[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 36 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS OF INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HEFLIN:
  S. 1983. A bill to provide that the provisions of chapters 83 and 84 
of title 5, United States Code, relating to reemployed annuitants shall 
not apply with respect to postal retirees who are reemployed, on a 
temporary basis, to serve as rural letter carriers or rural postmaster; 
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                 postal service rural areas act of 1994

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am today introducing companion 
legislation to H.R. 3246 in order to help the U.S. Postal Service meet 
its temporary personnel needs in rural areas. Congressman Thomas Sawyer 
has introduced the House version of the bill.
  I want to mention at the outset that this measure will have no effect 
whatsoever on the Federal budget. It will cost taxpayers nothing, since 
the Postal Service's operational costs are borne by the agency, coming 
from the revenue generated from its sales and services.
  The Postal Service has identified the need for this legislation to 
allow the hiring of individuals on a temporary basis. This is 
particularly true for rural parts of the country. In these areas, the 
Postal Service often has difficulty attracting temporary letter 
carriers and postmasters to fill vacancies. Since there are far fewer 
postal workers in rural areas, it is harder to hire trained temporary 
employees. When career postal employees are ill, on vacation, on 
detail, or are out for some other reasons, there often aren't any 
trained employees familiar with procedures and routes to take their 
place temporarily.

  As a result, the Postal Service must often turn to an untrained pool 
of workers to fill in for the postmaster or letter carrier. A better 
alternative--and the one sought by this bill--would be to hire, on a 
temporary basis, a retired postmaster or other former postal employee 
who may be living in the community. This person would not need to be 
trained, because he or she would already be familiar with postal 
regulations and procedures.
  It is obviously in our best interest to see that the Postal Service 
attracts applicants for temporary assignments from a skilled labor 
pool. We can assist the agency by making temporary employment 
attractive to retired postal employees, who are likely to have free 
time and may be willing to work part time.
  Currently, however, provisions of title 5, United States Code 
relating to reemployed Federal annuitants virtually prevent postal 
retirees from accepting temporary reemployment with the Postal Service. 
Sections 8331 and 8401 stipulate that reemployed Postal Workers forfeit 
an amount equal to their annuity if they become reemployed by the 
agency. Basically, once one is retired from the Postal Service, it does 
not pay to go back.
  This measure provides an exemption from the offset provisions 
contained in title 5 for retired postal employees who are rehired by 
the Postal Service on a temporary basis. Under our bill, postal 
annuitants could be reemployed by the Service for 90 days in a calendar 
year without having their retirement offset. The measure also provides 
for a 180-day life-time limit on eligibility for the exemption. The 
time limit is important for one reason: it is not our intention to have 
postal retirees take away opportunities from individuals seeking career 
appointments with the Postal Service. This bill is aimed only at 
allowing the Postal Service's rural offices to fill a temporary need 
for skilled employees. If does not require the Postal Service to hire 
retirees; it only gives the agency the flexibility to do so if the need 
is identified.
  Citizens in rural communities have a particularly close relationship 
with those who provide mail service. They probably know their local 
postmaster and letter carriers by name. When these postal employees 
retire, they usually remain in the community, and could offer a 
valuable service in the form of temporary mail service.
  Since the Postal Service is constantly facing increased operational 
expenses, passage of this bill would be the fiscally prudent course to 
take. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and welcome their 
cosponsorship.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BREAUX:
  S. 1986. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax incentives to encourage the preservation of low-income housing; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                  Low-Income Housing Preservation Act

   Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill that 
charts a promising new way to enlist the private sector's help in 
preserving and improving the country's stock of affordable housing. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill, entitled the 
``Low-Income Housing Preservation Act.''
  All of us are aware from our trips home that there is a serious 
shortage of affordable housing in the country. All one has to do is 
look at the number of homeless in most of our larger cities to know 
this, but the statistics tell the story as well. A 1992 Harvard study 
estimated that there were 4.1 million units of HUD or privately owned, 
publicly assisted units, while there are 13.8 million households 
eligible to receive HUD-funded housing assistance if the assistance 
were available. In light of the severe budget restraints, the funds for 
such expanded assistance are not available.
  Much of the housing that is currently occupied by low-income tenants 
is not public housing, but privately owned apartment houses that are 
assisted directly or indirectly by HUD. If these disappear because the 
private owners are no longer able to maintain the projects, the supply 
of affordable housing will be further reduced. Yet many of these 
projects have been severely depressed by the 1986 changes to the tax 
laws. As a result, the current owners have no way to raise additional 
capital to rehabilitate the structures, as becomes inevitably necessary 
with time. Additionally, current owners cannot sell the projects to new 
owners who may be able to expend the private capital needed. Because 
the project's market values are so depressed, the current owners cannot 
receive enough in cash upon sale to pay the capital gains taxes they 
would owe. As a result these aging projects are locked into a long, 
slow downward spiral.
  The President recognized the pressing nature of the problem last year 
when, in his economic recovery plan, he called for additional funding 
to ``repair and restore the Nation's stock of assisted rental housing, 
most of which is 20 to 30 years old. Many units are in deteriorated 
buildings. Many operators of buildings are also financially troubled.''
  I believe that the bill I am introducing provides a solution to the 
problem that is both effective and realistic. It is identical to the 
approach that has already been proposed in the House of Representatives 
by Congressman Jefferson, H.R. 3322.
  In the first place, the bill targets the projects which are most at 
risk. These are projects assisted by HUD under the old section 
221(d)(3) below market rate interest rate program or section 236 
programs, or projects insured under the section 221(d)(3) market rate 
or section 221(d)(4) programs, and assisted under section 8. In all 
cases, the projects must be at least 10 years old, and at least a 
majority of the units in the projects must be occupied by the tenants 
whose income was no more than 80 percent of the area median income when 
they first became tenants.

  Accordingly to HUD, there are almost 1 million units in the 
affordable housing projects that meet the bill's criteria. These 
projects are located in every State in the country.
  The bill offers special tax benefits to new investors who agree to 
buy these affordable housing projects, invest the necessary capital to 
fix them up, and maintain them for low-income tenants. It will be the 
responsibility of HUD in each case to determine how much new capital 
must be invested in the project as part of the sale, but in no event 
may it be less than 10 percent of adjusted basis of the residential 
rental property. In exchange, the bill proposes to reduce the 
depreciation schedule for these projects from 27\1/2\ to 15 years. It 
also provides that any investor in the project may claim annually up to 
$50,000 of losses from such projects without regard to the passive loss 
rules.
  Mr. President, it is clearly in the public interest to help ensure 
the continued existence of these housing units. The tenants will 
benefit as the existing owners are replaced by new owners with new 
capital, and a new willingness to preserve and improve the projects. 
The local community will benefit from the jobs generated by the work to 
rehabilitate the units, and by the general improvement of the 
neighborhood that goes along with refurbished buildings. The taxpayer 
benefits because the number of projects that go into bankruptcy and end 
up in HUD's portfolio will be reduced, and because HUD will find it 
easier to dispose of projects already in its portfolio. Over the longer 
run, the taxpayers will save the cost of having to replace the existing 
projects that are lost from lack of financial support.
  I hope my colleagues will support me in this effort as we move ahead 
to consider and refine the bill's details in the weeks ahead.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1987. A bill to ensure fair and effective enforcement of 
immigration and labor laws in the United States, to promote 
naturalization among eligible aliens, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


               immigration enforcement reform act of 1994

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the 
Immigration Enforcement Reform Act of 1994.
  Over the last year, our country has been faced with an illegal 
immigration crisis. The breakdown in enforcement at our borders and in 
the enforcement of our labor laws have placed a burden on the resources 
of States like California and has led to a lack of confidence in our 
immigration system.
  We must respond to the real need to regain control over our 
immigration system, but as we do so, we must avoid extreme measures on 
both sides.
  This legislation represents a balanced approach to immigration reform 
which I have consistently advocated. My balanced approach is based on 
the principle that our immigration laws are good but our enforcement 
has been ineffective.
  My bill offers practical solutions to failings in the current system 
by ensuring strong and fair enforcement of our border and our labor 
laws, and by promoting naturalization and civic participation among 
eligible immigrants to weave them into the fabric of America.
  Mr. President, let me briefly review the other important parts of a 
balanced approach to immigration reform before I specifically outline 
the bill I am offering today.
  All of my colleagues would agree that border enforcement is a 
critical dimension of any reform plan. It is estimated that 3 million 
people illegally cross the United States-Mexico border each year. Of 
this number, 200,000 to 300,000 become permanent inhabitants. By some 
estimates California is home to approximately 1.3 million illegal 
immigrants, or more than half of all undocumented immigrants living in 
America.
  We must stop people from entering illegally, before they burden local 
resources, and before they present problems for labor law enforcement. 
Last July, I offered a plan to improve border enforcement in a cost 
effective manner by using the National Guard to assist the Border 
Patrol in a civilian capacity. This plan was successfully included as 
part of the Defense Appropriations bill.
  In addition to stopping those who cross the border without documents, 
we have got to crack down on the rampant use of forged documents. Last 
August, I traveled to the southwest border and joined Attorney General 
Reno and my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, for a 
briefing by local officials on border problems. We were shown thousands 
and thousands of forged documents that smugglers use to get people into 
the country.
  I have worked to ensure that smugglers and document forgers know that 
stiff penalties await them. My amendment to increase the civil and 
criminal penalties for forgery of immigration documents was 
successfully included in the Senate crime bill.

