Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. No, I have not, but I am told categorically that U.S. Surgical is not promoting or marketing this device other than for breast biopsies.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. President, may I ask--the hour of 12:30 is going to arrive here. I think there has been an earlier order that would have us recess.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. President, I sat here and listened to this debate this morning. A good part of it has been focused, not on the merits of the provision, but on one individual company in the State of Connecticut, U.S. Surgical Corp., and a device which they developed for diagnostic purposes related to breast cancer. I think it is unfortunate that there have been so many misleading statements made about this company, who not once, but twice, received full FDA approval for this diagnostic device. I would like to make the fact extremely clear--just for the purposes of the Record. The company's original application was submitted to the FDA on October 5, 1995 and was cleared by the FDA 119 days later, on February 1, 1996. The company resubmitted their medical device under the 510(k) on September 23, 1996, with additional clinical data requested by the FDA. This resubmitted 510(k) was cleared by the FDA on December 20, 1996, 88 days later. The process works. I cite for the Record here, Mr. President, what is on the label. Indication: For diagnostic sampling of breast tissue where large diameter incisional breast biopsies are desired. Contraindication: The device is used for diagnostic breast tissue biopsies; it is not [in bold letters] intended for therapeutic excision of tissues. Now, I don't know what could be more clear than that. I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. This is the chronology of the events. This device is being used to try and improve biopsy and diagnostic purposes and reduce, hopefully, the need for unnecessary surgery--something most people applaud. And the label clearly limits the product to that purpose. The Senator from Massachusetts suggests that this is somehow a rationale for us to reduce or change the language of this bill that deals with the approval process for less riskier medical devices. He cites a lot of examples that has nothing to do with this issue. Fen/ phen has nothing to do with this amendment. The Dalkon shield has nothing to do with this amendment; that was a failure of technology that had nothing to do with the intended purpose of the device. The examples cited, one after another, do not address the issue at hand. The issue at hand is how the FDA interprets intended use in making a substantial equivalence determination --the first test a lower risk device undergoes. That is what we are dealing with here. If you have to say to a company that it must try and imagine what a device conceivably could be used for by some surgeon out there, and on that basis FDA can hold up its 510(k), you might as well scrap 510(k) and make every new device, even low-risk ones, go through the PMA process. You can make a case for that, I suppose. But I don't hear anyone advocating that. But if you really believe that we ought to so change this process, then get rid of 510(k) altogether--that is the safest way to go. But again, I don't hear anyone suggesting that. All we are saying here is, the FDA ought to look at the intended purpose listed, and ought not try and go beyond that, particularly when they have full authority to apply the second test of reviewing technological differences. All we are trying to do here is to expedite the process a bit so we do not delay further the ability of very worthwhile devices to get approved by the FDA and get to the marketplace. I regret deeply that a very fine company with a tremendous track record that has produced some wonderful devices has been the subject of an attack here on the floor. It is not deserved. It is not deserved. They produce a very worthwhile product, the breast biopsy needle, that has been approved by the FDA and is making a difference in women's lives. There are thousands of examples of where this device and other products made by this company have made a difference in people's lives. This company, U.S. Surgical, has been manufacturing medical devices in Connecticut for over 30 years now and has an excellent track record for producing safe, effective, and innovative products. In addition to setting the gold standard for the laproscopic surgery devices, as I mentioned earlier, I should also note that U.S. Surgical pioneered the technique of closing wounds with staples, rather than sutures--a revolution in everyday medical practice. The thousands of Connecticut workers who help create these products, ought to be applauded by our colleagues rather than used as an irrelevant example, somehow, of some attempt to limit the protections that the FDA offers. For those reasons, Mr. President, I urge our colleagues, with all due respect, to reject the Reed-Kennedy amendment and to support the provision we have included in this legislation which we feel not only adequately protects people, but does even more than that. It allows them to get the materials they need to see they have a healthier and safe life.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me say briefly to my colleagues that what I believe is false and misleading is to suggest what we are trying to do in any way is something injurious to the American consumer. What we are doing is saying that we shouldn't create roadblocks in a process that has been in place for more than 20 years and that has worked well for lower risk devices. To prove a device is substantially equivalent to a product that has already been in the marketplace there are tests which must be complied with, but you don't force the product to prove itself all over again. That negates the process that was set up to be quicker and more efficient and makes patients wait too long to get access to devices which can change their lives, even save their lives. If you want to scrap the process altogether and require that every new variation of the predicate product begin this process all over, then let's do that. I don't hear anyone calling for that. What the law says is that if it's substantially the same product and if the intended purpose as stated is the same, you don't ask the company to try to guess how someone may use that product for some purpose that the company has not supported. To suggest that a company is going to have to guess as to what other ideas someone may have for the use of that product, and develop data to support those uses--that would make this process null and void. We might as well scrap the entire section and 25 years of effort here. The purpose of this bill is to take advantage of new technologies, to see to it we have safe and effective products that are going to reach consumers. To allow an agency to cause a company to have to guess and guess again as to what some other intended purpose would be, I think would be a mistake. So I urge, with all due respect, this amendment be rejected and the committee bill be supported.