[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S. 1838. A bill to liberalize controls on the export of 
telecommunications equipment and technology in order to promote 
democracy and free communication and enhance economic competitiveness; 
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


              telecommunications facilitation act of 1994

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
bring some common sense to the controls governing the export of 
telecommunications equipment.
  It is time for our system of export controls to acknowledge the New 
World Order. Cocom, the Coordinating Committee on Multilateral Export 
Controls, is dissolving, to be replaced with a regime of multilateral 
controls, whose strength will be subject to national discretion.
  Cocom is disbanding because its members are no longer willing to 
abide by controls that were developed during the cold war. The 
dissolution of Cocom raises serious questions about the future 
effectiveness of a multilateral control system.
  However, one thing is certain. Any accord reached on export controls 
will dramatically reduce the quantity and categories of restricted 
items.
  This is the direction in which our trading partners are moving. In 
order to ensure that U.S. companies maintain their ability to compete 
in these new markets, we must take steps to reduce unnecessary export 
restrictions.
  One sector in which tight controls are no longer necessary and are in 
fact counterproductive is telecommunications. Telephones, fax machines, 
and computer links facilitate the exchange of ideas and information. 
Free communication makes political repression more difficult and 
fosters the movement toward democracy.
  For this reason, I propose legislation that would remove licensing 
requirements for telecommunications equipment intended for civil end 
uses in any of the republics of the former Soviet Union, the People's 
Republic of China, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, 
Romania, Albania, Estonia, Lithuania, or Latvia.
  Most of these countries are new democracies. Assisting these 
countries in updating their telecommunications equipment will help 
foster the economic growth and development necessary for democracy to 
take hold.
  Considering the former Soviet Union. Telecommunications are essential 
to modern business. Yet economic growth is stymied by an archaic 
telecommunications system. The telephone system, even in Moscow, is 
unreliable. Think how heavily we in this country rely on telephones and 
fax machines. Consider how difficult if would be to complete the 
simplest transaction if your calls and faxes went through only 
sporadically.
  The former Soviet republics stand at a crossroads with one path 
toward a future of democracy and capitalism and another toward the 
past. We in the west can make the choice between these paths easier by 
providing access to the technology that will bring change. Our European 
allies will not be held back by indecision and uncertainty. With the 
dissolution of Cocom, they will enter these new markets aggressively. 
Passage of this legislation would ensure that U.S. companies will not 
be left behind.
  In China, change is only possible if people can communicate with each 
other. These Chinese have a telephone system based on 1950's 
technology. In some regions of the country, there are two telephone 
lines per 100 people. In comparison, the U.S. has 50 lines per 100 
people.
  Decontrolling telecommunications technology makes sense for America 
as well. Under present Cocom restrictions, U.S. companies are limited 
to exporting equipment three generations behind what is currently used 
in the United States. China has already developed telecommunications 
technology that exceeds current Cocom restrictions. Non-Cocom countries 
also have developed technology that exceeds Cocom restrictions and are 
selling it to China. There is no reason then for U.S. companies not to 
share in the benefits of updating a telecommunications market serving a 
billion customers. If telecommunications equipment were decontrolled, 
one U.S. company estimates its share of this market at $500 million 
dollars over the next 5 years.
  Mr. President, it is time to recognize substantial change in the 
world around us. The cold war is over but the battle for democracy is 
not yet won. We must help countries like the former Soviet Union catch 
up with the West if we are to see democracy succeed. In China, the only 
hope for democracy is in facilitating communication and the free 
exchange of ideas.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important 
legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1839. A bill to authorize the study of the equity of Forest 
Service regional funding allocations, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                forest service equity study act of 1994