  While we act now to stop illegal immigration, we must address the 
fact that years of inadequate enforcement has already allowed millions 
of people to enter the country illegally, placing a burden on the 
resources of State and local governments.
  Last week, I successfully included language in the Budget Resolution 
Act that establishes the principle of Federal responsibility to 
reimburse State and local costs. It is the sole responsibility of the 
Federal government to set and enforce immigration policy, and the 
Federal Government must reimburse States for the cost of their failure 
to enforce that policy.
  But when we go to the Federal Government for reimbursements, our 
request must be based on solid figures. That is why I have asked the 
General Accounting Office to analyze recent cost and benefit estimates 
and assess the net fiscal impact of illegal immigrants in State like 
California.
  In addition to these measures that I have secured--stronger border 
enforcement, increased penalties for document forgery, and steps 
towards Federal reimbursement for costs to State and local 
governments--I am a cosponsor of bills by Senators Kennedy and Graham 
that address asylum reform and the high cost of incarcerating criminal 
aliens. But these critical reform measures are only part of a balanced 
approach.
  Today, I offer legislation that addresses three additional areas that 
are essential to repairing our system: labor law enforcement, oversight 
of the border patrol, and integration of legal immigrants into American 
society through citizenship.
  Mr. President, illegal immigrants themselves are often those most 
hurt by the breakdown of our system. The primary reason that people 
cross our border illegally is to find work, and most do--at substandard 
wages and in dangerous conditions.
  Our current efforts to prevent the hiring and exploitation of 
undocumented workers have been inadequate and ineffective. In 1986, 
sanctions against employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants were 
passed as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. However, 
illegal immigration continues at high rate. After an initial drop 
following the implementation of employer sanctions, Border Patrol 
apprehension rates have resurged, climbing back up to 1.16 million a 
year. Employer sanctions have failed to reduce the job magnet and the 
flow of illegal immigrants into our country continues.
  Our second line of attack against the job magnet--enforcement of 
labor law standards by the Labor Department has also failed to curb 
exploitation.
  Despite continued problems with illegal immigration and labor 
exploitation, the staff at the Department of Labor dedicated to 
investigating labor law violations has plummeted over the last decade 
from 1,100 employees in 1980, down to 817 in 1993.
  The regional office in San Francisco, which has the job of covering 
violations throughout California--the destination for over half of the 
illegal immigrants in the United States--is only equipped with 89 
investigators. Subsequently, as of July 1993, they faced a backlog of 
over 1,300 cases in the California area. It is amazing that there are 
only 16 employees struggling with the task of investigating labor law 
violations in the large five county Los Angeles area.
  If we do not address the job magnet and the system of cruel 
exploitation that fuels illegal immigration our borders and airports 
will never be secure. Document forgers and smugglers will continue to 
undermine our system, and people will continue to come to the United 
States illegally, straining local resources.
  But we need to find innovative, cost effective approaches to confront 
this problem instead of focusing all our resources into efforts that 
have not shown strong results.
  My bill builds on a successful and cost effective program underway in 
California. California's TIPP, or the Targeted Industries Partnership 
Program, has brought together officials from a variety of Federal, 
State, and local agencies--from wage and hour, health and safety, and 
even the IRS--to share information and jointly locate and crack down on 
labor law violators. With the help of this program, the California 
State Labor Commissioner alone assessed over $4 million in penalties.
  By creating a labor exploitation task force at the Department of 
Labor, my legislation will reduce the incentive to hire and exploit 
illegal immigrants. This small but focused task force will be charged 
with developing a long range, active strategy, for cutting back on the 
hiring of illegal immigrants. They will oversee the implementation of 
labor law strike forces at the local level to crack down on employers 
who flout our labor laws and exploit desperate people.
  The task force will target industries with labor law violations 
related to illegal immigration, including but not limited to wage and 
hour violations and violations of occupational health and safety 
standards. It will pool the resources of various Federal and State 
agencies to provide labor law strike forces in regions with high rates 
of exploitation of undocumented workers, and it would allow the 
Secretary of Labor to increase fines for labor law violations to direct 
these funds toward expanded enforcement.
  We have to serve notice to unethical employers. These strike forces 
will send a clear and strong message about the costs of exploiting 
illegal immigrants, and undermining the wages of the most vulnerable 
American workers.
  The second component of my legislation creates a Citizen Promotion 
Bureau at the Department of Justice to help immigrants who want to 
become full participants in American society.
  At present, lengthy delays and poor service prevent even the most 
determined and resourceful people from making it through the 
naturalization process. Eligible legal immigrants who are seeking to 
become a full part of the American dream deserve to be a high priority 
and to receive their fair share of resources, particularly in light of 
the substantial fees they often pay for services.

  Management difficulties, and conflicting enforcement and advocacy 
roles of the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] undermine its 
ability to provide adequate service to eligible legal immigrants and 
residents seeking full participation in American society.
  We owe it to those who patiently follow the rules to reform our 
naturalization system. And reform must include better management of the 
fees collected for naturalization services. Though the fees collected 
annually should cover all of INS program costs, the agency's inadequate 
accounting systems have prevented it from accurately adjusting the fee 
structure. The inspector general at the Department of Justice recently 
estimated that at least $170 million in additional fees are not 
collected annually because INS does not fully exercise its authority 
for establishing fees. With accurate accounting and cost reviews, INS 
could significantly increase collections, and significantly improve 
service.
  California has much at stake in improving the naturalization process 
and insuring that enough revenue is raised to cover program costs. My 
State currently has 5.2 million legal residents who are not citizens, 
and 1 out of 6 cannot now vote. A great number of these Californians 
were granted amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act. 
However, many have been unable to obtain citizenship education and 
English classes, or they are waiting for the INS to process backlogged 
legalization applications.
  The presence of so many individuals who cannot fully participate in 
our political system undermines the democratic nature of our society, 
and sends a negative message to those who try to follow the rules for 
legally entering the United States.
  By moving the services and procedures related to the process of 
naturalization into a division of the Department of Justice separate 
from immigration enforcement, we can insure that citizenship becomes a 
priority and not a step child in our immigration system.
  The third part of the legislation that I am introducing today would 
create the position of Immigration Enforcement Complaint Commissioner 
at the Justice Department.
  To stem the flow of illegal immigrants across the border, we must 
continue to increase the number of border patrol agents who patrol that 
border. Over the last decade, the number of agents has doubled, and it 
will continue to rise.
  Just as it is imperative that we enforce our borders to preserve our 
legal immigration system, I believe we must work to insure the 
integrity of one of the largest police forces in the United States--the 
Border Patrol--by instituting a consistent and credible system for 
investigating allegations of misconduct and civil rights abuses.
  While the vast majority of employees of the INS are living up to 
their human rights training, there is a clear need for mechanisms to 
discipline those who do not.

  Currently, four different offices within the Department of Justice--
the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Professional 
Responsibility, the Civil Rights Division, and the Office of Internal 
Audit at the INS--share roles in processing complaints. This 
overlapping jurisdiction and diffusion of responsibility hinders the 
investigation of complaints.
  Richard Hankinson, the inspector general at the Department of Justice 
who is charged with investigating misconduct, stated in recent 
testimony before a House Government Operations Subcommittee that he was 
unable to provide concrete information on employee discipline. He 
admitted that the Department could not obtain ``useful data at this 
point on how the INS disciplines its employees in response to our 
investigations or those of others.'' The only conclusion he was able to 
reach, based on anecdotal evidence was that ``there is a persistent 
belief among those of our staff with experience in the area that INS's 
treatment of misconduct is spotty. Whether action is taken, and the 
severity of the punishment, if any, seems to be uneven and sometimes 
happenstance.''
  This troubling testimony was echoed in a recent report on the INS 
undertaken by Representative Condit's Government Operations 
Subcommittee. The subcommittee report concluded that ``serious 
questions have been raised about the sufficiency of investigations into 
allegations of misconduct by INS personnel--in particular, Border 
Patrol personnel who are often accused of abusive behavior. When 
misconduct or inadequate performance is identified and documented, INS 
discipline is `spotty.' Witnesses testified that INS personnel lack a 
basic sense of civility and courtesy in dealing with the public.''
  In one tragic example, Patrol supervisors failed to take proper 
action in response to repeated complaints against an agent, who was 
then later arrested on rape charges of two different women he had 
stopped while on patrol. Last year, the agent was sentenced to 24 years 
in prison. In another costly example, despite the fact that a U.S. 
district court awarded over $500,000 in damages to a 12-year-old boy 
who was shot in the back by a San Diego Border Patrol agent while the 
boy was standing in Tijuana, authorities never prosecuted or 
disciplined the agent.
  An enhanced complaint review process is necessary to protect U.S. 
citizens as well as the undocumented. Over half of the victims who make 
complaints about treatment by the INS were legally in the country and 
U.S. citizens accounted for 17.7 percent of those reporting abuse. 
Cases such as the mistaken deportation to Mexico of a twenty-year-old 
United States citizen who was fixing the roof of his parents' home, and 
the questioning of the mayor of the city of Pomona by INS agents, 
demonstrate the need for reform and enhanced review.
  To be fair, the Patrol has not been equipped with a complaint review 
process that can live up to its task of overseeing one of the largest 
police forces in the United States. My bill helps the INS do its job, 
by streamlining jurisdiction to insure that serious complaints are not 
lost in a haphazard process.
  My bill creates a Commissioner at the Department of Justice but 
outside of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who is charged 
with responsibility for abuse prevention and complaint review.
  By creating a commissioner identified as the center of responsibility 
for monitoring and keeping track of complaints, we can improve 
investigation and review, and develop a strategy for better screening 
and training.
  As some of my colleagues in the Senate, as well as many of my former 
colleagues in the House, have focused on the illegal immigration 
problem over the past year, I have often heard their assertions that 
they value immigrants and seek only to preserve our proud tradition of 
legal immigration.
  We all extol the virtues and contributions of immigrants, and many of 
us have witnessed them directly in our families and our communities. I 
myself am a first generation immigrant on my mother's side.
  Today, I have outlined a plan and introduced legislation that 
provides a balanced and fair approach to regain control of our system, 
to reduce illegal immigration and to preserve our Nation's proud 
heritage of legal immigration. Now I urge my colleagues to move forward 
with a balanced approach to immigration reform. I challenge them to 
move forward in a way that is based on the principle of strong but fair 
law enforcement, and that is true to the promise of the American dream.
  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. 1987

       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 ``Immigration Enforcement 
     Reform Act of 1994''.
                 TITLE I--LABOR EXPLOITATION TASK FORCE

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish 
     within the Employment Standards Administration a task force 
     to be known as the Labor Exploitation Task Force (hereafter 
     in this title referred to as the ``Task Force'').
       (b) Composition.--The Task Force shall be composed of 
     members who are appointed by the Secretary of Labor.

