safety. (b) Request for Waiver.--(1) An economic development commission shall submit a request for the waiver of Federal regulations to the Office of Management and Budget. (2) Such request shall-- (A) identify the area designated as an urban regulatory relief zone by the economic development commission; (B) identify all regulations for which the economic development commission seeks a waiver; and (C) explain the reasons that waiver of the regulations would economically benefit the urban regulatory relief zone and the data supporting such determination. (c) Review of Waiver Request.--No later than 60 days after receiving the request for waiver, the Office of Management and Budget shall-- (1) review the request for waiver; (2) determine whether the request for waiver is complete and in compliance with this Act, using the most recent census data available at the time each application is submitted; and (3) after making a determination under paragraph (2)-- (A) submit the request for waiver to the Federal agency that promulgated the regulation and notify the requesting economic development commission of the date on which the request was submitted to such agency; or (B) notify the requesting economic development commission that the request is not in compliance with this Act with an explanation of the basis for such determination. (d) Modification of Waiver Requests.--An economic development commission may submit modifications to a waiver request. The provisions of subsection (c) shall apply to a modified waiver as of the date such modification is received by the Office of Management and Budget. (e) Waiver Determination.--(1) No later than 120 days after receiving a request for waiver under subsection (c) from the Office of Management and Budget, a Federal agency shall-- (A) make a determination of whether to waive a regulation in whole or in part; and (B) provide written notice to the requesting economic development commission of such determination. (2) Subject to subsection (g), a Federal agency shall deny a request for a waiver only if the waiver substantially endangers health or safety. (3) If a Federal agency grants a waiver under this subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to the requesting economic development commission that-- (A) describes the extent of the waiver in whole or in part; and (B) explains the application of the waiver, including guidance for business concerns, within the urban regulatory relief zone. (4) If a Federal agency denies a waiver under this subsection, the agency shall provide a written statement to the requesting economic development commission that-- (A) explains the reasons that the waiver substantially endangers health or safety; and (B) provides a scientific basis for such determination. (f) Automatic Waiver.--If a Federal agency does not provide the written notice required under subsection (e) within the 120-day period as required under such subsection, the waiver shall be deemed to be granted by the Federal agency. (g) Limitation.--No provision of this Act shall be construed to authorize any Federal agency to waive any regulation or Executive order that prohibits, or the purpose of which is to protect persons against, discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. (h) Applicable Procedures.--A waiver of a regulation under subsection (e) shall not be considered to be a rule, rulemaking, or regulation under chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code. The Federal agency shall publish a notice in the Federal Register stating any waiver of a regulation under this section. (i) Effect of Subsequent Amendment of Regulations.--If a Federal agency amends a regulation for which a waiver under this section is in effect, the agency shall not change the waiver to impose additional requirements. (j) Expiration of Waivers.--No waiver of a regulation under this section shall expire unless the Federal agency determines that a continuation of the waiver substantially endangers health or safety. SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act, the term-- (1) ``industrial or commercial area'' means any part of a census tract zoned for industrial or commercial use which is adjacent to a census tract which is a distressed area under section 5(b); (2) ``poverty line'' has the same meaning as such term is defined under section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)); (3) ``qualifying city'' means a city which is eligible to establish an economic development commission under section 4; (4) ``regulation''-- (A) means-- (i) any rule as defined under section 551(4) of title 5, United States Code; or (ii) any rulemaking conducted on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing under sections 556 and 557 of such title; and (B) shall not include-- (i) a rule that involves the internal revenue laws of the United States, or the assessment and collection of taxes, duties, or other revenues or receipts; (ii) a rule relating to monetary policy or to the safety or soundness of federally insured depository institutions or any affiliate of such an institution (as defined in section 2(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(k))), credit unions, Federal Home Loan Banks, government sponsored housing enterprises, farm credit institutions, foreign banks that operate in the United States and their affiliates, branches, agencies, commercial lending companies, or representative offices, (as those terms are defined in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101)); or (iii) a rule promulgated under the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); and (5) ``urban regulatory relief zone'' means an area designated under section 5. ______ By Mr. PRESSLER: [[Page S 12377]] S. 1185. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the State of South Dakota providing for maintenance, operation, and administration by the State, on a trial basis during a period not to exceed 10 years, of three National Park System units in the State, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. the south dakota national parks preservation act of 1995 Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow South Dakota's national parks to be managed by the State of South Dakota. Natural resources always have played a significant role in the heritage of my State. South Dakota is the proud home of three of our national treasures: Wind Cave National Park, Jewel Cave National Monument, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial, as well as a number of State parks, wildlife preserves, and recreation areas. It is not surprising that tourism is the second largest industry in the State. People travel thousands of miles to view South Dakota's natural wonders. Located just south of Custer State Park, Wind Cave National Park is one of the nation's oldest national parks. The park provides protection to hundreds of prairie wildlife, including bison, antelope, coyotes, elk, and prairie dogs. The cave itself is 70 miles of winding underground passageways. The natural formations of boxwork, flowstone, popcorn and frostwork combine with helictites and stalactites to amaze and educate visitors from around the world. Northwest of Wind Cave, is Jewel Cave National Monument--the fourth longest cave in the world. Ninety miles of underground passageways have been mapped to date, but many more miles are left to be discovered. The cave takes its name from glittering jewel-like calcite crystals which line the walls of many of the cave's rooms and tunnels. Finally, there is Mount Rushmore, set in the heart of the Black Hills National Forest. The Mount Rushmore National Memorial attracts more than 2 million visitors each year. It is truly America's Shrine of Democracy. The monument was designed in 1927 by Gutzon Borglum, the son of Danish immigrants. The Memorial is a shrine of American Presidential heroes: George Washington, father of the Nation; Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence; Theodore Roosevelt, conservationist and trustbuster; and Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator and preserver of the Union. More than 65 years later, Mount Rushmore is still one of the most powerful symbols of America. This year there has been a great deal of discussion about the ever diminishing funds for the National Park Service. In light of possible budget cuts, some even erroneously questioned whether the parks would be able to stay open. Mr. President, I agree that like most Federal Government programs and agencies, the Park Service is due for some belt tightening. However, fiscal responsibility should not place at risk the effective management of our national parks. Our Nation has some of the most spectacular scenery in the world and we must carefully preserve this natural legacy that has been placed in our care. The challenge that we face should not be the threat of a park closing. That is not an option. Such scare talk is no substitute for what is truly needed during these tough times--imagination. We need to consider new ways to do more with less. To paraphrase an adage used at dinner tables across America, we must learn to stretch our Park Service