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that would authorize and direct a study of the Forest 
Service's regional funding allocations to determine whether funding is 
being distributed around the country in a way that makes sense. For the 
last year or so, I have heard complaints from New Mexicans that region 
3 of the Forest Service, which includes New Mexico and Arizona, does 
not receive its fair share of Forest Service funding. People have been 
telling me that region 3 is funded at a lower level than most of the 
other eight Forest Service regions--not simply on an absolute dollar 
basis but in terms of what the region is expected to accomplish with 
its allocation.
  We looked into this situation, Mr. President, and the situation 
turned out to be pretty much as it had been described to us. In fact, 
we have received data from the Forest Service itself that corroborates 
these complaints. On a per acre basis, from 1982-94, region 3 was 
funded at $23 below the national average. And for the record, Mr. 
President, region 4 was funded at an even lower rate. So you see, this 
is not only a problem for New Mexico and Arizona.
  The Forest Service should allocate funding based on the demands the 
regions face. For example, in fiscal year 1992, region 3 maintained 
53,400 miles in its 10 national forests--more miles of roads than every 
other region except one. But seven out of the eight other regions 
received more money for roads. So region 3 is No. 2 in miles of roads, 
and No. 8 in funding for road maintenance.
  The situation is similar for recreation dollars. In 1993, the forests 
in region 3 hosted almost 12 percent of the Nation's visitors to 
national forests--but were allotted only 7.5 percent of the Forest 
Service's recreation budget.
  Mr. President, I could continue in this vein, but let me say at this 
point that my intention here is not to diminish the need of other 
regions. We all know that every Forest Service region needs every 
dollar it gets and could use many more. That is not in question. I am 
not trying to beggar my neighbors when I say that the Forest Service 
should take a look at its funding allocation system and ascertain that 
it accurately reflects its priorities and the diverse needs of the 
Forest Service regions. We have heard varying explanations of why 
region 3 in particular fairs poorly in the funding allocation game, 
based on historical budgetary decisions made at the regional level. How 
we got here is not what is at issue today. What I want to address is 
how to realign the system.
  What I am proposing in this bill is that the Forest Service conduct a 
study of its regional funding allocation system in order to get an 
overall view of how these decisions are made and whether they 
accurately reflect policy decisions. This legislation directs the 
Secretary of Agriculture to analyze the methodology and rationale 
behind regional funding decisions; to examine the fairness of 
allocations among regions, taking into account the unit burdens of each 
region; and to examine the relationships between funding allocations, 
Forest Service goals, the diverse needs of the regions based on 
ecological factors, and public demand for services.
  When this study is completed, the Forest Service is to submit a 
report to Congress that includes recommendations for changes and 
improvements in regional funding patterns and methodology to eliminate 
funding disparities among regions and to reflect Forest Service goals 
and regional needs.
  Mr. President, I hope that this bill will shed some light on how 
these decisions are made and enable the Forest Service and Congress to 
work together to ensure that its budget is being allocated in a way 
that reflects the diversity of the National Forest system.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill appear in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1839

       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 ``Forest Service Equity Study 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) data supplied by the Forest Service documents that some 
     National Forest System regions receive more funding on a per 
     unit basis than others for recreation management, wildlife 
     and fish management, road maintenance, and other activities;
       (2) the ecological integrity of some regions is compromised 
     by the funding disparity;
       (3) the regional funding of the Forest Service should be 
     equitable, and significant disparities should be eliminated;
       (4) the funding methodology and practices of the Forest 
     Service should support the policy goals of the National 
     Forest System, particularly ecosystem management; and
       (5) the regional funding methodology and practices of the 
     Forest Service should reflect the diverse needs of the 
     national forests.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) the term ``funding'' means the annual fiscal year 
     allocation received by each region;
       (2) the term ``region'' refers to the 9 regions into which 
     the Forest Service divides the country for purposes of 
     planning and implementing activities in the National Forest 
     System;
       (3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Agriculture; and
       (4) the term ``unit'' refers to measures of use or activity 
     in the National Forest System, including--
       (A) visitor days;
       (B) nontimber acreage;
       (C) miles maintained;
       (D) animal unit months;
       (E) people at one time (PAOT) days; and
       (F) any other measure of use or activity commonly 
     associated with the regions.

     SEC. 4. EQUITY STUDY.

       (a) Authorization.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study 
     detailing the regional funding allocation system of the 
     National Forest Service.
       (b) Subject of Study.--As part of the study, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) analyze the methodology and rationale behind regional 
     funding decisions made prior to the date the study is 
     conducted;
       (2) examine the fairness of allocations among regions, 
     taking into account the unit burdens of each region; and
       (3) examine the relationships between funding allocations, 
     Forest Service goals, and the diverse needs of the regions 
     based on ecological factors, such as threatened, endangered, 
     and sensitive species, forest health, rangeland and watershed 
     conditions, and public demand for multiple use services.
       (c) Contract.--The Secretary may enter into a contract with 
     an independent entity to carry out the study pursuant to 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Report.--Upon completion of the study authorized under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     Congress that includes--
       (1) recommendations for changes and improvements in 
     regional funding patterns and methodology to eliminate 
     funding disparities among regions;
       (2) recommendations for changes in regional funding 
     patterns to reflect Forest Service goals and regional needs;
       (3) an assessment of whether the recommended changes can be 
     implemented administratively or will require congressional 
     action; and
       (4) a plan for implementation of the recommended changes.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Brown):
  S. 1840. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax incentives for businesses participating in gun exchange programs, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                 Gun Exchange Tax Incentive Act of 1994