     SEC. 102. DUTIES.

       (a) Mandatory.--The Task Force shall--
       (1) assist the Secretary of Labor in the enforcement of the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Occupational Health and 
     Safety Act, and any other Federal laws related to labor;
       (2) identify industries that have a history of violating 
     laws with respect to labor, work place safety and health, or 
     illegal immigration;
       (3) in coordination with other Federal agencies and State 
     and local agencies, develop an interagency strategy to 
     monitor, investigate, and inspect industries for violations 
     of laws with respect to labor, work place safety and health, 
     or illegal immigration, including, to the extent practicable, 
     the conduct of joint inspections of industries by Federal 
     agencies and State and local enforcement agencies);
       (4) advise a State or local enforcement agency on the 
     implementation of any strategic activity described in 
     paragraph (3) at the local level;
       (5) develop and define basic principles of conduct that 
     enforcement personnel are to follow during an inspection or 
     investigation described in paragraph (3) or during other 
     contact with the public;
       (6) develop a system that centralizes Federal, State, and 
     local data bases with respect to industries that have 
     violated the labor, work place safety and health, or illegal 
     immigration laws enforced by each participating enforcement 
     agency; and
       (7) disseminate information to State and local agencies on 
     the successful outcomes of the investigative, inspection, and 
     preventive activities described in paragraph (3).
       (b) Discretionary.--The Task Force may seek advice from, or 
     coordinate efforts to encourage cooperation among, Federal 
     agencies concerned with the prevention of illegal immigration 
     and the hiring and exploitation of undocumented immigrants.

     SEC. 103. CIVIL PENALTIES.

       (a) Increase in Fines.--For the purposes described in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of Labor may increase fines 
     prescribed by Federal law with respect to labor law 
     violations.
       (b) Use of Amount of Fines.--The Secretary of Labor shall 
     use the excess amount collected from a fine increased under 
     subsection (a) for additional labor enforcement personnel, 
     equipment, or the provision of incentives to encourage State 
     and local enforcement agencies to cooperate in the activities 
     described in section 102(a)(3).

     SEC. 104. PROHIBITION ON RETALIATION.

       An employer may not retaliate against an employee 
     (including the termination of such employee) for 
     participation or cooperation in any investigative, 
     inspection, or preventive activity carried out under this 
     title.

     SEC. 105. DEFINITION.

       For purposes of this title, the term ``State and local 
     enforcement agencies'' means a State or local governmental 
     entity that is responsible for the enforcement of laws 
     related to labor.
                    TITLE II--CITIZENSHIP PROMOTION

     SEC. 201. CITIZENSHIP PROMOTION BUREAU WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF JUSTICE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Justice a Citizenship Promotion Bureau.
       (b) Director.--The Bureau shall be headed by a Director of 
     Citizenship Promotion, who shall be a naturalized citizen of 
     the United States and who shall be appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (c) Purpose.--The Bureau shall be responsible for the 
     implementation of a comprehensive program of encouraging and 
     assisting immigrants to become naturalized citizens as soon 
     as they become eligible to do so.
       (d) Cooperative Agreements.--The Director is authorized to 
     enter into cooperative agreements with Federal, State, and 
     local governmental agencies and with private entities to 
     carry out the purpose of the Bureau.
       (e) Transfer of Functions, Personnel, and Assets.--The 
     Attorney General shall transfer to the Bureau established all 
     functions, personnel, and assets which the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service exercised, employed, or held before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act in carrying out its 
     responsibilities relating to citizenship and naturalization.

     SEC. 202. NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--The Director is authorized to establish 
     a national citizenship advisory board for the purpose of 
     providing advice and recommendations to the Director on 
     matters relating to the granting of citizenship status to 
     aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the 
     United States.
       (b) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The 
     advisory board shall be subject to the provisions of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2).

     SEC. 203. NATURALIZATION FEE ACCOUNT.

       (a) Establishment.--(1) There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a Naturalization Fee Account, 
     which shall consist of the fees described in subsection (b).
       (2) Funds in the Account shall be available to carry out 
     the activities of the Bureau.
       (b) Transfer of Fees.--Fees collected by the Bureau in 
     connection with the performance of naturalization services 
     shall be deposited in the account established under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Fee Levels.--(1) The Director shall review and 
     reevaluate the amount of each fee charged for the performance 
     of naturalization services.
       (2) The Director shall assure that the total amount of fees 
     collected would cover the full cost of efficiently providing 
     such services, including the costs of administering the 
     Bureau and performing related outreach activities.
       (3) The Director shall, by regulation, prescribe the amount 
     of each fee to cover the costs described in paragraph (2).
       (d) Annual Report.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the 
     Attorney General and the Director shall jointly submit a 
     report to Congress which--
       (1) assesses the financial condition of the Naturalization 
     Fee Account; and
       (2) describes the activities of the Bureau.

     SEC. 204. REDESIGNATION OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 
                   SERVICE.

       (a) Redesignation.--Effective on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be 
     referred to as the Immigration Service.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 101(a)(34) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(34) is 
     amended by striking ``and Naturalization''.
       (2) Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     Department of Commerce and Labor'', approved February 14, 
     1903 (8 U.S.C. 1551) is amended by striking ``and 
     Naturalization''.
       (3) Section 7 of the Act entitled ``An Act in amendment to 
     the various acts related to immigration and the importation 
     of aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor, 
     approved March 3, 1891 (8 U.S.C. 1552) is amended by striking 
     ``and Naturalization''.

     SEC. 205. REFERENCES.

       Reference in any other Federal law, Executive order, rule, 
     regulation, or delegation of authority, or any document of or 
     relating to--
       (1) the Attorney General or the Commissioner with regard to 
     functions transferred under section 201, shall be deemed to 
     refer to the Director;
       (2) the Service with regard to functions transferred under 
     section 201, shall be deemed to refer to the Bureau; and
       (3) the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be 
     deemed to refer to the Immigration Service.
              TITLE III--IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES

     SEC. 301. IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINTS.

       (a) Establishment of Office.--There shall be established in 
     the Department of Justice the Office of Immigration 
     Enforcement Complaints.
       (b) Commissioner.--There shall be at the head of the Office 
     an Immigration Enforcement Complaint Commissioner, who shall 
     be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate. The Commissioner shall be directly 
     responsible to the Attorney General for carrying out his 
     duties.
       (c) Duties.--The Commissioner shall--
       (1) have power to investigate any complaint of an unlawful 
     immigration enforcement practice;
       (2) make recommendations on specific policy and 
     disciplinary actions to the Attorney General with respect to 
     employees of the Department;
       (3) make recommendations to the Attorney General for the 
     reform of procedures applicable to the investigation of 
     complaints of unlawful immigration enforcement practices and 
     for disciplinary action against Department employees who 
     engaged in such action; and
       (4) make recommendations to the Attorney General with 
     respect to bringing prosecutions against employees of the 
     Department who committed criminal offenses in the course of 
     an unlawful immigration enforcement practice.
       (d) Compensation.--The Commissioner is entitled to receive 
     compensation at a rate not to exceed the maximum rate payable 
     for a position above GS-15 of the General Schedule, under 
     section 5332 of title 5, United States Code.
       (e) Regional Offices.--The Commissioner, in accordance with 
     regulations of the Attorney General, shall establish such 
     regional offices as may be necessary to carry out his duties.
       (f) Early Warning Program.--The Commissioner shall develop 
     a system of procedures, that may be referred to as the 
     ``early warning program'', that is designed--
       (1) to identify Border Patrol officers who have been the 
     subject of an excessive number of legitimate complaints of 
     unlawful immigration enforcement practices;
       (2) to provide assistance to such officers in avoiding such 
     difficulty in the future, including the provision of training 
     in communication techniques, conflict resolution, and stress 
     management; and
       (3) to recommend discipline where appropriate.
       (g) Protection Against Retaliation.--It shall be unlawful 
     for the Department, or any officer thereof, to discriminate 
     against any employee or applicant for employment because the 
     individual has opposed any practice made an unlawful 
     immigration enforcement practice by this section or because 
     the individual has made a charge, testified, assisted, or 
     participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, 
     or hearing under this section.
       (h) Records.--The Commissioner shall collect and maintain 
     records on all complaints of unlawful immigration enforcement 
     practices filed with the Department.
       (i) Annual Report.--Beginning one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the 
     Commissioner shall submit a report to Congress setting forth 
     a statistical summary of the complaints of unlawful 
     immigration enforcement practices filed with the Department 
     during the preceding 12-month period.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Commissioner such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this section.
       (k) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``Commissioner'' means the Immigration 
     Enforcement Complaint Commissioner appointed under subsection 
     (a);
       (2) the term ``Department'' means the Department of 
     Justice; and
       (3) the term ``unlawful immigration enforcement practice'' 
     means the excessive use of force, or demonstrated difficulty 
     in dealing appropriately with members of the public, in the 
     course of carrying out immigration enforcement 
     activities.
                                 ______

      By Mr. METZENBAUM (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 1989. A bill to prohibit the transfer and novation of an insurance 
policy without the prior informed written consent of the policyholder, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                   the insurance policy transfer act

 Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator 
Bryan, I rise to offer a bill that will put fairness back into the 
insurance company-policyholder relationship. The Insurance Policy 
Transfer Act prevent policyholders from being victimized when their 
insurance company transfers their insurance policies to another 
insurer--without the policyholders' informed consent.
  The policy transfers treat policyholders like commodities, trading 
them like baseball cards.
  This is outrageous. Transfers change the policyholders contract 
without the consent of the policyholder. In most businesses this would 
be impossible, illegal, but not in the insurance industry. The 
insurance industry feels it has the impunity to break contracts with 
policyholders, when it suits insurance companies.
  Let me illustrate how this would work if the banks could transfer 
depositors: A consumer deposits $100,000 with triple ``A'' bank. Triple 
``A'' bank promises to pay the money back. Triple A then transfers the 
$100,000, and the obligation to pay the consumer, to the PDQ bank. 
Triple A doesn't tell the consumer about the transfer or obtain his or 
her permission. Triple A has hundreds of branches, billions in assets, 
and plenty of capital. But PDQ is a one branch operation; and it's in 
financial trouble. PDQ fails.
  The consumer, who has never heard of the PDQ bank, now asks Triple A 
for her money. Triple A replies, ``We aren't your bank. We owe you 
nothing. Your account was transferred to PDQ. Unfortunately, PDQ 
failed.''
  I know this sounds unbelievable in the banking industry, but, believe 
me, this is how it works in the insurance industry. Insurance companies 
trade policyholders like baseball cards, like commodities. Like so many 
widgets. Policyholders aren't widgets. They are people. People with a 
contract. A contract that involves their lives and their families' 
lives.
  It's absolutely disgraceful that the insurance industry can treat 
policyholders like objects, swapping, and trading them without even 
asking their permission.
  No other industry does this. Only an industry as powerful and 
arrogant as the insurance industry could stoop to such one-sided 
practices.
  State regulators permit them to do it. According to a survey by my 
Antitrust Subcommittee, most State laws don't require that insurers 
obtain the informed consent of policyholders before a transfer.
  The insurance industry's unchecked power to transfer policies causes 
enormous trauma and financial loss.
  My Antitrust Subcommittee has documented how tens of thousands of 
policyholders in the past decade suffered because they were transferred 
by their insurance company:
  Transferred without their consent:
  Transferred because their original insurer decided the were no longer 
profitable;
  Transferred to distant and little known companies;
  Transferred to financially weaker insurers, insurers in such poor 
financial shape that they couldn't attract policyholders, but had to 
buy them wholesale, without their consent.
  Transferred to insurers operated by unscrupulous executives looking 
only for the millions of dollars in assets that are transferred with 
policies; assets that represent years of policyholders' premiums.
  Too often these assets are dissipated or disappear soon after the 
transfer, leaving the policies without any assets to back them.
  Guarantee Security Life Insurance of Florida is an example of a 
transfer in which the assets disappeared. In the 4 years before it 
failed, Guarantee Security acquired 30,000 policies from other 
insurers. During that time Guarantee Security was in financial trouble 
and needed cash. It got cash by acquiring 30,000 policies and those 
policies' $250 million in accumulated premiums--money which should have 
been saved to eventually pay policyholders.
  Unfortunately, when Guarantee Security failed, the money was gone. 
There wasn't enough left to pay policyholders.
  No one ever asked policyholders if they wanted to be transferred to 
Guarantee Security.
  Under our legislation, they would have to be given the opportunity, 
not only to reject the transfer, but to learn about Guarantee 
Security's poor financial condition.
  Guarantee Security is by no means an isolated example. Consider the 
transfer of 3,000 annuities of the Security Benefit Life Insurance Co. 
of Kansas.
  Security Benefit secretly concluded that the rate of interest it had 
promised the policyholders on the annuities was higher than it wanted 
to pay. Security Benefit figured that transferring the annuities to 
another insurer could get it out from under its contractual obligation.
  Believe it or not, and you can believe it. Security Benefit never 
notified the policyholders that they were going to be transferred. 
Policyholders were never given the opportunity to accept or reject the 
transfer.
  The annuities were transferred to the Life Assurance Co. of 
Pennsylvania. Security Benefit was rated at the top in financial 
health, while Life Assurance of Pennsylvania was unrated. Worse, Life 
Assurance of Pennsylvania was in financial trouble. My subcommittee 
documented that Security Benefit knew that it was in trouble. The 
subcommittee obtained a handwritten memo by Security Benefit's chief 
executive officer. He wrote that he was afraid that Life Assurance of 
Pennsylvania, ``Might go under.'' It went under.
  When policyholders learned of the failure, they wanted Security 
Benefit to stand behind its annuity contract. Security Benefit told 
them that it owed them nothing, that it has washed its hands of them 
when it transferred their annuity of Life Assurance of Pennsylvania.
  Security Benefit made its own policyholders into legal orphans, 
transferring them to a bankrupt insurer, to a company they had not 
chosen. Disgraceful.
  The policyholders eventually got paid, but only after 4 years of 
uncertainty and anxiety. And only when the State insurance guaranty 
funds, which are overwhelmingly financed by taxpayers, picked up three-
quarters of the cost. The original insurer, Security Benefit, enjoying 
record profits, foisted its obligation off on the taxpayers, getting 
off easy.

  This legislation places the obligation where it belongs, on the 
healthy companies that originally sold the policies, not on the 
taxpayers.
  Don't assume that transfers are isolated occurrences. The reality is 
far from that. Based on an informal survey, the staff of the Antitrust 
Subcommittee estimates that tens of billions, very likely, hundreds of 
billions of dollars of policies have been transferred. These policies 
involve hundreds of thousands of policyholders. Many of whom have been 
transferred to risky companies. In most cases, the policyholders were 
not asked if they wanted to be transferred.
  Mrs. Morton Langsfeld of Pennsylvania is an example. Mrs. Langsfeld 
wasn't asked when her policy was transferred. As a result of that 
transfer, she had to wait years following her husband's death to get 
the policy's benefit.
  Mrs. Langsfeld's original insurance company, Charter Security Life of 
New Jersey, transferred her policy to a Colorado insurer, Capitol Life. 
Capitol Life then transferred her to an Indiana insurer, Mutual 
Security. Mrs. Langsfeld's consent to the transfers was never obtained.
  Mrs. Langsfeld's original insurer was top rated, A plus. Mutual 
Security Life was rated C plus, near the bottom, junk.
  Mutual Security went bankrupt.
  Unfortunately, under existing law, there is little a policyholder can 
do when his or her policy is transferred without their consent. In most 
cases even when it's possible to sue, it's impractical. Many lawyers 
are reluctant to take a case against a well-funded insurance company 
that has the best lawyers in town. Lawyers that will take a 
policyholder's case, usually require thousands of dollars in legal fees 
in advance. Few policyholders have that kind of money to gamble on a 
lawsuit.
  Even if policyholders win, there is little chance they can force the 
insurer to pay their huge legal bills.
  It is no wonder few transfers are successfully challenged.
  Our legislation would correct this unfairness. If they win, 
policyholders could be awarded their legal fees.
  Unfortunately the present situation is getting worse because the 
frequency of transfers has accelerated, according to State regulators 
who testified before my Antitrust Subcommittee.
  Transfers are especially common with individual disability policies. 
The reason appears to be that many companies entered the disability 
insurance business in the late 1970's and early 1980's and mispriced 
the product. Now these insurers want out from under their obligations. 
That is just not acceptable. Without passage of this legislation, 
insurance companies will continue transferring disability policyholders 
to weaker companies, without the consent of the policyholders.
  Crown Life policyholders are an example of unfair disability 
transfers. Crown Life washed its hands of its obligations to 35,000 
disability policyholders last year by transferring them to Lone Star 
Life of Texas. Crown Life had an A plus rating, A.M. Best's second 
highest. Lone Star had a B minus rating, A.M. Best's eighth. That's 
below investment grade.

  Crown Life should be ashamed. Its transfer to a financially weak 
insurer was unconscionable.
  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that policyholders 
would have been better off with Crown Life. Crown Life has $8 billion 
in assets; Lone Star has $320 million.
  Imagine how worried, how frightened, you would be, especially if you 
were disabled--confined to bed, home, or wheelchair--and forcibly 
transferred to a below-investment-grade insurer.
  Crown Life knew perfectly well what it was doing. Before the 
transfer, Crown hired an actuarial firm to look at the transfer and 
Lone Star. The actuary's report showed that Lone Star's already poor 
financial condition would worsen if it took on Crown Life's policies. 
It revealed that Lone Star planned to mask Lone Star's poor condition 
by engaging in some financial sleight-of-hand, known as surplus relief 
reinsurance.
  Now listen to this. Crown Life kept the policyholders in the dark. It 
didn't provide the actuaries report to policyholders. Shame.
  Marginalizing policyholders and keeping them in the dark should be 
prohibited. Under the Insurance Policy Transfer Act it would.
  No transfer would take place if the policyholder wanted to stay with 
his or her original insurer. If a policyholder fails to respond to 
three requests asking for consent to the transfer, the policy could be 
transferred, but if and only if, the transfer is to a consistently top-
rated or better-rated insurer.
  Since consent is meaningless unless it is informed, policyholders 
would have to be given the information necessary to make a transfer 
decision. The act requires that each policyholder be given an 
independent actuary's opinion that the transfer is fair and in the best 
interest of policyholders. The report underlying the actuary's opinion 
would be available for free to any policyholder who asks.
  We need this bill. According to the Antitrust Subcommittee survey, 
only one State, South Dakota, currently requires anything like an 
actuary's fairness opinion.
  The national association of insurance commissioners [NAIC] recently 
concluded that policyholders need better legal protection against 
abusive transfer. Unfortunately, the NAIC's proposal fails to provide 
policyholders the protections needed. For example, the NAIC's proposal 
does not require that policyholders be given an expert's opinion and 
underlying report.
  The NAIC proposal permits involuntary transfers to less financially 
healthy companies. That is totally unacceptable. The NAIC considers the 
payment of a premium to an assuming company, a consent to a transfer. 
That's crazy. Policyholders pay premiums because they want insurance 
coverage, not because they want a transfer. Unfortunately, the 
insurance industry has them over a barrel. If they fail to pay the 
premium in order to protest a transfer they likely will lose their 
insurance coverage.
  We need better protection than the NAIC proposes, and we need it more 
quickly. There is no assurance that the NAIC's proposal will ever be 
enacted.

