Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)

[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Roth, Mr. Mack, Mr.
Simpson, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Coats, Mr. Bennett,
Mr. Craig, Mr. McCain, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Danforth, Mr.
Faircloth, Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 1843. A bill to downsize and improve the performance and
accountability of the Federal Government; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

the government downsizing performance and accountability act of 1994

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, when President Clinton unveiled his 1995
budget plan yesterday, Republicans offered their cooperation to help
the President cut unnecessary Government spending. Today, we are
putting our money where our mouth is, and offering 50 billion reasons
to reduce the deficit and improve Government performance. Joined by 16
of my colleagues--and I extend an invitation to every Senator in the
Chamber and in their offices to take a look at this plan--we are
introducing a 50-point plan to cut Federal spending by $50 billion
during the next 5 years, a plan that includes ideas from the Vice
President's National Performance Review, the so-called Penny-Kasich
plan, and the nonpartisan organization--Citizens Against Government
Waste.
We have tried to take the best of a number of plans, including some
of our own ideas, to put together this 50-point plan. It is not a
partisan effort. I hope my Democratic colleagues will have an
opportunity to take a look at it.
This is not intended to be a comprehensive budget alternative. But
the 50-50 plan is a step toward even lower deficits, a step the
President did not take by shifting Federal dollars to new programs.

When it comes to cutting the deficit, Republicans believe that the
best way--the only way--to get the deficit under control and improve
the prospects for long-term economic growth is to cut Federal spending.
And when it comes to improving Government performance, we agree that
there are ways to make Government work better, but our No. 1 priority
is to make it easier for people in the private sector--individuals and
businesses--to deal with Government.
Last fall, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Bill Roth, Senator
Connie Mack, and I got together with Peter Grace who now chairs
citizens Against Government Waste. We decided to begin work on a plan
that would build on the good work in the national performance review,
save the taxpayers money, streamline the Federal bureaucracy, and
improve Government accountability.
We got the ball rolling, but others--like Senator Murkowski, Senator
Coats, Senator Bennett, Senator Pressler, and Senator Craig--have
played a key role in developing this plan. Working together we have
produced a 50-point plan to cut Federal spending by more than $50
billion over 5 years and lock in those savings for deficit reduction.
Our proposal includes 8 recommendations to eliminate, phase-out or
privatize Federal programs, and 21 more specific proposals to cut
spending.
We offer 10 recommendations to cut Government red tape by
consolidating overlapping agencies, reforming the Federal procurement
process, reducing paperwork requirements, and streamlining procedures--
particularly for small businesses.
We have included seven recommendations, developed under the
leadership of Senator Roth, to improve Government accountability and
performance by establishing new Federal accounting standards, audited
financial statements, and performance goals for each Federal program.
Our plan includes a real line-item veto, sunset provisions to ensure
that all Federal programs come up for periodic review, and a super-
majority requirement for future emergency spending legislation.
And finally, our plan reinstates the defense firewall to help the
President fulfill his commitment to oppose additional cuts in defense
spending. We believe that any defense savings that result from our plan
should be used to help the Pentagon withstand the deep cuts that have
already been approved by Congress.
Mr. President, the vote on the Penny-Kasich amendment in the House
demonstrated that there is broad bipartisan support for efforts to cut
spending to continue the progress that has been made in reducing the
deficit. I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote on this and
other measures to cut spending in the near future and I hope that this
time around, we will get the support of the President and the Democrat
leadership here in Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of our plan
and an analysis of our plan prepared by the Congressional Budget Office
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Government Downsizing, Performance and Accountability Act of 1994

The Act includes 50 commonsense recommendations from the
Grace Commission, the National performance Review and other
sources that would save the taxpayers money, streamline the
Federal bureaucracy, and improve government accountability
and performance.
The plan would cut Federal spending by more than $50
billion over 5 years and ensure that ALL of the non-defense
savings go to deficit reduction.

title i--saving the taxpayers money

The plan contains 8 proposals to eliminate, phase-out, or
privatize Federal programs, and 21 more specific proposals to
cut spending. Recommendations include:
Cutting both Legislative Branch and Executive Office of the
President spending by 7.5%, and cutting non-defense Federal
government administrative expenses--like travel, consulting
services, and printing.
Selling the Alaska Power Administration, privatizing the
NOAA research fleet, and eliminating the Small Business
Administration tree-planting program.

title ii--streamlining the federal bureaucracy

The plan contains 10 proposals to reduce government
bureaucracy by consolidating overlapping government agencies,
reducing paperwork burdens,and streamlining procedures.
Recommendations include:
Reorganizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Federal
procurement reform; reducing paperwork requirements on
purchases under $100,000 and Davis-Bacon contracts; and
establishing clearinghouses for death data, disability and
veterans benefit claims.

title iii--improving government performance and accountability

The plan contains 7 recommendations to improve
accountability and performance by establishing new Federal
accounting standards, audited financial statements, and
performance goals for each Federal program. Recommendations
include:
Requiring 23 key Federal agencies to prepare audited
financial statements; and increasing the importance of job
performance in Federal promotion and reduction-in-force
procedures.

title iv and title v--reforming the legislative process and enforcement

The plan contains a Presidential line-item veto, limits new
programs authorizations to a maximum of 5 years, and
establishes a super-majority requirement for all
``emergency'' spending legislation. The plan reinstates the
defense firewall to help the President meet his commitment
not to cut defense spending any further. And, finally, the
plan locks in all non-defense savings for deficit reduction
by reducing the discretionary spending cap.

GOVERNMENT DOWNSIZING, PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1994
[Preliminary 5-year spending cut total--$50.5 billion; dollars in
millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-year
Source estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE I--SAVING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY

Part I: Specific spending cuts:
1. Legislative Branch, Reduce Appropriations K,S....... $573
7.5%.
2. Members of Congress, COLA Reform............. K,S....... 1
3. Executive Office of the President, Reduce N*,G*,S*.. 72
Approps 7.5%.
4. Federal Overhead Expenses Cut................ Hutchison* 41,700
5. State Department Mission Operating Costs..... N,G,K,S... 624
6. Raise Davis-Bacon Threshold to $100,000...... N*,G*,K*,S 98
*.
7. Repeal Prohibition on Use of Davis-Bacon G*........ 412
Helpers.
8. Federal Arts & Humanities Funding, Phase-in K,S....... 619
10% Cut.
9. Federal Buildings, 1-year Moratorium on K*,S...... 146
Construction of New Office Space.
10. Appalachian Regional Commission, Freeze at K,S....... 160
FY93 Level.
11. Legal Services Corporation, 50% Cut......... K*,CBO*,S* 861
12. CDBG at President's FY94 Request, Freeze CBO*,S*... 1,114
through FY98.
13. TVA, Reduce Nonpower Programs by 33%........ K,CBO,S... 98
14. Substitute Vouchers for New Construction of K,S....... 303
Public Housing.
15. Cut Economic Development Administration by K*,S*,CBO* 240
10%.
16. Increase Reemployment Programs for N......... 82
Occupationally-Disabled Federal Workers.
17. Reduce International Development Association K,S....... 149
Funding.
18. Allow Industry to Co-generate Power at DOE N,K,S..... 24
Labs /b.
19. Refinance HUD Sec. 235 Mortgages............ N......... 22
20. Reduce World Bank Funding................... K,S....... 106
21. Reduce Voluntary U.S. Contribution to U.N. Dole...... 13
Peacekeeping.
Part II: Reducing the size of Government:
22. Sell Alaska Power Administration............ N,G,S..... 63
23. Privatize NOAA Research Fleet............... N,K,S..... 350
24. Phase-out and Close Certain VA Supply Depots N......... 89
25. State Justice Institute, Terminate Program.. K......... 40
26. Eliminate SBA Tree-planting program......... S......... 64
27. DoD to Contract Competitively for ``Non- N,G....... --
core'' Functions.
28. Privatize Federal Debt Collection........... N,G....... 130
29. New Executive Branch Printing Policy........ N......... --

TITLE II--STREAMLINING THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY

30. USDA Consolidation.......................... N*,G*,S*.. 563
31. Procurement Reform, Rely More on Commercial N,G....... --
Products.
32. Procurement Reform, Streamlined Procedures N,K....... --
for Purchases Under $100,000.
33. Davis-Bacon Reform, Paperwork Reduction..... N,K,S..... 220
34. Consolidate Social Services Programs & K,CBO..... 913
Reduce Budgets to Account for Administrative
Savings.
35. Competitive Contracting--HCFA Claims N,G....... 24
Processing.
36. Social Security Admin., Death Data N......... a
Clearninghouse.
37. SSA Disability Claims Processing N,G....... 0
Improvements.
38. VA Benefit Clearinghouse.................... N......... 230
39. Streamline HUD Multifamily Housing N,K,S..... 449
Disposition Process.

TITLE III--IMPROVING GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY

40. Congress to Establish Performance Goals for Roth...... --
Each Federal Program.
41. Link Federal w/in Grade Increases to Job N......... --
Performance.
42. Modify RIF--Increase Importance of Roth...... --
Performance Ratings.
43. Comprehensive Fed. Accounting Standards w/in N,G....... --
18 Months.
44. Require Audited Financial Statements........ N,G....... -4
45. Federal Employee Compensation Act, Reduce N......... 1
Fraud.
46. Eliminate Congressionally-mandated N,G....... --
Employment Floors.

TITLE IV--IMPROVING THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

47. Line-Item Veto (Coats-Bradley).............. Coats..... --
48. Sunset All New Program Authorizations w/in 5 G*........ --
Years.
49. Three-fifths Majority Required to Pass Dole...... --
``Emergency'' Spending Legislation.

TITLE V--ENFORCEMENT

50. Lock in Non-Defense Savings for Deficit .......... ........
Reduction.
---------------------
Total Spending Cuts......................... .......... 50,549
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: N National Performance Review; G Grace Commission and/or Citizens
Against Government Waste; K Penny-Kasich Plan; S Senate Bipartisan
Plan; * Modified version of original proposal; a Less than $500,000; b
Estimate reflects non-defense savings
Note: All estimates in outlays. Based on preliminary CBO estimates.

Section-by-Section Summary

title i--saving the taxpayers money

Part I: Specific spending cuts

1. Legislative Branch, Reduce Appropriations by 7.5%.
5-year savings estimate: $573 million.
The President and Congress must lead by example. The same
cut that applies to the Executive Office of the President
should apply to the Legislative Branch. Modified version of
Penny-Kasich Task Force and Kerrey-Brown Plan
recommendations.
2. Members of Congress, COLA Reform.
5-year savings estimate: $1 million.
This proposal would freeze Member pay at FY 1993 levels for
one year. In future years, the formula for computing Members'
COLAs is adjusted so that Members' COLAs can never exceed
those of other federal employees. Source: Penny-Kasich Task
Force, Kerrey-Brown Plan.
3. Executive Office of the President, Reduce Appropriations
by 7.5%.
5-year savings estimate: $72 million.
The Executive Office of the President includes OMB, USTR,
the Council of Economic Advisers, the Economic Policy
Council, and various other offices. Source: Modified version
of Grace Commission, NPR, and Kerrey-Brown Plan
recommendations.
4. Federal Government Administrative Expense Reduction.
5-year savings estimate: $41.7 billion. This proposal would
reduce outlays for federal administrative expenses by $3
billion for FY 1994 and an additional $3 billion in FY 1995.
In FY 1996, outlays for federal administrative expenses would
be frozen at FY 1995 levels. Administrative expenses are
defined by using 8 OMB object classes: 1) Travel and
Transportation of Persons; 2) Transportation of Things; 3)
Rental Payments to Others; 4) Communications, Utilities, and
Misc.; 5) Printing and Reproduction; 6) consulting Services;
7) Other Services; and 8) Supplies and Materials
Administrative expenses of the Department of Defense are
exempted from this proposal because the Department has
already had its budget cut substantially. Certain program
expenses that are accounted for in the administrative expense
object classes--1) Object Class 25.2 ``other services''
expenses of the Atomic Energy Defense Environmental
Restoration program, Atomic Energy Defense Weapons Activities
program, Superfund, and NASA; 2) Object Class 21.0 ``travel
and transportation'' expenses of the Drug Enforcement Agency;
3) Object Class 21.0 ``travel and transportation'' and Object
Class 26.0 ``supplies and materials'' expenses of the
Veterans Health Administration Medical Care program--are
exempted from these cuts. The OMB Director is given
flexibility in allocating these cuts among the other
Departments and agencies. Source: Senator Hutchison.
5. State Department/USIA, reduce mission operating costs.
5-year savings estimate: $624 million.
The NPR recommends ``reducing U.S. costs to operate
missions overseas, including eliminating certain facilities
reducing security costs and considering altogether new forms
of overseas representation.'' Source: Grace Commission, NPR,
Penny-Kasich Task Force, Kerrey-Brown Plan.
6. Raise Davis-Bacon Threshold to $100,000.
5-year savings estimate: $98 million.
Under the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, the Secretary of Labor
sets wage rates and prescribes work rules for every category
of worker employed on federally-financed construction,
alteration, and repair projects, based on ``locally
prevailing'' wages and labor practices. Since 1935, the Act
has applied to contracts larger than $2,000. Raising the
threshold to $100,000 for contracts within the geographical
limits of the 48 contiguous states of the United States is
consistent with the recommendations contained in the National
Performance Review. The change would exempt only 3.5% of the
dollar volume of federal construction, comprising a large
number of small contracts. This would open up competition for
federal contracts to many small and minority-owned
businesses. Artificially splitting larger contracts into
contracts smaller than $100,000 for the purpose of evading
the Act would be prohibited. Source: Modified version of
recommendations by the Grace Commission, NPR, the Penny-
Kasich Task Force and the Kerrey-Brown Plan.
7. Repeal Prohibition on the Use of Davis-Bacon Helpers.
5-year savings estimate: $412 million.
The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 requires the Labor Department
(DOL) set minimum wage rates for every classification of
worker on federally-funded construction projects, based on
``locally prevailing wages.'' However, until 1992, DOL
regulations largely failed to account for the widespread
industry practice of employing ``helpers'' to assist skilled
mechanics. in 1992, DOL began issuing prevailing wage
determinations for helpers in areas where their use already
was a ``prevailing practice.'' The FY 1994 Labor-HHS
Appropriations Act suspended the use of helpers for one
year. Employment of helpers is especially prevalent among
small and minority contractors. Source: Modified Grace
Commission recommendation.
8. Federal Arts & Humanities Funding, Phase-in 10-Percent
Cut.
5-year savings estimate: $619 million
Would reduce federal funding for the National Endowment for
the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the
Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, and the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 2 percent per year FY
1994 through FY 1998. Source: Penny-Kasich Task Force,
Kerrey-Brown Plan.
9. Federal Buildings, One-year Moratorium on Construction
of Net New Office Space for Lease or Purchase
5-year savings estimate: $146 million
The FY 1994 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill was amended
to cut funding for construction of new courthouses and
federal office buildings by 2 percent. The moratorium would
apply a prospective one-year hold on construction of net new
office space, for purchase or lease, by GSA. To avoid a shift
in outlays to future years, this proposal would also rescind
$150 million in obligational authority from the Federal
Buildings Fund for new construction and acquisitions. Source:
Modified version of recommendations by the Penny-Kasich Task
Force and Kerrey-Brown Plan.
10. Appalachian Regional Commission, Freeze at FY 1993
Level.
5-year savings estimate: $160 million
The ARC has spent almost $6 billion and built roughly 2,500
miles of new roads, yet high poverty rates still persist in
Appalachia. Some programs supported by the ARC duplicate
activities funded by other federal agencies, such as the
Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Also, although the ARC allocates
resources to poor rural communities, those areas are no worse
off than many others outside the Appalachian region. Source:
CBO, Penny-Kasich Task Force, Kerrey-Brown Plan.
11. Legal Services Corporation, 50% cut.
5-year savings estimate: $861 billion
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) receives income from
private sources and interest on escrow accounts in addition
to federal money. Penny and Kasich note that LSC lawyers are
accused of gearing legal assistance towards certain social
causes as opposed to the more general aim of providing free
legal aid to the poor. This proposal would rescind 20% of LSC
funds in FY 1994 and cut FY 1995 funding to 50% of current
levels. Source: Modified version of recommendations by the
CBO, the Penny-Kasich Task Force and the Kerrey-Brown Plan.
12. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) at President's
Request for FY 1994, Freeze through FY 1998.
5-year savings estimate: $1.1 billion
Congress approved $180 million more in CDBG funding than
President Clinton requested in his FY 1994 Budget. This
proposal would rescind CDBG funds in excess of the
President's request and freeze CDBG funding for 4 years.
Source: Modified CBO proposal.
13. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Reduce Non-power
Programs by 33%.
5-year savings estimate: $98 million
Many of the activities the TVA undertakes are beyond the
scope of its mission. Federal support for these activities
should be reduced. Source: CBO, Penny-Kasich Task Force,
Kerrey-Brown Plan.
14. Substitute Vouchers for New Construction of Public
Housing.
5-year savings estimate: $303 million
HUD's construction of new public housing is ``roughly twice
as expensive as tenant-based assistance such as vouchers,''
and should be replaced where possible to simultaneously offer
choice to recipients and minimize government costs. Source:
Penny-Kasich Task Force, Kerrey-Brown Plan.
15. Cut Economic Development Administration (EDA) by 10%.
5-year savings estimate: $240 million
The EDA provides grants to state and local governments for
public works, technical assistance, and job programs as well
as guarantees to forms for business development. One
criticism of EDA programs is that federal assistance should
not be provided for activities are primarily local and,
therefore, whose responsibility should be that of state and
local governments. In addition, EDA programs have been
criticized for substituting federal credit for private credit
and for facilitating the relocation of businesses from one
distressed area to another through competition among
communities for federal funds. EDA has also been criticized
for its broad eligibility criteria, which allows areas
containing 80 percent of the U.S. population to compete for
benefits. The Penny-Kasich Task Force recommended a 20% cut
in EDA funding; the Kerrey-Brown Plan includes a 10% cut.
Source: Modified version of CBO, Penny-Kasich Task Force and
Kerrey-Brown Plan recommendations.
16. Increase Reemployment Programs for Occupationally-
Disabled Federal Workers.
5-year savings estimate: $82 million
Expands a program which assists Federal employees disabled
on the job and helps them to find new employment, and
strengthens efforts to review records to assure that those
receiving benefits are entitled and that beneficiaries are
receiving the proper amounts. Source: NPR.
17. Reduce International Development Association (IDA) to
Senate FY 1994 Level.
5-year savings estimate: $149 million.
The IDA is the soft loan window of the World Bank. The
Senate recommended an appropriation of $957.1 million for IDA
and stated that it ``could not support an increase in the
U.S. contribution under IDA-10.'' The Administration agreed
to an increase of nearly $225,000,000 in the U.S. annual
commitment. The Committee report accompanying the Senate
version of the FY 1994 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill
included the following language:
``[G]iven the intense budgetary pressures on the foreign
aid program, concerns raised by IDA's performance in the
areas of environment, population and poverty alleviation, the
World Bank's inadequate policy on information disclosure and
its failure to establish a public appeals panel, the
Committee cannot support the requested increase.''
The proposed would rescind the FY 1994 funds approved for
IDA in excess of the Senate's funding recommendation. Source:
Penny-Kasich Task Force, Kerrey-Brown Plan.
18. Allow Industry to Co-Generate Power at Department of
Energy (DOE) Labs.
5-year savings estimate: $24 million.
Currently, only the Defense Department has this authority.
All federal agencies should be allowed to install co-
generation at sites where it is cost-effective. Estimate
reflects only non-defense savings from this proposal. Source:
NPR, Penney-Kasich Task Force, Kerrey-Brown Plan.
19. Refinance Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Section 235 Mortgages.
5-year savings estimate: $22 million
Authorizes HUD to provide incentives to encourage
refinancing of old, high-interest rate mortgages subsidized
by the government. Source: NPR.
20. Reduce World Bank Funding to Senate FY 1994 Level.
5-year savings estimate: $106 million.
The Committee report accompanying the Senate version of the
FY 1994 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations bill stated:
``An internal review of the World Bank's loan portfolio
concluded that the number of projects judged unsatisfactory
at completion increased from 15 percent in fiscal 1981 to
37.5 percent in fiscal 1991. It also determined that
borrowers' compliance with loan conditions . . . was only 25
percent. It found that the role of Bank staff has evolved
from independent evaluators of country-proposed projects to
advocates of projects to move money and gain promotions, with
a resulting decline in project quality.''
The Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concern about
``the overly generous salaries and benefits to World Bank
employees'' and reports that ``the Bank underestimated the
cost of its new headquarters by over $100,000,000.''
21. Reduce Voluntary U.S. Contribution to U.N. Peacekeeping
to Senate FY 1994 Level.
5-year savings estimate: $13 million
In FY 1993, $27.1 million was appropriated for voluntary
contributions to U.N. Peacekeeping. In FY 1994 the President
requested $77 million, the Senate approved $62.5 million, and
the FY 1994 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act included
$75.6 million. This one-time rescission is aimed at
curtailing the use of these contributions as a slush fund to
finance activities distantly related to peacekeeping. Source:
Senator Dole.

part ii: reducing the size of government

22. Sell the Alaska Power Administration.
5-year savings estimate: $63 million
The Alaska Power Administration (APA) was created to
encourage economic development in Alaska by making low-cost
hydro-power available to industry and to residential
customers. ``The project has succeeded and can now be turned
over to local ownership.'' Source: Grace Commission, NPR,
Kerrey-Brown Plan.
23. Privatize NOAA Research Fleet.
5-year savings estimate: $350 million
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
owns and operates a fleet for scientific research and other
duties. These vessels carry out scientific experiments and
maintain buoys and navigational beacons. GAO has
recommended that the fleet be phased out and privatized
over a 5-year period. GAO has criticized the government-
operated fleet for being far more expensive to maintain
and operate than comparable private sector vessels.
Source: NPR, GAO, Penny-Kasich Task Force, Kerrey-Brown
Plan.
24. Phase-out and Close Certain Veterans Administration
(VA) Supply Depots.
5-year savings estimate: $89 million
The Veteran Administration should convert its existing
centralized depot storage and distribution program to a
commercial just-in-time delivery system and close unneeded
supply deports. Source: NPR.
25. State Justice Institute, Terminate Program.
5-year savings estimate: $40 million
This program ``aims to improve the efficiency of state
courts . . .'' and has no clear federal purpose. Source:
Penny-Kasich Task Force.
26. Rescind Funds for Small Business Administration (SBA)
Tree Planting.
5-year savings estimate: $64 million
These funds were not requested by the Administration or by
SBA. Tree planting does not fall under the jurisdiction of
job promotion by the SBA. The program should be terminated.
Source: Kerrey-Brown Plan.
27. DOD permitted to contract competitively for non-core
functions such as data processing, billing, and payroll.
5-year savings estimate: CBE
From 1979 to 1982, DOD performed cost-comparison studies of
commercial activities involving 17,600 personnel positions.
These studies found that it would be more economical to
contract out approximately two-thirds of the department's
commercial activities. This resulted in the transfer of
11,700 positions from DOD to the private sector, with an
annual savings of approximately $70 million. Even if an
activity remained in-house after a cost comparison study,
substantial savings were achieved as a result of improved
efficiencies or streamlining. Source: Grace Commission, NPR.
28. Improve Federal Debt Collection.
5-year savings estimate: $130 million
Federal resources are not adequate to deal with the volume
of debt owed to the government, and private-collection
companies have proven themselves to be cost-effective. Yet
many agencies--including the Farmers Home Administration,
Social Security, the IRS, and the Customs Service--are
statutorily prohibited from using private agencies for the
job, even on a contingency-fee basis. Congress should lift
those restrictions. CBO estimates that virtually all of the
savings from this proposal would accrue to the Social
Security Administration. Source: Grace Commission, NPR.
29. Eliminate the Current Federal Printing Monopoly.
5-year savings estimate: N/A
Phases out the requirement that agencies use the Government
Printing Office, permitting them to procure their own
printing and allowing GPO to bid for the work. CBO estimates
that this proposal would save an estimated $220 million over
5 years. These savings should occur as part of the general
reduction in Federal overhead expenses outlined in Proposal
#4. Source: NPR.