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we watch too many young lives being 
stopped short by too many guns, the life of an American youth has 
changed from a carefree dream to a deadly nightmare. It used to be that 
our children imagined their weddings and graduations. Now too many plan 
their funerals. It used to be that our children complained about the 
long and cold walks to school. Now too many worry that they may not 
arrive there alive. And, it used to be that our children feared the 
shoving and pushing of the class bully. Now all too many of them worry 
about the Uzi that he might have in his locker. As a parent, I mourn 
for these young people who have basically had their childhoods stripped 
away.
  Mr. President, the stakes in this battle are high. This is a problem 
that is going to take all of our creativity to solve. It is going to 
take a strong partnership between businesses, schools, families, 
community groups, the governments and religious institutions to find 
innovative ways to curb the wave of gun violence.
  Today, I am introducing legislation that builds on the leadership, 
strength, and spirit of American business by rewarding those companies 
that donate to guns-for-goods exchange programs.
  The Gun Exchange Tax Incentive Act of 1994 does this by increasing 
the amount of charitable tax deduction available to these businesses. 
Without my legislation, businesses that donate goods for guns can 
deduct only the cost of those goods. With my bill, they'll be able to 
deduct the fair market value. Without my legislation, these businesses 
can deduct 10 percent of their yearly taxable income. With my bill, 
they'll be able to deduct up to 15 percent.
  And, I want to be perfectly clear about two points. Only a police 
officer may collect the guns and no cash will be exchange for them.
  So, is this bill a cure all for gun violence? Of course not. But, it 
takes an important step in that direction. We understand that a gun in 
the wrong hands at the wrong time can, with just one pull of the 
trigger, shatter families and destroy lives. We know that the risk of 
being murdered is almost three times higher if you have a gun in your 
home. So, this bill starts from a very simple and very important 
premise. Every gun that we get out of our communities is one fewer gun 
that can be stolen, one fewer gun that can be used to settle a dispute 
and one fewer gun that can claim an innocent life.
  I've heard gun exchange success stories from California and all over 
the Nation. In New York, we all heard about Fernando Mateo, a 
businessman who received national attention when his donation led to 
the collection of almost 1,500 weapons at one precinct.
  In California, I've heard about the father and son in San Jose, who 
exchanged not only the man's semiautomatic weapon, but the son's toy 
gun as well. I've heard about the Oakland woman who brought in a rifle, 
saying that it belonged to her brother, who was in jail. And, I've 
heard about the California man who had bought a gun for protection, but 
then changed his mind when his 9-year old child found it and pointed it 
at his wife's head.
  Through gun-exchange programs in city after city, California 
businesses like BASS tickets and ticketmaster are leading the charge by 
joining with their communities to call attention to and ultimately 
solve this problem. To companies like these, gun exchange programs are 
about increasing public safety and maintaining attendance at their 
entertainment events. As BASS General Manager Doug Levinson said, ``Our 
clients are afraid to go out at night.''
  Mr. President, their efforts have paid off. Late last year, in just 3 
weekends, BASS collected over 700 guns at exchanges in San Francisco, 
Oakland, Fresno, and San Jose. And, last December, ticketmaster worked 
with the city of Los Angeles to collect over 400 handguns, rifles, 
shotguns, and assault weapons.
  Finally, I really want to thank Congressman Schumer for his 
incredible leadership on this issue and my Senate cosponsor, Senator 
Hank Brown for working with me to pass this important legislation.
  This is a commonsense no frills piece of legislation and the time for 
us to act on it is now. So, let's move quickly to pass this bill, join 
forces with the private sector and our local communities and make 
America a safer place.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1840

       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 ``Gun Exchange Tax Incentive 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON CHARITABLE 
                   DEDUCTION.

       (a) General Rule.--Subsection (e) of section 170 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain 
     contributions of ordinary income and capital gain property) 
     is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Special rules for gun exchange program 
     contributions.--
       ``(A) Deduction allowed for full market value.--The 
     deduction under subsection (a) for any qualified gun exchange 
     program contribution shall be an amount equal to its fair 
     market value and no reduction under paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
     made in the amount of such contribution.
       ``(B) Increase in corporate percentage limitation.--The 
     limitation of subsection (b)(2) shall be increased by the 
     lesser of--
       ``(i) the aggregate amount of qualified gun exchange 
     program contributions made by the taxpayer during the taxable 
     year, or
       ``(ii) 5 percent of the taxpayer's taxable income computed 
     as provided in subsection (b)(2).
       ``(C) Qualified gun exchange program contribution.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the term `qualified gun exchange 
     program contribution' means any charitable contribution of 
     property described in paragraph (1) of section 1221 or of a 
     coupon or similar instrument which may be used to acquire 
     property so described if--
       ``(i) such contribution is to a governmental unit described 
     in subsection (c)(1) or to an organization described in 
     subsection (c)(2) which is designated by a governmental unit 
     as a qualified recipient of gun exchange program 
     contributions,
       ``(ii) the property (or coupon or similar instrument) is to 
     be transferred in exchange for firearms to persons 
     surrendering firearms to a governmental unit in a gun 
     exchange program established and administered by such 
     governmental unit, and
       ``(iii) the taxpayer received from the governmental unit or 
     organization designated under clause (i) a written statement 
     that the property (or coupon or similar instrument) was 
     transferred as provided in clause (ii).''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to contributions made after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. MODEL PROGRAM.