  My subcommittee held a hearing in 1990 that revealed how long it 
takes the States to adopt NAIC proposals. You roll the dice as to 
whether a NAIC proposal will be enacted in most States. Let me give you 
an example. In 1985, the NAIC proposed giving insurance commissioner 
authority over insurers in hazardous financial condition--clearly, 
important authority. Five years later, not a single State had enacted 
the proposal. Not a single State after 5 years. Even today only about 
half the States have adopted it.
  Policyholders can't wait years to see whether the NAIC improves its 
faulty bill and then additional years to see if their State enacts it.
  Mr. President, insurance policyholders are being traded between 
insurance companies like commodities. They're being swapped like 
baseball cards.
  After decades of paying premiums to their insurance company, 
policyholders are being disowned. Their insurance company says it owes 
them nothing, and that after years of paying premiums their insurer has 
transferred them to another insurer, because they were no longer 
profitable. Outrageous. I know of no industry, other than the insurance 
industry, that can get away with treating customers in such a shoddy 
manner.
  Mr. President, this bill aims to correct this imbalance, to put 
fairness back in the policyholder-insurer relationship. This bill 
doesn't prevent transfers. Many transfers are good for both 
policyholder and company. This bill does block transfers that are not 
in the best interest of policyholders.
  I am pleased that Senator Bryan, the distinguished chairman of the 
Consumer Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, has joined as an 
original cosponsor. Indeed, I hope that all of my distinguished 
colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this bill.
  I am certain that with Senator Bryan as an original cosponsor, we 
will move forward quickly, and that both Houses will pass this 
legislation into law this year.
  With the sponsorship of Senator Bryan, I believe we will reverse the 
Commerce Committee's reputation as a burial ground for insurance 
consumer protection.
  My subcommittee has already held hearings. The need for this 
legislation has been amply demonstrated. We need not repeat the hearing 
process.
  Mr. President, the whole Senate has already spoken on this 
legislation. Last week the Senate adopted a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that acknowledged both the need for this legislation and the 
policy underlying it.
  I now feel confident that with Senator Bryan's leadership and the 
Senate's action last week, this legislation will move forward promptly, 
to immediate floor action, if possible.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section 
analysis be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Section-by-Section Analysis on the Insurance Policy Transfer Act

       Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Insurance Policy Transfer Act''.
       Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit 
     the transfer and novation of insurance policies without first 
     obtaining the informed written consent of the policyholder.
       Section 3. Definitions. For the purpose of this Act, the 
     term ``contract of insurance'' includes all property, 
     casualty, life, health, accident, surety, title, and annuity 
     policies authorized to be written under State law. The term 
     ``transfer agreement'' means a contract that transfers 
     insurance obligations or risks of existing contracts of 
     insurance from one insurance company (the transferring 
     insurer) to another (the assuming insurer). Such a transfer 
     results in a novation of the transferred contracts of 
     insurance. The assuming insurer becomes directly liable to 
     the policyholder of the transferring insurer.
       Section 4. Notice. Except as provided in section 6, no 
     insurer shall transfer contracts of insurance unless such 
     insurer has first provided each policyholder with proper 
     notice of the transfer as prescribed by this Act. Among other 
     things, such notice shall provide the policyholder with (1) 
     financial data on the transferring insurer and the assuming 
     insurer including balance sheets and ratings by nationally 
     recognized insurance company rating organizations; (2) a 
     statement setting forth the financial condition of the 
     transferring insurer and the assuming insurer under the 
     proposed transfer agreement and the effect the transfer will 
     have on the financial condition of each such insurer; (3) an 
     opinion by a disinterested third-party expert, such as an 
     actuary, finding that the transfer is fair and in the best 
     interests of the policyholder; (4) a statement by the chief 
     insurance regulatory official of the State of domicile of the 
     transferring and accepting insurers that the proposed 
     transfer is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of 
     the policyholder and that the notice given to the affected 
     policyholder was fair adequate and not misleading; and (5) a 
     statement describing the effect of the transfer, if any, on 
     state insurance guaranty fund coverage.
       Section 5. Consent Requirement. No insurer shall enter into 
     a transfer agreement or transfer a contract of insurance 
     without the written consent of the policyholder or a 
     beneficiary of the policyholder.
       The written consent of a policyholder may be implied where: 
     (1) the transferring and assuming insurer are top-rated by 
     the same 3 nationally recognized insurance rating agencies 
     for each of the 3 years preceding the transfer, or the 
     accepting insurer is rated better than the transferring 
     insurer during such period; and (2) the policyholder or 
     beneficiary of the contract of insurance is provided with 
     proper notice as prescribed by this Act and such policyholder 
     has not responded to the notice with an objection to the 
     transfer.
       Section 6. Transfers Not Subject to the Act. This Act shall 
     not apply to: (1) a transfer in which the transferring 
     insurer continues to remain directly liable for its insurance 
     obligations under the contracts of insurance; (2) the 
     substitution of one insurer for another upon the expiration 
     of insurance coverage pursuant to statutory or contractual 
     requirements; (3) cases where the transfer of contracts of 
     insurance are made pursuant to a merger or a consolidation 
     that is regulated by State law; and (4) insurers that are 
     subject to a judicial order of liquidation or rehabilitation.
       Section 7. Regulations. The Secretary of Commerce shall 
     promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     this Act.
       Section 8. Cause of Action. The policyholder or the 
     Attorney General may bring an action against an insurer for 
     violations of this Act in the appropriate United States 
     district court. The appropriate district court shall have 
     jurisdiction to grant such relief, including injunctive 
     relief and attorney fees, as is necessary or appropriate to 
     redress the violation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1990. A bill to expand the role of public schools to provide 
community services; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


            the 21st century community learning centers act

 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill on 
behalf of myself and Mr. Hatch entitled the ``21st Century Community 
Learning Centers Act.'' This legislation provides grants to schools to 
expand education services beyond the regular school hours and to reach 
beyond the traditional school-age population. I had intended to 
introduce this bill last week by conference work on the Goals 2000 bill 
and the debate over increasing education funding in the budget kept me 
from doing it sooner.
  The legislation is simple--it provides grants to schools to open up 
their buildings for before- and after-school activities for children 
and for services for adults, from literacy classes for children and for 
services for adults, from literacy classes to extended library hours to 
senior citizens programs. While simple at its core, this bill will have 
far-reaching effects.
  This legislation attempts to replicate on a broader scale the work 
being done in communities across the country. In my own State of 
Vermont, H.O. Wheeler school in Burlington is the prototype for 
activities envisioned by the 21st century community learning centers. 
This school has made room for the Vermont Visiting Nurses Association 
to teach parenting classes to young mothers and fathers, it has opened 
up its gym to community meetings and adult classes, and it has extended 
library hours for the neighborhood residents.
  These efforts are designed to address the varying needs of the area. 
Now more than ever, our communities are on the front line of the 
changes that are occurring throughout our Nation and throughout the 
world. Employers are demanding highly skilled and technologically 
literate workers requiring many adults to return to school or find 
retraining programs. Two-parent working families today are more often 
the rule than the exception. Many families need before- and after-
school programs and day care services. In many of our communities, both 
adult education programs and day care services are expensive or 
nonexistent.
  That situation must change--and it can. Schools, particularly in 
rural and low-income areas, are a valuable resource to the community 
and are often the only places available to provide activities designed 
to meet the needs of area residents.
  We must expand upon and take advantage of those facilities. The 
interconnection between education and economic growth is real. For our 
nation to become economically competitive, our education system must 
provide services for students of all ages. While many will agree that 
school cannot be isolated from the home and the community, the reality 
is that too often schools are perceived as remote, bureaucratic 
institutions. Some communities, however, are changing that perception 
and working collaboratively with parents, local businesses and colleges 
to restructure the traditional role of the school within the community.
  It is this new vision of the school that this bill encourages. By 
providing grants to local schools, we make it possible for schools to 
become the center for a network of agencies and institutions committed 
to meeting the needs of the community and expanding learning 
opportunities for all of its members. The concept of community schools 
provides our children not only with essential support systems but also 
brings the community to the school--which develops commitment to, and a 
sense of ownership for, our schools.
  To meet the needs of the 21st century we need to reevaluate and 
revamp the way in which we provide education services. This simple 
concept--which doesn't cost much money--is an important first step. I 
hope my colleagues will support this effort.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCain:
  S. 1991. A bill to provide for the safety of journeyman boxers, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