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. I am pleased to take the floor today in support of the Consumer Payment Card Security Act of 1997. This legislation, of which I am an original cosponsor, would address a serious gap in our consumer laws which govern the use of debit or check cards. I would particularly like to thank my friend and Chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato, for his leadership role in developing this legislation. Many of my colleagues may be aware of these cards through the intensive ad campaign mounted by VISA and MasterCard with such famous celebrities as Michael Jordan, Bugs Bunny, and our former colleague, Bob Dole. But these commercials may not exactly explain how these check cards--or debit cards--work. Essentially, a debit card is a card that looks just like your ATM card that uses the National Credit Card Electronic Networks to access your checking account. In this way, you could go into any business that accepts VISA or MasterCard, and instead of charging your purchase, you could pay for it right out of your checking account. Thus, bank customers have access to their accounts in hundreds of thousands of locations across the globe, not just at the ATM machines that are part of their banks' network. In general, I believe that the private sector should be commended for developing this new technology. Clearly, if used properly, these debit cards will provide bank customers with greater flexibility and convenience. However, we would not be standing on the floor today introducing legislation if the introduction of this card had gone as smoothly as everyone may have hoped. As with all new technologies, there are growing pains, and in this particular case, legislation appears necessary to help ease those pains. The goal of this legislation is refreshingly simple: It puts debit cards under the same umbrella of consumer protections that currently govern the use of both credit cards and ATM cards. Let me briefly recount some of the debit card problems--some might go so far as to say abuses--confronted by consumers and how the legislation would address them. First, since a debit cards looks almost identical to an ATM card, many consumers don't know that their bank has made a switch. Until very recently, this could have posed a significant financial hardship for consumers since debit card liability--if it's lost or stolen--isn't capped at $50 the way it is capped for both credit cards and ATM cards. Also, debit cards are known as ``off-line'' cards; in other words, no PIN--personal identification number--is required to use the card--a crook can simply swipe it through any electronic scanner, just like a credit card, and empty your bank account. It should be noted that in the last few weeks, the industry-- particularly VISA and MasterCard, responding to increasing public pressure, has volunatrily moved to change these practices. Nevertheless, these belated efforts, while laudable, do not provide the same certainty to consumers that the statutes do. This legislation would clearly limit consumer liability to $50, It would also ensure that consumer disclosure is improved so that the bank customer is aware that these cards do not need a PIN to be used. The legislation would also end the practice of replacing ATM cards with debit cards without a customer's consent. One of the ways in which these cards become subject to abuse is that consumers aren't aware that they've even received this debit card as a replacement for their old ATM card. The legislation would conform debit cards with credit cards by preventing the mailing of unsolicited cards to bank customers. Last, the bill would address a potential problem by shortening the dispute resolution process from 20 to 5 days, again conforming it to the standards currently in use for credit cards. When there is credit card fraud, the cardholder is credited for the loss until the investigation is complete, and that investigation must be done within 5 days. Under current law, debit cardholders are not always credited pending investigation and those investigations can take as long as 20 days. That's a long time for someone whose checking account has been emptied by a criminal. Again, Mr. President, I note that in most instances, the legislation codifies what has become the industry standard. But the fact remains that given the difficulties surrounding the introduction of debit cards, and the uncertainties that arise from some companies failing to follow the industry standard, it is incumbent upon the Congress to provide the same statutory safeguards for debit card users as we have for both credit card and ATM card users. I hope that I will soon be able to stand here and mark the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. I am pleased to take the floor today in support of the Consumer Payment Card Security Act of 1997. This legislation, of which I am an original cosponsor, would address a serious gap in our consumer laws which govern the use of debit or check cards. I would particularly like to thank my friend and Chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato, for his leadership role in developing this legislation. Many of my colleagues may be aware of these cards through the intensive ad campaign mounted by VISA and MasterCard with such famous celebrities as Michael Jordan, Bugs Bunny, and our former colleague, Bob Dole. But these commercials may not exactly explain how these check cards--or debit cards--work. Essentially, a debit card is a card that looks just like your ATM card that uses the National Credit Card Electronic Networks to access your checking account. In this way, you could go into any business that accepts VISA or MasterCard, and instead of charging your purchase, you could pay for it right out of your checking account. Thus, bank customers have access to their accounts in hundreds of thousands of locations across the globe, not just at the ATM machines that are part of