       (a) Model Program.--The Attorney General shall develop a 
     written model program for business-sponsored gun exchange 
     programs.
       (b) Distribution.--Not later than 3 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall make 
     available such model to States, units of local governments, 
     and businesses.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 1841. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit 
discrimination, on the basis of race, color, or national origin, in 
programs and activities relating to occupational and other exposure to 
hazardous substances; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                    public health equity act of 1994

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Public 
Health Equity Act of 1994 to assert the right of all Americans, 
regardless of race, color or national origin, to work and live in 
places that are safe from toxic chemicals that endanger human health.
  We all deserve the same protection from these workplace and 
environmental poisons, but for many Americans, environmental justice is 
only a dream, not reality.
  The fact is, the greatest risk of exposure to hazardous pesticides 
and industrial pollutants falls on poor and minority workers stuck with 
the so-called dirty jobs. The fact is, most of the Nation's pollution 
is concentrated in neighborhoods whose residents have the least 
political and economic clout.
  How does this happen?
  It's simple. When the well-off majority says ``not in my back yard,'' 
polluters seek the path of least resistance and dump the pollution on 
poor and minority communities. When the poor cry ``NIMBY,'' no one 
listens.
  The environmental rights of these Americans are being violated 
because their civil rights are being violated.
  The bill I am introducing will help level the playing field by doing 
one simple but fundamental thing: It uses the same language as in title 
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require that federally financed 
programs or activities that protect the public health from, or affect 
the public health with, toxic chemicals must be conducted in a 
nondiscriminatory fashion.
  In the 30 years since its enactment, title VI has been used 
successfully to assure equal treatment in an array of taxpayer-financed 
programs. It has guaranteed equal education for our children, equal 
access to jobs and equal levels of municipal services. Isn't it 
elemental, then, that it should also guarantee us equal protection of 
the very air we breathe?
  Application of title VI to actions and decisions that affect the 
public health through the control of toxic chemicals will give 
communities overburdened with pollution a valuable tool. Inherent in 
title VI is a private right of action: the right to sue to remedy 
discrimination. Under my bill, such discrimination would include 
disparate pollution.
  Victims of disparate pollution who have brought their cases to court 
thus far have not had much success in relying on civil rights law in 
their arguments, mainly because the courts say you have to prove 
discriminatory intent. But not with title VI. It says that if you run a 
program or activity receiving Federal money, you have to prevent 
discriminatory effects, as well as intentionally discriminatory acts.
  Yes, I know you're saying that this may be good, but it's limited to 
programs that get Federal money. Well, in the case of programs that 
protect the public health against toxic chemicals, a huge chunk of them 
is funded by Federal taxpayers. For example, a recent article in the 
Northwestern Law Review stated that in 1986, Federal grants made up 46 
percent of State budgets for clean air programs, 33 percent of State 
budgets for clean water programs, and 40 percent of State budgets for 
hazardous waste programs.

  My bill would give the Environmental Protection Agency a mandate to 
ensure that Federal funds for these programs that affect the public 
health are spent equitably. The EPA would be able to demand that States 
show that Federal pollution control funds are being spent in a racially 
neutral manner. And it could even demand that States prove that ethnic 
minority groups are proportionately represented in the spending of 
Federal funds for beneficial programs--such as connections to sewage 
treatment plants.
  But my bill goes beyond just the EPA. It also requires that every 
Federal agency that affects the public health must also work to prevent 
disparate pollution. It further requires each of these agencies to 
issue regulations that bar acts with discriminatory effects, as well as 
intentionally discriminatory acts.
  Providing a legal foundation to build a case in court is a powerful 
tool, because only when confronted with the prospect of paying damages 
and court costs will the polluters stop dumping on the little guy. Only 
when faced with such sanctions will government do what it's supposed to 
do to protect everyone equally.
  We're not making new law here. We're simply taking the law that says 
``Thou shalt not discriminate and making sure that government and the 
courts know it applies to the law that says ``Thou shalt not pollute.'' 
It's only fair that both laws should apply equally to everyone.
  The goal of environmental justice is not to spread pollution around 
more equitably. The goal is to empower those who happen to be on the 
path of least resistance and force polluters to reduce or prevent 
pollution in the first place.
  If we can give people the power to fight for environmental justice, 
they can win. I've seen it happen in the Phillips neighborhood in 
Minnesota. This community in south-central Minneapolis is the poorest 
and most culturally diverse neighborhood in my home State. When plans 
were made for putting a garbage transfer station in the area, the 
native Americans, African-Americans, and Asian-Americans living 
together there joined forces to stop the project.
  Now the Phillips community has access to a valuable piece of land in 
the heart of the city, where they plan to form the Green Institute. The 
goal of the institute is to bring well-paying, environmentally friendly 
jobs to the neighborhood by fostering clean, green technologies and 
training youth to give them skills in recycling, energy efficiency, 
sustainable energy production, and reducing the use of toxics in 
manufacturing.
  We can't ignore environmental justice any longer. It's been 20 years 
since the first study documented the fact that the poor and minorities 
have to swallow a larger slice of the pollution pie. The environmental 
justice movement deserves our attention now.
  Congress has a chance to strike while the iron is hot, both on my 
bill and another environmental justice measure--S. 1161, sponsored by 
Senator Baucus. His bill will go a long way toward empowering poor and 
minority communities burdened with the lion's share of society's 
pollution. To take it even further, I will be proposing to the 
Environment and Public Works Committee a number of strengthening 
amendments that would give these communities additional tools to stop 
the poisoning of their neighborhoods and workplaces.
  Through the Public Health Equity Act and these additional measures, 
we can achieve environmental justice. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor 
this bill.
  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. 1841