title ii--streamlining the federal bureaucracy

30. USDA Consolidation--Close Obsolete Field Offices.
5-year savings estimate: $563 million
USDA's focus has shifted dramatically since the 1980s, when
its present structure evolved: 60% of its budget now deals
with nutrition, less than 30% with agriculture. This shift in
focus will allow USDA to consolidate agencies, ``cutting
administrative costs by more than $200 million over the next
five years.'' This effort will reduce facility operating
costs, reduce manpower, and create providing ``one-stop''
shopping for farmers. Source: Grace Commission, National
Performance Review, Penny-Kasich Task Force, Kerrey-Brown
Plan.
31. Procurement Reform, Rely More on Commercial Products.
5-year savings estimate: Cannot Be Estimated at This Time
The National Performance Review highlighted the need for
the federal government to buy a greater share of its purchase
from the commercial marketplace, rather than requiring
products to be designed to government-unique specifications.
Our government buy such items as integrated circuits,
pillows, and oil pans, designed to government
specifications--even when there are equally good commercial
products available. Source: Modified version of Grace
Commission and NPR recommendations.
32. Procurement Reform, Streamline Procedures for Purchases
under $100,000.
5-year savings estimate: Cannot Be Estimated at This Time
For several years, burdensome procurement statutes have
been waived for purchases up to $25,000. Several recent
studies, including the National Performance Review, have
shown that increasing this threshold to $100,000 will
generate savings on about 70 percent of all government
purchases. Source: Modified version of NPR recommendation.
33. Davis-Bacon Reform, Paperwork Reduction.
5-year savings estimate: $220 million
Under the Copeland Act of 1934, employers on contracts
covered by Davis-Bacon are required to submit complete,
certified payroll records to the Department of Labor (DOL) or
the contracting agency every week. This requirement places a
significant administrative burden on DOL, the contracting
agencies, and contractors. Approximately 11 million payroll
reports are submitted annually to contracting agencies, at an
estimated cost of 5.5 million hours or industry employee
time. This proposal would eliminate the requirement for these
weekly payroll reports and, instead, require contractors to
simply certify that they have complied with the law.
Contractors would be required to keep records to prove their
compliance for 3 years in case a complaint is filed. Source:
NPR, Penny-Kasich Task Force, Kerrey-Brown Plan.
34. Consolidate Social Service Programs and Reduce Their
Budgets by 4 Percent to Account for Administrative Savings.
5-year savings estimate: $913 million
This proposal would consolidate the Social Service Block
Grant, the Community Services Block Grant, Title IV-A ``At
Risk'' Child Care, the Child Care and Development Block
Grant, and two activities of the Administration for Children
and Families (specifically, Title III services and meals for
the aging, and Dependent Care Planning and Development
Grants). Social Services are currently provided to
individuals and families through an array of programs. Each
program has its own rules and regulations. By consolidating
all of these programs into a single block grant, services
could be provided more efficiently, duplicate services would
be eliminated, and fewer Federal workers would be needed to
administer the programs. Source: Penny-Kasich Task Force.
35. Competitive Contracting--HCFA Claims Processing.
5-year savings estimate: $24 million
NPR recommends that the Health Care Financing
Administration be authorized to permit full and open
competition for Medicare claims processing contracts. Source:
Grace Commission, NPR.
36. Social Security Administration (SSA) Clearinghouse for
the reporting and disclosure of death data.
5-year savings estimate: Less than $500,000
No federal agency should continue paying benefits after
recipients have died. But stopping payments is not easy
because sharing death information among different levels of
government is restricted. For example, the Social Security
Administration (SSA) obtains death information from states
but many restrict SSA's disclosure of death data, so the
information cannot always be shared with other government
benefits programs. Source: Grace Commission, NPR.
37. Social Security Administration (SSA) Disability Claims
Processing Improvements.
5-year savings estimate: $0 million
The NPR contains a recommendation to improve SSA disability
claims processing to reduce backlogs and avoid paying
benefits to those who are no longer disabled. Source: Grace
Commission, NPR.
38. Veterans Administration Benefit Clearinghouse.
5-year savings estimate: $230 million
Under current law, the VA can seek reimbursement from
private insurers for care related to non-service-connected
conditions. This proposal would authorize the VA to use the
Medicare/Medicaid Coverage Data Bank to determine whether
veterans receiving health care have private insurance.
Source: NPR.
39. Streamline HUD Multifamily Housing Disposition Process.
5-year savings estimate: $449 million
HUD currently owns 69,000 units of multifamily housing.
Although HUD was never meant to function as a landlord, the
agency has been unable to sell these units because of
restrictions in Section 203 of the Housing and Community
Development Amendments of 1978 requiring that each unit must
be sold with 15-year project-based Section 8 assistance. Over
the past several years, funding for Section 8 has been
significantly reduced. This proposal would loosen the
restrictions of Section 203, allowing HUD to dispose of the
multifamily units more easily. Source: NPR, Penny-Kasich Task
Force, Kerrey-Brown Plan.

title iii--improving government performance and accountability

40. Congress to Establish Performance Goals for Each
Federal Program.
5-year savings estimate: CBE
The newly enacted ``Government Performance and Results Act
of 1993'' requires that all Federal agencies establish
program goals and report results beginning in 1997. Several
management experts have urged that Congress should provide
agencies with clear performance guidelines. This proposal
would require that beginning on January 1, 1997, all
authorization and appropriation legislation must contain
performance goals for the programs funded in the bill.
Source: Senator Roth.
41. Link Federal Within-Grade Pay Increases to Job
Performance.
5-year savings: CBE
This proposal stipulates that only the time that a Federal
employee is doing satisfactory work would be credited toward
the required waiting period for a pay raise. Source: NPR.
42. Modify Reduction in Force (RIF) Requirements to
Increase the Importance of Performance Ratings.
5-year savings estimate: CBE.
During a major downsizing of the Federal work force, there
is a reasonable chance that voluntary separations will not be
sufficient to reduce the number of Federal workers to
targeted levels. This proposal would modify current
reductions-in-force procedures to specify that employee
``efficiency or performance ratings'' be given greater weight
than ``tenure of employment'' or ``length of service''.
Source: Senator Roth.
43. Comprehensive set of Federal Accounting Standards to be
Issued within 18 Months.
5-year savings estimate: Cannot Be Estimated (CBE)
``We require corporations to meet strict standards of
financial management before their stocks can be publicly
traded,'' the NPR notes. ``They must fully disclose their
financial condition, operating results, cash flows, long-term
obligations, and contingent liabilities. But we exempt the
$1.5 trillion federal government from comparable standards.''
In 1984, the Grace Commission found 332 incompatible
accounting systems (along with 319 separate payroll systems)
and recommended folding them into one; the National
Performance Review found 287 different accounting systems and
said they should be consolidated. For the sake of sound
financial management and accountability to the taxpayers, the
federal government should adopt a comprehensive set of
federal accounting standards like all major corporations.
Source: Grace Commission, NPR.
44. Require Audited Financial Statements.
5-year savings estimate: --$4 million
To provide greater accountability to the American people,
this proposal would require 23 key Federal agencies, many of
which have cash flows comparable to the nation's largest
corporations, to prepare audited financial statements that
cover organizationwide activities of these agencies. These
additional reports will give program managers and Congress
better information on which to base future funding decisions.
Source: Grace Commission, NPR.
45. Federal Employees' Compensation Act, Reduce Fraud.
5-year savings estimate: $1 million
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act assists federal
employees disabled on the job and helps them to find new
employment. This proposal would amend the law to: make it a
felony to lie on benefit applications; bar from the program
those convicted of defrauding it; and cut off benefits to
people in jail. Source: NPR.
46. Eliminate Congressionally-mandated Employment Floors.
5-year savings estimate: CBE
The NPR proposes to reduce the size of the civilian, non-
postal work force by 12%, or 252,000 positions over the next
five years. This would bring the federal work force below two
million employees for the first time since 1967. This
reduction cannot be carried out, however, unless Congress
repeals mandated personnel levels for federal agencies.
Source: Grace Commission, NPR.

title iv--improving the legislative process

47. Line-Item Veto.
5-year savings estimate: CBE
The President should have the authority to veto line-items
in appropriations bills and tax expenditures in revenue
bills. This proposal would require that each line-item in an
appropriations bill and each tax expenditure in a revenue
bill be enrolled as a separate bill to be presented to the
President. This change would effectively subject all of these
items to the Presidential veto and ensure that the override
provisions of the Constitution would apply. This authority
would sunset in 2 years. Source: Senators Coats and Bradley.
48. Sunset All New Program Authorizations within 5 years.
5-year savings estimate: CBE
Many programs currently lack sunset provisions. Without
sunset provisions programs that have fulfilled their mission
or become obsolete may continue indefinitely. Sunset
provisions will ensure that all newly created programs will
come up for periodic review. Source: Modified Grace
Commission recommendation.
49. Three-fifths Majority Required to Pass ``Emergency''
Spending Legislation.
5-year savings estimate: CBE
Both the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA
1990) and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA
1993) exempt ``emergency'' spending legislation from all
budget points of order. Currently, a simple majority may pass
``emergency'' legislation while a super-majority is needed to
waive most Budget Act points of order on other bills. Use of
the ``emergency'' designation should be limited to
legitimate, sudden, unforeseen emergencies. Source: Senator
Dole.

title v--enforcement

50. Lock-in Non-Defense Savings for Deficit Reduction
The plan includes enforcement provisions to ensure that all
non-defense savings go to deficit reduction. Any mandatory
spending savings are deleted from the annual pay-as-you-go
scorecard and the discretionary spending cap is reduced each
year consistent with CBO estimates of the non-defense
discretionary savings resulting from this plan. In addition,
this section would reinstate the defense firewall to help
President Clinton fulfill his commitment to oppose additional
cuts in defense. Source: Modified version of Penny-Kasich
Task Force recommendation.
____

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, February 8, 1994.
Hon. Robert A. Dole,
Republican Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: As you requested, the Congressional Budget
Office has reviewed a draft of a bill entitled the
``Government Downsizing, Performance, and Accountability Act
of 1994.'' CBO estimates that enacting this bill as drafted
would have the direct effect of reducing the deficit by $3.7
billion in fiscal year 1994 and by another $1.3 billion over
the 1995-1999 period. In addition, the legislation would
diminish projected deficits over the 1995-1999 period by
$45.8 billion by reducing the discretionary spending limits
currently in effect. It also would make changes in numerous
programs funded by discretionary appropriations that would
make possible future savings in those programs that would
help in complying with the discretionary caps.
The bill would change mandatory spending, existing
appropriations, net Social Security spending, asset sale
receipts, and caps on discretionary appropriations. These
changes would occur as a direct consequence of the bill,
without any further legislative action. CBO estimates that
over the period of fiscal years 1994 through 1999 the bill
would:
(1) Decrease 1994 spending by $3.2 billion by rescinding
existing appropriations;
(2) Decrease mandatory spending (mandatory programs and
offsetting receipts) by $1.6 billion;
(3) Reduce net Social Security spending by $145 million;
(4) Lead to about $85 million in additional receipts from
the sale of federal assets; and
(5) Reduce the existing discretionary outlay caps for 1995-
1998 by $45.8 billion.
Table 1 shows the estimated budgetary impact of changes in
mandatory programs, offsetting receipts, Social Security
spending, and asset sales. Table 2 shows the savings
estimated for rescissions of existing appropriations. Taken
together, the first-year savings from the rescissions along
with the savings shown in Table 1 total $5.0 billion over the
1994-1999 period. (The remaining outlay reductions from the
rescissions would be available to help meet the reduced
discretionary caps.)
The reductions in the discretionary caps would constrain
future appropriations even more than those already in place.
In order to adhere to the existing caps, total discretionary
outlays over the 1995-1998 period would have to be $115.5
billion below CBO's unconstrained baseline, which assumes
that 1994 appropriations for discretionary programs are
adjusted annually for projected inflation over the 1995-1999
period. The lower caps mandated in this bill would require an
additional $45.8 billion in discretionary outlay cuts over
that four-year period.
You also requested a tabulation of potential savings that
could result from future reductions in discretionary
appropriations, based on programmatic changes made by the
bill and assuming that the lower 1994 funding levels
resulting from the rescissions contained in the bill are
projected into the future. These potential outlay savings are
shown in Table 3 and total $55.9 billion over the 1995-1999
period. Such potential savings reduce authorizations of
appropriations rather than direct spending and are subject to
future appropriations action. CBO's estimate of these
potential savings is measured relative to an unconstrained
baseline, which does not reflect the existing caps on
discretionary spending for the years 1995 through 1998.
(There is no cap under current law for years after 1998.) Of
the $55.9 billion in potential outlay savings, $42.1 billion
would occur between 1995 and 1998, and thus could help in
achieving the $161.3 billion in cuts required to comply with
the limits on discretionary spending specified in this bill.
Table 4 summarizes CBO's estimates for the draft bill. If
you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased
to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Peter Fontaine, who
can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
James L. Blum,
(For Robert D. Reischauer, Director).
Enclosures.

TABLE 1. SENATOR DOLE'S PROPOSAL: DIRECT SPENDING, SOCIAL SECURITY, AND ASSET SALE CHANGES
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Section number, propsal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6-year sum
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1003 Reform pay adjustments for Members of Congress:.........
Budget authority......................................... 0 \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ -1
Outlays.................................................. 0 \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ -1
1016 Disabled employees reemployment:........................
Budget authority......................................... 0 -8 -27 -3 8 4 -26
Outlays.................................................. 0 -8 -27 -3 8 4 -26
1019 Section 235 mortgage refinancing:.......................
Budget authority......................................... 0 18 13 -26 -26 -26 -48
Outlays.................................................. 0 18 13 -26 -26 -26 -48
1101 Sell Alaska Power Administration-asset sale receipts:...
Budget authority......................................... 0 -83 0 0 0 0 -83
Outlays.................................................. 0 -83 0 0 0 0 -83
1101 Sell Alaska Power-Loss of annual power sale receipts:...
Budget authority......................................... 0 0 11 11 11 11 144
Outlays.................................................. 0 0 11 11 11 11 144
1103 Closure of VA supply depots.............................
Budget authority......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays.................................................. -45 -44 0 0 0 0 -89
1107 Improved federal debt collection (Social Security
Administration):............................................
Budget authority......................................... -30 -40 -25 -20 -15 -15 -145
Outlays.................................................. -30 -40 -25 -20 -15 -15 -145
2102 Consolidate social services programs:...................
Budget authority......................................... 0 -124 -124 -124 -124 -124 -620
Outlays.................................................. 0 -116 -124 -124 -124 -124 -612
2104 Federal clearinghouse on death information:.............
Budget authority......................................... \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\
Outlays.................................................. \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\
2105 Continuing disability reviews:..........................
Budget authority......................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays.................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2106 Provision of data bank information to VA:...............
Budget authority......................................... 0 0 -5 -85 -140 -200 -430
Outlays.................................................. 0 0 -5 -85 -140 -200 -430
2107 Reform HUD multifamily disposition program:.............
Budget authority......................................... -425 0 0 0 0 0 -425
Outlays.................................................. -425 0 0 0 0 0 -425
3006 Deter fraud and abuse in FECA program:..................
Budget authority......................................... \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ -1
Outlays.................................................. \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ -1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total--Direct Spending:
Budget authority......................................... -425 -114 -132 -227 -271 -335 -1507
Outlays.................................................. -425 -150 -132 -227 -271 -335 -1588
Total--Social Security:
Budget authority......................................... -30 -40 -25 -20 -15 -15 -145
Outlays.................................................. -30 -40 -25 -20 -15 -15 -145
Total--Asset Sale Receipts:
Budget authority......................................... 0 -83 0 0 0 0 -83
Outlays.................................................. 0 -83 0 0 0 0 -83
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Less than $500,000.

TABLE 2. SENATOR DOLE'S PROPOSAL: RESCISSIONS
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Section number, proposal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6-yr sum
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1001 Rescission of funds for the legislative branch:
Budget authority......................................... -60 0 0 0 0 0 -60
Outlays.................................................. -52 -8 0 0 0 0 -60
1002 Rescission of funds for the Exec. Office of the
President:
Budget authority......................................... -8 0 0 0 0 0 -8
Outlays.................................................. -8 -2 0 0 0 0 -8
1004 Cuts federal overhead expenses:
Authorization............................................ -6000 0 0 0 0 0 -6000
Outlays.................................................. -3000 -2300 -600 -100 0 0 -6000
1005 Rescind funds for AID, State, and USIA:
Budget authority......................................... -172 0 0 0 0 0 -172
Outlays.................................................. -20 -93 -32 -13 -6 0 -164
1008 Rescission funds for the arts and humanities programs:
Budget authority......................................... -15 0 0 0 0 0 -15
Outlays.................................................. -9 -4 -1 -1 0 0 -15
1009 Rescission from the Federal buildings fund\1\:
Budget authority......................................... -150 0 0 0 0 0 -150
Outlays.................................................. -4 -15 -38 -50 -29 -10 -146
1010 Rescind funds for Appalachian Regional Commission:
Budget authority......................................... -59 0 0 0 0 0 -59
Outlays.................................................. -3 -15 -18 -10 -7 -6 -59
1011 Rescind funds for Legal Services Corporation:
Budget authority......................................... -33 0 0 0 0 0 -33
Outlays.................................................. -25 -8 0 0 0 0 -33
1012 Rescind fund for Community Development Block Grants:
Budget authority......................................... -180 0 0 0 0 0 -180
Outlays.................................................. -7 -74 -74 -25 0 0 -180
1013 Rescind funds for TVA:
Budget authority......................................... -23 0 0 0 0 0 -23
Outlays.................................................. -18 -6 0 0 0 0 -23
1014 Suvstitute voucher assistance for public housing new
construction:
Budget authority......................................... -367 0 0 0 0 0 -367
Outlays.................................................. 2 24 -48 -64 -91 -67 -245
1015 Rescind funds for EDA:
Budget authority......................................... -80 0 0 0 0 0 -80
Outlays.................................................. -8 -25 -25 -15 -6 -2 -80
1017 Rescind funds for International Development Assocation:
Budget authority......................................... -67 0 0 0 0 0 -67
Outlays.................................................. -9 -9 -9 -12 -7 0 -47
1020 Rescind funds for World Bank:
Budget authority......................................... -28 0 0 0 0 0 -28
Outlays.................................................. -3 -13 -13 0 0 0 -28
1021 Rescind funds for UN Peacekeeping:
Budget authority......................................... -13 0 0 0 0 0 -13
Outlays.................................................. -9 -4 0 0 0 0 -13
1102 Rescind funds for NOAA research fleet:
Budget authority......................................... -65 0 0 0 0 0 -65
Outlays.................................................. -10 -16 -23 -13 -3 0 -65
1105 Repeal national small business tree planting program:
Budget authority..................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays.............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total--Rescissions:
Budget authority......................................... -7321 0 0 0 0 0 -7321
Outlays.................................................. -3181 -2567 -879 -304 -150 -85 -7167
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The estimates for the federal buildings fund do not include budgetary impacts from the one-year moratorium included in the bill. The moratorium would
have no net impact on outlays over the 1994-1999 period.

TABLE 3.--SENATOR DOLE'S PROPOSAL: DISCRETIONARY SPENDING ASSUMPTIONS, RELATIVE TO CBO'S UNCONSTRAINED BASELINE
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Section number, proposal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6-Yr. Sum
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1001 Reduce legislative branch approp. by 7.5 percent:
Authorization............................................ 0 -125 -130 -135 -140 -145 -675
Outlays.................................................. 0 -114 -128 -133 -138 -143 -656
1002 Reduce Exec. Office of the President appropriations by
7.5 percent:
Authorization............................................ 0 -17 -18 -18 -19 -19 -91
Outlays.................................................. 0 -12 -16 -17 -18 -19 -83
1004 Cut federal overhead expenses:
Authorization............................................ 0 -7400 -10200 -10500 -10800 -11000 -49900
Outlays.................................................. 0 -5500 -9100 -10300 -10700 -11000 -46600
1005Cut AID, State, and USIA:
Authorization............................................ 0 -177 -182 -187 -192 -197 -934
Outlays.................................................. 0 -20 -117 -153 -170 -180 -640
1006 Davis-Bacon contract threshold at $100,000:
Authorization............................................ -16 -62 -33 -34 -35 -36 -216
Outlays.................................................. -2 -14 -24 -28 -30 -32 -130
1007 Repeal prohibition on use of Davis-Bacon helpers:
Authorization............................................ 0 -425 0 0 0 0 -425
Outlays.................................................. 0 -60 -187 -133 -33 -13 -425
1008 Reduction in funding for arts and humanities programs:
Authorization............................................ 0 -81 -146 -201 -256 -293 -977
Outlays.................................................. 0 -60 -127 -181 -236 -278 -882
1010 Cut Appalachian Regional Commission:
Authorization............................................ 0 -61 -62 -64 -66 -67 -319
Outlays.................................................. 0 -3 -18 -37 -49 -57 -164
1011 Cut Legal Services Corporation:
Authorization............................................ 0 -205 -211 -217 -222 -228 -1084
Outlays.................................................. 0 -181 -210 -216 -222 -228 -1056
1012 Cut Community Development Block Grants:
Authorization............................................ 0 -299 -422 -545 -673 -805 -2744
Outlays.................................................. 0 -12 -139 -317 -465 -591 -1525
1013 Cut TVA:
Authorization............................................ 0 -24 -25 -25 -26 -27 -126
Outlays.................................................. 0 -7 -20 -23 -25 -26 -101
1014 Substitute voucher assistance for public housing new
construction:
Authorization............................................ 0 -377 -387 -398 -408 -419 -1989
Outlays.................................................. 0 2 15 -37 -105 -200 -325
1015 Cut funds for EDA:
Authorization............................................ 0 -82 -84 -87 -89 -91 -433
Outlays.................................................. 0 -4 -30 -56 -73 -81 -243
1016 Disabled employees reemployment:
Authorization............................................ 0 9 -2 -28 -31 -30 -82
Outlays.................................................. 0 8 -1 -28 -31 -30 -82
1017 Cut International Development Association:
Authorization............................................ 0 -69 -71 -73 -75 -77 -364
Outlays.................................................. 0 -10 -20 -30 -43 -51 -153
1018 Federal-private cogeneration of electricity:
Authorization............................................ 0 0 0 -30 -30 -30 -90
Outlays.................................................. 0 0 0 -10 -25 -30 -65
1020 Cut World Bank funding:
Authorization............................................ 0 -29 -29 -30 -31 -32 -151
Outlays.................................................. 0 -3 -16 -29 -30 -31 -109
1101 Sell Alaska Power Administration-operating costs
savings:
Authorization............................................ 0 0 -4 -5 -5 -5 -19
Outlays.................................................. 0 0 -4 -4 -5 -5 -18
1102 Reduce funding for NOAA research fleet:
Authorization............................................ 0 -123 -127 -130 -134 -138 -652
Outlays.................................................. 0 -19 -50 -94 -122 -131 -416
1104 Terminate State Justice Institute:
Authorization............................................ 0 -14 -14 -15 -15 -16 -74
Outlays.................................................. 0 -4 -9 -13 -15 -15 -55
1105 Repeal national small business tree planting program:
Authorization............................................ 0 -17 -17 -18 -18 -19 -89
Outlays.................................................. 0 -12 -16 -18 -18 -19 -83
1106 Contracting for certain functions of the Department of
Defense:
Authorization............................................ 0 \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\
Outlays.................................................. 0 \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\
1201-1208 Eliminating Government Printing Monopoly:
Authorization............................................ 0 0 -50 -100 -100 -110 -360
Outlays.................................................. 0 0 -40 -80 -100 -100 -320
2001 USDA consolidation:
Authorization............................................ 0 -31 -112 -178 -254 -330 -905
Outlays.................................................. 0 -30 -108 -175 -250 -326 -889
2051-2081 Procurement reform for commercial items:
Authorization............................................ 0 \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\
Outlays.................................................. 0 \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\
2101 Amend the Copeland Act:
Authorization............................................ 0 -85 -90 -90 -95 -95 -455
Outlays.................................................. 0 -20 -50 -70 -80 -85 -305
2102 Consolidate social services programs:
Authorization............................................ 0 -96 -99 -101 -103 -106 -505
Outlays.................................................. 0 -55 -63 -330 -103 -106 -531
2103 Increased flexibility in contracting for Medicare claims
processing:
Authorization............................................ 0 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -30
Outlays.................................................. 0 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -30
2107 HUD multifamily housing disposition process:
Authorization............................................ 0 -6 -7 -7 -7 -7 -34
Outlays.................................................. 0 -4 -6 -7 -7 -7 -31
3005 Annual financial reports:
Authorization............................................ 0 0 0 2 2 2 6
Outlays.................................................. 0 0 0 2 2 2 6
3006 Deter fraud and abuse in FECA program:
Authorization............................................ 0 \2\ \2\ -1 -1 -1 -3
Outlays.................................................. 0 \2\ \2\ -1 -1 -1 -3
Total--Authorization Changes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization............................................ -16 -9801 -12529 -13220 -13828 -14326 -63719
Outlays.................................................. -2 -6139 -10364 -12523 -13097 -13787 -55913
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Potential savings cannot be estimated.
\2\Less than $500,000.

TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF CBO'S ESTIMATES FOR SENATOR DOLE'S PROPOSAL
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Spending category ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6-Year sum
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending:
Estimated budget authority............................... -425 -114 -132 -227 -271 -335 -1507
Estimated outlays........................................ -470 -150 -132 -227 -271 -335 -1588
Rescissions:
Estimated budget authority............................... -7321 0 0 0 0 0 -7321
Estimated outlays........................................ -3181 -2567 -879 -304 -150 -85 -7167
Social Security:
Estimated budget authority............................... -30 -40 -25 -20 -15 -15 -145
Estimated outlays........................................ -30 -40 -25 -20 -15 -15 -145
Asset sale receipts:
Estimated budget authority............................... 0 -83 0 0 0 0 -83
Estimated outlays........................................ 0 -83 0 0 0 0 -83
Authorizations, subject to appropriations:
Estimated authorization level............................ -16 -9801 -12529 -13220 -13828 -14326 -63719
Estimated Outlays........................................ -2 -6139 -10364 -12523 -13097 -13787 -55913

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, history has shown that there are two keys
necessary to effectively reduce the Federal budget deficit. The first
is to strengthen the economy, make the pie bigger. Business prospers.
Jobs and opportunity increase. Families have more disposable income.
Tax revenues soar, the Treasury reaps a windfall, and government is
better able to care for its legitimate responsibilities.
But this key, alone, will not work. To take control of the deficit,
it is not enough to strengthen the economy.
The record-setting economic growth of the eighties proved that a
second key is needed if we are to place this country back on a sound
financial foundation. Due largely to the income tax cuts that
stimulated the longest peacetime economic expansion in history, Federal
revenues between 1980 and 1992 increased by 100 percent. Money poured
into the Treasury. It is true that Americans were paying a lower
percentage of their income to taxes, but the windfall resulted because
Americans were making more money--much more, as some 18 million new
jobs were created and more than 4 million new businesses opened their
doors.
While these economic boom years cut into the budget deficit, reducing
it by more than 60 percent between 1986 to 1989, from $227 to $142
billion in 1987 dollars, the economic expansion was not as effective as
it should have been in addressing the long-term deficit problem. Why?
The answer is simple. And it points to the second key we must use if we
are to effectively cut the deficit. That key is responsible Government
spending.
As the New York Times' David Rosenbaum wrote: ``One popular
misconception is that the Republican tax cuts caused the crippling
Federal budget deficit. * * * The fact is, the large deficit resulted
because the Government vastly increased what it spent each year. * *
*'' In other words, had Congress been able to control the Federal
appetite in the eighties, it is very possible that the deficit would
not be the issue it is today.
There are two keys, Mr. President, the first is to strengthen the
economy, the second is to cut Government spending, to make Washington
more responsible and keep the money in the private sector where it can
be invested to create jobs.
Growth and jobs--global competitiveness--these are the goals we seek
in our governmental policy. Frankly, I believe portions of President
Clinton's budget offers a first step toward effectively using the
second key. While his record-setting tax increases last year were
certainly a set back--as millions of Americans will discover come
April--the near 300 cuts he calls for in Government programs
demonstrate that he understands and is willing to make hard choices
when it comes to trimming the size and growth of the bureaucracy. While
I do not necessariy agree with all of his cuts, I am encouraged by the
fact that he proposes to eliminate over 100 Government programs.
But as I said, Mr. President, this budget is only a first step. We
must see it as a beginning. With members of his party controlling both
Houses of Congress, President Clinton should be able to go much farther
in trimming and cutting and regaining control over a government that
has become far too fat for its own good. I believe President Clinton is
right to reallocate money to reflect the priorities of his
administration. He's right to do this rather than simply raise more
taxes, upon the taxes he imposed last year, thus further increasing the
financial burden Government places upon American families. But
certainly the cuts he calls for are not the only cuts that can be made.
For example, the 115 program eliminations listed only cuts $3.2 billion
from the budget: $3.2 billion out of a $1.5 trillion budget. That's
only 3 cents of cuts for every $15 of spending.
And to put that $3.2 billion into perspective, the SSN 21 Sea Wolf, a
submarine designed to hunt and kill Soviet nuclear strategic
submarines--Soviet subs that are no longer a threat--costs well over $3
billion apiece to build, operate and maintain. Cut that one program and
we could immediately double or triple the savings to the taxpayers.
President Clinton does make cuts in defense. In fact, what he is
calling for is the most dramatic defense cuts since World War II.
Unfortunately, these cuts do not fall on all the right programs; many
do not reflect the real needs and strategic changes in today's defense
policy. For example, programs like the SSN 21 Sea Wolf continue, while
reductions in operation and maintenance seriously undermine the
readiness of our Armed Forces--readiness which proved itself invaluable
during Operation Desert Storm.
Events continue to demonstrate that this is an unsafe world. In many
ways, conflicts in the post-cold war environment are greater in number
and much more complex in nature. We need to reinstate the defense
firewall and insure that there are adequate funds and that those funds
are spent on defense needs to reflect world security demands. While we
do not need SSN 21 submarines, at some $3 billion a copy, to track a
marine threat that has radically diminished, we do need well-trained
troops--men and women with high morale and the best equipment
available.
My other major problem with this budget concerns all that President
Clinton fails to include. Despite the fact that the most costly item on
President Clinton's domestic agenda is health care reform--that reform
is not fully addressed in this budget. We need answers, Mr. President.
The American people deserve full disclosure. This budget does not
deliver it, and one has to ask, ``Why?'' While we may have $3.2 billion
in spending cuts in this $1.5 trillion package, I fear that there is
much, much more money that the President plans to spend that he has not
even included in the report.
The President has, time and again, made reference to his appreciation
for Thomas Jefferson. There's a little advice Thomas Jefferson left us
that I believe President Clinton would do well to follow. I gave this
same advice to his predecessor. Jefferson said, the finances of the
Union should be ``as clear and intelligible as a merchant's books, so
that every Member of Congress, and every man of any mind in the Union,
should be able to comprehend them to investigate abuses, and
consequently control them.''
Given this criterion, this budget is beyond redemption.
But again, Mr. President, I applaud the fact that it does include an
effort to contain costs. I hope it indicates that President Clinton is
serious about moving forward with real deficit reduction. If we are
really going to get the budget down and legitimately address the
deficit, it will take a combination of cuts--both small and large. It
will take long-term economic growth--growth based on responsible and
reasonable taxation. The two must go hand in hand.
The time has come to get serious about cutting Government spending,
about downsizing, about enhancing the performance of Government and
holding it accountable for its performance. This can be done. The
President's budget is a first step, but only a first step. I'm pleased
to announce that today we are introducing legislation that goes much
farther. It's called the Government Downsizing, Performance and
Accountability Act of 1994. It offers 50 recommendations that will
reduce the deficit by $55 billion over the next 5 years. At the same
time, it will make the Federal bureaucracy more efficient, improve the
legislative process and hold Government accountable for its actions.
These recommendations are not new; they come from the Grace
Commission, the National Performance Review, and other well-respected
studies and groups. They have four specific objectives: First, to save
the taxpayers money; second, to streamline the Federal bureaucracy;
third, to improve Government performance; and, fourth, to reform the
legislative process. These, of course, are all part of the second key I
have referred to, and they go far beyond the reductions and spending
control President Clinton has asked for in his budget.
Frankly, I believe the Government Downsizing, Performance and
Accountability Act is Government's answer to a trend that has already
taken hold in the private sector. In the competitive global economic
environment, those companies that are surviving--even thriving--are the
companies that are becoming lean, efficient and cost-effective; they
are the companies that are delivering more goods and services for the
money, the companies that can respond quicker and are accountable for
their performance. Governments should be no different.
Our client is the taxpayer, and frankly, the taxpayers aren't getting
their money's worth. The Government Downsizing, Performance and
Accountability Act is a good first step toward correcting that.
It includes 8 proposals to eliminate, phase-out or privatize Federal
programs, and 22 more specific proposals to cut spending. Both the
legislative and the executive branches are called upon to make cuts.
The plan also includes 10 proposals to reduce Government bureaucracy by
consolidating overlapping Government agencies, reducing paperwork, and
streamlining procedures. And, I am pleased to say, it contains what I
believe is a critical tool for fiscal responsibility--a tool most
Americans want to see adopted--the line-item veto.
Mr. President, this plan is specific. It is workable. It is needed.
It is an example of the second key to taking control of Federal
spending. While I applaud President Clinton's cost containment in the
budget he has just delivered, I believe most--if not all--Americans
would agree that much more needs to be done. The Government Downsizing,
Performance and Accountability Act is one more important step. I
encourage all of my colleagues to embrace it.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, I am pleased to
join today with our Republican leader, Senator Dole, and 15 of our
colleagues in introducing the Government Downsizing, Performance and
Accountability Act. Also known as the 50-50 bill, this legislation
comprises a 50-point plan to cut Federal spending by more than $50
billion over the next 5 years. Most importantly, these savings would
apply to deficit reduction because the bill would lower the
discretionary spending caps.
I have been part of an informal task force that has shaped this bill
over the last few months drawing from recommendations of the Grace
Commission, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Vice President's
National Performance Review, Penny-Kasich, and the legislation of
yesterday, the Kerry-Brown amendment, and a lot of other individual
Senator's ideas. I commend the leader and his staff for their work in
pulling together the many diverse ideas and interests that are embodied
in this bill.
In a similar legislative vein, I am disappointed that the Senate did
not adopt the spending cut amendment proposed yesterday by the Senator
from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] to
the disaster relief bill that is before us.
Earlier yesterday, the press reported the Senator from Nebraska to be
discouraged that some Senators would vote against his amendment while
supporting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This is one
Senator who voted for the Kerrey-Brown amendment, and I am one of the
original authors of the balanced budget amendment that we will be
debating in the Chamber by the end of this month.
I understand and I share his frustration. However, I point out to him
that the Senate did not adopt his amendment because it was not worthy;
it certainly was. It was important. But I wish he would become a
cosponsor of our balanced-budget amendment and bring to the floor once
and for all this debate, which would then make a Kerrey-Brown type
amendment, something on which this Congress could not ``pass go,'' or
this Senate could not ``pass go,'' as it did yesterday, but it would
have to wrestle with it in a much more sincere vain.

It is just this kind of frustration, with a business as usual budget
process, that has converted many former skeptics into committed
supporters of a balanced budget amendment. In fact, one of those is the
chairman of the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee that has led
this issue, Senator Paul Simon, of Illinois, in his support and his
leadership on Senate Joint Resolution 41.
It is understandable if many of my colleagues have turned to a
constitutional mandate out of frustration. We saw the reason yesterday
in the Chamber. Today, we introduce a bill which we hope can become
law. But more than likely the process and the forces inside the process
will submerge it or sidetrack it in a way that it will not bet a fair
up-or-down vote.
So when I speak out about a balanced budget amendment, as I did in
the Chamber last week, it is to demonstrate that a fundamental and
critical right is at stake, the right of the people to be free from the
burdens created by excessive Government debt. Today, I wish to rise to
point out that the nature and the importance of this right make it the
very kind of right traditionally and appropriately protected in the
Constitution.
Mr. President, you know that the Constitution is that which spells
out our rights and protects them. I argue that the right to be free
from Federal debt for future generations is just as important a right
as all of the others that are embodied in the Constitution.
Last week I noted that President Woodrow Wilson had made the clear
difference between spending without taxation and taxation without
representation as being one and the same.
This was more than just a comparison. Deficit spending is in fact a
form of taxation without representation. Deficit spending confers a
benefit to one group in our society--those who benefit from the
largesse of the Government in the immediate sense--at the expense of an
innocent and unrepresented group who are sent the bill in the next
generation. This is something this Congress and this Senate has to
stop. Starting on February 22, we will have an opportunity to debate a
constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 41, that brings all
that have to focus for the first time in this body in a good many
years.
Let us remember, Mr. President, that we fought a revolution over
taxation without representation, and when you talk to young people
today who realize that the Federal Government already has a $17,000
debt bill to hand them when they become of age, when they become voters
and taxpayers, I do not blame them for being frustrated. I would argue
that they ought to be angry over that kind of an approach.
The issue of taxation without representation was addressed originally
in the Constitution by allowing bills to raise revenue to originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives. Remember that, originally,
the significance of the popular vote was unforseen in Presidential
elections and U.S. Senators were chosen by State legislatures. The
House was the only part of any of the three branches that was popularly
chosen and directly representative of the people. The Framers assumed
that limiting tax bills to originating in the House would adequately
protect the right of those who are taxed to be fully represented.
The Framers, of course, could not foresee that they had accounted for
only one-half of the equation.
They also assumed as a given that, by specifically enumerating the
relatively few powers of the Federal Government, and because of their
understanding of the definitions of those powers, they were creating a
Federal Government that always would be small as national governments
go, with its scope strictly limited.
And in fact, as late as 1929, the Federal Government accounted for
only about 3 percent of the gross national product.
Therefore, the Framers never envisioned a Federal Government that
could grow to a size and scope where its budgetary activities could
profoundly affect the economy.
Similarly, the Framers assumed a government with its finances
tethered by adherence to a gold standard. This firm assumption was
indirectly acknowledged in Article I, section 10, which still says, in
part, ``No State shall * * * make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a
Tender in Payment of Debts. * * *'' Thus, the Government's ability to
borrow would be further constrained by the limited ability of the money
supply to expand to accommodate it.
Finally, historical authorities agree that the norm of balanced
budgets at virtually all times except during war was always a part of
the unwritten constitution.
For example, University of Virginia professor, William Breit, was
quoted in 1985, in the Judiciary Committee's Senate Report 99-162, as
follows:

The balanced-budget rule which served as part of the
Constitution was, of course, not in the form of a written
statement. * * * But it nevertheless had constitutional
status. For expenditures in excess of receipts were
considered to be in violation of moral principles. The
imperative of the balanced budget was an extra-legal rule or
custom that grew up around the formal document. It existed
outside the precise letter of the Constitution on all fours
with the system of political parties, the presidential
cabinet, the actual operation of the electoral
college system, and the doctrine of judicial review.

The original Constitution was bitterly controversial. It was ratified
by a handful of votes in several States, and then only after firm
promises were made to add a Bill of Rights in the First Congress.
In other words, many of the Framers did not think it was really that
necessary to include explicit provisions protecting rights like freedom
of speech and religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and freedom
from unreasonable searches and seizures. Even more so, they could
hardly imagine the need for a balanced budget provision, because even a
government that would quarter soldiers in private homes and impose
taxation without representation, as the British despot had done, would
not be so reckless in its operations as to incur massive debts.
Uniquely among the Nation's Founders, however, Thomas Jefferson did
foresee what abuses of the public purse were possible. That's why, in a
1798 letter to John Taylor, he wrote:

I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our
constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for
the reduction of the administration of our government to the
genuine principles of its constitution; I mean an additional
article, taking from the federal government the power of
borrowing.

And again, in 1798, he wrote:

If there is one omission I fear in the document called the
Constitution, it is that we did not restrict the power of
government to borrow money.

Jefferson and John Adams were perhaps the most adamant among the
Founders to insist that refraining from excessive indebtedness was a
moral imperative for the Government. Unfortunately, when the original
Constitution was being drafted, Jefferson was representing our young
Nation in France and Adams was in England. Had they not been abroad, we
probably would not have to debate a balanced budget amendment today.
When the Senate returns after President's Day, I will resume this
discussion of how the balanced budget amendment is appropriate to the
rest of the Constitution, how the fundamental rights it seeks to
protect have been violated and the people harmed, and how a
constitutional amendment is the only remedy.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Dole and
15 of my colleagues in introducing the Government Downsizing,
Performance, and Accountability Act of 1994 and to call for its prompt
enactment.
Its not surprising to me, Mr. President, that when something goes on
for a long time we forget that it's happening. We get distracted by
daily life and don't notice it anymore. Modern technology makes space
flight and satellite communications possible, and as time passes we
don't even notice when a space shuttle flight takes off or when we see
events shown live on television from the other side of the world.
But if we overspend on our credit cards, we get a bill in the mail at
the end of the month. We have to notice it--it's a rude awakening that
no matter how we rationalize spending, eventually we need cash to pay
the bill. But too many Senators don't look at the accounts of the
Treasury, mailed to us each month, so we keep spending more money.
We're $4.5 trillion in debt, and we keep spending money, and borrowing
to pay the interest, and because daily life goes on we don't notice
that we're moving towards financial ruin.
Financial ruin will come eventually because we can't afford to pay
the interest on an ever increasing debt. Gross interest on the public
debt for fiscal year 1994 is projected by President Clinton's budget to
be $299 billion. That's more than half of all domestic discretionary
spending. The budget deficit for fiscal year 1994 is less than
expected, but that is because of lower interest rates for financing the
debt and increases in taxes, not because of spending cuts. We can't
keep borrowing money to finance current spending. We must cut spending,
stop borrowing, and pay off the debt.
Our first step must be to cut spending now. That is why we are
introducing the Government Downsizing, Performance, and Accountability
Act of 1994 today. The Act contains 50 commonsense proposals to save
money and make the Government more efficient. The act includes my
Federal Government reduction plan, which will cut Federal
administrative expenses by $3 billion for fiscal years 1994 and 1995,
and freezes such expenses at the 1995 level for fiscal year 1996. The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this will save $41.7
billion over 5 years.
Administrative expenses that will be cut by the act include travel
and shipping; non-Government rents; communications and utilities;
printing; consultants fees; supplies and materials; and other services.
Administrative expenses under the act do not include expenses of the
Department of Defense, which has had its budget cut substantially
already. Administrative expenses under the act also do not include
certain program expenses that are accounted for under the Office of
Management and Budget's Object Class 25.2 ``other services'' expense
category.
The administrative expense cuts we are proposing will not harm
government services, but will streamline the Federal bureaucracy by
eliminating waste. I know firsthand that overhead can be trimmed, even
while productivity is increased. When a business or a corporation--
indeed, even a household--encounters financial trouble, the first thing
it does is cut overhead. The Federal Government can do the same. And
with the reduced number of Government employees needed under the
administration's reinventing government plan, less administrative
series will be needed.
The act contains 49 other proposals to save taxpayer's money,
streamline the Federal bureaucracy, improve Government performance, and
reform the legislative process. The act saves taxpayer's money by
cutting 7.5 percent from the legislative branch and Executive Office of
the President's budgets. I have voluntarily cut 20 percent from my
Senate office budget. The act improves Government performance by
imposing a single accounting standard instead of the 287 we are working
under now. The act reforms the legislative process by calling for a
line-item veto, a 5-year limit on authorization for new programs, and a
super-majority vote for emergency spending legislation.
Most important, the $50 billion that the Government Downsizing,
Performance and Accountability Act will save will all go towards
deficit reduction. The act ensures that the savings will not be spent
on any new spending plans because it reduces the discretionary spending
cap. Only by cutting spending and reducing the cap can we protect our
Nation's financial future. I urge my colleagues to join us by
supporting this act to reduce the deficit and the long-term burden of
carrying interest on the national debt.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 1844. A bill to transfer administrative consideration of
applications for Federal recognition of an Indian tribe to an
independent commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Indian Affairs.

indian federal recognition administrative procedures act of 1994

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Indian Federal
Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1994. I am pleased to note
that Senators Inouye and Cochran have joined with me as cosponsors of
this legislation.
From the earliest times, the Congress has acted to recognize the
unique government-to-government relationship with the tribes. There are
and always have been some Indian tribes which have not been recognized
by the Federal Government. This lack of recognition does not alter the
fact of the existence of the tribe or of its retained inherent
sovereignty; it merely means that there is no formal political
relationship between the tribal government and the Federal Government
and that the enrolled members of the tribe are not eligible for the
services and benefits accorded to Indians because of their status as
members of federally recognized Indian tribes.
Over the years, the Federal courts have ruled that recognition, while
solely within the authority of the Congress, may also be conferred
through actions of the executive branch. Both the President and the
Secretary of the Interior have historically acted in ways which the
courts have found to constitute recognition of Indian tribes. And
beginning in 1954, it was the established policy of the Congress to
officially sanction the termination of the Federal/tribal relationship.
This misguided policy was only effectively ended in 1970 when President
Nixon called for the beginning of an era of self-determination and the
end of termination.
In 1978, the Department of the Interior promulgated regulations to
establish criteria and procedures for the recognition of Indian tribes
by the Secretary. Since that time tribal groups have filed 147
petitions for review. Of those, 28 have been resolved and 75 are
letters expressing an intent to petition, and 7 require legislative
authority to proceed. The remainder are in various stages of
consideration by the Department. During this same time, the Congress
has recognized six other tribal groups through legislation.
In 1978, 1983, 1988, 1989, and 1992 the Committee on Indian Affairs
held oversight hearings on the Federal recognition process. At each of
those hearings the record has clearly shown that the process is not
working properly. The process in the Department of the Interior is time
consuming and costly. Some tribal groups allege that it leads to unfair
and unfounded results. It has been hindered by a lack of staff and
resources needed to fairly and promptly review all petitions, although
there has been some improvement over the years. At the same time, the
Congress extends recognition to tribes with little or no reference to
the legal standards and criteria employed by the Department. The result
is yet another layer of inconsistency and apparent unfairness.

The record from our previous hearings reveals a clear need for the
Congress to address the problems affecting the recognition process. I
believe that the bill we are introducing today will go a long way
toward resolving the problems which have plagued both the Department
and the petitioners over the years. This bill is not an attempt to
rewrite the existing body of laws that apply to the recognition
process. It incorporates the Secretary's existing recognition criteria
and by doing so avoids the need to reevaluate prior decisions of the
Department and the need for tribal groups to file new petitions.
The Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act provides
for the creation of the Commission on Indian Recognition. The
Commission will be composed of three members appointed by the
President. The Commission would be authorized to hold hearings, take
testimony, and reach final determinations on petitions for recognition.
The bill provides realistic timeliness to guide the Commission in the
review and decisionmaking process. Under the existing process, some
petitioners have waited 10 years or more for even a cursory review of
their petition. The bill we are introducing today requires the
Commission to complete an initial review within 12 months from the date
of the filing of the petition. It also requires the Commission to make
a proposed finding on the petition within 1 year from the date that
active consideration of the petition began.
To ensure fairness, the bill provides for appeals of adverse
decisions to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. To ensure promptness, the bill authorizes increased funding
for the costs of processing petitions through the Commission and to
assist petitioners in the development of their petitions. This bill
will also provide finality for both the petitioners and the Department.
The Department has had a process of one type or another for recognizing
Indian tribes since the 1930's. Great uncertainty has existed about how
or when this process might be concluded and how many Indian tribes will
ultimately be recognized. I believe that it is in the interests of all
parties to have a clear deadline for the completion of the recognition
process. Accordingly, the bill requires all interested tribal groups to
file their petitions within 6 years after the date of enactment and the
Commission must complete all of its work within 12 years from the date
of enactment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the
Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1994 and a
section-by-section summary be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1844

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

SHORT TITLE

Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Federal
Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1994''.

PURPOSES

Sec. 2. The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) establish an administrative procedure for the
recognition of the existence of certain Indian tribes;
(2) extend to Indian groups the protection, services, and
benefits available from the Federal Government pursuant to
the Federal trust responsibility;
(3) extend to Indian groups the immunities and privileges
available to federally recognized Indian tribes as well as
the responsibilities and obligations of such Indian tribes;
(4) ensure that the special government-to-government
relationship between the United States and Indian tribes has
a consistent legal and historical basis;
(5) provide clear and consistent standards of
administrative review of recognition petitions for Indian
groups; and
(6) expedite the administrative review process by providing
definitive timelines for review and adequate resources to
process recognition petitions.

DEFINITIONS

Sec. 3. For purposes of this Act--
(1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior or a representative designated by the Secretary of
the Interior.
(2) The term ``Commission'' means the independent
commission established under section 4.
(3) The term ``Department'' means the Department of the
Interior.
(4) The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of Indian Affairs
of the Department of the Interior.
(5) The term ``area office'' means an area office of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(6) The term ``Indian tribe'' means any Indian entity
that--
(A) is located within any of the States of the United
States, and
(B) is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior to be an
Indian tribe.
(7) The term ``Indian group'' means any Indian entity
that--
(A) is located within any of the States of the United
States, and
(B) is not recognized by the Secretary of the Interior to
be an Indian tribe.
(8) The term ``petitioner'' means any entity which has
submitted, or submits, a petition to the Secretary requesting
recognition that the entity is an Indian tribe.
(9) The term ``autonomous'' means having its own tribal
council, internal process, or other organizational mechanism
which the Indian group has used as its own means of making
decisions independent of the control of any other Indian
governing entity, and in using such term for purposes of this
Act, such term must be understood in the context of the
culture and social organization of that Indian group.
(10) The term ``member of an Indian group'' means an
individual who--
(A) is recognized by an Indian group as meeting its
membership criteria;
(B) consents to being listed as a member of that group; and
(C) is not a member of any Indian tribe.
(11) The term ``member of an Indian tribe'' means an
individual who--
(A) meets the membership requirements of the Indian tribe,
as set forth in its governing document or recognized
collectively by those persons comprising the governing body
of the Indian tribe, and
(B) has continuously maintained tribal relations with the
tribe, or is listed on the tribal rolls of that Indian tribe
as a member, if such rolls are maintained.
(12) The term ``historical'' means dating back to the
earliest documented contact between--
(A) the aboriginal Indian group from which the petitioners
descended, and
(B) citizens or officials of the United States, colonial or
territorial governments, or if relevant, citizens and
officials of foreign governments from which the United States
acquired territory.
(13) The term ``continuous'' means, with respect to any
Indian group, extending from generation to generation
throughout the Indian group's history essentially without
interruption.
(14) The term ``indigenous'' means native to the area that
constitutes the continental United States in that at least
part of the group's aboriginal range extended into what is
now the area that constitutes the continental United States.
(15) The term ``community'' means any people living within
such a reasonable proximity as to allow group interaction and
maintenance of tribal relations.
(16) The term ``other party'' means any affected person or
organization other than the petitioner who submits comments
or evidence in support of, or in opposition to, a petition.
(17) The term ``petition'' means a petition submitted to
the Commission under section 5(a)(1) or transferred to the
Commission under section 5(a)(3).
(18) The term ``treaty'' means any treaty--
(A) negotiated and ratified by the United States with, or
on behalf of, any Indian group,
(B) made by any sovereign with, or on behalf of, any Indian
group, whereby the United States acquired territory by
purchase or cession, or
(C) negotiated by the United States with, or on behalf of,
any Indian group in California, whether or not the treaty was
subsequently ratified.