               the professional boxing safety act of 1994

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1994. This legislation would create a 
vital set of strengthened safety measures for all professional boxing 
events that are held in the United States. The Professional Boxing 
Safety Act is aimed primarily at the club fights that occur in dozens 
of States in small arenas on Friday nights across America.
  The provisions of my legislation are as follows. First, each State 
will be required to issue an identification card to all professional 
boxers residing in their State. Foreign boxers who come to the United 
States to box, and boxers in the United States who reside in a State 
without a boxing commission, must register in any State of their choice 
which has a commission.
  An identification card will help State officials verify not only the 
identity, but the professional and medical history of each boxer 
seeking to box in the State. Verifying this information enables State 
boxing commissioners to ensure that no injured or debilitated boxers 
will be exploited by participating in a show in their State.
  Second, all States which hold professional boxing matches must have a 
State regulatory authority to oversee the fight, or arrange to have 
commissioners from a neighboring State sanction the event. This is a 
critical, although very basic, requirement. It is dangerous and 
indefensible for any jurisdiction to allow professional boxing matches 
to occur without providing a minimum level of responsible oversight.
  Responsible oversight means making sure that physicians are present 
at the fight, supportive medical services are available, and the 
matches are conducted according to the safely guidelines established by 
the professional boxing industry. Let me also point out that safety 
overseeing all boxing shows need not be a new financial burden on 
States that don't currently have a boxing commission. Status can simply 
require promoters to contract with neighboring State commissioners to 
oversee the show.
  Third, State boxing commissioners will be required to review the 
background of boxers participating in shows in their State, an ensure 
that no boxers fight while under suspension in another jurisdiction. 
This will prevent boxers from going from State to State to box while 
they are injured, after having failed a drug test, or after their 
declining skills have rendered them incapable of competing safely. If 
all States respect the suspensions of boxers, promoters, and managers 
ordered by their fellow State commissions, the unsafe and unethical 
practices which plague the professional boxing industry will be 
eliminated to a substantial degree.
  Finally, my legislation will require all State commissioners to 
promptly report the results of each boxing show held in their State, 
and any suspensions they order, to the boxing registries that are 
certified by the Association of State Boxing Commissioners and the 
Florida State Athletic Department. This provision is intended to 
improve and expand the information network that already exists between 
State commissions and professional boxing registries. It is extremely 
important that each State have access to credible data on the 
backgrounds of all boxers and promoters who participate in boxing shows 
across the country.
  Providing boxing registries with the results of all boxing matches, 
including information on any injuries or suspensions, will enable State 
commissioners to quickly determine which boxers should or should not be 
getting into the ring. This requirement is intended to both protect the 
health and welfare of the men whose physical skills and courage sustain 
the boxing industry, and to prevent fraudulent bouts from taking place.
  The requirement for the State of Florida's commission to also be 
notified of boxing show results and suspensions will assist their 
officials in the extremely valuable work they have generously performed 
in this regard for several years. At no cost to other State commissions 
or other interested parties, Florida's boxing officials send out a 
continuously updated list of all boxers and promoters who have been 
suspended across the country due to injury, violation of State laws, or 
improper conduct. All State commissions should review this list weekly, 
and take action to properly oversee the boxing events held in their 
State.
  The enforcement provisions in this legislation will authorize the 
U.S. attorney in each State to fine or prosecute promoters or managers 
who knowingly and willfully violate these reasonable and easily 
followed standards. If a promoter or manager is so callous and uncaring 
as to arrange for an injured or debilitated boxer to get into the ring, 
they should be held accountable for their indefensible behavior.
  Furthermore, the U.S. attorney can seek an injunction in Federal 
court to block unsanctioned and unsafe boxing events from taking place. 
These events continue to occur in several States in the United States, 
and they are nothing more than an unconscionable exploitation of men 
who may know of no other way to support themselves and their families 
than getting into the ring for $50 a round. Anyone who loves the sport 
of boxing, or who cares even the slightest bit about the welfare of 
boxers themselves, will agree that each boxing show should be carried 
out under the auspices of commissioners at the State level.
  My objective is to ensure that a basic but absolutely essential 
series of safety precautions for professional boxers are implemented 
nationwide, and adhered to by all State boxing officials.

  This is the very least we should do to try and protect the health and 
welfare of professional boxers--most of whom are from impoverished 
backgrounds--and improve the integrity of the sport.
  While the reforms that I am proposing are extremely important and 
will be very helpful to State commissioners who are concerned about 
boxers, I can't really claim that they are truly innovative. I have 
followed the sound counsel of the very best men and women that the 
professional boxing industry and State agencies have to offer. I have 
sought the advice of boxing officials from Nevada, Florida, California, 
Missouri, Arizona, New York, and many other States, as well from 
leaders of the Association of Boxing Commissioners. I have actively 
participated in several hearings on problems in the professional boxing 
industry held in the past year by the Senate's Governmental Affairs 
Committee and the Consumer Subcommittee. This bill represents the views 
and recommendations of the people who know boxing the best, and who 
care about boxers the most.
  In pursuing my overriding objective of protecting the health and 
welfare of journeymen or club boxers, I have strived to avoid placing 
any significant new costs or regulations on State commissions, and I 
believe that we have successfully met this goal. No new, taxpayer-
subsidized Federal commission or corporation would be created by my 
legislation; there are no costly new medical standards imposed upon the 
States; and there is no Federal intrusion into the business side of 
boxing.
  If implemented, the safety measures contained in this legislation 
will help protect men who are often unprotected, and ensure that they 
are not physically or financially exploited by individuals whose profit 
motives have outweighed their consciences. Unfortunately, the history 
of the boxing industry in the United States is replete with situations 
wherein boxers who had no business being in the ring were exploited for 
the financial gain of others. This practice must stop.
  Furthermore, this legislation will finally put the Congress clearly 
on record, stating that we will no longer stand by idly as the health 
and welfare of a group of unknown but courageous athletes is 
jeopardized.
  Mr. President, I strongly believe that we simply cannot tolerate the 
dangerous status quo of bootleg boxing shows and fraudulent matches 
because things have always been done that way, or because the Congress 
has never found a practical and acceptable method to assist the State 
commissions that regulate the sport.
  I support the primacy of the States to regulate the boxing industry, 
but I also want to make sure that every State provides at least a 
minimum amount of responsible oversight for each boxing event held in 
their jurisdiction. The Professional Boxing Safety Act will do just 
that, and help protect the health and welfare of a group of men who now 
have few advocates willing to look out for their interests.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROTH:
  S. 1992. A bill to amend chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, to 
provide for results based regulations, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                 results-based regulations act of 1994

 Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have long been concerned that our 
Federal regulatory process is not sufficiently flexible in how it deals 
with regulated entities. In a worthwhile effort to protect our health, 
safety, and well-being, Government agencies too often take a one-size-
fits-all approach. They provide insufficient opportunity for a 
business, or State or local government, to find equally effective but 
less costly alternatives to the mandated procedures.
  The legislation I am introducing today, the Results Based Regulations 
Act of 1994, is an effort to address this problem. It would require 
Federal agencies, where practicable, to state what outcomes and results 
a proposed regulation is to achieve. It would then provide waiver 
authority for the agencies, to exempt from all or part of the 
regulation an applicant who convinces the agency that there is a less 
costly way for the applicant to achieve the results intended.
  I believe this is an entirely reasonable, and in fact common-sense 
requirement. Agencies would have great discretion in how to develop 
such a waiver process. They could do so in ways that do not subject 
themselves to a flood of waiver applications from every business or 
State and local government in the country. They might require that 
parties with common interests get together and develop one waiver 
request. And of course, the agency itself would then have to be 
satisfied that the proposed alternative would indeed achieve the same 
results as the regulation itself.
  On the other hand, the regulated entities would have an on-going 
opportunity--even after a regulation is finalized and implemented--to 
find a less onerous way to achieve the purpose of the regulation. This 
would help make the regulatory process more flexible and reasonable, 
while still accomplishing the intended results.
  The value of this approach was recognized in the recently published 
addendum to the Vice President's National Performance Review report--
entitled, ``Improving Regulatory Systems.'' This report stated that, 
``Performance standards are generally preferable to prescriptive or 
design standards because they give the regulated industry the 
flexibility to determine the best technology to meet established 
standards.''
  I urge my colleagues to support this effort to reinvent the 
regulatory process. I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 1992

       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 ``Results Based Regulations 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. RESULTS BASED REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 559 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 560. Results based regulations

       ``(a) For purposes of this section the term `regulation' 
     means any rule for which the agency publishes a general 
     notice of proposed rulemaking under section 553(b) or any 
     other law.
       ``(b) To the greatest extent practicable, each agency shall 
     include in the general notice of proposed rulemaking relating 
     to a regulation--
       ``(1) a statement of--
       ``(A) the overall outcomes and results to be achieved by 
     the regulation;
       ``(B) methods to quantify such outcomes and results;
       ``(C) possible alternative methods to achieve such outcomes 
     and results; and
       ``(D) a process for waiving in whole or part such 
     regulation if an alternative is subsequently proposed under 
     which the agency determines the waiver applicant, and others 
     covered by such waiver, would have no less of an impact on 
     the achievement of those outcomes and results than would 
     occur without such waiver; and
       ``(2) a solicitation for comments by persons affected by 
     the regulation on the methods and processes described under 
     paragraph (1) (B), (C), and (D).
       ``(c) An agency action taken under this section shall not 
     be subject to review by a court of the United States.''.
       ``(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 559 
     the following new item:

``560. Results based regulations.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1993. A bill to remove the restrictions on the export of Alaskan 
North Slope oil, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                        Alaskan oil legislation

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I introduce legislation on 
behalf of myself and Senator Stevens that is critical to the economy of 
Alaska and the energy security of the United States. This legislation 
would lift the 21-year-old prohibition on the export of Alaskan oil 
thereby allowing the State's most important and vital industry to sell 
its products in the global marketplace.
  To ensure that lifting of the export ban does not harm the U.S. 
merchant marine, our legislation requires oil exported from Alaska to 
be transported on U.S. built vessels manned by American merchant 
seamen.
  Mr. President, the export ban is contrary to the free trade, 
nondiscrimination, and open market principles that have guided this 
administration in the successful NAFTA and GATT negotiations. It 
represents the worst type of protectionism that costs workers jobs in 
Alaska and California, damages our Nation's energy security, and 
contributes to our international trade deficit.
  The export ban is an unjustifiable and unprecedented discrimination 
against the State of Alaska and the citizens of my State. It costs the 
State hundreds of millions of dollars a year in lost royalties and 
hinders the ability of the State to provide social services and 
infrastructure that would enable the State to diversify its economy. 
This artificial constraint on the development of Alaska's economy is 
fundamentally unfair, and in this Senator's view, impinges on the 
sovereignty of my State in a way that no other State has to endure.
  Mr. President, I know of no other laws that Congress has adopted that 
prevent the export of a particular product simply because the product 
is manufactured or mined in a particular State. Would it be fair to bar 
the export of timber or paper products from forests in Tennessee and 
Washington, but allow the export of such products if they came from 
forests in Kentucky or Oregon? Of course not. But that is exactly the 
type of discrimination that Alaskans are somehow expected to accept.
  Why should Alaskans be expected to accept this type of 
discrimination? We are not talking about mineral resources located on 
Federal lands. We are not talking about special Federal subsidies 
provided to developers in Alaska. We are simply talking about resource 
development within the State of Alaska and how the developers of that 
resource and the State can maximize their return from these 
investments.
  In 1973, when the ban was imposed, many people believed that it would 
enhance our Nation's energy security. Twenty-one years later, it is 
clear to nearly every economist who has studied this issue, that the 
export ban, rather than enhancing energy security, will ultimately make 
America more dependent on foreign oil.
  Today, most of the 1.8 million barrels of oil that is shipped from 
Alaska is delivered by tanker to the closest domestic markets on the 
west coast, primarily California. The remainder is generally shipped to 
Panama, off-loaded into a pipeline and then reloaded onto a tanker and 
transported to the gulf coast.
  The 1.3 million barrels of oil shipped into California each day glut 
the California market and drive the price of oil there far below the 
world price. For example, in December, when the world price slipped 
below $15 barrel, the wellhead price of California oil was $8.75.
  These glut-induced prices have devastated the California oil and gas 
industry and exacerbated the prolonged recession in California. Wells 
have been permanently shut in. Exploration and development activities 
have crawled to a near halt, and employment has been devastated.
  Mr. President, the single most effective way of reversing this trend 
and encouraging the renewed exploration and development of oil 
production in California is to lift the ban on the export of Alaskan 
crude oil. When a representative of the General Accounting Office 
testified before Congress on this issue in 1990, she estimated that if 
the ban was lifted, wellhead prices for Alaskan and California oil 
would rise by $1 to $2 a barrel.
  These price estimates are consistent with recent analyses performed 
by the Alaska Department of Revenue. Our revenue department estimates 
that lifting the ban would raise wellhead prices by $1.10 a barrel for 
Alaskan and California oil. If that happened, Federal Government tax 
revenues would increase by $280 million and revenues to the State of 
Alaska would rise by $185 million.