       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 ``Public Health Equity Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) all communities and individuals are entitled to 
     protection from occupational and other exposure to substances 
     that are hazardous to the public health;
       (2) hazardous substances have had a disproportionate impact 
     on the public health of poor and ethnic minority communities 
     and individuals, resulting in exclusion from participation 
     in, denial of benefits under, and discrimination under, 
     programs and activities receiving Federal financial 
     assistance; and
       (3) each Federal agency has an obligation to ensure that 
     all federally assisted programs and activities that affect 
     human health do not directly or through contractual 
     arrangements use criteria, methods, or practices that cause 
     discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national 
     origin.

     SEC. 3. PUBLIC HEALTH EQUITY.

       The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title:

                  ``TITLE XXVII--PUBLIC HEALTH EQUITY

     ``SEC. 2701. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this title:
       ``(1) Activity; program.--The term `program or activity' 
     means any operation of--
       ``(A)(i) a department, agency, special purpose district, or 
     other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or
       ``(ii) the entity of such State or local government that 
     distributes such assistance and each such department or 
     agency (and each other State or local government entity) to 
     which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance 
     to a State or local government;
       ``(B)(i) a college, university, or other postsecondary 
     institution, or a public system of higher education; or
       ``(ii) a local educational agency (as defined in section 
     198(a)(10) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965), system of vocational education, or other school 
     system;
       ``(C)(i) an entire corporation, partnership, or other 
     private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship--
       ``(I) if assistance is extended to such corporation, 
     partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship as 
     a whole; or
       ``(II) which is principally engaged in the business of 
     providing education, health care, housing, social services, 
     or parks and recreation; or
       ``(ii) the entire plant or other comparable, geographically 
     separate facility to which Federal financial assistance is 
     extended, in the case of any other corporation, partnership, 
     private organization, or sole proprietorship; or
       ``(D) any other entity which is established by two or more 
     of the entities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C);

     any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance 
     relating to a covered substance.
       ``(2) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 511(7) of the Education for 
     Economic Security Act (20 U.S.C. 4020(7)).
       ``(3) Covered substance.--The term `covered substance' 
     means--
       ``(A) any material subject to the requirements concerning 
     material safety data sheets for chemicals under the 
     Occupational and Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 
     et seq.);
       ``(B) any contaminant identified in title XIV;
       ``(C) any substance described in section 201(q) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(q)), and 
     any material registered pursuant to the Act referred to in 
     such section;
       ``(D) any chemical listed by the National Toxicology 
     Program of the Department of Health and Human Services as a 
     known or probable human carcinogen; and
       ``(E) any substance defined in section 101(14) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(14)) and any chemical 
     subject to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and 
     Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11023).

     ``SEC. 2702. NONDISCRIMINATION.

       ``(a) Prohibition of Discrimination.--The President shall 
     ensure that no person shall be excluded from participation 
     in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to 
     discrimination under, any program or activity, on the ground 
     of race, color, or national origin.
       ``(b) Promulgation of Regulations.--
       ``(1) Subject.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of 
     Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 
     Administrator, and any other head of a Federal agency with 
     responsibility for providing Federal financial assistance to 
     a program or activity shall issue regulations implementing 
     the nondiscrimination requirements described in subsection 
     (a) in accordance with any applicable law. The regulations 
     shall bar acts with discriminatory effects as well as 
     intentionally discriminatory acts. The regulations shall 
     address actions of programs or activities that result in 
     disproportionate exposure to a covered substance on the basis 
     of race, color, or national origin.
       ``(2) Timetable.--In issuing regulations under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, each individual described in paragraph (1) shall 
     publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
     Register;
       ``(B) each individual described in paragraph (1) shall 
     provide a public comment period, subject to section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code, of 60 days after the publication 
     of the notice of proposed rulemaking required under 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) not later than 45 days after the close of the public 
     comment period required under subparagraph (B), each 
     individual described in paragraph (1) shall publish final 
     regulations.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Durenberger, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
        Lugar, Mr. Burns, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Moseley-Braun, 
        Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Coats, Mr. Smith, and Mr. 
        Murkowski):
  S. 1842. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to exempt a 
State from certain penalties for failing to meet requirements relating 
to motorcycle helmet laws if the State has in effect a motorcycle 
safety program, and to delay the effective date of certain penalties 
for States that fail to meet certain requirements for motorcycle safety 
and passenger vehicle safety laws, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                       vehicle safety act of 1994