COMMISSION ON INDIAN RECOGNITION

Sec. 4. (a)(1) There is established, as an independent
commission, the ``Commission on Indian Recognition''.
(2)(A) The Commission shall consist of 3 members appointed
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.
(B) No more than 2 members of the Commission may be members
of the same political party.
(C) The Commission shall hold its first meeting no later
than 30 days after the date on which all members of the
Commission have been appointed and confirmed by the Senate.
(D) Each member of the Commission shall be entitled to one
vote which shall be equal to the vote of every other member
of the Commission.
(E) Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its
powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in which the
original appointment was made.
(F) In making appointments to the Commission, the President
shall give careful consideration to--
(i) recommendations received from Indian tribes, and
(ii) individuals who have a background in Indian law or
policy, anthropology, genealogy, or history.
(3) At the time appointments are made under paragraph
(2)(A), the President shall designate one of such appointees
as chairman of the Commission.
(4) Two members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum
for the transaction of business.
(5) The Commission may adopt such rules (consistent with
the provisions of this Act) as may be necessary to establish
its procedures and to govern the manner of its operations,
organization, and personnel.
(b)(1)(A) Each member of the Commission not otherwise
employed by the United States Government shall receive
compensation at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day, including traveltime, such member
is engaged in the actual performance of duties authorized by
the Commission.
(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), a member of the
Commission who is otherwise an officer or employee of the
United States Government shall serve on the Commission
without additional compensation, but such service shall be
without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(C) All members of the Commission shall be reimbursed for
travel and per diem in lieu of subsistence expenses during
the performance of duties of the Commission while away from
home or their regular place of business, in accordance with
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) The principal office of the Commission shall be in the
District of Columbia.
(c) The Commission shall carry out the duties assigned to
the Commission by this Act, and shall meet the requirements
imposed on the Commission by this Act.
(d)(1) Subject to such rules and regulations as may be
adopted by the Commission, the chairman of the Commission is
authorized to--
(A) appoint, terminate, and fix the compensation (without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
governing appointments in the competitive service, and
without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of such title, or of any other provision of
law, relating to the number, classification, and General
Schedule rates) of an Executive Director of the Commission
and of such other personnel as the chairman deems advisable
to assist in the performance of the duties of the Commission,
at a rate not to exceed a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code; and
(B) procure, as authorized by section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, temporary and intermittent services to
the same extent as is authorized by law for agencies in the
executive branch, but at rates not to exceed the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such
title.
(2) The Commission is authorized--
(A) to hold such hearings and sit and act at such times,
(B) to take such testimony,
(C) to have such printing and binding done,
(D) subject to the availability of funds, to enter into
such contracts and other arrangements,
(E) to make such expenditures, and
(F) to take such other actions,
as the Commission may deem advisable. Any member of the
Commission may administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses
appearing before the Commission.
(3) The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
shall not apply to the Commission established under this
section.
(4)(A) The Commission is authorized to secure directly from
any officer, department, agency, establishment, or
instrumentality of the Federal Government such information as
the Commission may require for the purpose of this Act, and
each such officer, department, agency, establishment, or
instrumentality is authorized and directed to furnish, to the
extent permitted by law, such information, suggestions,
estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon
request made by the chairman of the Commission.
(B) Upon the request of the chairman of the Commission, the
head of any Federal department, agency, or instrumentality is
authorized to make any of the facilities and services of such
department, agency, or instrumentality available to the
Commission and detail any of the personnel of such
department, agency, or instrumentality to the Commission, on
a nonreimbursable basis, to assist the Commission in carrying
out its duties under this section.
(C) The Commission may use the United States mails in the
same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the United States.
(e) The Commission shall cease to exist on the date that is
60 days after the date on which the Commission publishes in
the Federal Register the last determination the Commission is
required to make under section 8(b) with respect to petitions
filed under section 5(a). All records, documents, and
materials of the Commission, prior to its termination, shall
be transferred by the Commission to the National Archives and
Records Administration.

PETITIONS FOR RECOGNITION

Sec. 5. (a)(1) Any Indian group that is indigenous
(including any Indian group whose relationship with the
Federal Government was terminated by law) may submit to the
Commission, during the 72-month period beginning on the date
of enactment of this Act, a petition requesting that the
Commission recognize that the Indian group is an Indian
tribe.
(2) The provisions of this Act do not apply to the
following groups or entities, which shall not be eligible for
recognition under this Act--
(A) Indian tribes, organized bands, pueblos, communities,
and Alaska Native entities which are already recognized by
the Secretary as eligible to receive services from the
Bureau;
(B) splinter groups, political factions, communities, or
groups of any character which separate from the main body of
an Indian tribe that, at the time of such separation, is
recognized as being an Indian tribe by the Secretary, unless
it can be clearly established that the group, faction, or
community has functioned throughout history until the date of
such petition as an autonomous Indian tribal entity; and
(C) groups, or successors in interest of groups, that prior
to the date of enactment of this Act, have petitioned for,
and been denied or refused, recognition as an Indian tribe
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(3) No later than 30 days after the date on which all of
the members of the Commission have been appointed and
confirmed by the Senate, the Secretary shall transfer to the
Commission all petitions pending before the Department that
request the Secretary, or the Federal Government, to
recognize or acknowledge an Indian group as an Indian tribe.
On the date of such transfer, the Secretary and the
Department shall cease to have any authority to recognize or
acknowledge, on behalf of the Federal Government, any Indian
group as an Indian tribe. Petitions transferred to the
Commission under this paragraph shall, for purposes of this
Act, be considered as having been submitted to the Commission
as of the date of such transfer.
(b) Any petition submitted under subsection (a) by an
Indian group shall be in a form which clearly indicates that
it is a petition requesting the Commission to recognize that
the Indian group is an Indian tribe and shall contain each of
the following:
(1) A statement of facts establishing that the petitioner
has been identified from historical times until the present,
on a substantially continuous basis, as Indian, except that a
petitioner shall not be considered as having failed to
satisfy any requirement of this subsection merely because of
fluctuations of tribal activity during various years.
Evidence which can be offered to demonstrate Indian identity
of the petitioner on a substantially continuous basis shall
include one or more of the following:
(A) Repeated identification of the petitioner as Indian by
Federal authorities, including actions which constitute
legislative or administrative termination.
(B) Longstanding relationships of the petitioner with State
governments based on identification of the petitioner as
Indian.
(C) Repeated dealings of the petitioner with a county,
parish, or other local government in a relationship based on
the Indian identity of the petitioner.
(D) Repeated identification of the petitioner as an Indian
entity by records in courthouses, churches, or schools.
(E) Repeated identification of the petitioner as an Indian
entity by anthropologists, historians, or other scholars.
(F) Repeated identification of the petitioner as an Indian
entity in newspapers and books.
(G) Repeated identification of the petitioner as an Indian
entity by, and dealings of the petitioner as an Indian entity
with, Indian tribes or recognized national Indian
organizations.
(2) Evidence that--
(A) a substantial portion of the membership of the
petitioner lives in a community viewed as Indian and distinct
from other populations in the area, and
(B) members of the petitioner are descendants of an Indian
group or groups which historically inhabited a specific area.
(3) A statement of facts which establishes that the
petitioner has maintained tribal political influence or other
authority over its members as an autonomous entity from
historical times until the present.
(4) A copy of the present governing document of the
petitioner describing in full the membership criteria of the
petitioner and the procedures through which the petitioner
currently governs its affairs and members.
(5) A list of all current members of the petitioner and
their current addresses and a copy of each available former
list of members based on the petitioner's own defined
criteria. The membership must consist of individuals who have
established descendancy from an Indian group which existed
historically or from historical Indian groups which combined
and functioned as a single autonomous entity. Evidence of
tribal membership required by the Commission includes (but is
not limited to)--
(A) descendancy rolls prepared by the Secretary for the
petitioner for purposes of distributing claims money,
providing allotments, or other purposes;
(B) State, Federal, or other official records or evidence
identifying present members of the petitioner, or ancestors
of present members of the petitioner, as being an Indian
descendant and a member of the petitioner;
(C) church, school, and other similar enrollment records
indicating membership in the petitioner;
(D) affidavits of recognition by tribal elders, leaders, or
the tribal governing body as being an Indian descendant of
the Indian group and a member of the petitioner; and
(E) other records or evidence identifying the person as a
member of the petitioner.

NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF PETITION

Sec. 6. (a) Within 30 days after a petition is submitted or
transferred to the Commission under section 5(a), the
Commission shall send an acknowledgment of receipt in writing
to the petitioner and shall have published in the Federal
Register a notice of such receipt, including the name,
location, and mailing address of the petitioner and such
other information that will identify the entity submitting
the petition and the date the petition was received by the
Commission. The notice shall also indicate where a copy of
the petition may be examined.
(b) The Commission shall also notify, in writing, the
Governor and attorney general of, and each recognized Indian
tribe within, any State in which a petitioner resides.
(c) The Commission shall publish the notice of receipt of
the petition in a major newspaper of general circulation in
the town or city nearest the location of the petitioner. The
notice will include, in addition to the information described
in subsection (a), notice of opportunity for other parties to
submit factual or legal arguments in support of, or in
opposition to, the petition. Such submissions shall be
provided to the petitioner upon receipt by the Commission.
The petitioner shall be provided an opportunity to respond to
such submissions prior to a determination on the petition by
the Commission.

PROCESSING THE PETITION

Sec. 7. (a)(1) Upon receipt of a petition, the Commission
shall conduct a review to determine whether the petitioner is
entitled to be recognized as an Indian tribe.
(2) The review conducted under paragraph (1) shall include
consideration of the petition, supporting evidence, and the
factual statements contained in the petition.
(3) The Commission may also initiate other research for any
purpose relative to analyzing the petition and obtaining
additional information about the petitioner's status and may
consider any evidence which may be submitted by other
parties.
(b) Prior to actual consideration of the petition and by no
later than the date that is 12 months after the date on which
the petition is submitted or transferred to the Commission,
the Commission shall notify the petitioner of any obvious
deficiencies, or significant omissions, that are apparent
upon an initial review of the petition and provide the
petitioner with an opportunity to withdraw the petition for
further work or to submit additional information or a
clarification.
(c)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
petitions shall be considered on a first come, first served
basis, determined by the date of the original filing of the
petition with the Commission, or the Department of the
Interior if the petition is one transferred to the Commission
pursuant to section 5(a). The Commission shall establish a
priority register including those petitions pending before
the Department of the Interior on the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) Petitions that are submitted to the Commission by
Indian groups whose relationship with the Federal Government
was terminated by law or by Indian groups that were parties
to treaties--
(A) shall receive priority consideration over petitions
submitted by any other Indian groups, and
(B) shall be considered on an expedited basis.
(d) The Commission shall provide the petitioner and other
parties submitting comments on the petition notice of the
date on which the petition comes under active consideration.
(e) A petitioner may, at its option and upon written
request, withdraw its petition prior to publication in the
Federal Register by the Commission of proposed findings under
section 8(a) and may, if it so desires, resubmit a new
petition. A petitioner shall not lose its priority date by
withdrawing and resubmitting its petitions, but the time
periods provided in section 8(a) shall begin to run upon
active consideration of the resubmitted petition.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION

Sec. 8. (a)(1) Within 1 year after notifying the petitioner
under section 7(d) that active consideration of the petition
has begun, the Commission shall make a proposed finding on
the petition and shall publish the proposed finding in the
Federal Register.
(2) The Commission may delay making proposed findings on a
petition under paragraph (1) for 180 days upon a showing of
good cause by the petitioner.
(3) In addition to the proposed findings, the Commission
shall prepare a report on each petition which summarizes the
evidence for the proposed findings. Copies of such report
shall be available to the petitioner and to other parties
upon request.
(4) Upon publication of the proposed findings under
paragraph (1), any individual or organization wishing to
challenge the proposed findings shall have a response period
of 120 days to present factual or legal arguments and
evidence to rebut the evidence upon which the proposed
findings are based.
(b)(1) After consideration of any written arguments and
evidence submitted to rebut the proposed findings made under
subsection (a)(1), the Commission shall make a determination
of whether the petitioner is recognized by the Federal
Government to be an Indian tribe. Except as otherwise
provided by this Act, the determination shall be considered
to be a determination on such recognition by the Federal
Government, and shall also be treated as a determination on
such recognition by the Secretary, for all purposes of law.
(2) By no later than the date that is 60 days after the
close of the 120-day response period described in subsection
(a)(4), the Commission shall--
(A) make a determination of whether the petitioner is a
federally recognized Indian tribe;
(B) publish a summary of the determination in the Federal
Register; and
(C) deliver a copy of the determination and summary to the
petitioner.
(3) Any determination made under paragraph (1) shall become
effective on the date that is 60 days after the date on which
the summary of the determination is published under paragraph
(2).
(c) In making the proposed findings and determination under
this section with respect to any petition, the Commission
shall recognize the petitioner as an Indian tribe if the
petition meets all the requirements of section 5(b). The
Commission shall not make such findings or determination of
recognition of the petitioner if such requirements have not
been met by the petitioner.
(d) If the Commission determines under subsection (b)(1)
that the petitioner should not be recognized by the Federal
Government to be an Indian tribe, the Commission shall
analyze and forward to the petitioner other options, if any,
under which application for services and other benefits of
the Bureau may be made.
(e) A determination by the Commission that an Indian group
is recognized by the Federal Government as an Indian tribe
shall not--
(1) have the effect of depriving or diminishing the right
of any other Indian tribe to govern its reservation as such
reservation existed prior to the recognition of such Indian
group,
(2) have the effect of depriving or diminishing any
property right held in trust or recognized by the United
States for such other Indian tribe prior to the recognition
of such Indian group, or
(3) have the effect of depriving or diminishing any
previously or independently existing claim by a petitioner to
any such property right held in trust by the United States
for such other Indian tribe prior to the recognition of such
Indian group.

APPEALS

Sec. 9. (a) By no later than 60 days after the date on
which the summary of the determination of the Commission with
respect to a petition is published under section 8(b), the
petitioner, or any other party, may appeal the determination
to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
(b) The prevailing parties in the appeal described in
subsection (a) shall be eligible for an award of attorney
fees and costs under the provisions of section 504 of title
5, United States Code, or section 2412 of title 28 of such
Code, as the case may be.

IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS

Sec. 10. (a) Upon recognition by the Commission that the
petitioner is an Indian tribe, the Indian tribe shall be
eligible for the services and benefits from the Federal
Government that are available to other federally recognized
Indian tribes and entitled to the privileges and immunities
available to other federally recognized Indian tribes by
virtue of their status as Indian tribes with a government-to-
government relationship with the United States, as well as
having the responsibilities and obligations of such Indian
tribes. Such recognition shall subject the Indian tribes to
the same authority of Congress and the United States to which
other federally recognized tribes are subject.
(b) While the Indian tribes that are newly recognized under
this Act shall be eligible for benefits and services,
recognition of the Indian tribe under this Act will not
create an immediate entitlement to existing programs of the
Bureau. Such programs shall become available upon
appropriation of funds by law. Requests for appropriations
shall follow a determination of the needs of the newly
recognized Indian tribe.
(c) Within 6 months after an Indian tribe is recognized
under this Act, the appropriate area offices of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service shall consult
and develop in cooperation with the Indian tribe, and forward
to the respective Secretary, a determination of the needs of
the Indian tribe and a recommended budget required to serve
the newly recognized Indian tribe. The recommended budget
will be considered along with other recommendations by the
appropriate Secretary in the usual budget-request process.

LIST OF RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBES

Sec. 11. By no later than the date that is 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually
thereafter, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal
Register an up-to-date list of all Indian tribes which are
recognized by the Federal Government and receiving services
from the Bureau.

ACTIONS BY PETITIONERS FOR ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 12. Any petitioner may bring an action in the district
court of the United States for the district in which the
petitioner resides, or the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia, to enforce the provisions of this
Act, including any time limitations within which actions are
required to be taken, or decisions made, under this Act and
the district court shall issue such orders (including writs
of mandamus) as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of
this Act.

REGULATIONS

Sec. 13. The Commission is authorized to prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions
and purposes of this Act. All such regulations must be
published in accordance with the provisions of title 5,
United States Code.

GUIDELINES AND ADVICE

Sec. 14. (a) No later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall make available
suggested guidelines for the format of petitions, including
general suggestions and guidelines on where and how to
research required information, but such examples shall not
preclude the use of any other format.
(b) The Commission, upon request, is authorized to provide
suggestions and advice to any petitioner for his research
into the petitioner's historical background and Indian
identity. The Commission shall not be responsible for the
actual research on behalf of the petitioner.

ASSISTANCE TO PETITIONERS

Sec. 15. (a)(1) The Commissioner of the Administration for
Native Americans of the Department of Health and Human
Services may award grants to Indian groups seeking Federal
recognition to enable the Indian groups to--
(A) conduct the research necessary to substantiate
petitions under this Act, and
(B) prepare documentation necessary for the submission of a
petition under this Act.
(2) The grants made under this subsection shall be in
addition to any other grants the Commissioner of the
Administration for Native Americans is authorized to provide
under any other provision of law.
(b) Grants provided under subsection (a) shall be awarded
competitively based on objective criteria prescribed in
regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the
Administration for Native Americans.

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 16. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated for
the Commission for the purpose of carrying out the provisions
of this Act (other than section 15), $1,500,000 for fiscal
year 1995 and $1,500,000 for each of the 12 succeeding fiscal
years.
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated for the
Administration for Native Americans of the Department of
Health and Human Services for the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of section 15, $500,000 for fiscal year 1995 and
$500,000 for each of the 12 succeeding fiscal years.
____

Section-by-Section Summary

section 1

Section 1 cites the short title of the Act as the ``Indian
Federal Recognition Procedures Act of 1994.''

section 2

Section 2 sets out the purposes of the Act.

section 3

Section 3 sets out the definitions used in the Act,
including: Secretary, Commission, Department, Bureau, area
office, Indian tribe, automomous, member of an Indian group,
member of an Indian tribe, historical, continuous,
indigenous, community, other party, petition and treaty.

section 4

Section 4 of this bill provides that there will be
established the ``Commission on Indian Recognition'' as an
independent commission. The Commission shall have three
members who shall be appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate.
The Commission shall hold its first meeting no later than
30 days after the date on which all members have been
appointed and confirmed by the Senate.
This section provides that the President shall give careful
consideration to recommendations from Indian tribes and
individuals who have a background in Indian law or policy,
anthropology, genealogy or history. The President shall
designate one appointee as the Chairman of the Commission and
two members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business.
``Subsection (b) of this section provides that each member
of the Commission not employed by the Federal government
shall receive compensation at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of pay per level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, U.S.C. for
each day the member is engaged in the performance of duties
authorized by the Commission. This subsection provides that
employees or officers of the Federal government shall serve
without additional compensation except for reimbursement of
travel and per diem expenses incurred during performance of
their duties. Finally, this subsection provides that the
principal office of the Commission shall be in Washington,
D.C.
``Subsection (c) provides that the Commission shall carry
out the duties and meet the requirements imposed by this Act.
``Subsection (d) provides that the Chairman is authorized
to appoint, terminated and fix compensation for an Executive
Director of the Commission and such other personnel as deemed
advisable. The Chairman is also authorized to procure
temporary and intermittent services to the same extent as is
authorized by law for other agencies.
``This subsection also provides that the Commission is
authorized to hold hearings, to take testimony, to administer
oaths or affirmations to witnesses and to enter into
contracts or other arrangements as the Commission may deem
advisable. The provisions of the Federal Advisory Commission
Act shall not apply to the Commission on Indian Recognition.
``Subsection (d) authorizes the Commission to secure
information from any agency, department or instrumentality of
the Federal government as it may require for the purposes of
this Act. Each agency, department, or instrumentality of the
Federal government is authorized and directed to furnish such
information to the extent permitted by law. The Chairman of
the Commission may request the use of any facilities,
services or personnel of any agency, department or
instrumentality of the Federal government to assist the
Commission in carrying out its duties under this section.
``Subsection (e) of this section provides that the
Commission shall cease to exist on the date that is 60 days
after the date on which the Commission publishes in the
Federal Register the last determination on petitions required
under section 5(a) of the Act. All records, documents and
materials shall be transferred by the Commission to the
National Archives and Records Administration.''

section 5

Section 5 provides that any Indian group, including a
terminated Indian tribe, may submit to the Commission a
petition requesting that the Commission recognize that the
Indian group is an Indian tribe. A recognition petition
submitted under this Act must be submitted during the 72
month period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
This section provides that the provisions of this Act shall
not apply to Indian tribes or Alaska Native entities which
are already federally recognized, splinter groups or
political factions which have separated from the main body of
a federally recognized Indian tribe, of groups or successors
in interest of groups which have petitioned for Federal
recognition and been denied.
This section also provides that no later than 30 days after
the date on which all members have been appointed or
confirmed by the Senate, the Secretary shall transfer to the
Commission all petitions for Federal recognition pending
before the Department of the Interior. On the date of the
transfer, the Secretary shall cease to have any authority to
recognize or acknowledge on behalf of the Federal government
any Indian group as an Indian tribe. Petitions transferred to
the Commission shall be considered as having been submitted
to the Commission as of the date of such transfer.
``Subsection (b) of this section provides that a petition
submitted to the Commission on Indian Recognition shall
contain a statement of facts establishing that the petitioner
has been identified from historical times to the present, on
a substantially continuous basis, as Indian. A petitioner
shall not be considered as having failed to satisfy any
requirement of this subsection merely because of fluctuations
in tribal activity during various years. A petition for
Federal recognition shall contain evidence that a substantial
portion of the membership of the petitioner lives in a
community viewed as Indian and distinct from other
populations and that members of the petitioner are
descendants of an Indian group which historically inhabited a
specific area.
``The petition submitted under this section shall include a
statement of facts which establishes that the petitioner has
maintained tribal political influence over its members as an
autonomous entity from historical times to the present. The
petition shall also include a copy of the governing document
of the petitioner and a list of all current members of the
petitioner.''

SECTION 6

Section 6 provides that within 30 days of receipt of a
petition the Commission shall send an acknowledgment of
receipt to the petitioner and have published in the Federal
Register a notice of such receipt. The Commission shall also
notify in writing the Governor and attorney general of, and
each recognized Indian tribe within any state in which a
petitioner resides. The Commission shall also publish a
notice of receipt in a major newspaper of general circulation
in the town or city nearest the location of the petitioner.
This notice will also provide notice of opportunity for other
parties to submit factual or legal arguments in support of,
or opposition to, the petitions. Copies of such submissions
shall be provided to the petitioner upon receipt. Petitioner
shall have an opportunity to respond to such submissions
prior to a Commission determination on the petition.

SECTION 7

Section 7 provides that upon receipt of a petition, the
Commission shall conduct a review of the petition, including
any supporting evidence, to the determine whether the
petitioner is entitled to be recognized as an Indian tribe.
The Commission may initiate research to assist in the
analysis of the petition and supporting documentation. Prior
to actual consideration of the petition and by no later than
the date that is 12 months after the date the Commission
receives the petition, the Commission shall notify the
petitioner of any obvious deficiencies or significant
omissions that are apparent upon initial review of the
petition. The petitioner may withdraw the petition or submit
additional information.
``Subsection (c) of this section provides that petitions
shall be considered on a first come, first served basis which
is determined by the date of original filing of the petition
with the Commission. The Commission shall establish a
priority register of all petitions including those petitions
pending before the Department of the Interior. Petitions
submitted by groups that were terminated by law or groups
that were parties to treaties shall receive priority
consideration over all other petitions and shall be
considered on an expedited basis.
``Subsection (d) of this section states that the Commission
shall notify the petitioner and other interested parties of
the date on which the petition comes under active
consideration.
``Subsection (e) of this section provides that a petitioner
may withdraw its petition prior to publication of the
Commission's proposed findings and may resubmit a new
petition. A petitioner shall not lose its priority date by
withdrawing and resubmitting its petition but the time period
will begin to run upon active consideration of the
resubmitted petition.''

SECTION 8

Section 8 provides that the Commission shall make a
proposed finding on the petition within one year of the
notice of active consideration. The proposed finding shall be
published in the Federal Register. Upon a showing of good
cause by the petitioner, the Commission may delay making a
proposed finding for 180 days. The Commission shall prepare a
report which summarizes the evidence to support each proposed
finding. Copies of the report shall be available to the
petitioner and to other parties upon request. Any party may
submit a legal or factual challenge to the proposed findings
within 120 days of their publication.
``Subsection (b) of this section provides that the
Commission shall make a determination of whether the
petitioner should be recognized by the Federal government to
be an Indian tribe after consideration of all written
arguments and evidence submitted to the Commission. The
Commission shall make a determination of whether the
petitioner is a federally recognized Indian tribe and publish
a summary of such determination in the Federal Register
within 60 days after the close of the 120-day response period
under subsection (a)(4). The determination made under this
subsection shall become effective on the date that is 60 days
after the summary is published in the Federal Register.
``Subsection (c) of this section states that the Commission
shall recognize the petitioner as an Indian tribe if the
petition meets all the requirements under section 5(b).
``Subsection (d) provides that if the Commission determines
that the petitioner should not be recognized to be an Indian
tribe, then the Commission shall analyze and forward to the
petitioner other options for services or benefits from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
``Subsection (e) provides that a determination by the
Commission that an Indian group is recognized as an Indian
tribe shall not have the effect of depriving or diminishing:
(1) the right of any other Indian tribe to govern its
reservation as such reservation existed prior to the
recognition of the group; (2) any property right held in
trust or recognized by the United States for an Indian tribe
prior to the recognition of the Indian group; (3) any
previously or independently existing claim by a petitioner to
any such property right held in trust by the United States
for another Indian tribe prior to the recognition of the
Indian group.''

section 9

Section 9 states that no later than 60 days after the date
on which the summary of the determination of the Commission
on the petition for recognition is published, the petitioner,
or any other party, may appeal the determination to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The prevailing parties in the appeal shall be eligible for an
award of attorneys fees and costs under the provisions of
section 504 of title 5 or section 2412 of title 28 U.S.C. as
the case may be.

SECTION 10

Section 10 provides that upon recognition by the Commission
that the petitioner is an Indian tribe, the Indian tribe
shall be eligible for services and benefits from the Federal
government. The Indian tribe shall have the same
responsibilities and obligations as other federally
recognized Indian tribes. Programs and services provided by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall be provided to the newly
recognized Indian tribe when funds have been appropriated for
such programs. Requests for appropriations shall follow a
determination of the needs of the newly recognized Indian
tribe.
Finally, this section provides that within 6 months after
an Indian tribe is recognized under this Act, the area
offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
Service shall consult and develop in cooperation with the
Indian tribe a determination of needs and a recommended
budget. The needs determination and recommended budget shall
be forwarded to each Secretary for their consideration.

SECTION 11

Section 11 provides that within 90 days of enactment of
this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall publish
in the Federal Register an up-to-date list of all Indian
tribes which are recognized by the Federal government and
receiving services from the Bureau.

SECTION 12

Section 12 provides that any petitioner may bring an action
in Federal District Court to enforce the provisions of this
Act including any time limitations established under this Act
and the District Court shall issue such orders as may be
necessary to enforce the provisions of this Act.