their banks' network. In general, I believe that the private sector should be commended for developing this new technology. Clearly, if used properly, these debit cards will provide bank customers with greater flexibility and convenience. However, we would not be standing on the floor today introducing legislation if the introduction of this card had gone as smoothly as everyone may have hoped. As with all new technologies, there are growing pains, and in this particular case, legislation appears necessary to help ease those pains. The goal of this legislation is refreshingly simple: It puts debit cards under the same umbrella of consumer protections that currently govern the use of both credit cards and ATM cards. Let me briefly recount some of the debit card problems--some might go so far as to say abuses--confronted by consumers and how the legislation would address them. First, since a debit cards looks almost identical to an ATM card, many consumers don't know that their bank has made a switch. Until very recently, this could have posed a significant financial hardship for consumers since debit card liability--if it's lost or stolen--isn't capped at $50 the way it is capped for both credit cards and ATM cards. Also, debit cards are known as ``off-line'' cards; in other words, no PIN--personal identification number--is required to use the card--a crook can simply swipe it through any electronic scanner, just like a credit card, and empty your bank account. It should be noted that in the last few weeks, the industry-- particularly VISA and MasterCard, responding to increasing public pressure, has volunatrily moved to change these practices. Nevertheless, these belated efforts, while laudable, do not provide the same certainty to consumers that the statutes do. This legislation would clearly limit consumer liability to $50, It would also ensure that consumer disclosure is improved so that the bank customer is aware that these cards do not need a PIN to be used. The legislation would also end the practice of replacing ATM cards with debit cards without a customer's consent. One of the ways in which these cards become subject to abuse is that consumers aren't aware that they've even received this debit card as a replacement for their old ATM card. The legislation would conform debit cards with credit cards by preventing the mailing of unsolicited cards to bank customers. Last, the bill would address a potential problem by shortening the dispute resolution process from 20 to 5 days, again conforming it to the standards currently in use for credit cards. When there is credit card fraud, the cardholder is credited for the loss until the investigation is complete, and that investigation must be done within 5 days. Under current law, debit cardholders are not always credited pending investigation and those investigations can take as long as 20 days. That's a long time for someone whose checking account has been emptied by a criminal. Again, Mr. President, I note that in most instances, the legislation codifies what has become the industry standard. But the fact remains that given the difficulties surrounding the introduction of debit cards, and the uncertainties that arise from some companies failing to follow the industry standard, it is incumbent upon the Congress to provide the same statutory safeguards for debit card users as we have for both credit card and ATM card users. I hope that I will soon be able to stand here and mark the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, located in the hilly country of southwestern Connecticut in the watershed of the Pequonnock River is the quaint residential community of Trumbull. Despite its proximity to many highly industrialized cities, Trumbull has been able to preserve its small-town New England character and charm, and this year the town of Trumbull will celebrate its 200th anniversary. The Trumbull area was permanently settled in 1690, and in the following years families began migrating to this secluded wilderness region, building mills, churches, and schools. In 1725, the settlement officially became the village of Unity, and this village was eventually absorbed by the larger community of North Stratford. Nearly a century after it was settled, the residents began the petition process for independence from North Stratford, and in 1797, the general assembly granted this request, established town bounds, and declared that this area shall forever be a distinct town known by the name of ``Trumbull.'' The town was named after one of the most respected families in Connecticut history, the Trumbulls of Lebanon, CT. The family's patriarch, Jonathan Trumbull, Sr., was the first of four ``Governor Trumbulls'' in Connecticut. He was a close ally of George Washington, and he was the only colonial Governor to support the Revolution. In recognition of his contributions to his State and his country, a statue of Jonathan Trumbull, Sr., currently stands in the Statuary Hall of the U.S. Capitol. His son, Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., also had an illustrious career as an early American statesman. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives where he served as Speaker of the House. He also represented the State as a U.S. Senator and was elected Connecticut's governor in 1797, shortly after the town of Trumbull was incorporated. In addition, Jonathan Trumbull, Sr.'s youngest child, John, was one of the most noteworthy American artists known for painting important historical events. Today, four of his paintings hang in the U.S. Capitol rotunda, his most famous being ``The Surrender of Cornwallis.'' While the namesakes for this town were truly heroic individuals, the many generations of Trumbull residents who have settled this town and shepherded its evolution over the years are equally heroic in their own right. They met the crises of their times. They worked hard to ensure a promising future for their children. They lent a helping hand to their neighbors when they were in need. They did all of the things that are necessary to sustain a community and help it develop into a wonderful place to live. Today, Trumbull is a vibrant residential community which is dedicated to the preservation of its family-oriented atmosphere. Its schools are among the best in the State and the Parent-Teachers Association is very active. There are places of worship for more than a dozen different religions, strengthening the fabric of the community and adding to its diversity. More than 1,000 acres of town-owned open space are set aside for recreational use, and Trumbull is renowned for its numerous public parks. Trumbull has also invested in its children by establishing an excellent youth sports program. In fact, one of the town's and the State of Connecticut's proudest moments came when a resilient group of 11- and 12-year-olds from Trumbull pulled off one of the greatest upsets in baseball history and won the Little League World Series in 1988. Trumbull's motto is ``Pride in our past. Faith in our future.'' I would like to personally say that the people of Trumbull should be very proud of their town's history and heritage. But more important, I have complete faith that the future for the people of Trumbull will be even brighter than the past. I congratulate the town of Trumbull on this historic milestone and offer my best wishes for future centuries of success and prosperity.