  More importantly, removing the ban would stimulate employment and 
exploration activities both in California and in Alaska. By one 
estimate, California employment could increase anywhere from 5,500 to 
15,000 jobs. By contrast, if the export ban is retained, one study 
suggests that development of as much as 10 billion barrels in Alaska 
and California will be significantly inhibited over the next several 
decades. At current prices, it would cost the U.S. economy $200 billion 
to replace that domestic production with foreign oil imports.
  Mr. President, I know that there is concern in the domestic maritime 
community that if the ban is lifted, the American-flag merchant marine 
will suffer severe employment declines because all of the oil currently 
shipped from Alaska to the lower 48 is shipped on American flag 
tankers. I am sympathetic to this concern and recognize the importance 
of maintaining a strong American-flag merchant marine. It is for that 
reason that this legislation requires exported Alaskan oil to be 
transported on American flag tankers.
  Under current economic projections, oil production declines in Alaska 
suggest that most, if not all, of the oil shipped into gulf coast ports 
will disappear in the next year or two. That will cause a significant 
decline in U.S. maritime employment and will put many U.S.-flag ships 
into mothballs. However, if Alaska is permitted to export its oil, and 
if U.S.-flag ships were used in the export trade at least 240 seafaring 
jobs could be saved.
  Moreover, since the price that Alaskan crude can command in the world 
market is higher than it commands in the glutted U.S. market, there 
will be a greater incentive for the oil industry to invest in Alaska to 
enhance production from current wells. Keeping these oil fields 
producing means greater energy security for America and continued 
employment security for the American flag merchant marine.
  Mr. President, this ban makes no economic sense. It hurts the 
citizens of Alaska; it severely damages the California oil and gas 
industry, and if left in place, it ensures the steady decline in the 
production of Alaskan crude and the demise of hundreds of jobs in 
Alaska, in California and in the U.S. merchant marine. I hope that this 
is the year that this ban will finally be lifted.
 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. I am pleased to join my colleague 
from Alaska today in introducing legislation to lift the ban on the 
export of Alaska North Slope crude oil while increasing American jobs. 
This legislation will increase jobs because it will increase production 
of oil in Alaska, and therefore increase transportation of oil on U.S. 
tankers manned by U.S. crews.
  When Congress approved the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
System in 1973 there was a provision included in the act that severely 
restricted exportation of crude oil transported through TAPS. In 1979 
an amendment to the Export Administration Act expressly prohibited 
export of TAPS crude oil, but at the same time, eased restrictions on 
export of oil produced in other states. Section 7 of the Export 
Administration Act discriminates against Alaska by making it the only 
State that is forbidden to export its crude oil.
  The export ban on Alaska North Slope crude oil directly impacts the 
value of oil production in Alaska. Each day about 1.6 million barrels 
of Alaska crude are transported to domestic markets of the lower 48. 85 
percent of that is landed on the west coast, mostly in California, and 
15 percent on the U.S. gulf coast. The export ban drastically reduces 
the market value of the crude oil on the U.S. west coast. Since the 
majority of the Alaska crude is marketed to the west coast it 
significantly depresses the value of California production as well.
  The excessive supplies of crude oil on the west coast have caused an 
artificial crude surplus on the west coast. This causes the value of 
oil in Alaska and California to be depressed.
  The depressed price for Alaska crude discounts the wellhead value of 
the crude by as much as $3 per barrel. A $1 decrease per barrel adds up 
to a total loss of about $130 million a year for the State of Alaska in 
royalty revenues.
  Furthermore, when crude oil prices are depressed, there is little 
incentive for exploring and producing oil in Alaska and California.
  Prudhoe Bay production is declining at a rate of 10 percent a year. 
California production is also on the decline. The oil export ban is one 
of the major reasons for this decline in production. A small dollar 
difference in the price of oil makes a huge difference when you 
calculate the economics of producing oil--especially in Alaska.
  The North Slope of Alaska contains as much as 100 billion barrels of 
oil. But only 16 billion barrels qualify as proven reserves. Estimates 
show that the oil export ban could restrain the development of as much 
as 10 billion barrels in Alaska and California.
  It would cost our economy $200 billion to replace Alaska and 
California's production with foreign oil imports. And it would mean the 
loss of thousands of jobs. The export ban costs the Federal Government 
and the State of Alaska billions in lost royalties, taxes and other 
revenues.

  The legislative history of the Export Administration Act shows that 
Congress specifically intended to discriminate solely against Alaska in 
the export of domestically produced crude oil for the benefit of other 
States. Among all of the States, only Alaska and its Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline crude oil are subject to a per se ban.
  The port preference clause of the Constitution prohibits actions of 
Congress which prefer the ports of one or more States to those of 
another or which direct or divert commerce from the ports of a State to 
the ports of one or more other States. Maryland in particular wanted 
the port preference clause because they were concerned their ships 
involved in commerce would be forced to stop in Norfolk, VA before 
going overseas.
  More than 200 years later, the Arctic Slope crude oil export ban does 
exactly what the drafters of the Constitution sought to prevent. 
Section 7 of the Export Administration Act effectively forces Alaska 
crude oil to be landed in a few ports on the U.S. west coast and gulf 
coast for the sole benefit of those States. Meanwhile, those States 
sell some of their oil production to other countries.
  The Supreme Court has held that the 10th amendment limits the power 
of Congress by prohibiting action which commandeers the legislative 
processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and 
enforce a Federal regulatory program. This includes actions by Congress 
to attach State treasuries or otherwise make a State government an 
unwilling instrument or financier of congressional policy. The Artic 
Slope crude oil export ban violates the 10 amendment because it 
requires Alaska to provide a subsidy to other States in the form of 
lost royalties due to depressed lower crude oil prices in pursuit of a 
congressional objective.

  I want to repeat that this legislation increases jobs for Americans. 
It will help the oil industry by allowing for a market driven price of 
oil on the west coast, rather than an artificial glut and low price due 
to the prohibition on exporting it. The increased sale price of oil in 
California and Alaska will increase production and therefore increase 
jobs to produce and transport the oil.
  Most of the oil will continue to be transported to California because 
the economics will demand it. But we should allow the export of the oil 
that creates a crude oil glut.
  The provision in the Export Administration Act clearly discriminates 
against Alaska. The total export ban on Arctic Slope crude oil is 
unprecedented in other oil producing states. While other states are 
subject to limited restrictions on exporting oil, only Alaska is 
subject to a total ban on exporting its oil. This bill will finally 
lift this discriminatory and unconstitutional prohibition on the export 
of our crude oil.
  Mr. President, 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. 1993

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

     SECTION 1. EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT AMENDMENT.

       Section 7(d) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2406(d)) is repealed.

     SEC. 2. TRANSPORT REQUIREMENT.

       The export of domestically produced crude oil shall be 
     transported in vessels documented under the laws of the 
     United States which are eligible to engage in the coastwise 
     trade if such crude oil is transported by pipeline over 
     right-of-way granted pursuant to section 203 of the Trans-
     Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (43 U.S.C. 1652).

     SEC. 3. OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW.