SECTION 13

Section 13 authorizes the Commission to prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions
and purposes of this Act.

section 14

Section 14 provides that within 90 days of enactment of
this Act, the Commission shall make available suggested
guidelines for the format of petitions including suggestions
on research required in the documentation of a petition for
Federal recognition. This section also provides that the
Commission may provide advice and technical assistance to a
petitioner in documenting the historical background and
Indian identity of the Indian group. It further provides that
the Commission shall not be responsible for actual research
on behalf of the petitioner.

section 15

Section 15 provides that the Commissioner of the
Administration for Native Americans may award grants to
Indian groups seeking Federal recognition. Grants may be used
to conduct research necessary to substantiate petitions for
Federal recognition and to prepare documentation necessary
for the submission of a petition for Federal recognition. The
Commissioner shall award grants on a competitive basis
pursuant to objective criteria established by regulation.

section 16

Section 16 provides that there shall be authorized to be
appropriated for the Commission on Indian Recognition
$1,500,000 for each fiscal year 1995 through 2007 to carry
out the purposes of this Act. This section provides that
there shall be authorized to be appropriated for the
Administration for Native Americans $500,000 for each fiscal
year 1995 through 2007 to carry out the purposes of section
15 of this Act.
______

By Mr. DeCONCINI (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 1845. A bill to authorize the President to transfer defense
articles out of Department of Defense stocks to the Government of
Bosnia and Herzegovina; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

bosnia arms act of 1994

Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the latest NATO response to Serb
aggression in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a good one. It gives some
reason for optimism that further loss of life can be prevented. Such a
response, if backed by credible NATO action, can be the key to stopping
the conflict and preventing its spread to other countries in the
region.
I am encouraged that NATO is finally coming out of its cold war
mentality and recognizing the serious implications of regional
conflicts. I am encouraged that President Clinton is becoming more
actively involved.
But we must not expect that this NATO action will solve the problem.
We need to keep in mind that this response is limited in its
objectives and further measures are needed.
To that end, I am today, introducing a bill authorizing the President
to direct the transfer of arms and related equipment to the Government
of Bosnia and Herzegovina up to but not exceeding $50 million if
requested by that country.
This transfer was already agreed to in the fiscal year 1994 foreign
operations bill. My bill incorporates the language of the recently
passed Dole resolution on lifting the arms embargo unilaterally and the
arms transfer provision from the foreign OPS bill.
Some may ask why, at this point, should we do this. My answer is that
it is now more important than ever to give the Bosnians their right to
defend themselves if needed because the NATO ultimatum is by no means a
done deal. There is no certainty that we will now see serious
negotiations take place on the part of the Serbs. As long as the Serbs
have the upper hand militarily, I do not believe they will not
negotiate in good faith.
We must work more closely with the Bosnian Government. They are the
victims. It is their country, a member state of the United Nations,
which is being destroyed. We should not pressure them into signing
anything which does not give them a viable state. We should allow the
Bosnians to arm themselves in order to provide them with a sufficient
deterrent to further aggression.
I am very concerned about this point because I believe we could
become embroiled in a long, expensive peacekeeping operation requiring
many thousands of U.S. troops if we are still just trying to get a
peace at any price.

It is not realistic to expect a total rollback but the Bosnians
cannot be expected to live in isolated, ethnically cleansed enclaves as
is currently envisioned.
We must also remember, and I am disturbed by President Clinton's
statements on this point, that this is not a matter of warring factions
simply stopping the killing. The Bosnians are the victims. It is the
Bosnian Serb nationalists and the Serbs and now some Croatians who are
the aggressors. Unless this point is made very clear, I am afraid it
will lead to unfair pressure on the Bosnian Government by the United
States and the NATO to sign an unworkable agreement.
We have an obligation to act because a member country of the United
Nations is being destroyed. We have an obligation to act because
genocide is taking place once again in the heart of Europe. This is not
a civil war.
Sarajevo is in the news because the TV cameras can record tragedy
after tragedy. But Bosnia is a country of hundreds of Sarajevos.
We must allow the U.N. troops to use the authority given them as far
back as August of 1992 to use any means necessary to deliver
humanitarian aid to the so-called safe havens.
Mr. President, the Senate has already voted 87 to 9 to lift the arms
embargo. The Congress has already accepted in the fiscal year 1994
foreign operations bill language allowing for the transfer of $50
million worth of arms to the Bosnian Government. I urge my colleagues,
therefore, to seriously consider this bill which incorporates language
already agreed to but importantly gives the President the authority to
act unilaterally.
We are not seeing an end to the Bosnian conflict. Regrettably, we are
only, at long last, just starting to address it.
______

By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. Bennett):
S. 1846. A bill to provide fundamental reform of the system and
authority to regulate commercial exports, to enhance the effectiveness
of export controls, to strengthen multilateral export control regimes,
and to improve the efficiency of export regulation; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

commercial export administration act

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation to
modernize and streamline the Federal Government's system that controls
exports of commercial goods and technology.
This system is a relic of the cold war. It hurts our most promising
industries. It intimidates small companies, and it costs us jobs.
In 1993, the Institute for International Economics estimated this
system cost U.S. companies up to $30 billion a year in lost exports.
That translates into more than 650,000 lost jobs.
Since 1987, exports have contributed almost 45 percent of the real
economic growth in this Nation. Seven million Americans owe their jobs
to exports. Exports are key to many of our leading industries. Exports
account for 40 percent of sales in semiconductors, 50 percent in
aircraft, 35 percent in computers, and 30 percent in industrial and
analytical instruments.
A 1992 report by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative found
wages connected with export-related jobs are 17 percent higher than the
average industrial wage in the United States.
The economy of my own State is heavily dependent on exports. Trade
provides one out of every five jobs in Washington. If Washington's
economy is to continue to provide highly skilled, family-wage jobs, the
United States cannot afford to continue unilateral controls on exports
from high technology, telecommunications, aerospace, and other
companies.
Companies like Microsoft, Oracle, PACCAR, and Boeing are very
familiar with what needs fixing in our export control system.
The system needs a major overhaul. I know only a decade ago, even
exports of children's toys like Speak-and-Spell, or Pampers, were
controlled. American companies should not be prohibited from selling
commercial products abroad that are widely available from foreign
competitors. A small business should not have to hire a bunch of
lawyers to wade through 1,500 pages of export regulations, or to figure
out which agency oversees its product.
At the same time, we must make sure we have tough, multilateral
restrictions on truly dangerous items. Our national security controls
should target those items that really should be controlled to prevent
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We need higher fences
around fewer products.
My legislation seeks to strike that balance. It is based on a 1991
report by the National Academy of Sciences, called Finding Common
Ground: U.S. Export Controls in a Changed Global Environment. Our new
Secretary of Defense, William Perry, worked on this report. The report
provides strong arguments for the reforms contained in my bill.

Changes in the world today are so dramatic and profound
that they outstrip traditional thinking. Many of our policies
are still rooted in the rubric of the 1970s and 1980s; the
deep-seated views that have served us well for several
decades are difficult to give up or change. But change they
must if we are to respond to, and even lead in forming the
economic and political realities of the new world. * * *
Because so much of the job creation and economic development
of our nation depends on small and mid-sized firms, we cannot
burden them with excessively complex regulatory processes,
nor with policies that prejudice their ability to compete in
world markets. * * * With the emergence of other foreign
economic powers comparable to the United States, we will not
have as much power to force others to follow our lead in
imposing sanctions or controls as we have had in the past.

This is the basis for my export control reform bill.
My legislation will put an end to our driftnet approach to export
controls. It will focus the system on those dangerous items that really
need to be controlled. It will eliminate the maze and red tape of
export licensing. It will tell our exporters in plain English exactly
what is controlled, to where and why.
We need a system that lets U.S. exporters focus on winning markets
overseas rather than winning battles with bureaucrats in Washington,
DC.
One example of what's wrong with our export control system is the way
it deals with encoded software. There are two almost identical software
file management programs made by a small company with 10 employees in
Redmond, WA, called hDC Computer. U.S. export controls on data
encryption force hDC to make two versions of the same product at a cost
of almost $10,000.
One can be exported. The other can't, if you read the fine print.
But a foreign agent could walk into Egghead Software, or Computerland
tomorrow, and buy the controlled version and take it home on the plane.
With a phone line and a computer, this controlled software can be
transmitted across the country and around the world on the information
highway.
The U.S. export control system gives foreign buyers a choice: they
either can pirate the controlled U.S. software, or they can buy
foreign. Either way, the American company loses.
A May 1993 survey by the Software Publishers Association found 552
cryptographic products, developed or distributed by 366 companies--211
foreign; 155 domestic--in at least 33 countries.
Almost one-half of the foreign products use the controlled encryption
data, or DES, comparable to that throughout the United States. However,
in contrast to the United States, the products made by our foreign
competitors can be exported around the world.
The legislation I am introducing today proposes several major reforms
in the United States export control system.
First, the bill requires that national security controls be
multilateral. Cooperation among supplier nations is essential in
denying critical technologies to those who should not have them. We
need a clear and common set of standard for licensing and enforcement.
Without multilateral cooperation, controls are useless and only hurt
U.S. companies.
In order to strengthen multilateral regimes, my bill provides
incentives, such as license-free trade, to countries to join
multilateral control groups.
Second, in cases where there is a direct threat to the U.S. and in
cases involving weapons of mass destruction, the bill gives the
President clear authority to control commercial items. The bill
continues emergency powers to allow the President to deal with
situations like that in Kuwait in 1990.
The President may impose unilateral controls for 180 days. To extend
unilateral export restrictions beyond 6 months, the President may
either move to impose a two-way trade embargo, or seek approval from
Congress. This standard has been in place since 1985 for agricultural
exports, and it should be applied to manufactured items as well.
Third, the bill eliminates today's maze of export licensing red-tape.
It codifies the recommendations of the National Academy of Science. It
keeps broad policymaking and final dispute resolution in the hands of
the President and responsible cabinet secretaries and consolidates the
administration of controls in one agency, the Commerce Department. A
one-stop shop for the day-to-day mechanics of export licensing is
particularly important for small companies.
Fourth, another provision that will especially help smaller exporters
is the 30-day deadline on licensing decisions. In 1990, the Bush
administration issued an Executive order imposing a 15-day turnaround
on licensing decisions. This was never carried out. Thirty days is more
than enough time to process a license.
Fifth, my bill makes no change in the licensing of munitions items,
like combat aircraft, tanks and assault rifles. The legislation would
move commercial goods and technology, like civil aircraft and mass-
market computer software, from the State Department's munitions office
to the Commerce Department's commercial licensing office. Such items
should not be regulated like missiles and nuclear weaponry. This is
consistent with a provision passed by both the House and Senate in
1990.
The legislation I am introducing is supported by more than 100
companies nationwide in the business coalition, including several in my
State.
The principal purpose of this bill is to help, not hurt, U.S.
exporters. It recognizes the new global economic and strategic
challenges we face. Our exporters will no longer be forced to compete
in a world market with one hand tied behind their backs. Of course, we
tighten control on critical technology to problem countries. This
legislation, however, brings our Federal export control system in line
with the realities of the 21st century.
I look forward to working with the Clinton administration and the
Banking Committee on this important legislation.
______

By Mr. METZENBAUM (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
S. 1847. A bill to reduce injuries and deaths caused by accidental
firearms shootings by children and others; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

CHILD SAFETY FIREARMS ACT OF 1994

Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and
Senator Chafee, to introduce legislation to address one of the saddest
consequences of the proliferation of guns in this country--injuries and
deaths of hundreds of children and thousands of others from accidental
shootings each year.
The stories are truly horrifying. A 4-year-old boy shoots his 2-year-
old brother with the 22-caliber pistol he finds under the seat of his
father's pickup truck. A 10-year-old finds a 38-caliber revolver in a
dresser drawer. He does not think it is loaded and accidentally kills
his 8-year-old sister while playing with the gun.
You may think that tragic stories like these are rare and unusual
accidents. But the shocking truth is that they are far too common.
The legislation I am introducing today--``The Child Safety Firearms
Act of 1994''--will do something about this appalling and senseless
loss of lives. It will require gun manufacturers to add a simple child-
proof safety device and a device that prevents a gun from firing when
the magazine has been removed to all new firearms, and to add an
indicator that shows whether a handgun is loaded to new handguns.
This legislation is a response to a recent report by the General
Accounting Office that I had requested. I asked the GAO to investigate
whether certain safety devices on guns could prevent many of the
thousands of deaths and injuries by accidental shootings each year.
In its report, GAO found that firearms are the fourth leading cause
of accidental deaths among children 5 to 14 years old and the third
leading cause of accidental deaths among 15 to 24 years--olds.
Currently in the United States, about 1,400 to 1,500 people are
killed each year from accidental firearms shootings, and thousands more
are injured. In 1988 alone, 277 children under age 15 were liked by
accidental shootings.
GAO estimated that 31 percent of accidental deaths caused by firearms
might be prevented by the addition of two simple devices: a child-proof
safety device that prevents the trigger from accidentally being engaged
by young children and a device that indicates whether a gun is loaded.
So about 1 out of every 3 deaths from accidental shootings could be
prevented by these safety features. A device that prevents a gun from
firing when the magazine has been removed would further reduce
accidental shootings that result when children or others do not realize
that a bullet may be in the chamber after the magazine has been
removed.

Although there is no information on the actual number of nonfatal
injuries from firearm accidents nationwide, it is reasonable to infer
that the number of accidental injuries is substantial and far exceeds
the number of fatalities. GAO examined data on accidental shootings in
10 cities and found that in 1988 and 1989, these areas had a ratio of
more than 100 injuries for each death. That means if 1,400 people are
killed each year from accidental shootings, about 140,000 people are
injured from accidental shootings.
In addition to the lives that could be saved by equipping guns with
safety features, there are medical expenses and other economic costs to
society that could be avoided. The GAO found that averting one-third of
the accidental firearms deaths that occurred in 1988 would have avoided
costs of over $170 million. The overall costs associated with
accidental firearm injuries and deaths were estimated to be $1 billion
per year.
All of this does not mean that we should prevent law abiding citizens
from having guns in their homes--we should not. But it does mean that
we should make every reasonable attempt to make guns safer. The human,
economic, and public health costs of these accidental shootings to the
victims, their families, and society at large requires that we make all
possible efforts to reduce the number of accidental shootings.
Preventing accidental death and injury from the products we use has
always been a crucial public policy objective. It's about time that we
applied the same common sense we have with respect to other potentially
dangerous consumer products to guns.
We all know that firearms are inherently dangerous products, and they
should be regulated as such. If pharmaceuticals, toys, and other
household goods are required to be manufactured safely, why not guns?
If aspirin bottles are required to have child-proof safety devices, so
should guns. Clothing manufacturers did not stop making pajamas when
they were required to make them flame-retardant. Car manufacturers did
not go out of business because they had to make seatbelts.
But make no mistake. The legislation I am introducing today will help
to reduce accidental deaths and injuries of children, but it cannot
solve other problems that easy access to guns pose for the safety of
our children. We read every day about guns in our schools, guns in our
neighborhoods, and guns used by youth gangs. Efforts to make guns safer
must be combined with other efforts to limit access to firearms by
children, to require licensing and registration of handgun purchases,
to penalize gun owners who are negligent in their storage of weapons,
and to require safety training for handgun purchasers.
That is why I soon will be introducing comprehensive gun control
legislation that will include such measures.
These problems demand action. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this measure. This legislation will provide protection to
persons who use firearms. And it will reduce the alarming and
unnecessary numbers of injuries and deaths caused by accidental gun
shootings. I believe that gun owners and their families are entitled to
the same protection as owners of any other dangerous product.
I am happy to say that this bill has the full support of Jim and
Sarah Brady. I have a letter from Sarah Brady supporting the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
additional material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1847

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 ``Child Safety Firearms Act of
1994''.

SEC. 2. CHILD-PROOF SAFETY DEVICES.

(a) Unlawful Act.--Section 922 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(u) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture or
import a firearm that does not have as an integral part a
device or devices that--
``(1) prevent a child of less than 7 years of age from
discharging the firearm by reason of the amount of strength,
dexterity, cognitive skill, or other ability required to
cause a discharge;
``(2) prevent a firearm that has a removable magazine from
discharging when the magazine has been removed; and
``(3) in the case of a handgun other than a revolver,
clearly indicate whether the magazine or chamber contains a
round of ammunition.''.
(b) Penalty.--Section 924(a)(5) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``or (t)'' and inserting ``(t),
or (u)''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act.
____

Handgun Control, Inc,

Washington, DC, February 10, 1994.
Hon. Howard M. Metzenbaum,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Metzenbaum: Every year, over one thousand
Americans are accidentally killed by firearms. Over the past
decade alone, more than 15,000 have lost their lives and
thousands more have been seriously injured.
Sadly, many of the victims are young children. Fortunately,
we can do something about it. Gun manufacturers can make guns
safer. They can child proof the safety so that pre-school
children cannot accidentally or intentionally release it.
They can equip pistols with load indicators, so that the user
can readily tell whether the gun is loaded. They can also
produce a magazine safety that will prevent the gun from
firing the bullet that remains in the chamber once the
magazine is removed.
If we can make automobiles safer to drive through the use
of seatbelts and airbags, we can also make guns safer to
handle. And just as it took government leadership to make
major advances in automotive safety, so too will it require
government leadership to achieve major advances in gun
safety.
I commend you, Senator Metzenbaum, for your leadership on
this vital public safety issue. The legislation that you are
introducing today--legislation that will require
manufacturers to equip guns with load indicators, child proof
safeties and magazine safeties--will help to save hundreds of
lives in the years ahead. This is good legislation. We owe it
to ourselves, and to our children, to pass it before more
lives are tragically and needlessly lost.
Sincerely,
Sarah Brady,
Chair.
______

By Mr. DANFORTH (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
S. 1848. A bill to provide for disclosure of the bumper impact
capability of certain passenger motor vehicles and to require a 5-mile-
per-hour bumper standard for such vehicles; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

automobile and minivan bumper improvement act

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, bumpers on cars go largely
unnoticed; that is, until consumers need them. Low-speed vehicle
collisions occur frequently. In fact, 20 percent of all insurance
claims for automobile damage are the result of parking lot collisions.
The 20-percent figure does not include the bumps that cars experience
in driveways, at stop lights, or at stop signs. Many of these
collisions go unreported since they are below insurance deductibles.
Unfortunately, today's bumpers are failing to protect vehicles in low-
speed collisions, and consumers, without any information on bumper
performance, are left with large repair bills. Even though 67 percent
of car buyers surveyed are concerned with the capacity of bumpers to
prevent damage in these low-speed collisions, in 47 States they are
unable to obtain relevant information on bumper performance.
Historically, Congress has been concerned about bumper performance.
The 1972 Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act required the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] to promulgate
bumper safety standards. The NHTSA standard required that bumpers
withstand 5-mile-per-hour collisions without damage to the bumper or
safety-related equipment. In 1975 and in 1979, NHTSA conducted a cost-
benefit analysis of 5-mile-per-hour bumpers. Both times they rejected a
proposed reduction in the bumper requirement. In 1982, NHTSA reviewed
the issue again and rolled back the standard to 2.5 miles per hour. To
justify the weaker standard, NHTSA contended that the cost savings from
better fuel economy and lower sticker prices would offset any increased
repair costs and inconvenience created by weaker bumpers.
Ideally, a bumper should act as a buffer which absorbs energy from
low-speed crashes before the car's body can be damaged. Before the
standard was dropped, vehicle manufacturers designed bumpers that
completely protected cars from damage in 5-mile-per-hour crashes. For
example, the 1981 Ford Escort underwent a four part, 5-mile-per-hour
crash test without sustaining any damage. After the standard was rolled
back, the performance of the Escort bumpers slipped. The 1984 Escort L
two-door model sustained $877--1993 dollars--while the 1992 Escort LX
two-door sustained $2,720 damage in the same tests.
Instead of benefiting consumers, the 2.5-mile-per-hour bumper
standard has led to increased costs and inconvenience. The Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety [IIHS] has conducted and evaluated studies
demonstrating that NHTSA's 1982 predictions of cost savings were
greatly overstated. According to an IIHS ``Status Report,'' NHTSA's
erroneous predictions include the following:
First, NHTSA predicted that 2.5-mile-per-hour bumpers would be 63-67
percent as effective as 5-mile-per-hour bumpers in preventing damage
during crashes. In fact, NHTSA ignored a Volkswagen example where a
1982 Rabbit pickup truck with 2.5-mile-per-hour bumpers sustained $364
in damage, while a 1981 Rabbit Sedan with 5-mile-per-hour bumpers
sustained only $21 damage in the same tests.
Second, NHTSA estimated that over a 10-year period 2.5-mile-per-hour
bumpers would only incur $34-69 additional repair and insurance costs
when compared with 5-mile-per-hour bumpers. In a cost comparison,
insurance collision coverage losses went up 21 to 35 percent when GM
downgraded the bumpers on Buicks while insurance losses only went up 4
to 8 percent on Oldsmobile models which retained the 5-mile-per-hour
bumpers.
Third, NHTSA's predictions of weight savings, and thus fuel savings
from the weaker bumpers have not materialized. A comparison of 10 1980-
83 models and their 1991 counterparts showed that, on average, there
was no weight saved with the 5-mile-per-hour bumpers. In testimony
before the Senate Commerce Committee's Consumer Subcommittee, a
Chrysler official admitted that fuel savings only amounted to 50 cents
per year--1989 dollars.
Fourth, NHTSA suggested that consumers would save an average of $18-
35 off vehicle sticker prices with the rollback of the bumper standard.
With the steady increase in car prices, the effect of the 2.5-mile-per-
hour bumper is cloudy at best. A comparison of current bumper
replacement prices for 1991-92 models shows that some prices are higher
and some are lower.
Fifth, in 1982, NHTSA said that 2.5-mile-per-hour bumpers would add
$6 for lost time and inconvenience over a 10-year period. A 1981 survey
of consumers showed that 83 percent felt it was worth $100 and 58
percent said $200 or more to avoid the extra time and inconvenience
associated with 2.5-mile-per-hour bumpers.
Perhaps the most telling evidence of the inferiority of 2.5-mile-per-
hour bumpers comes from four part, 5-mile-per-hour crash tests
conducted by IIHS. When IIHS tested nine 1993 passenger car models, it
found cumulative damage totals ranging from $1,771 to $4,418. The most
expensive model tested, the Toyota Camry performed the worst overall.
On the other hand, one of the least expensive models, the Dodge Spirit,
performed the best.
Minivans have rapidly become the most popular family passenger
vehicle. Despite their common use, minivans are not subject to any
Federal bumper safety requirement. The January 6, 1994 edition of USA
Today ran a front page story on the poor performance of minivan bumpers
in a four part, 5-mile-per-hour test conducted by IIHS. Each of the
seven models tested sustained damage ranging from $1,862 to $7,643. The
poorest performer, the Mazda MPV, could not be driven after the angle-
barrier test. Following the tests, IIHS President, Brian O'Neill called
for a uniform and effective Federal bumper standard for passenger cars
and vans.