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object if it is for the purpose of introducing legislation, as long as my colleagues are satisfied with this, I am as well.

Mr. DODD. Furthermore, let me lay out how this works. This is not just sort of throwing this out. We are going to have some sort of political determination made regarding these 10 heritage rivers. First of all, the administration stated that if a Senator or a Member of Congress opposes a designation in his or her State or district, the designation will not occur. That at least gives people an opportunity here to express the wishes of their communities. So, today we will have a vote on this. I presume that is the way people want to express how they feel about this. If colleagues want to vote for the Hutchinson amendment, the amendment of my colleague from Arkansas, that's a good indication of where you stand on this, and that can certainly narrow down the process, I suppose, here. That would be, I presume, an expression of how your constituency felt on this. Second, the administration has proposed a panel of experts representing economic development, including agriculture, natural resources, environmental protection, historic and cultural preservation, to review all the nominations and make recommendations to the President. This would not only, I think, ensure a fair and objective process, but guarantee the designations are made in a timely manner. So it is not going to be made by one individual. You bring together people to determine what are the qualifications that ought to be looked at. Certainly, some of the already existing Federal laws regarding clean water are very, very important. There are other considerations, and that ought to be a part of it. Third, there must be broad-based support for this. In the nomination package submitted, communities must show a broad base of support, including property owners, State, tribal, local governments, before this package is going to be accepted. Let me suggest here, by the way, that it spells it out. ``The administration recommends that supporters should reflect''--I am reading here, now, ``the diversity of the community, including but not limited to property owners, as appropriate, and as stated in the Federal Register notice they should include farmers, ranchers, landowners, businesses and industries, education, arts organizations, youth groups, community leaders, developers, community development organizations, historical societies, environmental groups and other nonprofit organizations, elected officials, State, tribal and local governments.'' You can't get much broader than that. You have to demonstrate that kind of support. Private property owners are an important element here. It is not limited to that. If we are going to ask people to give comment out here, certainly we are suggesting that ought to come from those people, but there are other entities as well that are affected by it. Businesses are affected by it. Universities are affected by it. Communities are affected by it. What the Register says here is get the comments from everybody here including private property owners. Does it say to get every single private property owner? No; that would be a nightmare. On the Connecticut River, 500 miles of river through four States and congested urban areas, are you going to get a comment from every private property owner? Why not kill the whole thing? That's the idea. Get rid of it. Have an amendment that says there should be no designation of 10 heritage rivers. That's a lot cleaner. But the idea somehow in four States where we are applying--no guarantee we are going to be accepted; we are for this in four States--the delegations are for it, the communities are for it, we have to go back now and go through 510 miles on both sides of the Connecticut River, 10 miles on either side, and get comments from every single property owner, with all due respect, kills this. There is a cleaner way of killing it; a cleaner way of killing it than maiming this process and adding a huge bureaucracy where we go out now, because we like this, and go through the next year or two where local communities, at some expense, are going out and getting comment from every single property owner. Talk about adding to the burden of a process. There is no mandate here, no regulations, no money. Just a designated 10 rivers in the country as being heritage rivers. Talk about adding to the cost of local taxpayers and communities--this amendment does that. Here we require, the administration requires, broad-based comment. Nominations may only be made--they may only be made by members of the community. That is the only way this can occur. It doesn't occur because some Senator nominates it. It has to come from the community. That is exactly the purpose and the intent here. So, the idea of going across and saying we are going to exclude everyone else in the process--there are no new regulations or changes in existing law. The American heritage rivers does not change the existing prioritization process for the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, or any other preexisting law. Given that the American heritage river initiative imposes no new regulations on any activities undertaken or designated on designated rivers, people would naturally abide by the law, obviously, in areas that are covered under those provisions of law. Any project identified in a community's nomination package must undergo applicable State, and local review processes. Property owners are key at this stage of the review. The administration believes such review should remain a local issue and Federal agencies should assume no additional roles in what