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today Senators Durenberger, Kohl, Lugar, 
Burns, Simpson, Hatch, Moseley-Braun, Grassley, Gregg, Coats, Smith, 
Murkowski, and I are introducing legislation which will provide options 
and relief to the 29 States which have been financially penalized under 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 for not having passed 
laws mandating helmet and seatbelt use by the deadline of October 1, 
1993. This is not only a burdensome Federal mandate placed on the backs 
of State legislatures, but also an erosion of civil liberties and 
personal freedom.
  These States face penalties in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. In 
accordance with ISTEA, they will be required to transfer scarce 
transportation and construction dollars to section 402 safety programs.
  This shift will force States to spend 10 to 20 times the amount they 
are currently spending on section 402 safety programs. These penalties 
are assessed regardless of whether the State already has funds 
dedicated to helmet and seatbelt safety programs and regardless of the 
States' individual safety record.
  Initially, these States are being forced to shift 1.5 percent of 
their Federal highway dollars. This transfer affects three programs: 
the National Highway System, the Surface Transportation Program, and 
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. After 
September 30, 1994, if a State has still not enacted seatbelt and 
helmet laws, they are required to shift 3 percent of their Federal 
highway funds from these important programs into safety programs.
  My bill which is cosponsored by my colleague Senator Durenberger, 
would delay for 2 years the effective date of these penalties and give 
States the option of either passing helmet and seatbelt laws, or 
establishing motor safety programs, exempting those States which 
already have safety programs in place.
  Mr. President, let me be clear. I am not opposed to safety programs. 
Quite the contrary. What I am opposed to is the Federal Government 
blackmailing States to pass laws. It simply is not good policy to force 
States to funnel funds from one State transportation activity to 
another. It should be pointed out that the money the Federal Government 
wants to redirect, is tax revenue already paid by State residents.
  Safety education programs are desirable and work. That is the point 
of my bill. I firmly believe, and I'm sure my colleagues would agree, 
that we must do everything we can to make our roads and highways safer.
  My bill would give States the option of implementing safety programs, 
instead of mandating the use of helmet and seatbelts, and remove the 
section 153 penalties.
  My own State of Colorado has no helmet law. In fact, a bill to 
implement a helmet law recently introduced in the State legislature 
went down in flames.
  Colorado, however, has a motorcycle fatality rate almost 30 percent 
below the average for States with mandatory helmet laws. Of the top 12 
States with the best motorcycle safety records, only one has a helmet 
law. On the other hand, half of the 12 States with the worst safety 
records have helmet laws.
  Comparing States with and without mandatory helmet laws as a whole, 
figures show that for the 14-year-period between 1977 and 1990, States 
with mandatory helmet laws had 12.5 percent more accidents and 2.3 
percent more fatalities than States that did not mandate helmet usage.
  In the past decade, motorcycle fatalities have decreased 38 percent 
and accidents have plummeted 41 percent. These figures are particularly 
impressive because the Federal Highway Administration estimates that 
the average vehicle miles traveled by motorcyclists has increased 85 
percent since 1975. These statistics are unmatched by any other 
category of road user--passenger or commercial.
  What can account for this decrease in accidents and fatalities? 
Evidence clearly indicates that the most effective way to reduce 
motorcycle accidents and motorcycle fatalities is through comprehensive 
education programs, as opposed to mandating helmet usage. Currently 42 
States have established and funded some sort of safety program.
  The national average of motorcycle fatalities per 100 accidents is 
2.95. States with rider education programs and no helmet laws, however, 
have the lowest average death rate, 2.56 fatalities per 100 accidents. 
States with mandatory helmet laws and no rider education programs have 
a significantly higher rate of 3.09 fatalities per 100 accidents.
  Police accident reports indicate that well over 45 percent of 
motorcyclists involved in accidents did not have a motorcycle license, 
92 percent did not have any rider training and more than half had less 
than 6 months riding experience. 62 percent of the accidents and 50 
percent of the fatalities involved riders between the ages of 17-26. 
Clearly, mandating helmet use will not address the real problem of 
rider inexperience and lack of training.
  I believe that encouraging and providing support to States and local 
communities to establish motorcycle training programs would be a much 
more effective means of improving motorcycle safety on our roads and 
highways. The Federal Government should redirect its role to providing 
uniform national guidelines regarding these safety programs, rather 
than mandating where the money to pay for them should come from.