Consumers are understandably concerned with low-speed crash
protection. In a 1990 Insurance Research Council survey, 70 percent
said that car bumpers should provide protection in crashes at 5 miles
per hour or higher. Moreover, 83 percent of the respondents in a 1992
IIHS survey said that they would prefer protection over stylish
bumpers. Despite their interest in bumper performance, consumers are
unable to evaluate bumper quality. A buyer is left to judge quality
from outward appearance. The quality of a bumper, however, is not
evident from its outer shell. The bumper parts responsible for damage
resistance, are beneath the outer, plastic cover. Without the aid of
some sort of labeling, consumers are unable to compare bumpers.
Three States have passed bumper disclosure laws. California, Hawaii,
and New York require automakers to disclose the protection afforded by
bumpers on new cars. While the laws differ, each is aimed at providing
consumers with bumper information when choosing car models. In
practice, California has experienced a minimum level of compliance.
Most stickers merely note that cars met minimum Federal standards and
stickers are often placed where they would be easy to miss. New York
law, which requires labels to specify the maximum speed at which a
bumper sustained no significant damage, is not being enforced.
In answer to the call for safer bumpers and the need for information
on bumper performance, I am joining Senator Bryan in introducing the
Automobile and Minivan Bumper Improvement Act of 1994. This legislation
would improve bumpers in two ways. It would require NHTSA to reinstate
the 5-mile-per-hour bumper collision standard and would require NHTSA
to promulgate a rule to provide labeling of vehicles with bumper impact
capability information. In addition, it would apply the new
requirements to minivans.
The facts are straightforward and clear. The 12-year experiment which
rolled back the bumper standard has failed. NHTSA's cost-benefit
analysis was erroneous. Despite having the technology to build ``zero
damage'', 5-mile-per-hour bumpers, manufacturers, have not, and will
not, volunteer to build safe bumpers. The current 2.5-mile-per-hour
standard allows too much damage and jeopardizes the safety of vehicle
passengers. Consumers deserve to have good bumpers and bumper
performance information. I urge my colleagues to support this much-
needed legislation.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I support legislation introduced by
Senator Danforth, the Automobile and Minivan Bumper Improvement Act. As
chairman of the Commerce Committee's Consumer Subcommittee, I am proud
to be a cosponsor of this important consumer information and safety
legislation. In the last two Congresses, I have supported raising
bumper standards in passenger cars, and the Commerce Committee has
favorably reported out such legislation as part of authorization bills
for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA].
Although the bumper provisions were deleted prior to final passage of
the NHTSA bill, I am hopeful that they will be adopted as a separate
measure in this Congress.
Federal bumper standards in effect from 1980 to 1982 required cars to
withstand front and rear crash tests at 5 miles per hour with no more
than minor cosmetic damage to the bumper itself--and no damage to the
car parts. As a result, bumpers protected cars from damage in many low-
speed collisions, leading to lower and less frequent repair bills. In
1982, however, NHTSA rolled back the standard from 5 miles per hour to
2.5 miles per hour, arguing that a 5-mile-per-hour bumper would weigh
more than a 2.5-mile-per-hour bumper, thus resulting in both extra gas
consumption and higher vehicle cost.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [IIHS] has conducted
several tests which reveal that NHTSA's predictions of fuel savings and
vehicle sticker saving may have been overstated. IIHS tests have
demonstrated that bumper performance is not related to the weight of
bumpers, and, in fact, some good bumpers weigh less and are less costly
than some poor bumpers. In IIHS 5-mile-per-hour crash tests of nine
1993 model cars, each model sustained damage ranging from $1,771 to
$4,418; in contrast, a 1981 model Ford Escort sustained no damage in
similar 5-mile-per-hour crash tests, thereby illustrating the
feasibility of crash-proof bumpers.
The need for bumper standards for minivans is particularly great.
Minivans have been steadily increasing in consumer popularity,
especially among families looking for a safe and reliable vehicle. Yet,
these vehicles are completely exempt from even the 2.5-mile-per-hour
bumper standard. IIHS recently conducted 5-mile-per-hour crash tests on
seven 1994 model minivans. After the tests, one model could not be
driven, and six of the seven sustained some degree of damage to safety-
related parts, with one sustaining such serious safety-related damage
that the tailgate came unlatched and could not be closed again,
presenting the risk of occupant ejection. Repair costs were extreme as
well, ranging from $1,862 to $7,643.
The Automobile and Minivan Bumper Improvement Act addresses these
problems in two ways. First, the legislation requires NHTSA to raise
the bumper collision standard to 5 miles per hour, the pre-1982
standard, to allow vehicles to withstand certain levels of damage to
the safety features of the vehicle, the exterior of the vehicle, and
the bumper itself. Second, the bill requires NHTSA to promulgate a rule
to provide labeling of vehicles. Such a label will disclose to
consumers information regarding bumper impact capability. These
requirements would apply equally to minivans.
Given the frequency of low-speed bumper crashes and the current level
of damage expenses, this legislation is clearly needed. I would note,
Mr. President, that I chaired two subcommittee hearings on the issue of
automobile repair fraud over the past several years. The one point we
heard consistently was that consumers are extremely wary and
mistrustful of repair shops--and often for good reason, I would add--
and anything that could be done to reduce the frequency of repair shop
visits would represent a tremendous consumer benefit.
I would therefore urge my colleagues to support this important
consumer safety legislation.
______

By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Mack, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Bryan, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. McCain, and Mrs.
Hutchison):
S. 1849. A bill to require the Federal Government to incarcerate or
to reimburse State and local governments for the cost of incarcerating
criminal aliens; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

criminal aliens federal responsibility act

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Criminal Aliens
Federal Responsibility Act of 1994 with my colleagues Senators D'Amato,
Mack, Feinstein, Bryan, Boxer, McCain, and Hutchison. The legislation
is similar to an amendment I successfully offered to the crime bill in
the Senate on November 16, 1993.
This bill strengthens the language in the Senate crime bill and would
require the Federal Government, as the entity that is solely
responsible for our Nation's immigration and naturalization policy, to
incarcerate or to reimburse State and local units of government for the
cost of incarcerating criminal aliens.
During consideration of the crime bill in the Senate late last year,
much was said about the failure of State and local government to
control crime. The failure is one of a lack of adequate resources and
one for which the Federal Government also has a responsibility.
Consequently, to address this problem, our legislation attempts to
acknowledge the following: First, the Federal Government should be a
partner with State and local units of government and assist them in the
effort to attack our Nation's crime problem; and, second, the Federal
Government has failed to accept its responsibility for immigration
policy, and thereby, criminal aliens.
With respect to the latter point, the Federal Government has never
fully addressed its fundamental responsibility for our Nation's
immigration policy as enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution. That power and singular responsibility was conferred upon
the Federal Government by states ``to establish an uniform rule of
naturalization.'' Consequently, immigration and naturalization is a
core, but often failed, responsibility of the Federal Government.
Individual States have no capacity, either under law or in resources,
to control access to illegal entrants to our Nation. Unfortunately,
when the Federal Government does not adequately address its
responsibility for illegal immigration, State and local government is
often left with the burden of that failure.
The day before I offered the amendment to the crime bill, Michael Fix
and Jeffrey S. Passel of the Urban Institute provided an analysis of
immigration cost shifting in testimony before the House Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Human Resources. They said, ``* * * the distribution of
costs and revenues within the intergovernmental system can be viewed as
being in imbalance. Immigrant tax payments flow to Washington while
most of the costs of providing services fall to State and local
government.''
This is something that is readily apparent in the criminal justice
system. The States of California, New York, Texas and Florida--just
four of our Nation's States--estimate they have 25,510 criminal aliens
incarcerated in their prisons at a cost of over $500 million.
Ironically, the Senate crime bill contains a provision calling for
the building of 10 regional prisons to house 2,500 prisoners, each at
an authorized cost of $3 billion. Even if 100 percent of those slots
were made available to the States for the transfer of their
incarcerated criminal aliens, the criminal aliens in just the four
States of California, New York, Texas and Florida would clearly exceed
the slots made available by these regional prisons.
Incredibly, the regional prisons provision does not even acknowledge
Federal responsibility for criminal aliens until States can meet
federally imposed sentencing guildlines and inmates have served at
least 85 percent of their sentences. We have it backward.
In Florida's circumstance, we would get a lot further along the road
toward keeping prisoners behind bars and off the streets if the Federal
Government would take responsibility for its criminal aliens in the
State's prison system and not wait 4 to 5 years from now when these
regional prisons are built.
According to Secretary Harry Singletary of the Florida Department of
Corrections, approximately 6-7 percent of the State's prison
population, or 3,433 out of approximately 50,000 inmates, are criminal
aliens and cost Florida an estimated $58.6 million annually.
As New York Governor Mario Cuomo wrote in a letter to me on November
16, 1993,

It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to
prevent illegal immigration. When the Federal Government
fails at this task, the ensuing costs remain a federal
responsibility. In particular, the financial burden of
incarcerating illegal alien felons have been borne
exclusively by states, straining our criminal justice budgets
and prison systems.

Governor Cuomo estimates that 2,600 criminal aliens are housed in New
York State prisons.
Texas Governor Ann Richards adds,

* * * the Texas prison system houses some 2,000 criminal
aliens who illegally crossed the United States border with
Mexico permitted by weak efforts of the Federal Government to
control its border. Certainly the States should not be
expected to assume that responsibility abdicated by the
Federal Government, although we do.

This legislation has the support of Florida Governor and former U.S.
Senator Lawton Chiles, New York Governor Mario Cuomo, Texas Governor
Ann Richards, California Governor Pete Wilson, Florida Attorney General
Robert Butterworth, the National Conference of State Legislators, the
National Association of Counties and the Association of State
Correctional Administrators.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation to
have the Federal Government assume its responsibility for the
incarceration of criminal aliens.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional
material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1849

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 ``Criminal Aliens Federal
Responsibility Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. INCARCERATION OF OR PAYMENT FOR CRIMINAL ALIENS BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

(a) Definition.--In this section, ``criminal alien who has
been convicted of a felony and is incarcerated in a State or
local correctional facility'' means an alien who--
(1)(A) is in the United States in violation of the
immigration laws; or
(B) is deportable or excludable under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.); and
(2) has been convicted of a felony under State or local law
and incarcerated in a correctional facility of the State or a
subdivision of the State.
(b) Federal Custody.--At the request of a State or
political subdivision of a State, the Attorney General
shall--
(1)(A) take custody of a criminal alien who has been
convicted of a felony and is incarcerated in a State or local
correctional facility; and
(B) provide for the imprisonment of the criminal alien in a
Federal prison in accordance with the sentence of the State
court; or
(2) enter into a contractual arrangement with the State or
local government to compensate the State or local government
for incarcerating alien criminals for the duration of their
sentences.
____

State of New York,

Executive Chamber,

Albany, NY, November 16, 1993.
Hon. Bob Graham,
SH-524, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham: I strongly support your amendment to
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993 to
offset the fiscal impact of illegal alien criminals on state
and local governments. Such assistance is sorely needed in
New York and other states that are bearing the tremendous
costs of incarcerating these aliens.
It is the responsibility of the federal government to
prevent illegal immigration. When the federal government
fails at this task, the ensuing costs remain a federal
responsibility. In particular, the financial burdens of
incarcerating illegal alien felons have been borne
exclusively by states, straining our criminal justice budgets
and prison systems.
The Congress recognized this responsibility when it enacted
Section 501 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986: ``Subject to the amounts provided in advance in
appropriations Acts, the Attorney General shall reimburse a
State for costs incurred by the State for the imprisonment of
any undocumented alien * * * who is convicted of a felony by
such state.''
Unfortunately, for states such as New York, Texas,
Illinois, California, and Florida that are disproportionately
affected by this problem, no funds have ever been
appropriated to fulfill the mandate of Section 501.
State prisons are presently facing unprecedented challenges
posed by the rapid rise in their criminal alien populations.
New York, for example, is now housing an estimated 2,600
individuals who entered the U.S. illegally and then committed
some other crime for which they were convicted and
incarcerated. Because it costs an average of $24,000 a year
to house an inmate, New York is paying approximate $63
million annually in incarceration costs, not including the
related costs of added prison construction and an
overburdened judicial system.
The cost to state governments nationwide of incarcerating
illegal alien criminals is close to a billion dollars
annually. Like many of my fellow governors, I believe it is
patently unfair to impose this hardship on states when the
problem is not one of their own making.
Federal immigration policy governs entry into this country,
and often the initial destination of immigrants. In addition,
the federal government is ultimately responsible for the flow
of illegal immigrants as well. New York State and others are
proud to serve as gateways for the nation, but we cannot
shoulder the resultant burdens alone. The costs of
undocumented alien felons are of particular concern,
especially as they drain precious state resources from other
crime-fighting efforts and beneficial programs for our
residents.
I believe that your amendment to the 1993 crime bill helps
to address the negative impacts of undocumented aliens on our
communities. Although this amendment is ``subject to the
availability of appropriations,'' and does not guarantee
funding to states for housing these prisoners, it is a step
in the right direction by affirming that the responsibility
for incarcerating illegal alien criminals belongs to the
federal government.
I am grateful for your leadership on this important issue.
I look forward to working with you and others in the future
to restore an equitable balance of responsibilities between
the federal government and the states with regard to illegal
alien criminals.
Sincerely,
Mario M. Cuomo.
____

State of Texas,

Office of the Governor,

Austin, TX, November 9, 1993.
Hon. Joseph R. Biden,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Biden: You are undoubtedly better informed
than I about what all other states are doing but you are
wrong about this Governor and the State of Texas.
Last week, the Texas taxpayers voted to pass a bond issue
that provides an additional $1 billion for prison
construction. Last session, Texas legislators appropriated
$93 million of state funds for the largest incarcerated
substance abuse treatment initiative in the nation. All of
these funds are in addition to the $1 billion bond issue for
increased prisons construction that the Texas taxpayers
passed two years ago.
Texas elected officials and taxpayers alike have assumed
responsibility for the crime problem in this state and are
requesting assistance from the federal government for a
problem that is often beyond our control. For example, the
Texas state prison system houses some 2,000 criminal aliens
who illegally crossed the United States border with Mexico
permitted by weak efforts of the federal government to
control it border. Certainly the states should not be
expected to assume the responsibility abdicated by the
federal government, although we do.
I am particularly concerned with the formulas that are
being considered in crime legislation to allocate funds to
states. These formulas, as currently written, do no allow for
equity in the distribution of funds. For example, under the
current formula for substance abuse treatment funds in state
prisons, Texas was receive $114 per inmate while states with
small prison populations will receive over $200 per inmate
with the greatest allocation of $852 per inmate going to
North Dakota. This disparity in funding will only further
states' reliance on the Federal government for assistance in
the future.
Senator Bob Graham will be introducing an amendment to the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993 that
would allocate funds to states based on a formula that better
represents the ratio of crime across the nation.
I urge you to consider these changes to the formulas in the
crime legislation currently being considered.
If I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Ann W. Richards,
Governor.
____

National Conference of

State Legislatures,

Washington, DC, November 4, 1993.
Dear Senator: I am writing on behalf of the National
Conference of State Legislatures to register our concerns
about sections of S. 1607, ``The Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1993.''
The purported purpose of habeas corpus reform is to
streamline litigation. It is ironic that Section 310 is added
as an enforcement mechanism subjecting states to suits in
Federal court for failure to abide by new standards set by
Congress with respect to the appointment of counsel. The
abrogation of sovereign immunity should not be approached
lightly. There has been no consideration of the potential
harm to states by this section. We strongly object to using
the threat of lawsuit to accomplish these congressional
goals.
With respect to provisions relating to background checks
for child care providers, Title VIII, we are most concerned
that sufficient funds be authorized and appropriated in order
for states to adequately meet the mandates of the act for
disposition and automation. It is also important that states
retain the flexibility to determine how the background checks
may be used. Title VIII makes participation voluntary, but
the restrictions binding participants may have the unintended
consequence of limiting state participation in the program.
We concur in the need for improving criminal history records,
but see it as only a small part of providing a safer
environment in day care settings. If the federal government
has a different opinion about the priority for spending to
improve the records, then it must undertake the primary
responsibility for funding.
Because the states have no responsibility for the control
of federal immigration policy, NCSL opposes all federal
attempts to shift the cost of resettling newcomers to state
budgets. NCSL supports an amendment to be offered by Senator
Graham respecting criminal aliens because it requires the
federal government to take responsibility for the fiscal
consequences of its immigration policy--here, the cost of
imprisoning undocumented alien felons. NCSL further opposes
efforts to curtail federal funding for mandated programs for
newcomers. States should not be solely responsible for the
fiscal impact of court-driven mandates such as education for
undocumented alien children.
Finally, I must reiterate NCSL's strong opposition to
Senator Biden's amendment for a so-called ``police officers'
bill of rights,'' a provision that would federalize
noncriminal police disciplinary procedures. This amendment
would remove from localities issues related to personnel
administration and implicitly community relations. I can
think of no other issue that is so intensely local or beyond
Washington's competence.
Sincerely,
William T. Pound,
Executive Director, NCSL.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Florida,
and with the support of many others, to ask that the Federal Government
be responsive to a problem of its own creation. This bill requires the
Attorney General of the United States to take custody of, or financial
responsibility for, criminal aliens incarcerated in State prisons and
jails. The flow of illegal immigrants into this country is a Federal
problem, not a State problem. An individual State such as Florida can
do nothing to prevent illegal immigration. This is solely the province
of the Department of Justice, the Federal Customs Service and INS.
Florida citizens like those of California, New York, Texas and
Illinois, are weary of bearing the financial burden for the failure of
these agencies to secure our borders.
The injustice perpetrated upon the good citizens of our States are
twofold: First, these aliens are able to circumvent our immigration
system and illegally gain entry to our country. In many cases, this
results in a draw down of scarce State human resources funds. Federal
reimbursement for unpaid medical bills and the educational costs for
the children of these immigrants never fully compensates our States.
Worse yet, some of these illegal aliens commit crimes, again subjecting
the State taxpayers to paying the freight for incarceration costs. The
fact of the matter is that these individuals would not be in our jails,
and thus depleting our State resources if it weren't for the failures
of the Federal Government.
It is not the fault of anyone in my State that the Customs Service
didn't catch the boat coming in, or the passenger with fraudulent
documents. Why should my constituents or those of any other State be
forced to pay for their mistakes? In Florida alone, we have 3,433
illegal aliens serving time in our prisons. That comes out to $58.6
million in State taxpayer funds that could be going to keep more
violent criminals behind bars for longer.
The bill we have offered is based on fundamental fairness and the
notion that the Federal Government can and should be accountable for
its failure to maintain control of our borders and I urge my colleagues
to vote in favor of its passage.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I also want to thank my colleague,
Senator Graham of Florida, for his leadership in putting the Criminal
Aliens Federal Responsibility Act before the Senate. I rise today as an
original cosponsor of the bill and respectfully ask that each and every
one of my colleagues consider joining the bipartisan group of Senators
who have already signed on to this critical legislation.
Senator Graham has admirably and completely explained the purpose of
our bill: to relieve State and local governments of the high cost of
incarcerating persons who enter this country illegally and are later
convicted of felonies. The broad principal on which the bill is based
is very simple. Controlling illegal immigration is a Federal
responsibility. The failure to do so, and its financial consequences,
are thus a Federal responsibility, as well.
This issue is of critical concern to California. According to the
Governor, California taxpayers have spent more than $1 billion in the
last 5 years to house convicted felons illegally in the United States.
There are, he estimates, more than 15,000 such inmates in the State's
prisons now and expects that number to increase to more than 18,000 in
this fiscal year.
The cost to California of housing those prisoners in fiscal year
1994-1995 is expected to exceed $375 million, and that doesn't include
another $18 million for the cost of housing 600 to 700 illegal alien
juveniles in the care of the California Youth Authority.
Congress has twice recognized the moral imperative to assume the
States' costs of incarcerating illegal alien felons:
Once in 1986, when it expressly required the Attorney General to
reimburse the States in the Immigration Reform and Control Act;
And again in the omnibus crime bill adopted by the Senate just last
Session, which permits the Attorney General to transfer such prisoners
to Federal facilities or to reimburse States' for their costs.
The directive in IRCA, however, was made subject to appropriations
and, once again, no Federal funds to reimburse States for these costs
are contained in the President's fiscal year 1995 budget. As for the
crime bill, permitting the Attorney General to act is very different
from requiring her to do so.///////
The Criminal Aliens Federal Responsibility Act that Senator Graham
and I are introducing today with a number of our colleagues will
replace warm words with cold cash--funds sorely needed by California
and many other States' and localities' across the country. As a member
of the Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working closely with
him to pass, and fully fund, this bill in this Congress.
______

By Mr. DANFORTH:
S. 1850. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-(4-chloro-2-
methyl phenoxy) propionic acid; to the Committee on Finance.

duty suspension legislation

Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, today I am introducing
legislation to suspend temporarily the duty on 2-(4-chloro-2-methyl
phenoxy) propionic acid. This chemical, commonly known as propionic
acid and salts, is an active ingredient in certain non-carcinogenic
commercial herbicides. To the best of my knowledge, there is no
domestic producer of this product in the United States. 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. 1850

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON 2-(4-CHLORO-2-
METHYL PHENOXY) PROPIONIC ACID.

(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by
inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

``9902.31.1 2-(4-chloro-2-methyl phenoxy) Fre No No On or
2. propionic acid (CAS No. 93-65- e chan chan before
2) (provided for in subheading ge ge 12/31/
2918.90.10). 96.''

(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Coats,
Mr. Wofford, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Durenberger, Mr.
Metzenbaum, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Pell, and Mr. Simon):
S. 1852. A bill to amend the Head Start Act to extend authorizations
of appropriations for programs under that Act, to strengthen provisions
designed to provide quality assurance and improvement, to provide for
orderly and appropriate expansion of such programs, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

the ready to learn reauthorization act of 1994

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing The Ready to Learn
Reauthorization Act of 1994, which mobilizes the power of television to
bring quality educational programming to all children in our Nation. We
know that each year, our 19 million preschoolers watch 14 billion hours
of television--an average of 28 hours each week. Television has the
capability to be a remarkable teacher, and a highly cost-effective
source of information and education. By making quality educational
programming widely available, all children can benefit--whether they
live in distant rural towns or the inner city.
Ready to Learn also puts a strong emphasis on providing parents and
child care givers materials and resources to work with their preschool
children, getting the most out of educational programming. We have seen
families and Head Start providers in isolated and disadvantaged
communities benefit from training materials developed and provided over
the airwaves--where local resources could never support these
educational opportunities.
The Ready to Learn Act is a key tool to move forward with the Number
One Education goal--school readiness for all children. We fall far
short of that goal today. According to a study by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 35 percent of the country's
children do not enter school ready to learn. These children must play
catch-up, to master basic skills and concepts which are the building
blocks for their success. The Ready to Learn Act offers these children
a healthy diet of educational programming that can bring a lifetime of
benefits.
I commend the President for including $10 million for Ready to Learn
in the 1995 budget. I am pleased that my colleagues Senator Cochran,
Senator Pell, Senator Dodd, Senator Simon, Senator Wellstone, and
Senator Bingaman join me as cosponsors of this legislation, and I look
forward to working with all Members to ensure its swift consideration
by the Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the act
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1853

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 ``Ready To Learn
Reauthorization Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

Section 4702(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 3161a(b)(1)) is amended by
striking ``, nongovernmental''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 4706(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 3161e(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$25,000,000 for fiscal year 1993'' and
inserting ``$50,000,000 for fiscal year 1995''; and
(2) by striking ``for fiscal year 1994.'' and inserting
``for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997.''.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Kennedy
to sponsor the ``Ready To Learn Act of 1994.'' This reauthorization
supports the development of new educational television programming for
preschool children and written materials for parents and daycare
providers to help young children learn from these television programs.
The bill authorizes $50 million for these purposes.
The emphasis behind the Ready To Learn Act is the first national
education goal, which states:

By the year 2000, all children in America will start school
ready to learn.

This goal may be the most important of the six education goals
established by President Bush and the Nation's Governors at the
historic education summit held in 1989 which helped to build a
consensus among States on how to improve educational opportunities for
the Nation's students.
At this summit, the Governors concluded that in order to succeed in
school, children must enter healthy and with a respect for learning
instilled from infancy. Children who begin school with a solid
educational foundation have a much better chance of high achievement
later on.
In many cases, television is a child's most powerful teacher. In
busy, two-parent households, in single parent homes, and crowded day-
care facilities, television is the baby sitter.
By taking advantage of the significant number of hours of television
most children watch every day, we have a wonderful opportunity to build
a foundation for future learning.
This bill establishes a partnership between the Department of
Education and producers of children's programming to develop criteria
for educational television programming. These criteria will serve as
guidelines for the selection of projects to be funded. This strategy
draws on the strong commitment of the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, which has many years experience in providing young
children with quality educational television. I am pleased that the
Department of Education has requested $10 million in its fiscal year
1995 budget for the Ready to Learn program.
In rural States, like Mississippi, educational television has
traditionally offered students educational opportunities that would not
otherwise be available. In fact, Mississippi ETV currently offers six
educational networks, providing more than 65 hours of educational
programming each day for students, teachers, individuals, and families.
On average, Mississippi's elementary and secondary schools offer 7
hours of various course instruction every school day. This bill will
expand the educational programming available to preschool children.
Another component of this bill offers to parents, teachers,
libraries, and day-care providers specially designed supporting
materials to enhance the value of the television programming. The
materials will be developed through grants to local educational
television networks.
I hope the Senator will support the passage of this bill.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Pell, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Simon, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 1853. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to extend Federal assistance programs related to educational
television programming, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Labor and Human Resources.

head start act amendments of 1994

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we take another important step
toward our bipartisan national goal of providing a high quality Head
Start experience to all eligible families in need.
Today we affirm our belief in the core elements of this proven
national resource and to commit to a working partnership designed to
take what is good about Head Start and make it even better. We do not
seek to hide behind old rhetoric, but to move forward with the
implementation of a bold strategy for the Head Start of the 21st
century.
By introducing the Head Start Amendments Act of 1995, we in the
Congress, and those in the administration, lay out a blueprint for more
effective action in the years ahead. With this legislation we will
enhance the program's quality and extend the program's reach--making it
more responsive to the needs of today's families.
Low-income children and families today face enormous challenges,
struggling to survive in neighborhoods plagued by lack of opportunity,
violence, and drugs. Since we last reauthorized Head Start--the number
of children growing up in poverty has increased dramatically--and so
has the pressure on Head Start programs to help turn the tide.
If we are serious about national priorities of reducing juvenile
crime and welfare dependency--and promoting family values and school
readiness, Head Start must continue to be a centerpiece of our
community-based response. Head Start strengthens families, builds
communities, and gives children a chance.
Research, and a long track record of success, demonstrates that
comprehensive preschool programs--such as Head Start--have brought
about positive results--including greater economic independence and
fewer juvenile crimes and school failures. We know that for the price
of a single space in a juvenile facility--we can provide a full day
full year Head Start experience for five young people. Prevention is a
more productive approach and it is far more cost effective.
Drug dealers are getting to our kids young--and we have to beat them
to the punch.
It is for this reason that we have people like the Attorney General,
the FBI Director, and the drug czar all joining the chorus for
increased head Start funding.
And Head Start programs not only lay the foundation on which to build
more successful futures--they provide a place to deal with the more
immediate effects of violence on our children and families. The scars
of war not only effect children in Bosnia--but children in Boston, and
Birmingham, and Bridgeport as well.
A study done by Boston City Hospital found that 1 out of 10 children
served by their pediatric clinic witnessed a shooting or stabbing
before the age of 6--half in their own home.
Far too many of our children are living on the frontlines of battle--
and many have only Head Start to turn to.
Both the tasks and the stakes are great. And while the price of
success may be high--the cost of failure is far greater. But if Head
Start is to live up to its potential--it will need new authority,
support, and resources. And that is what the Head Start Amendments Act
of 1995 is designed to deliver.
The act builds on the commitment to program quality which we began in
the 1990 reauthorization--setting aside at least 25 percent of all new
money for quality improvements.
These critically important funds can be used to offer training and
career development opportunities to Head Start staff, and to provide
for a livable wage and health benefits in an effort to reduce staff
turnover and increase the continuity of caregivers for children.
The quality funds can be used to increase the number of family
service staff in Head Start programs, thereby reducing staff caseloads
and facilitating more extensive family support, family literacy,
parental involvement, and comprehensive services. Family services
workers, each responsible for a hundred families--cannot possibly be
expected to truly assist families in securing the services they need--
much less provide them directly.
The act will also put a strong oversight system in place--where
programs will be monitored by the feds and by their peers. Those with
deficiencies will be given the opportunity and the technical assistance
to come into compliance. Those that have been squeezed into trying to
do too much with too little--will be given the support to improve. But
those programs who cannot make the grade--will be opened up to others
who can. Our children and families deserve no less than the best we can
provide--we all agree with that.
We must focus on quality--we have and we will. But as we maximize the
effectiveness of our investment--we must also remember that hundreds of
thousands of eligible children wait to be given their Head Start in
life.
This act continues our commitment to expanding the program to reach
more eligible families and to do so in a way that meets their needs.
The act, accompanied by the funds included in the President's budget
request, will ensure several hundred million dollars to create more
Head Starts slots, and more full day, full year programs able to meet
the needs of low-income working parents or those in training. If we are
serious about promoting self sufficiency--we must be prepared to assist
in removing obstacles to progress.
In addition, it has become clear to all that 1 year of Head Start may
be too little and too late. To begin to act on this knowledge--this act
seeks to provide an early start to thousands of low-income children and
families in need.
This act creates a phased-in set-aside to develop programs which
provide early, continuous, and comprehensive services to very young
children and families--from pregnancy to preschool. These formative
years are critically important to the healthy physical, social,
emotional, and intellectual development of children. And it is during
this period that new parents can benefit most from efforts to enhance
parenting skills and promote positive parent-child interaction.
The lessons we have learned from the comprehensive child development
centers have been incorporated into this aspect of the
reauthorization--and I am extremely pleased we are moving forward with
this effort.
Finally, we must continue to build bridges with the public school
system to ease the transition from Head Start to elementary school.
I am pleased that the act continues this commitment and I look
forward to working with all those assembled here today--and the
Department of Education--to make sure that as we forward with both Head
Start and ESEA--that we do all we can to stimulate cooperation and
coordination at the local level.
I want to thank Secretary Shalala, Senator Dodd, Senator Kassebaum,
and Senator Coats, and our colleagues in the House of Representatives
for their dedication to this program and this process. Today's
bipartisan bill introduction is a clear indication that there is the
will in the Congress to move swiftly toward enactment on the
President's package.
The Labor Committee began hearings on the Head Start reauthorization
the day the advisory committee report was issued, we continue them
today, and I plan to send a bill to the full Senate in April.
Every eligible child in America deserve a high-quality Head Start.
Today we move closer to fulling that promise.
I ask unanimous consent that the complete 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. 1852

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES IN ACT; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) This act may be cited as the ``Head Start Act
Amendments of 1994''.
(b) Except where otherwise specifically provided,
references in this Act shall be considered to be made to the
Head Start Act, or to a section or other provision thereof.
(c) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; references in Act; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Monitoring and quality assurance.
Sec. 3. Appeals, notice, and hearing.
Sec. 4. Staff qualifications and development.
Sec. 5. Goals and priorities for training and technical assistance.
Sec. 6. Allocation of funds for program expansion.
Sec. 7. Allocation and use of funds for quality improvement.
Sec. 8. Transition coordination with schools.
Sec. 9. Research, demonstrations, evaluation, and reports.
Sec. 10. Initiative on families with infants and toddlers.
Sec. 11. Enhanced parental involvement.
Sec. 12. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 13. Minor and technical amendments.
Sec. 14. Effective date.

