[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.

                          ____________________