is a local decision. In the nomination package, communities must demonstrate that members of the community have had an opportunity to comment and discuss the nominations and plan of action. That is required. When you submit your package from a local community, you have to demonstrate you have gone out to the community and solicited the views of the people of your community. It even goes further, so it is not just a mayor or select person in town, but it is actually that you have to demonstrate in the local community you have solicited the comments and the views of people in that community, including your private property owners. In implementing the American heritage river initiative, Federal departments and agencies are required to act with due regard for the protection of private property owners, provided by the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and as directed by Ronald Reagan, President Reagan's 1988 Executive Order No. 12360. I must say here, this has been pretty well thought out here, requiring applications must come from the community. The community leaders must solicit the opinion of people in their communities. It also solicits the views of others in addition to the private property owners along those rivers, but doesn't require every single one of them, as does this amendment, as it insists. I read it to you. It says here: ``To ensure the protection of private property owners along a river proposed for nomination, all property owners''--I am reading now line 17, 16 and 17--``all property owners holding title to land directly abutting river bank shall be consulted and asked to offer letters of support for or opposition to the nomination.'' All 510 miles of the Connecticut River? Along the Mississippi River, all property owners? Colorado River, all properties owners are required here? It would be a nightmare. Why not just a simple amendment, ``There shall be no designation of American heritage rivers''? It is cleaner; up or down, yes or no. What if in the process we go through this process by communities, by towns all across the country going through this process, at great cost, and at the end we don't get designated, someone else does? I understand that. But why make us go through all of this? Why not just say, ``We don't like the program; get rid of it.'' As I said earlier, if people don't want this, if Members of Congress, the delegation does not want it, believe me, you won't be included. It is simple, straightforward, guaranteed, no problem. If any Senators here decide they don't want their States to be included, the rivers that run through them, vote that way today and, believe me, the process gets thinner. Believe me, it gets thinner. Those of us in the New England States certainly feel that. Senator Chafee of Rhode Island pointed out, on page 3, the definition of a river community: For the purposes of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative . . ., the term ``river community'' shall include all persons that own property, reside or regularly conduct business within 10 miles of the river. I have almost 500 miles of Connecticut River, add 10 miles on either side of it and go up and down there, you add to my nightmare of everyone who abuts the river. Now I have to go 10 miles to either side. This gets unbelievably cumbersome to try to do something as simple as designation of 10 heritage rivers--no mandates, no regulations, no money to try to manage it here and nothing can be done by a Federal agency that runs into opposition of local agencies and governments. This has been well thought out, Mr. President, well thought out by a panel of people who will designate it. It is not going to be made by someone in the White House who picks out a river, but to try to see if we can't come up with a group of people here who will make intelligent choices about this. This is really pretty straightforward. Again, I can tell you, and it may differ from place to place in the country, but I gather it is pretty competitive. We have people all across the country excited about this. We have had about six different meetings in my State. We invited the head, the chief administrator, for the Environmental Protection Agency. We had a huge crowd turn out expressing their support--the communities, the business leaders--saying this is something we really want here. Now to go back and say we have to get every single property owner for 10 miles on either side on this thing to designate river communities, this would be a great blow, I think, to millions of people in this country who would like to see their rivers restored, who like the fact that there is a President in this country who has said we ought to pay attention to this. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a process where more rivers can be designated in the future. I suspect we are going to have a lot of hurt feelings at the end of this process. We only have 10 that are going to be designated out of the entire country. But the fact that 10 will be and maybe others can be to highlight the importance of these rivers, the communities and all the activities associated with it, I think ought to be applauded. The fact that the administration has put in place a very deliberate, thoughtful process of where this should begin, how it ought to be conducted, who makes the decisions, who is going to be consulted, I think is something that deserves applause, rather than coming up, as I say with all due respect, with an amendment that would basically gut this process entirely and make it impossible for millions of people across this country to celebrate their rivers and to try to restore them to the cultural, historic, economic, and environmental importance that they ought to have in this country. For those reasons, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to table this amendment and hope my colleagues will support it. I say that with all due respect for my colleague from Arkansas. We have worked together on a number of different issues. I have great respect for him. I enjoy his company and service. I just have a fundamental disagreement with what this amendment would do. I think it would be dangerous to what has otherwise been a very ennobling effort and one that ought to enjoy broad-based support here. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I appreciate my colleague's efforts to modify this. I point out that it appears to me you have still got to go out and try to get the comments. But, nonetheless, I appreciate the purpose behind his effort here, so I have no objection.