SEC. 2. MONITORING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE.

(a) In General.--The Act is amended by inserting after
section 641 the following new section:

``quality standards; monitoring of head start agencies and programs

``Sec. 641A. (a) Quality Standards.--
``(1) Establishment of Standards.--The Secretary shall
establish by regulation standards applicable to Head Start
agencies, programs, and projects under this subchapter,
including--
``(A) performance standards with respect to services
required to be provided, including health, education,
parental involvement, social and other services;
``(B) administrative and financial management standards;
``(C) standards relating to the condition and location of
facilities; and
``(D) such other standards as the Secretary finds
appropriate.
``(2) Minimum requirements.--The regulations under this
subsection shall indicate the minimum levels of overall
accomplishment that a Head Start agency or program must
achieve in order to meet the standards specified in paragraph
(1).
``(3) Considerations in developing standards.--In
developing the regulations required under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall--
``(A) consult with experts in the fields of child
development, early childhood education, family services,
administration, and financial management, and with persons
with experience in the operation of Head Start programs; and
``(B) take into consideration--
``(i) past experience with use of the standards currently
in effect;
``(ii) changes over the period the program has been in
effect in the circumstances and problems typically facing
Head Start children and families;
``(iii) developments concerning best practices with respect
to child development, family services, program
administration, and financial management; and
``(iv) projected needs of an expanding Head Start program;
``(C) not later than one year after enactment of this
section, review and revise as necessary the performance
standards in effect under this subchapter on the date of
enactment of this section (but any revisions in performance
standards shall not result in the elimination of or any
reduction in the scope or types of health, education,
parental involvement, social, or other services required to
be provided under such standards in effect on November 2,
1978).
``(b) Performance Measures.--
``(1) In general.--Within one year after enactment of this
section, the Secretary, in consultation with representatives
of Head Start agencies and with experts in the fields of
child development, family services, and program management,
shall develop methods and procedures for measuring, annually
and over longer periods, the quality and effectiveness of
programs operated by Head Start agencies.
``(2) Design of measures.--The performance measures
developed under this subsection shall be designed--
``(A) to assess the various services provided by Head Start
programs and, to the extent the Secretary finds appropriate,
administrative and financial management practices;
``(B) to be adaptable for use in self-assessment and peer
review of individual Head Start agencies and programs; and
``(C) for other program purposes as determined by the
Secretary.
``(3) Use of measures.--The Secretary shall use the
performance measures developed pursuant to this subsection--
``(A) to identify strengths and weaknesses in the operation
of Head Start programs nationally and by region; and
``(B) to identify problem areas that may require additional
training and technical assistance resources.
``(c) Monitoring of Local Agencies and Programs.--
``(1) In general.--In order to determine whether Head Start
agencies meet standards established under this subchapter
with respect to program, administrative, fiscal, and other
requirements, the Secretary shall conduct the following
reviews of designated Head Start agencies, and of the Head
Start programs operated by such agencies)--
``(A) a full review of each such agency at least once
during each 3-year period;
``(B) a review of each newly designated agency immediately
after the completion of the first year such agency carries
out a Head Start program;
``(C) follow-up reviews including prompt return visits to
agencies and programs that fail to meet minimum standards for
participation; and
``(D) other reviews as appropriate.
``(2) Conduct of reviews.--The Secretary shall ensure that
reviews described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of
paragraph (1)--
``(A) are performed, to the maximum extent practicable, by
employees of the Department of Health and Human Services who
are knowledgeable about Head Start programs; and
``(B) are supervised by such an employee at the site of
such Head Start agency.
``(d) Corrective Action; Termination.--(1) If the Secretary
determines, on the basis of a review pursuant to subsection
(c), that a Head Start agency designated pursuant to section
641 fails to meet the minimum standards for participation in
programs under this subchapter, the Secretary shall--
``(A) inform the agency of the deficiencies that must be
corrected;
``(B) with respect to each identified deficiency, at the
Secretary's discretion (taking into consideration the
seriousness of the deficiency and the time reasonably
required to correct it), require the agency--
``(i) to correct the deficiency immediately, or
``(ii) to comply with the requirements of paragraph (2)
concerning a quality improvement plan; and
``(C) initiate proceedings to terminate the designation of
the agency unless the agency corrects the deficiency as
required by the Secretary pursuant to subparagraph (B).
``(2) Quality improvement plan.--
``(A) Agency responsibilities.--In order to retain its
designation under this subchapter, a Head Start agency that
is the subject of a determination described in paragraph (1)
shall--
``(i) develop in a timely manner, obtain the Secretary's
approval of, and implement a quality improvement plan that
specifies--
``(I) the deficiencies to be corrected;
``(II) the actions to be taken to correct such
deficiencies; and
``(III) the timetable for accomplishment of the corrective
actions identified; and
``(ii) eliminate each deficiency identified, not later than
the date for elimination of such deficiency specified in such
plan (which shall not be later than one year after the date
the agency received notice of the determination and of the
specific deficiencies to be corrected).
``(B) Secretarial responsibility.--Not later than 30 days
after receiving from a Head Start agency a proposed quality
improvement plan pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall either approve such proposed plan or specify the
reasons why the proposed plan cannot be approved.
``(3) Training and technical assistance.--To the extent the
Secretary finds feasible and appropriate given available
funding and other statutory responsibilities, the Secretary
shall provide training and technical assistance to Head Start
agencies with respect to the development or implementation of
quality improvement plans.
``(e) Summaries of Monitoring Outcomes.--The Secretary
shall publish annually, following the end of each fiscal
year, a summary report on the findings of reviews conducted
pursuant to subsection (c) and on the outcomes of quality
improvement plans under subsection (d).''.
(b) Expenditures for Monitoring and Related Activities.--
Section 640(a)(2)(D) is amended by inserting ``(including
payments for all costs (other than compensation of Federal
employees) of reviews of Head Start agencies and programs,
and of activities related to the development and
implementation of quality improvement plans, pursuant to
section 641A)''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 641(c) is amended
by striking paragraphs (2) through (4).
(2) Section 641(d) is amended--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking all that precedes
``then the Secretary'' and inserting ``If there is in a
community no entity entitled to the priority specified in
subsection (c),'';
(B) by striking the second sentence; and
(C) in the third sentence, by striking ``and subject to the
preceding sentence''.
(3) Section 642(b)(4) is amended by striking ``in
accordance with the performance standards in effect upon
section 651(b)'' and inserting ``either through such
program''.
(4) Section 651(b) is repealed.
(5) Section 651(g)(10) is amended by striking ``evaluations
conducted under section 641(c)(2)'' and inserting
``monitoring conducted under section 641A(c)''.

SEC. 3. APPEALS, NOTICE, AND HEARING.

(a) Elimination of Provision Freezing Regulations.--Section
646 is amended by striking subsection (b).
(b) Termination of Designation Not Stayed Pending Appeal.--
Section 646 is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(b) Adverse Action Not Stayed Pending Appeal.--In any
case where a termination, reduction, or suspension of
financial assistance under this subchapter is upheld in an
administrative hearing under this section, such termination,
reduction, or suspension shall not be stayed pending any
judicial appeal of such administrative decision.''.

SEC. 4. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT.

(A) Requirements Concerning Staff Qualifications and
Development.--
(1) Classroom teachers.--(A) Section 648(b) is relocated
and redesignated as subsection (a) of a new section 648A,
captioned as follows: ``staff qualifications and
development''.
(B) Section 648A(a), as relocated and redesignated, is
further amended--
(i) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a) Classroom
Teachers.--(1) Degree requirements.--'';
(ii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``1994'' and inserting
``1996'';
(iii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2)'' and inserting
``(2) Waiver.--''; and
(iv) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``a child development
associate credential (CDA)'' and inserting ``any credential
specified in paragraph (1)''.
(2) Mentor teachers; family service workers; fellowships.--
Section 648A is further amended by adding after subsection
(a) the following new subsections:
``(b) Mentor Teachers.--
``(1) Definition; function.--For purposes of this
subsection, a `mentor teacher' is an individual responsible
for observing and assessing classroom activities and
providing on-the-job guidance and training to Head Start
program staff and volunteers, in order to improve the
qualifications and training of classroom staff, to maintain
high quality education services, and to promote career
development.
``(2) Requirement.--In order to assist Head Start agencies
to establish positions for mentor teachers, the Secretary
shall--
``(A) provide technical assistance and training to enable
Head Start agencies to establish such positions;
``(B) give priority consideration, in providing assistance
pursuant to subparagraph (A), to Head Start programs which
have substantial numbers of new classroom staff or which are
experiencing difficulty in meeting applicable education
standards; and
``(C) encourage programs to give priority consideration for
such positions to Head Start teachers at the appropriate
level in the career ladders of such programs.
``(c) Family Service Workers.--In order to improve the
quality and effectiveness of staff providing in home and
other services to families of Head Start children (including
needs assessment, development of service plans, family
advocacy, and coordination of service delivery), the
Secretary, in collaboration with concerned public and private
agencies and organizations currently examining the issues of
standards and training for family service workers, shall--
``(1) review and, as necessary, revise or develop new
qualification standards for Head Start staff providing such
services;
``(2) promote the development of model curricula (on
subjects including parenting training and family literacy)
designed to ensure the attainment of appropriate competencies
by individuals working or planning to work in the field of
early childhood and family services; and
``(3) promote the establishment of a credential indicating
attainment of those competencies that is accepted nationwide.
``(d) Head Start Fellowships.--
``(1) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to establish
a program of head Start Fellowships, in accordance with this
subsection, for staff in local Head Start programs and other
individuals working in the field of child development and
family services.
``(2) Purpose.--The fellowship program under this
subsection shall be designed to enhance the ability of
participating fellows to make significant contributions to
programs authorized under this subchapter, by providing them
opportunities to expand their knowledge and experience
through exposure to activities, issues, resources, and new
approaches in the field of child development and family
services.
``(3) Assignments of Fellows.--
``(A) Placement sites.--Fellowship positions under the
program under this subsection may be located (subject to
subparagraphs (B) and (C))--
``(i) in agencies of the Department of Health and Human
Services administering programs authorized under this
subchapter (and in national and regional offices of such
agencies);
``(ii) in local Head Start agencies and programs;
``(iii) in institutions of higher education;
``(iv) in public and private entities and organizations
concerned with services to children and families; and
``(v) in other appropriate settings.
``(B) Limitation for fellows other than head start
employees.--A Head Start Fellow who is not an employee of a
local Head Start agency or program may be placed only in a
fellowship position specified in clause (i) or (ii) of
subparagraph (A).
``(C) No placement in lobbying organizations.--Head Start
Fellowship positions may not be located in any agency whose
primary purpose, or one of whose major purposes, is to
influence Federal, State, or local legislation.
``(4) Selection of fellows.--Fellowships under this
subsection shall be awarded, on a competitive basis, to
individuals (other than Federal employees) selected from
among applicants who are currently working in local Head
Start programs or otherwise working in the field of child
development and children and family services.
``(5) Duration.--Fellowships under this subsection shall be
for terms of one year, and shall be renewable for a term of
one additional year.
``(6) Authorized expenditures.--From amounts appropriated
under this subchapter and allotted under section
640(a)(2)(D), the Secretary is authorized to make
expenditures of not to exceed $1,000,000 for any fiscal year,
for stipends and other reasonable expenses of the program
under this subsection.
``(7) Status of fellows.--Except as otherwise provided in
this paragraph, Head Start Fellows shall not be deemed
employees or otherwise in the service or employment of the
United States Government. Head Start Fellows shall be
considered Federal employees for purposes of compensation for
injuries under chapter 81 of title 5 of the United States
Code. Head Start Fellows assigned to positions specified in
paragraph (3)(A)(i) shall be considered Executive Branch
employees for the purposes of chapter 11 of title 18 of the
United States Code, and of any administrative standards of
conduct applicable to the employees of the agency to which
they are assigned.
``(8) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations implementing the provisions of this
subsection.''.
(b) Model Staffing Patterns.--Section 648 is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Model Staffing Patterns.--Within one year after
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation
with appropriate public and private agencies and
organizations and with individuals with expertise in the
field of child and family services, shall develop model
staffing plans to provide guidance to local Head Start
agencies and programs on the numbers, types,
responsibilities, and qualifications of staff required to
operate a Head Start program.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 648 is amended in the
caption, to read:

``technical assistance and training''.

SEC. 5. GOALS AND PRIORITIES FOR TRAINING AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE.

Section 648, as amended by section 4, is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``Head Start
programs, including'' and inserting instead ``Head Start
programs, in accordance with the process, goals, and
priorities set forth in subsections (b) and (c). The
Secretary shall provide, either directly or through grants or
other arrangements,'';
(2) by redesignating and relocating as subsection (f) the
final sentence of subsection (a), as amended by paragraph
(1);
(3) by striking subsection (c); and
(4) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsections:
``(b) Goals.--The process for determining the technical
assistance and training activities to be carried out under
this section shall--
``(1) ensure that the needs of local Head Start agencies
and programs relating to improving program quality and to
program expansion are addressed to the maximum extent
feasible;
``(2) incorporate mechanisms to ensure responsiveness to
local needs, including an ongoing procedure for obtaining
input from the Head Start community; and
``(c) Specific Purposes.--In allocating resources for
technical assistance and training under this section, the
Secretary shall--
``(1) give priority consideration to activities to correct
program and management deficiencies identified through
monitoring pursuant to section 641A (including the provision
of assistance to local programs in the development of quality
improvement plans);
``(2) address the training and career development needs of
both classroom and nonclassroom staff, including home
visitors and other staff working directly with families,
including training relating to increasing parent involvement
and services designed to increase family literacy and improve
parenting skills;
``(3) assist Head Start agencies and programs to conduct
and participate in community-wide strategic planning and
needs assessment;
``(4) assist Head Start agencies and programs in the
development of sound management practices, including
financial management procedures; and
``(5) assist in efforts to secure and maintain adequate
facilities for Head Start programs.''.

SEC. 6. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR PROGRAM EXPANSION.

(a) Allocation of Funds Within States.--Section 640(g) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(g)'' and inserting ``(g)(1) Cost-of-
Living Adjustments to Grantees.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Allocation of expansion funds within states.--In
allocating funds within a State, for the purpose of expanding
Head Start programs, from amounts allotted to a State
pursuant to paragraph (4), the Secretary shall take into
consideration the following factors:
``(A) the quality of the applicant's current programs
(including Head Start and other child care or child
development programs and, in the case of current Head Start
programs, the extent to which such programs meet or exceed
performance standards and other requirements under this
subchapter);
``(B) the applicant's capacity to expand services
(including, in the case of current Head Start programs,
whether the applicant accomplished any prior expansions in an
effective and timely manner);
``(C) the extent to which the applicant has undertaken
community-wide strategic planning and needs assessments
involving other community organizations serving children and
families;
``(D) the numbers of eligible children in each community
who are not participating in Head Start; and
``(E) the concentration of low-income families in each
community.
``(3) Allocation of expansion funds to indian and migrant
programs and to territories.--In determining the amount of
funds reserved pursuant to section 640(a)(2)(A) or (B) to be
used for expanding Head Start programs under this subchapter,
the Secretary shall take into consideration, to the extent
appropriate, the factors specified in paragraph (2).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 641(f) is repealed.

SEC, 7. ALLOCATION AND USE OF FUNDS FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.

(a) Allocation; Use of Funds.--Section 640(a)(3) us
amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (D);
(2) in the matter preceding clause (i) of subparagraph (A),
to read as follows:
``(3) Quality improvement.--
``(A) Reservation.--
``(i) --------.--The Secretary shall reserve, for
activities specified in subparagraph (C) directed at the
goals specified in subparagraph (B), a share of the amount
(if any) by which such appropriations exceed the adjusted
prior year appropriation (as defined in clause (ii)) equal
to--
``(I) 25 percent of such amount, plus
``(II) any additional amount the Secretary may find
necessary to address a demonstrated need for additional
quality improvement activities.
``(ii) Adjusted prior year appropriation defined.--The term
`adjusted prior year appropriation' means, with respect to a
fiscal year, the amount appropriated pursuant to section
639(a) for the preceding fiscal year adjusted to reflect the
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) during
such preceding fiscal year.
``(B) Goals.--Quality improvement funds reserved under this
paragraph shall be used to accomplish any or all of the
following goals:
``(i) Ensuring that Head Start programs meet or exceed
performance standards pursuant to section 641A.
``(ii) Ensuring that programs have adequate qualified
staff, and that such staff are furnished adequate training.
``(iii) Ensuring that salary levels are adequate to attract
and retain qualified staff.
``(iv) Using salary increases to improve staff
qualifications and to assist with the implementation of
career development programs.
``(v) Improving community-wide strategic planning and needs
assessments.
``(vi) Ensuring that the physical environments of Head
Start programs are conducive to providing effective program
services to children and families.
``(vii) Making such other improvements in program quality
as the Secretary may designate.
``(C) Activities.--Quality improvement funds reserved under
this paragraph shall be used to carry out any or all of the
following activities:'';
(3) in subparagraph (C), as redesignated, by adding at the
end the following new clause:
``(vii) Such other activities as the Secretary may
designate.''; and
(4) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking
``for the first, second, and third fiscal years for which
funds are so reserved''; and
(ii) in subclause (II), by inserting ``territories, and
programs serving Indian and migrant children,'' after
``States,'';
(B) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii);
(C) in clause (iv)--
(i) by striking all that precedes the first comma and
inserting ``Funds'';
(ii) by striking ``clause (ii)'' the first place it appears
and inserting ``clause (i)'';
(iii) by inserting before the period at the end of the
first sentence, ``, for expenditure for activities specified
in subparagraph (C)''; and
(iv) by striking the second sentence; and
(D) by striking clause (v) and redesignating clauses (iv)
and (vi) as clauses (ii) and (iii), respectively.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraphs (4) and (5) of
section 637 are repealed.

SEC. 8. TRANSITION COORDINATION WITH SCHOOLS.

(a) Coordination Requirements.--Section 642 is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by striking ``schools that will
subsequently serve children in Head Start programs,''; and
(2) by adding after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d) Facilitating Transition to School.--
``(1) General requirement.--Each Head Start agency shall
undertake the actions specified in this subsection, to the
extent feasible and appropriate in the circumstances
(including the extent to which such agency is able to secure
the cooperation of parents and schools) to enable children to
maintain the developmental gains achieved in Head Start and
to build upon such gains in further schooling.
``(2) Coordination with schools.--The Head Start agency
shall take steps to coordinate with the local educational
agency and with schools in which children participating in a
Head Start program operated by such agency will enroll
following such program, including the following;
``(A) developing and implementing a systematic procedure
for transferring Head Start records on each participating
child to the school in which such child will enroll;
``(B) establishing channels of communication between Head
Start staff and their counterparts in the receiving schools
(including teachers, social workers, and health staff) to
facilitate coordination of programs;
``(C) conducting meetings involving parents, kindergarten
or primary school teachers, and Head Start teachers to
discuss the developmental and other needs of individual
children; and
``(D) organizing and participating in joint transition--
related training of school staff and Head Start staff.
``(3) Promotion of parental involvement.--In order to
promote the continued involvement of Head Start parents in
their children's education upon transition to school, the
Head Start agency shall--
``(A) provide training to Head Start parents--
``(i) to inform them about their rights and
responsibilities concerning their children's education; and
``(ii) to enable them to understand and work with schools
in order to communicate with teachers and other school
personnel, to support their children's school work, and to
participate as appropriate in decisions relating to their
children's education; and
``(B) take other actions, as appropriate and feasible, to
support the active involvement of parents with schools,
school personnel, and school-related organizations.
``(4) Application of demonstration results.--The
Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Education shall
assess the results of the demonstration projects funded under
the Head Start Transition Project Act and shall work together
to provide technical assistance to enable communities to
implement proposing practices emerging from these
demonstrations for improving the Head Start program and
programs of the schools.''.
``(b) Extension of Set-Aside for Head Start Transition
Project Act.--
(1) In general.--Section 639(c) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (1);
(B) by striking ``(2)''; and
(C) by striking `1992, 1993, and 1994'' and inserting
``1992 through 1996''.
(2) Reference.--Section 640(a)(5) is amended by striking
``The'' and inserting ``Allotments Among States.--Subjects to
section 639(c), the''.

SEC. 9. RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATIONS, EVALUATION, AND REPORTS.

(a) Research, Demonstrations, and Evaluation.--Section 649,
including the caption thereof, is amended to read as follows:

``research, demonstrations, and evaluation

``Sec. 649. (a) In General.--
``(1) Requirements; general purposes.--The Secretary shall
carry out a continuing program of research, demonstrations,
and evaluation, in order to--
``(A) foster continuous improvement in the quality of the
Heard Start program under this subchapter and in its
effectiveness in enabling participating children and their
families to succeed in school and in everyday life; and
``(B) use the Head Start program as a national laboratory
for developing, testing, and disseminating new ideas and
approaches for addressing the needs of low-income per-school
children and their families and communities, and otherwise to
further the purposes of this subchapter.
``(2) Plan.--The Secretary shall develop, and periodically
update, a plan governing the research, demonstration, and
evaluation activities under this section.
``(b) Conduct of Research, Demonstrations, and
Evaluation.--The Secretary, in order to conduct research,
demonstrations, and evaluations under this section--
``(1) may carry out such activities directly, or through
grants to, or contracts or cooperatives agreement with,
public and private entities;
``(2) shall, to the extent appropriate, undertake such
activities in collaboration with other Federal and non-
Federal agencies conducting similar activities;
``(3) shall ensure that evaluation of activities in a
specific program or project are conducted by persons not
directly involved in the operation of such program or
project;
``(4) may require Head Start agencies to provide for
independent evaluations; and
``(5) may approve, in appropriate cases, community-based
cooperation research and evaluation efforts to enable local
Head Start program to collaborate with qualified researchers
not directly involved in program administration or operation.
``(c) Consultation and Collaboration.--In carrying out the
activities under this section, the Secretary shall--
``(1) consult with individuals--
``(A) from relevant academic disciplines;
``(B) involved in the operation of Head Start and other
child and family service programs; and
``(C) from other Federal agencies and organization involved
with children and families, ensuring that such individuals
reflect the multicultural nature of the Head Start population
and the multi-disciplinary nature of the Head Start program;
``(2) whenever feasible and appropriate, obtain the views
of persons participating in and served by programs and
projects assisted under the subchapter with respect to
activities under this section; and
``(3) establish, to the extent appropriate, working
relationship with the faculties of colleges or universities
located in the area in which any evaluation under this
section is being conducted, unless there is no such college
or university willing and able to participate in such
evaluation.
``(d) Specific Objectives.--The research, demonstration,
and evaluation programs under this part shall include
components designed to--
``(1) permit ongoing assessment of the quality and
effectiveness of the program under this subchapter;
``(2) contribute to developing knowledge concerning factors
associated with the quality and effectiveness of Head Start
programs and in identifying ways in which services provided
under this subchapter may be improved;
``(3) assist in developing knowledge concerning the factors
which promote or inhibit healthy development and effective
functioning of children and their families both during and
following the Head Start experience;
``(4) permit comparisons of children and families
participating in Head Start programs with children and
families receiving other child care, early childhood
education, and child development services and with other
appropriate control groups;
``(5) contribute to understanding the characteristics and
needs of population groups eligible for services provided
under this subchapter and the impact of such services on the
individuals served and the communities in which such services
are provided;
``(6) provide for disseminating and promoting the use of
the findings from such research, demonstration, and
evaluation activities; and
``(7) promote exploration of areas in which knowledge is
insufficient, and which will otherwise contribute to
fulfilling the purposes of this subchapter.
``(e) Longitudinal Studies.--In developing priorities for
research, demonstration, and evaluation activities under this
section, the Secretary shall give special consideration to
longitudinal studies which--
``(1) examine the developmental progress of children and
their families both during and following the Head Start
program experience, including the examination of factors
which contribute to or detract from such progress;
``(2) examine factors related to improving the quality of
the Head Start program experience and the preparation it
provides for children and their families to function
effectively in schools and other settings in the years
following Head Start; and
``(3) as appropriate, permit comparison of children and
families participating in Head Start programs with children
and families receiving other child care, early childhood
education, and child development services, and with other
appropriate control groups.
``(f) Ownership of Results.--The Secretary shall take
necessary steps to ensure that all studies, reports,
proposals, and data produced or developed with Federal funds
under this subchapter shall become the property of the United
States.''.
(b) Reports.--Section 651 is amended--
(1) in the caption, to read ``REPORTS'';
(2) by striking subsections (a) through (f);
(3) by striking ``(g)'';
(4)(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding after paragraph (12) the following new
paragraph:
(13) a summary of the research, demonstration, and
evaluation activities conducted under section 649,
including--
``(A) a status report on ongoing activities; and
``(B) results, conclusions, and recommendations based on
completed activities not previously reported on.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Sections 640A, 650, and 651A are repealed.
(2) Section 651, as amended by subsection (b), is
redesignated as section 650.