  I realize the motivations behind ISTEA and those who wish to force 
States into passing helmet and seatbelt laws are doing so out of 
concern for the safety of the traveling public, but I think their 
efforts are misguided.
  Forcing States to pass laws, or throwing money at safety programs is 
not the answer. Throughout my career in politics, I have always strived 
to protect the interests of States and communities by allowing them to 
make the important decisions on how their affairs should be conducted. 
When Congress blackmailed the States regarding highway speed limits, I 
thought that was wrong. The same for seatbelt and helmet laws. I have 
stuck with the philosophy that each State and each community should, to 
the best of their ability, be allowed to make its own policy decisions.
  When the National Governor's Association had their annual meeting in 
Washington recently, they begged for relief from burdensome Federal 
mandates. My bill, Mr. President, would do just that.
  I own a motorcycle; that's no secret. Where helmets are required to 
be worn, I wear them, where they are not, I do not. I make no bones 
about the fact that my dislike for the Federal mandate requiring States 
to pass helmet laws is in part inspired by my interest in motorcycling. 
But, I also think personal freedom is an issue. I am pro-choice. I do 
not think the Federal Government should dictate to the States, or its 
citizens, on matters of individual liberty. The choice of wearing of a 
helmet, or not doing so should be left up to the individual--not forced 
by Government extortion. And those who contend that it is not simply a 
personal responsibility because motorcyclists who choose not to wear 
helmets can become a public burden, are using faulty logic. It would 
then follow that we should mandate helmets for skiers, horsemen, 
skateboarders, and automobile drivers.
  Mr. President, in closing, I want to strongly encourage my colleagues 
to reconsider the position Congress took in ISTEA in mandating that 
States pass helmet and seatbelt laws. It is wrong to blackmail the 
States into passing laws. And, if motorcycle safety programs are 
desired, we should work toward establishing effective program 
guidelines, rather than force States to dip from one transportation pot 
to fill another.
  I ask 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. 1842

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

     SECTION 1. USE OF SAFETY BELTS AND MOTORCYCLE HELMETS.

       Section 1539(h) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragrah (1)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``1994'' and inserting 
     ``1996'',
       (B) by striking ``1994'' and inserting ``1996'',
       (C) by inserting after ``subsection (a)(1)'' the following 
     ``or a motorcycle safety program administered by the State to 
     reduce motorcycle accidents and fatalities,'', and
       (D) by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``1997'', and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``1994'' and inserting ``1996'', and
       (B) by inserting after ``subsection (a)(1)'' the following 
     ``or a motorcycle safety program administered by the State to 
     reduce motorcycle accidents and fatalities,'',
                                  ____


         Language of new law if this proposed bill is enacted:

       ``(h) Penalty--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 1996.--If, at any time in fiscal year 
     1996, a State does not have in effect a law described in 
     subsection (a)(1) or a motorcycle safety program administered 
     by the State to reduce motorcycle accidents and fatalities, 
     and a law described in (a)(2), the Secretary shall transfer 
     1\1/2\ percent of the funds apportioned to the State for 
     fiscal year 1997 under each of subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), 
     and (b)(3) of section 104 of this title to the apportionment 
     of the State under section 402 of this title.
       ``(2) Thereafter.--If, at any time in a fiscal year 
     beginning after September 30, 1996, a State does not have in 
     effect a law described in subsection (a)(1) or a motorcycle 
     safety program administered by the State to reduce motorcycle 
     accidents and fatalities and a law described in (a)(2), the 
     Secretary shall transfer 3 percent of the funds apportioned 
     to the State for the succeeding fiscal year under each of 
     subsection (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of section 104 of this 
     title to the apportionment of the State under section 402 of 
     this title.

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, almost 2 years have passed since we 
enacted the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. 
Included in that bill were provisions which required States to enact 
laws mandating safety belt and helmet use. States which did not enact 
such laws as of October 1, 1993, would be required to shift already 
scarce transportation funds to section 402 safety programs.
  That date has come and gone--but even in the face of the penalties 
laid out by the section 153 provisions, only 2 States have complied.
  The Minnesota Legislature considered several bills that would have 
implemented some type of mandate on helmet use, including one that 
would have required helmets for riders under 21 years of age. None of 
these bills even made it out of committee.
  At least 11 other States have rejected mandatory helmet laws this 
year, despite the sanctions that will be imposed upon them by the 
Federal Government.
  Right now, 26 States--more than half of the country--will be 
penalized for not responding to what amounts to blackmail by the 
Federal Government.
  Of course, supporters of the penalty provision will tell you that it 
is not a mandate. The penalty merely directs States to spend additional 
moneys on the section 402 program if they choose not to pass the laws.
  But it's important to note that 42 State legislatures have already 
established and funded rider education programs--independently of any 
penalty system.
  So let us get to the heat of the issue raised by the mandate. Its 
authors want to mandate helmet use, not biker safety education and 
injury prevention.
  When it comes to injury prevention, education is a more effective 
strategy than mandating helmets. States with laws establishing 
motorcycle rider education programs average fewer fatalities compared 
to States without education programs.
  Minnesota motorists and motorcyclists have demonstrated a strong 
commitment to improving traffic safety. They have requested, supported, 
and prodded the Minnesota Legislature to honestly and competently meet 
their demands for safer roadways.
  Minnesota motorcyclists lobbied the State legislature to enact the 
toughest licensing standards in the Nation. They also implemented self-
funded comprehensive rider education programs and public awareness 
programs which have won over 20 national awards and can now serve as a 
model for other States.

