[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.
____________________