SEC. 10. INITIATIVE ON FAMILIES WITH INFANTS AND TODDLERS.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Act is amended by adding
after section 645 the following new section:

``programs for families with infants and toddlers

``Sec. 645A. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make
grants, in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph,
for--
``(1) programs providing family-centered services for low-
income families with very young children designed to promote
the development of their children, to fulfill their roles as
parents, and to move toward self-sufficiency; and
``(2) evaluation of, and provision of training and
technical assistance to, projects under the Comprehensive
Child Development Centers Act of 1988.
``(b) Families Eligible To Participate.--Persons who may be
served by projects described in subsection (a)(1) include
pregnant women, and families with children under age three
(or under age five, in the case of children served by a
grantee specified in subsection (e)(2)), who meet the
criteria specified in section 645(a)(1).
``(c) Scope and Design of Programs.--Programs receiving
assistance under this section shall--
``(1) provide, either directly or through referral, early,
continuous, intensive, and comprehensive child development
and family support services which will enhance the physical,
social, emotional, and intellectual development of
participating children;
``(2) ensure that the level of services provided to
families responds to their needs and circumstances;
``(3) promote positive parent-child interactions;
``(4) provide services to parents to support their role as
parents and to help them move toward self-sufficiency;
``(5) coordinate services with existing programs in the
State and community to ensure a comprehensive array of
services;
``(6) coordinate with local Head Start programs in order to
ensure continuity of services for children and families;
``(7) (in the case of a program operated by a Head Start
agency that also provides Head Start services through the age
of mandatory school attendance) ensure that participating
children and families receive such services through such age;
and
``(8) meet such other requirements concerning program
design and operation as the Secretary may establish.
``(d) Eligible Service Providers.--Entities that may apply
to operate services projects under this section include--
``(1) entities operating Head Start programs under this
subchapter;
``(2) entities that, on the date of enactment of this
provision, were operating--
``(A) Parent-Child Centers receiving financial assistance
under section 640(a)(4), or
``(B) Comprehensive Child Development Projects receiving
financial assistance under the Comprehensive Child
Development Centers Act of 1988; and
``(3) other public and non-profit private entities capable
of providing child and family services that meet the
standards for participation in programs under this subchapter
and such other appropriate requirements relating to the
program under this section as the Secretary may establish.
``(e) Time-Limited Priority for Certain Entities.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts allotted pursuant to
paragraphs (2) and (4) of section 640(a), the Secretary shall
provide financial assistance in accordance with paragraphs
(2) through (4) of this subsection.
``(2) Parent-child centers.--The Secretary shall make
financial assistance available under this section for each of
fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997 to any entity that--
``(A) complies with the standards and requirements
established by the Secretary under subsection (d); and
``(B) received funding as a Parent-Child Center pursuant to
section 640(a)(4) for fiscal year 1994.
``(3) Comprehensive child development centers (ccds).--In
the case of an entity that--
``(A) complies with the standards and requirements
established by the Secretary under subsection (d); and
``(B) received a grant for fiscal year 1994 to operate a
project under the Comprehensive Child Development Centers Act
of 1988, the Secretary--
``(i) shall make financial assistance available under this
section for the duration of the demonstration project period
specified in the grant award to such entity under such Act,
and
``(ii) shall permit such entity, in the program assisted
under this section, to serve children from birth through age
5.
``(4) Evaluations, training, technical assistance relating
to ccds.--The Secretary shall make funds available under this
section as necessary to provide for the evaluation of, and
furnishing of training and technical assistance to, child
development projects (specified in paragraph (3)) under the
Comprehensive Child Development Centers Act of 1988.
``(f) Selection of Other Grantees.--From allotments
pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (4) of section 640(a) (in
amounts equal to the balance remaining of the amount
specified in section 640(a)(6) after making grants to the
eligible entities specified in subsection (e)), the Secretary
shall award grants under this paragraph on a competitive
basis to applicants meeting the criteria specified in
subsection (d) (giving priority to entities with a record of
providing early, continuous, and comprehensive childhood
development and family services).
``(g) Secretarial Responsibilities--
``(1) Guidelines.--The Secretary shall develop and publish
guidelines concerning the content and operation of programs
under this section--
``(A) in consultation with experts in early childhood
development and family services; and
``(B) taking into consideration the knowledge and
experience gained from other early childhood programs,
including programs under the Comprehensive Child Development
Centers Act of 1988.
``(2) Monitoring, evaluation, training, and technical
assistance.--In order to ensure the successful operation of
service programs under this section, the Secretary shall
monitor the operation of such programs, evaluate their
effectiveness, and provide training and technical assistance
tailored to the particular needs of such programs.''.
(b) Funds Set-Aside.--Section 640(a) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, and subject to
paragraph (6)'' before the period;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``paragraph (5)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``paragraph (4)'';
(3) by striking paragraph (4), and redesignating paragraphs
(5) and (6) as paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively; and
(4) by adding after paragraph (5), as redesignated, the
following new paragraph:
``(6) Funding for programs for families with infants and
toddlers.--From amounts allotted pursuant to paragraphs (2)
and (4), the Secretary shall use, for grants for programs for
families with infants and toddlers under section 645A, a
portion of the combined total of such amounts equal to 3
percent for fiscal year 1995, 4 percent for each of fiscal
years 1996 and 1997, and 5 percent for fiscal year 1998, of
the amount appropriated pursuant to section 639(a).''.
(c) Consolidation.--In recognition that the Comprehensive
Child Development Centers Act has demonstrated positive
results, and that its purposes and functions have been
consolidated into section 645A of the Head Start Act, the
Comprehensive Child Development Centers Act of 1988 is
repealed.

SEC. 11. ENHANCED PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.

(a) Considerations in Designating New Head Start
Agencies.--Section 641(d) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), to read as follows:
``(4) the plan of such applicant--
``(A) to seek the involvement of parents of participating
children in activities designed to help such parents become
full partners in the education of their children;
``(B) to afford such parents the opportunity to participate
in the development, conduct, and overall performance of the
program at the local level;
``(C) to offer (directly or through referral to local
entities, such as Even Start programs) to such parents--
``(i) family literacy services; and
``(ii) parenting skills training;
``(D) at the option of such applicant, to offer (directly
or through referral to local entities) to such parents--
``(i) parental social self-sufficiency training;
``(ii) substance abuse counseling; or
``(iii) any other activity designed to help such parents
become full partners in the education of their children; and
``(E) to provide, with respect to each participating
family, a family needs assessment that includes consultation
with such parents about the benefits of parent involvement
and about the activities described in subparagraphs (C) and
(D) in which such parents may choose to become involved
(taking into consideration their specific family needs, work
schedules, and other responsibilities);'';
(2) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(3) by striking paragraph (8); and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (8).
(b) Functions of Head Start Agencies.--Section 642(b) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), to read as follows:
``(4) seek the involvement of parents of participating
children in activities designed to help such parents become
full partners in the education of their children, and to
afford such parents the opportunity to participate in the
development, conduct, and overall performance of the program
at the local level;'';
(2) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(3) by striking paragraph (6);
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (7) as paragraphs
(8) and (9), respectively; and
(5) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraphs:
``(5) offer (directly or through referral to local
entities, such as Even Start programs) to parents of
participating children family literacy services and parenting
skills training;
``(6) at the option of such agency, offer (directly or
through referral to local entities) to such parents parental
social self-sufficiency training, substance abuse counseling,
or any other activity designed to help such parents become
full partners in the education of their children;
``(7) provide, with respect to each participating family, a
family needs assessment that includes consultation with such
parents about the benefits of parent involvement and about
the activities described in paragraphs (4) through (6) in
which such parents may choose to be involved (taking into
consideration their specific family needs, work schedules,
and other responsibilities);''.
(c) ``Family Literacy Services''.--Section 637 is amended
by adding after paragraph (11) the following new paragraph:
``(12) The term `family literacy services' includes
activities such as the following: interactive literacy
activities between parents and their children, training for
parents on how to be their children's primary teacher and to
be full partners in the education of their children, parent
literacy training, and early childhood education.''.

SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 639, as amended by section 8(b), is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking all that follows
``651A)'' and inserting ``such sums as necessary for fiscal
year 1995 and each of the three succeeding fiscal years.'';
and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating subsection
(c) as subsection (b).

SEC. 13. MINOR AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

(a) Definition of ``Poverty Line''.--Section 637(9) is
amended to read as follows:
``(9) The term `poverty line' means the official poverty
line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget).''.
(2) Section 652 is repealed.
(b) Updating of Hold-Harmless for Indian and Migrant
Programs.--Section 640(a)(2)(A) is amended by striking
``1990'' and inserting ``1994''.
(c) Use of Head Start Funds for Full-Day and Full-Year
Services.--Section 640(h) is amended by striking ``Each Head
Start program may'' and inserting ``Financial assistance
provided under this subchapter may be used by each Head Start
program to''.
(d) Designation of Head Start Agencies.--Section 641(c), as
amended by section 2 of this Act, is further amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``(subject to paragraph (2))'' before ``,
the Secretary shall give priority''; and
(B) by striking ``unless'' and all that follows through the
end of subparagraph (A) and inserting the following: ``unless
the Secretary makes a finding that the agency involved fails
to meet program, fiscal, and other requirements established
by the Secretary.'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as paragraph (2) and
relocating the left margin two ems to the left;
(3) in paragraph (2), as redesignated--
(A) by striking ``except that, if'' and inserting ``If'';
and
(B) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)''; and
(4) by striking ``Notwithstanding any other provision of
this paragraph'' and inserting the following:
``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection''.
(e) Federal Register Publication Requirement.--Section
644(d) is amended by striking ``guidelines, instructions,''.
(f) Duration of Services to Eligible Children.--Section
645(c) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``may provide'' and
all that follows and inserting ``shall be permitted to
provide more than one year of Head Start services to eligible
children in the State.''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence.

SEC. 14. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall be effective with respect
to fiscal year 1995 and succeeding fiscal years.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the
President's proposed legislation to reauthorize the Head Start Program.
I am very pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Kennedy, as well as the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Children, Senator Coats, in introducing
this most bipartisan of bills.
Head Start is the most concrete example of President Clinton's
efforts to redirect scarce Federal resources into investments. Rather
than consume for today, the President believes, we should invest for
tomorrow. The budget released this week is a testament to his
commitment to this principle. Despite painfully tight discretionary
spending caps, President Clinton was able to recommend substantial
increases for Head Start next year, and I commend him for doing that.
This administration recognizes how important Head Start truly is. For
the key to safeguarding America's future is not primarily maintaining a
strong defense or building an ``information superhighway'' for the 21st
century, as important as those things are. Like many of my colleagues,
I believe building a state-of-the-art transportation system is
critical, but it is not enough. The future of America is not only in
fighter planes or fiber-optic wires or high-speed bullet trains.
I would suggest, instead, that the future of this country is in the
engineers of tomorrow who will build those planes, trains, and
information highways--our Nation's children who, as we are debating in
the Senate today, are singing, playing, putting together puzzles and
learning the alphabet in small classrooms and community centers all
across America.
The future of America is about 3\1/2\ feet tall and weighs well under
50 pounds. The future of America is our children--and thousands of them
get the boost they need from Head Start. The issue before us now is how
we can improve their experience and allow more kids to join them.
If, by the way, there is anyone who doubts how a preschool program
can affect an individual's future, I wish they could have heard the
testimony of Officer Mike Hunter from New Haven, CT at the hearing on
this bill that I chaired earlier today. Mike was one of the first Head
Start kids years ago and credits the program with putting his life on a
totally different track.
This is a fitting week to begin the process of reauthorizing Head
Start. On Tuesday, the Senate approved Goals 2000, a statement of the
Federal Government's commitment to education. The very first education
goal seeks to ensure that every child in this country begins elementary
school ready to learn.
To reach this goal we will need to do a great deal more than simply
provide more kids access to Head Start. We must make sure that when
they walk through the Head Start door, there is a quality experience
waiting for them and their families. In the majority of Head Start
programs today, those expectations are being met. In some, however, the
experience falls short.
We can and must do better. With the support of all the people present
today, I am confident that we will. When Secretary Shalala presented
the administration's proposal for the reauthorization this morning, she
charted a roadmap that should lead us to a Head Start Program that will
meet its full potential.
The only way we will get there is if we continue in the spirit of
bipartisanship that has characterized Head Start from the beginning.
Four-year-olds aren't Democrats or Republicans, they aren't liberals or
conservatives. And Head Start defies political labelling as well.
In both the House and Senate, the bill is being sponsored by the
chairs and ranking members of the full committees and subcommittees
with jurisdiction over the program. I commend the administration for
going the extra mile to achieve this level of consensus, and I applaud
my Republican colleagues for being full partners in this important
endeavor.
We began laying the groundwork for improving the quality of Head
Start the last time we reauthorized it. In 1990, we set aside funds
specifically to improve the program. As we heard in a hearing I chaired
last summer, that money helped increase staff salaries, and higher
salaries helped reduce staff turnover.
The money also supported the addition of new staff, many of them
providing comprehensive services to the increasingly needy families who
come to Head Start. This money also helped renovate shabby classrooms,
so that children would have a clean, healthy, and comfortable
environment in which to learn and grow.
The reauthorization bill we are introducing today builds on the
legacy of the 1990 legislation. The President's bill focuses on giving
the program highly qualified staff to serve children and families. It
recognizes the importance of strengthening Head Start's capacity to
address a whole range of families' social service needs.
Most important, in my view, the bill makes a very strong statement
about the importance of upholding standards, standards that make Head
Start a model for early childhood programs everywhere. Through
provisions to strengthen program oversight and ensure accountability,
the legislation says to Congress and to the American people that the
substantial investment in Head Start is wisely spent.
But the legislation is not just about accountability; it is also
about doing a better job of meeting the needs of Head Start families.
For some families, the greatest need is just to get into the program.
While funding has increased substantially in recent years, the program
still serves only about 40 percent of eligible children. I am committed
to working with the administration to realize the dream articulated in
the 1990 reauthorization that someday every eligible child in America
will be able to participate in Head Start.
For other families, a major obstacle to Head Start is the difficulty
of squaring a half-day program with parents' need to work full time.
Head Start programs technically have always had the ability to offer
full-day, year-round services. Now, I believe we will see the
commitment to make this happen in cases where it fits the community's
needs.
This legislation also recognizes that many families could be more
effectively served when their children are infants and toddlers. The
legislation sets aside funds and lays out a leadership role for Head
Start in achieving this goal.
Parent involvement has always been one of the hallmarks of Head
Start. At our hearing earlier today, we heard from several parents
whose own lives--and not just their children's--were changed by Head
Start. Continuing parents' involvement in their children's education
was the theme of another initiative in the 1990 reauthorization. The
Head Start transition projects promoted such involvement--as well as
the provision of comprehensive services--into the elementary grades.
The legislation before us today continues to work toward this important
goal.
But we cannot expect Head Start alone to help children and families
transition successfully to the new educational environment of
elementary school. The schools have to do their part as well.
Therefore, shortly after we return from the recess, I plan to introduce
the Transitions to Success Act. This legislation would create a funding
priority within title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
to promote greater parental involvement in elementary education. The
bill would also improve families' access to comprehensive social
services.
None of these initiatives will succeed, however, if children do not
have a quality Head Start. That's what the administration's proposal we
are introducing today is all about. It embraces a broad vision for Head
Start, but does not neglect all-important details of its nuts-and-bolts
administration.
The vision sketches out the strong, effective program we want to
achieve as we move into the next century, and the details provide the
road map to take us there. I congratulate the administration on a fine
effort in producing this bill. I, for one, am ready to roll up my
sleeves and get to work on moving it from words on a piece of paper
into Head Start centers all across the country.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in
the introduction of legislation reauthorizing the Head Start program.
This legislation represents a true bipartisan effort to connect Head
Start funding increases with measures designed to upgrade the quality
of all program grantees.
The substantial increases in Head Start funding over the past 10
years, combined with proposed increases for the future, raise serious
questions about the ability of the Head Start program to use funds
efficiently. In addition, reports issued last year by the inspector
general of the Department of Health and Human Services raised questions
about the quality of many individual local programs.
This reauthorization bill deals specifically with the quality
assurance, monitoring, and training and technical assistance issues
upon which Representative Goodling, Representative Molinari, and I
focused our attention in developing the Head Start Quality Improvement
Act (S. 670/H.R. 1528), which we introduced in March of last year. I am
pleased that this Head Start reauthorization legislation builds on the
program's strengths and allows programs the flexibility to respond to
the needs of participants.
Head Start programs will be able to expand in a variety of ways: by
providing full-day, full-year care; by including children aged 3, 4,
and 5 who are not in kindergarten; and by including services to infants
and toddlers from birth-to-3 years of age in some Head Start services.
The legislation calls for better linkages between Head Start programs
and the community--forging partnerships with schools, social service
agencies, and other community organizations.
The legislation provides the Department of Health and Human Services
with the tools and the mandate to focus resources on helping Head Start
programs reach their full potential. Stringent provisions are included
in the legislation to deal with programs that are not meeting high
quality standards.
As the Head Start Program continues its expansion in services and
funding, there is a need to make some constructive changes to ensure
that this opportunity to provide quality services to low-income
children and their families is not lost.
I have long supported the Head Start Program. However, I believe
program expansion and increased funding are of limited value unless
steps are taken to improve the quality of the services that are being
provided--quantity with quality.
The legislation being introduced today represents a thoughtful
response to the needs of the program--and more importantly, the
children, families, and staff who make Head Start a success in
communities throughout our country. I look forward to working with the
administration and my colleagues to enact this legislation.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my House and
Senate colleagues in introducing the reauthorization of the Head Start
Program.
Few Federal programs engender the feelings of good will,
bipartisanship, and sense of accomplishment that the Head Start Program
does. This is a wonderful program, and I have enjoyed participating in
helping a good program become even better.
Today, Head Start classrooms around the country are providing a
valuable link between families and the services and opportunities they
need. This is truly a program that embodies a commitment to providing a
hand up, not a hand out.
It's also a program, I am pleased to say, that we can examine to find
out what's working, rather than focusing on what's broken. This is a
program that works. We are here today to express our commitment to the
program and to its continued improvement.
I have had the privilege of visiting a number of Head Start centers
in my own State, and have found at each one a common thread. The
commitment of staff, like Donna Hogle of Bloomington to doing whatever
it takes to help families, and commitment of parents to be there for
their children. Parents serve as volunteers, as teachers, as aides, in
whatever capacity they are needed. Many have told me that thanks to
Head Start, they have gone on to higher education. Thanks to Head
Start, their children have hope for a future.
The legislation we will introduce today continues this legacy, and
ushers Head Start into the year 2000.
More Federal programs should look at the model of Head Start. One can
only imagine what our school system would accomplish if it followed
Head Start's lead and gave parents more say into how the school should
be run, what teachers should be hired, and what curriculum should be
taught.
Mr. President, I could go on, but let me say how much I appreciate
the spirit which brings us to this point and I look forward to
continued and enthusiastic support of this program.
I would also like to personally acknowledge and thank the staff at
the Head Start Bureau and the legislative staff at HHS for their
willingness to include us in early negotiations.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join my distinguished
colleagues from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Kansas, Vermont, Indiana,
and other States as an original co-sponsor of legislation reauthorizing
the Head Start Program.
This is truly a bipartisan initiative and I look forward to continued
close cooperation between Republicans and Democrats who care deeply
about this Nation's children as this reauthorization goes forward.
I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation in part because of my
strong past support for Head Start and because of the strong support
that Head Start enjoys in my State.
During its last reauthorization, I was a cosponsor, conferee and
strong proponent of the changes we made in the Head Start law,
including increased authorized funding levels designed to ``fully
fund'' this important program.
In the past, I've also communicated my strong support for substantial
increases in annual appropriations for Head Start--through my votes and
in letters and other communication with the Senate Labor/HHS
Appropriations Subcommittee.
While I have been a strong supporter in the past, Mr. President, I
also agree with a growing number of Head Start proponents who are
calling for a fundamental review of this important program prior to
approving significant additional increases in spending.
In particular, Mr. President, I feel it's essential that we revisit
what we mean by ``full funding'' of Head Start as we consider this
legislation as well as proposals to increase Head Start's annual
appropriations levels.
In the past, with appropriations levels for Head Start lagging far
behind authorized funding levels, this hasn't been such an important
issue. The needs have been so great--and the numbers of children served
so far below the number of children eligible--that we needed to place
highest priority on what one might call the ``quantitative aspects of
full funding.''
Mr. President, I believe we are now entering a new era during which
we must give more focus to quality and outcomes in programs like Head
Start, . . . and a new era during which we must ensure that all
programs serving children and families are more responsive to the
interests of both those we intend to benefit, and those who pay the
bills.

The issue, in other words, is not whether we continue to increase
funding for Head Start, but how. And, as we do that, we must make sure
that we get the maximum benefit for the children and families that Head
Start has traditionally served.
My decision to become an original co-sponsor of this legislation, Mr.
President, is not only intended to signal my strong support for this
vital program, but also to signal my commitment to play an active role
in improving this legislation between now and its final passage.
To do that, I intend to consult closely with Head Start leaders and
others in Minnesota.
And, I intend to use my positions on both the Finance and Labor
Committees to consider this reauthorization in the larger context of
the initiatives we are considering this year on health care reform and
welfare reform.
Among the issues I would like to see explored during this
reauthorization, Mr. President, are:
Whether additional resources in Head Start should be directed only to
meeting numerical targets or also to improving quality.
How quality and outcomes in Head Start can and should be measured and
whether and how quality and outcomes should be tied to funding.
Whether the part-day, part-week, part-year model under which Head
Start was founded is now relevant in an era of increased need for full-
day supervision and care for children of low income parents who are
working outside the home or in school or job training programs.
How funding for families eligible for Head Start and federal and
state child care assistance can be better integrated--for example, to
provide Head Start services in child care settings and child care
services at Head Start centers.
How closer links can be established between Head Start and elementary
school programs--without losing the separate identity and
organizational autonomy of Head Start.
At what pace the numbers of children in Head Start can grow relative
to its ``infrastructure'' including availability of licensable
facilities and recruitment and training of personnel.
Whether changes in the Head Start formula--between and within
States--should be made to more closely reflect actual geographic
differences in need and levels of eligible children being served.
How States and local communities could be given additional incentives
to provide supplementary funding for Head Start programs--again,
without losing the separate identity and organizational autonomy of
Head Start.
Again, Mr. President, this is not intended to be an exhaustive list
of questions that need to be addressed as we use the opportunity
represented by this year's reauthorization. But, I do believe we owe
the children and families of this country an in-depth debate on these
and other issues as we reauthorize--and continue to increase overall
funding for--this vital national program.
Mr. President, I realize that many of these questions have been asked
during the extensive and bipartisan consultative process that has led
up to this introduction. And, I believe a number of these questions are
being addressed, at least in part, through the changes that the
administration is recommending.
I look forward to continuing the dialogue that has produced this
legislation, Mr. President, as we gain even broader input on how to
position a vital national program for the 21st century.
I appreciate very much the leadership already taken on this issue by
the administration, by the majority and minority leaders of the Labor
Committee and its Subcommittee on Children, and by the Head Start
Community.
This bill will only get better as it works its way through the
legislative process, Mr. President. I am committed to helping make Head
Start an even better program for the generations of young Americans who
will depend on its future.
______

By Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Coats,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durenberger, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Mathews, Mr. Metzenbaum,
Mr. Packwood, Mr. Pell, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Specter, and Mr. DeConcini):
S.J. Res. 164. A joint resolution to designate June 4, 1994, as
``National Trails Day''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

national trails day

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to designate
June 4, 1994, as ``National Trails Day.'' Our National Trails System
consists of tens of thousands of miles nationwide, including 19
national scenic and historic trails. In addition to providing greater
access to some of our country's most beautiful scenic vistas, trails
also serve an educational role in the heightening awareness of our
cultural heritage. National historic trails, such as the Pony Express
and Santa Fe, enable people all across this country to hike, bike, or
walk along routes which played an important part in America's history.
One lesser-known benefit of our trails system is the positive
economic impact trails can have on surrounding communities. For
example, each year an estimated $122 billion is spent on outdoor
recreation. Recreation opportunities in our national forests generate
nearly $3 billion and almost $190 million in jobs for nearby
communities.
Our National Trails System also fosters an increased appreciation and
responsibility for our public lands. Our trails give people a better
perspective of our role in nature and how we can manage our public
lands to allow for sustainable development while preserving our natural
heritage.
In an era of growing appreciation of our public lands and increased
physical awareness and fiscal restraint, trails provide healthy,
inexpensive entertainment opportunities for people of all ages.

____________________