  In Minnesota, bikers do it because good behavior is rewarded by good 
health--not because someone in Washington is trying to force them to. 
That is why the Motorcycle Industry Council rated Minnesota the second 
safest State in the Nation in which to ride a motorcycle.
  Since the repeal of its mandatory helmet law, the number of licensed 
motorcyclists in Minnesota has doubled. Today, Minnesota has 
experienced a 77-percent reduction in cyclist fatalities from the 
record high numbers which were recorded in 1980--all that in only 25 
years. All this happened because Minnesota motorcyclists and lawmakers 
realized that there is no substitute for ongoing traffic safety 
education and tough licensing provisions.
  I have long been committed to reforming our health care delivery 
system. Critical to real reform is accountability. For people it means 
greater personal responsibility for lifestyle, habits, and behavior. 
Minnesota's motorcyclists have already demonstrated that they take 
their personal responsibilities very seriously.
  Furthermore, they have proven conclusively that the best approach to 
enforcing good behavior is through positive incentives and education. 
The positive results have been felt throughout the State--and it's not 
because of a mandatory helmet law.
  We need to remember that the penalty provision in ISTEA only applies 
to those States that have chosen not to pass mandatory helmet and 
seatbelt laws. The Federal Government should redirect its role to make 
sure that safety programs are of the highest standard--instead of 
mandating where the money for the program should come from.
  Mr. President, that is why I join my colleague from Colorado in 
introducing legislation which would delay the effective date of the 
section 153 penalties, and exempt States which already have motorcycle 
safety programs in place. I ask my colleagues to join me in 
cosponsoring this important legislation.
  Mr. President, we all believe in safety. And it is good sometimes to 
remind ourselves that very often, it is the people--not Federal 
officials--who have figured out the best way to do it.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. 
        Simon, Mr. Wofford, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. 
        Byrd, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dole, Mr. Durenberger, Mr. 
        Exon, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Mitchell, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Moynihan, 
        Mr. Pell, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Reid, Mr. Riegle, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
        Roth, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Warner):
  S.J. Res. 162. A joint resolution designating March 25, 1994, as 
``Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and 
American Democracy''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                         greek independence day

 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, I, along with 35 
cosponsors, introduce a joint resolution to designate March 25, 1994, 
as ``Greek Independence Day: A Celebration of Greek and American 
Democracy.''
  One hundred and seventy-three years ago the Greeks began the 
revolution that would free them from the Ottoman Empire and return 
Greece to its democratic heritage. It was, of course, the ancient 
Greeks who developed the concept of democracy in which the supreme 
power to govern was vested in the people. Our Founding Fathers drew 
heavily upon the political and philosophical experience of ancient 
Greece in forming our representative democracy. Thomas Jefferson 
proclaimed that, ``to the ancient Greeks * * * we are all indebted for 
the light which led ourselves out of Gothic darkness.'' It is fitting, 
then, that we should recognize the anniversary of the beginning of 
their effort to return to that democratic tradition.
  The democratic form of government is only one of the most obvious of 
the many benefits we gained from the Greek people. The ancient Greeks 
contributed a great deal to the modern world, particularly to the 
United States of America, in the areas of art, philosophy, science, and 
law. Today, Greek-Americans continue to enrich our culture and make 
valuable contributions to American society, business, and government.
  It is my hope that strong support for this joint resolution in 
Congress will serve as a clear goodwill gesture to the people of Greece 
with whom we have enjoyed such a close bond throughout history. Similar 
legislation has been signed into law each of the past 7 years, with 
overwhelming support in both the House of Representatives and the 
Senate. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this 
important resolution.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                             S.J. Res. 162

       Whereas the ancient Greeks developed the concept of 
     democracy, in which the supreme power to govern was vested in 
     the people;
       Whereas the Founding Fathers of the United States drew 
     heavily upon the political experience and philosophy of 
     ancient Greece in forming the representative democracy of the 
     United States;
       Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond 
     both between the United States and Greece and between their 
     peoples;
       Whereas March 25, 1994, marks the 173rd anniversary of the 
     beginning of the revolution that freed Greek people from the 
     Ottoman Empire and enabled the re-establishment of democracy 
     in Greece; and
       Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate that 
     anniversary with the Greek people and to reaffirm the 
     democratic principles from which the United States and Greece 
     were born: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 
     25, 1994, is designated as ``Greek Independence Day: A 
     National Day of Celebration of Greek and American 
     Democracy'', and the President is authorized and requested to 
     issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United 
     States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and 
     activities.

                          ____________________