Mr. DODD. Any Member of Congress who wants to can object to their State being included and it will exclude that nomination. Obviously, one can interpret a vote here.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield on that point, I will clarify it for him.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a point of information, Mr. President? Is this just to introduce some legislation? He is not asking for any votes on any matter?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, to respond to my colleague from Arkansas--I know my colleague from Rhode Island wants to be heard--my colleague must be aware--I presume he is--of how the process works. The suggestion somehow that this process excludes local property owners from expressing their opinions is just not the case. In fact, it is very, very clear, as laid out by the Executive order, how the process would work. Certainly local input and people expressing their views, whether or not they are in favor or opposed to this, is very much a part of the process here. This is complicating it by mandating through law. The implication here obviously is that Congress is going to make the decision as to whether or not these rivers in various areas are going to be designated so you have a vote of 51 to 49 picking this river or that. We are trying to avoid that, to keep the politics out of it. If you go back and look at how it works, it requires that there be local input and approval and support at the local level. That is the whole idea. Obviously, to have Washington sit here and pick 10 rivers, we don't know whether you want to be designated. So this is entirely superfluous. The process exists right now that requires that effort. Support from local communities is all through the Executive order from the administration as to how this would work. My point is, if that is the case, if that is what we are doing, it requires that input. To all of a sudden say we are going to have here a law that makes us go through congressional hearings and looking at all of this I think just is making more out of this than has to be the case. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I want to commend our colleague from Alaska. I think this is a very responsible approach to take. I urge our colleagues to support it. There are a lot of ideas out here about how we might create a true endowment rather than going through this process year in and year out. We are politicizing this issue to an extent I don't think it deserves. We truly ought to look for ways to resolve this matter intelligently. I think a good set of hearings, examining various ideas on how to best fund the Endowment for the future make a lot of sense. I urge our colleagues to support this suggestion and try to come together and see if we cannot get beyond this amendment process we go through each and every year which I don't think serves our interests well, regardless of one's perspective on how we ought to fund the National Endowment for the Arts.

Mr. DODD. Very briefly, my colleague from New York is here and I will yield to him, but I want to make a quick comment on the modification offered by our colleague from Arkansas to his amendment. Certainly, while I appreciate the attempt here to lessen the burden of contacting every single person and property owner of this amendment, still I respectfully suggest that it has some major flaws. No. 1, it still suggests that Congress knows better about the wishes of local communities. We have a fundamental disagreement about that. As my colleague, Senator Bumpers, said--and I am confident my colleague from New York will agree--this is community originated. The idea that we would have the say over what our local communities want is contrary to the steps we have taken in the last few years. We have tried to strengthen our local communities in almost every process. No. 2, the consultation process suggests here that only private property owners be consulted for comment here. Obviously there are a lot of other interests here that would want to comment, beyond private property owners. What is suggested by the Executive order, you get broad-based comments, including private property owners. And if we adopt this language, the argument is you exclude in the process these other people. No. 3, the amendment says that we ought to define ``river communities'' as those that are 10 miles on either side; yet to make a case, if we exclude them from commenting here, as the amendment does by implication here, that, in my view, would be a mistake. Last, this amendment, underlying it all, presumes that the program is intended to be some large, costly bureaucratic effort. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is anything but that. It is designed to be just the opposite of that, to be a community-based effort here to recognize and designate the importance of the great rivers of this country. Certainly I appreciate that there are those who get concerned when they hear about Washington wanting to help, their abundance of good humor about Washington wanting to help. In this case, that is exactly what it is. It has been a wonderful inspiration, Mr. President, to see the communities come together all along these rivers and, in multi- States, sort of competing in a healthy way to be designated one of the 10 heritage rivers. As I said at the conclusion of my earlier remarks, we ought to be applauding this. This is a worthwhile effort here. There is nothing sinister about it. There is nothing underhanded, no secret agenda, no mandates, regulations, or dollars associated with this in any way. Yet I suggest here, by this amendment, when you start reading it, I can see someone saying, ``Look, I wish to comment on this, but I didn't get a chance to comment,'' and you are in a lawsuit before you know it because we have adopted laws here that say that anyone who wishes to comment ought to be able to comment. Once you start doing that, you are inviting people to suggest otherwise--``I wasn't heard,'' ``I should have heard,'' ``I wish to comment, you didn't give me a chance.'' I don't think we want to go down that road. With all due respect to my colleague from Arkansas, I know my colleague from New York, when he completes his remarks, will move to table this amendment. I will join him in that motion and urge my colleagues to support us in that effort. I thank Senator D'Amato and Senator Bumpers for their leadership and hope we can reject this amendment and by doing so recognize the important effort that the President has undertaken as he did in mentioning this effort in the State of the Union Message. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise, with all due respect to my colleague from Arkansas, in opposition to his amendment. I say to my colleagues here, with all due respect, my colleague is certainly one who has advocated in the past that we ought to try to remove or eliminate as much bureaucracy as possible. I think he is joined in those sentiments by most of us here in Congress, that we ought to be trying to not overburden a process but trying to streamline it as much as possible. I commend President Clinton for coming up with a very innovative and creative idea on how we might highlight the importance of our river system in the United States. This program of designation of 10 great rivers in the United States, I think, has great value. It is something that is community driven, rather than something coming from Washington. Let me just share with my colleagues how this would work. First of all, there are no mandates or regulations involved in this at all. In fact, it must be supported by the congressional delegations, the communities involved, and it is very explicit as to how this process would work. The amendment being offered by our colleague from Arkansas would require communities to go through additional layers of Government approval before a river could be designated an American heritage river. Just to give you an example, those of us in the New England area are united--in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. We have all come together in a delegation--the communities, the States-- requesting that the Connecticut River be one of those designated rivers. Very explicitly, if that support in the delegation from the Governors in the communities along the river is not present then that river is not going to be selected. It has been felt very, very important that there be community-driven, community-based support for these efforts. And if it is nonexistent, the designation doesn't happen. Some of my colleagues may not want that designation. I can tell you categorically that if the Senators in those States do not want the rivers in their States, be it Colorado, or in Arkansas, then it won't happen. You don't have to worry about that. Nothing is going to be foisted on any State here that is not supported by the communities. What we are suggesting here is that we in the New England States would like one of these rivers. In all due respect, I don't think it would be fair for me in this kind of a situation to be suggesting as a Senator from Connecticut that the people of Arkansas or Colorado, or any other State, ought to be denied that designation if they feel they very much like to see the Arkansas River or the Colorado River designated as one of these great rivers, with no regulations, no mandates, no money involved in it. It merely takes existing resources and tries to manage them in a way that the people at the local level would like to see them designated and to enhance the cultural, the economic, and environmental issues that they feel are very important. I can tell you categorically that in my part of the country one of the problems that has happened over the years is that too much of our development has occurred right on the river denying people access to the river. One of the wonderful things about this city--our Capital City--that I appreciate every morning as I come to the Capitol is you can actually watch people on the banks of the Potomac River enjoying the river. For too many of our cities, of course, we saw the highway systems, and so forth, be developed between a city and its river. There is a great interest now in this country to try to restore, if you will, the vitality of these rivers--to see if we can't come up with ways to recognize the importance of them. Again, the requirement that our colleague from Arkansas adds here would delay the initiative designed to provide prompt assistance to community-led efforts. After communities submit nomination packets to the administration, the President selects rivers for designation. The Council on Environmental Quality would have to forward these nominations to Congress which must provide approval. However, the amendment, as outlined, no process, or deadline, for congressional action would be required then to get approval basically of almost every single property owner. Imagine getting approval from the Connecticut River States, from the Canadian border on down to the Long Island Sound, of every private property owner in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. It would kill it. Why not have an amendment to eliminate it altogether? That might make more sense than making people go through a process that just kills it by bureaucracy. Why not have an amendment that would say this amendment ought to be eliminated? If that were the case, I would disagree with it. I would oppose it. But at least it would be clear. The intent here, by establishing a very lengthy process that would deny these community- driven programs, I think, would be a huge mistake. Let me also point out that there are no additional dollars involved here at all in what has been suggested, and no new regulations, or changes in existing law. The American Heritage Rivers Initiative does not change the existing prioritization process for the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, or any other applicable Federal law. Given that the American heritage rivers initiative imposes no new regulations, any activity undertaken to designate rivers would naturally abide by the laws governing priorities of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other Federal laws. State and local reviews: Any projects identified in a communities- nomination packet must undergo applicable State and local review processes. Property owners are key at this stage of the review. I can say categorically that they are involved now in our New England area with the Connecticut River. We pulled together the support. We have solicited opinions from our local communities to get behind this effort. Obviously, local property owners have a more than adequate way of expressing their feelings about whether or not we ought to be going forward. There is strong feeling, in our area anyway, that this is a process that we approve of. We support fully and strongly that it ought to be included. As I said earlier, if delegations don't want rivers in their States to be included in this competition, if you will, to designate 10 rivers, then that is it. You are out. Don't worry about it. There is no way in the world that you are going to be included in this. So, if the Colorado River wants to be excluded from the process, I can categorically tell you that it will be out--or the Arkansas River. If anyone stands up here today and votes for this amendment, I promise you that you won't be included. You are out. Don't worry about it. But for those of us who would like this designation, who feel strongly about it in a bipartisan way, who believe that there is something of value here in trying to restore our rivers, to give attention to them, to appreciate the value of them historically, environmentally, economically, we would like this designation. We think it will help us, and our local communities want it. They support it. Frankly, to go through a long morass of bureaucracy, and going through one agency after another, coming back and getting approval, having every single property owner express their view one way or the other, this is just killing it--choking it to death. So my hope is that our colleagues here would oppose this amendment. Again, this has broad-based and community-based support in the country, and I think has great value in terms of those of us who care deeply about seeing these rivers restored. I can tell you. I live on the Connecticut River. I have my office on the Connecticut River. In fact, it is a better Connecticut River. I can remember the days only a few years ago when the thought of swimming in that river, or fishing out of that river, or eating any fish out of the river, was unheard of. Today it has come back because there have been great local efforts to restore the vitality of that river. The salmon are coming back. The Connecticut River shad are back. Dartmouth, in New Hampshire, and the University of Massachusetts all understand the value of this. Our communities of Hartford and Middletown in Connecticut, and Springfield, MA, all believe that this is a very worthwhile project, and are solidly behind it. It is not just one river. But I can tell you also that it is highly competitive. I know my colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, is deeply interested in the Hudson River. And great support exists in that State for the designation. I know the same case exists across the country. I think it is a healthy process that communities and States are going through. To add to the regulatory burden here by requiring, as this amendment would, a tremendous effort to get some designation here where there is apparently opposition within those States, I would say to those people that you need not worry about it. In fact, for those of us who would like to designate and realize that it is highly competitive, maybe we ought to realize it the way it is here. If we get a good vote, we can eliminate a lot of rivers from being designated. Because I can clearly tell you, if Members vote for this, that is going to be a pretty strong case for those of us who want the designation--that Senators who vote for this, those rivers ought to be excluded from this process; and that we will just go with the colleagues here who come from States that represent rivers that would like to have this designation. This is no money regulation. There are no regulations, no mandates, no money. It is community-based, community-driven, and community- supported. And, if you are opposed, if you are not included, why in the world do we go through a process here where we require Congress to come up and support or deny and elongate things? It basically kills this. This is making a huge mountain, if you will, out of a trickle, in a sense. This is not that big a deal except to the extent that it allows for these rivers to be designated as important natural resources that our States would like to protect and preserve for future generations. That is all it really is, and no more than that. To come up here and suggest somehow that this is some great big Federal program is dictating to local communities somehow denying them the process of making decisions about their own futures along these rivers is just not the case. So, Mr. President, I urge our colleagues here, with all due respect, to reject this amendment when the time arises. I note my colleague from Rhode Island wanted to be heard on this. I will be glad to yield to him, or seek his own time.

Mr. DODD. I would like to see a written version of this so we could have it.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague would yield, I will inquire here and make calls and see whether or not anyone else would like to be heard on the amendment. If no one does want to be heard, I certainly have no objection to going to a vote on this. I would like to be able to comment myself at some point here on the modification to the amendment that has been made by the author of the amendment at some point here. That is why I want to see the writing, to make sure I understand exactly. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will be relatively brief here. I gather there are a couple of our colleagues who want to come over and be heard on the amendment itself. Let me suggest, first of all, to my colleagues here who have been following this, there were more than 90 days of comment on the initiative. In fact, as a result of that period of comment, there were a number of important changes and clarifications to address some of the concerns expressed regarding the initiative's implementation. I ask unanimous consent those changes be printed in the Record at this point.