       The export of domestically produced crude oil transported 
     by pipeline over right-of-way granted pursuant to section 203 
     of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1652) shall not be subject to the restrictions contained in 
     section 28(u) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185(u)), 
     section 103 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6212), section 28 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1354), or section 7430(e) of title 10, United 
     States Code, or any regulations issued under any such 
     provision of law.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Faircloth, and Mr. 
        Kempthorne):
  S. 1994. A bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to make comprehensive 
improvements in provisions relating to liability, State implementation, 
remedy selection, and funding, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Finance.


            comprehensive superfund improvement act of 1994

 Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the 
Comprehensive Superfund Improvement Act of 1994. In 1980, Congress 
passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act [CERCLA], commonly known as Superfund, to force the 
cleanup of our Nation's worst hazardous waste sites.
  In theory, Superfund was supposed to resolve environmental hazards 
quickly and economically by making polluters pay. But in practice, the 
program has fallen well short of its promise to the American people. 
There are now more than 1,275 sites on the national priorities list 
with little cleanup progress to show after 13 years.
  Since Superfund is due to be authorized in 1994, Congress now has an 
opportunity to correct this flawed program. That is why I am 
introducing a plan to put the Superfund program back on track. This 
legislation is dramatic, comprehensive reform that will be good for the 
environment and good for the economy.
  I have spend the past year researching and seeking input from groups 
like the New Hampshire Superfund Task Force, initiated by my colleague, 
Congressman Bill Zeliff, who has introduced companion legislation in 
the House of Representatives. I have also talked to State government 
officials, individual town managers, and local businesses. In addition 
to local input, I have met with various national groups, including 
representatives from the insurance industry, the business roundtable, 
and the NAACP. This really is a grassroots answer to a grassroots 
problem.
  The Senate Environment Committee, of which I am a member, is 
scheduled to consider Superfund reauthorization during the next several 
months. The administration unveiled its plan last month, and although 
it is a step in the right direction, I do not believe it goes far 
enough in the areas of liability and remedy selection.
  However, one thing is certain--EPA Administrator Carol Browner, the 
business community, the insurance industry, cleanup contractors, State 
and local governments, and individual citizens all agree--Superfund 
needs to be fixed.


                      why we need this legislation

  First, hazardous waste sites are not being cleaned up in a timely 
manner. Litigation and delay have become the standard operating 
procedure for the Superfund program. After 13 years and approximately 
$18 billion spent on the Superfund program, only 12 percent or about 
150 sites on the Superfund priority list have been cleaned up. Only 4 
percent have actually been delisted. The average time it takes to clean 
up a site is a staggering 10 to 15 years, costing $25 to $30 million 
per site.

  Second, lawyers are benefiting more than the environment and our 
communities. Enormous amounts of time and money are being wasted on 
lawsuits and administrative bureaucracy, instead of being spent on 
actual cleanup of hazardous waste. In fact, on average, nearly 50 
percent of the costs at a site are devoted to these so-called 
transaction costs.
  Third, Superfund's liability scheme fuels litigation. Under the 
doctrine of strict, retroactive, joint and several liability, a single 
party can be held liable for 100 percent of the cleanup cost even if 
hundreds of parties contributed waste to the site, and even if the 
single party contributed only 5 percent of the waste. Numerous towns 
and small businesses have been caught in the Superfund liability net 
for actions that were legal at the time they occurred.


    Elements of the Comprehensive Superfund Improvement Act of 1994:

  First, liability: This legislation would eliminate retroactive 
liability prior to CERCLA's enactment on December 11, 1980. It would 
also replace joint and several liability with a new proportional 
allocation plan. To apply a law retroactively is simply unfair, un-
American, and violates the spirit of the Constitution. In addition, to 
address the unfairness of joint and several liability, I propose a new, 
binding allocation system. Under my plan, parties would only be forced 
to pay for what they contributed to a site. This new ``fair share'' 
allocation process will reduce the amount of lawsuits between parties, 
saving a significant amount of time and money.
  Second, State delegation: Current law does not allow for States to 
manage the Superfund program. Decisions are made by the EPA with little 
input from the States and affected communities. Many States believe 
they can do the job more effectively and efficiently than the Federal 
Government can. I agree. States that are capable and qualified to 
administer the Superfund program should be given this authority if so 
desired.
  Third, remedy selection: Currently, risk assessment and cleanups are 
based on unrealistic, worst-case risk scenarios that ultimately lead to 
overly expensive remedies. We need to address the issue of ``How clean 
is clean?'' Often times, striving to clean that last ounce of pollution 
has little environmental benefit but increases cost significantly. We 
must begin to prioritize and direct our limited resources toward areas 
that pose the greatest risk. We also need to ask ourselves, ``If an 
industrial site is going to remain an industrial site, does it make 
sense to clean it up to playground standards?'' Current law does not 
allow these issues to be considered.

  My plan will use more realistic risk assessments and allow for land 
use and cost to be considered when selecting a remedy. I propose a 
rational, streamlined approach to the cleanup process that includes: An 
immediate response action for any immediate public health threat, a 
post immediate response action site scoring, and long-term remediation 
if necessary at which time the site would undergo a thorough evaluation 
and risk assessment to determine how to best clean up the remaining 
contamination.
  Local citizens are also brought into the process through community 
advisory councils, which are established in this legislation. Their 
purpose is to provide input into the decision-making process such as 
intended use of the land. Cleanup options are then identified, taking 
into account local feedback and cost.
  In conclusion, I believe these major changes that I have outlined 
stem from input at the grassroots level and represent a broad cross-
section of interested parties. This is a fair, commonsense approach to 
addressing the ineffectiveness of the current Superfund program.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and 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. 1994

       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 ``Comprehensive Superfund 
     Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                           TITLE I--LIABILITY

Sec. 101. Release of evidence.
Sec. 102. Elimination of retroactive liability.
Sec. 103. Limitation on liability of certain owners and operators.
Sec. 104. Contribution protection.
Sec. 105. Contiguous properties.
Sec. 106. Lender and fiduciary liability.
Sec. 107. Definitions.
Sec. 108. Assignment of shares of liability for costs of response 
              actions at national priority list sites.
Sec. 109. Enforcement of response actions through joint and several 
              liability.
Sec. 110. Establishment of binding allocation of responsibility 
              process.
Sec. 111. Site redevelopment.
Sec. 112. Liability of response action contractors.

                     TITLE II--STATE IMPLEMENTATION

Sec. 201. State authority.
Sec. 202. Transfer of authorities.
Sec. 203. EPA oversight costs.

                      TITLE III--REMEDY SELECTION

Sec. 301. Immediate risk reduction measures.
Sec. 302. Site scoring.
Sec. 303. Long-term response plan.
Sec. 304. Long-term response selection.
Sec. 305. Periodic review.
Sec. 306. Delisting of facilities and sites.

                           TITLE IV--FUNDING

Sec. 401. 5-year extension of Hazardous Substance Superfund.
Sec. 402. Increase in environmental income tax.
Sec. 403. Environmental fees and assessments on insurance companies.
Sec. 404. Retroactive Liability Fund.
                           TITLE I--LIABILITY

     SEC. 101. RELEASE OF EVIDENCE.

       (a) Timely Access to Information Furnished Under Section 
     104(e).--Section 104(e)(7)(A) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(e)(7)(A)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``shall be available to the public'' the following: ``not 
     later than 14 days after the records, reports, or information 
     is obtained''.
       (b) Requirement To Provide PRPs Evidence of Liability.--(1) 
     Subsection (a) of section 106 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``In any case in which the President issues an 
     order to a person under this subsection, the President shall 
     provide information concerning the evidence that indicates 
     that each element of liability contained in subparagraph (A), 
     (B), (C), or (D) of section 107(a)(1) is present.''.
       (2) Section 122(e)(1) of such Act is amended by inserting 
     after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) For each potentially responsible party, the evidence 
     that indicates that each element of liability contained in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of section 107(a)(1) is 
     present.''.

     SEC. 102. ELIMINATION OF RETROACTIVE LIABILITY.

       Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n) Retroactive Liability Cut-Off Date; Cost 
     Reimbursement Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the provisions in this 
     subsection, a person is liable under this section only for 
     actions occurring after December 11, 1980. The provisions of 
     this subsection shall not apply to actions occurring before 
     December 11, 1980, which were contrary to a law at the time 
     of the actions. Reimbursement or payment from the Retroactive 
     Liability Fund (established by section 9512 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986) shall be made pursuant to section 508.
       ``(2) Pre-1981 Sites.--With respect to sites or facilities 
     with respect to which all actions for which liability arising 
     under this Act occurred before December 11, 1980, the 
     following rules apply:
       ``(A) Construction completed.--For such sites or facilities 
     where the construction of the response action has been 
     completed by January 1, 1994, no reimbursement may be made 
     from the Retroactivity Liability Fund to the potentially 
     responsible parties concerned for costs incurred for such 
     construction. If a potentially responsible party is 
     conducting operation and maintenance related to the response 
     action at the site or facility as of January 1, 1994, the 
     President shall assume the future costs of such operation and 
     maintenance and shall reimburse the party for such costs 
     incurred.
       ``(B) Construction ongoing.--For such sites or facilities 
     where the construction of the response action has not been 
     completed by January 1, 1994, reimbursement may be made to 
     the potentially responsible parties concerned for costs 
     incurred for such construction, but only after the 
     construction is completed. After construction is complete, 
     the President shall assume future costs for any operation and 
     maintenance related to the response action.
       ``(C) Discovery after January 1, 1994.--For such sites or 
     facilities that are discovered after January 1, 1994, the 
     President shall use amounts from the Retroactive Liability 
     Fund to pay for all costs of the response action. Such costs 
     shall not include attorney's fees or other costs associated 
     with litigation related to the response action.
       ``(3) Straddle Sites.--With respect to sites or facilities 
     with respect to which actions for which liability arising 
     under this Act occurred both before and after December 11, 
     1980, the following rules apply:
       ``(A) Construction completed.--For such sites or facilities 
     where the construction of the response action has been 
     completed by January 1, 1994, no reimbursement may be made 
     from the Retroactive Liability Fund to the potentially 
     responsible parties concerned for costs incurred for such 
     construction. If a potentially responsible party is 
     conducting operation and maintenance related to the response 
     action at the site or facility as of January 1, 1994, the 
     potentially responsible party may, within 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of the Comprehensive Superfund Improvement 
     Act, petition the President for an allocation (in accordance 
     with title V) of the operation and maintenance costs. The 
     allocation shall determine which portion of the operation and 
     maintenance costs are attributable to actions occurring 
     before December 11, 1980, and which are attributable to 
     actions occurring after such date, and shall provide for the 
     reimbursement of the potentially responsible party, from the 
     Retroactive Liability Fund, of those costs attributable to 
     actions occurring before December 11, 1980.
       ``(B) Construction ongoing.--For such sites or facilities 
     where the construction of the response action has not been 
     completed by January 1, 1994, the potentially responsible 
     parties concerned shall complete construction and conduct any 
     required operation and maintenance. A potentially responsible 
     party may, within 90 days after construction of the response 
     action is complete, petition the President for an allocation 
     (in accordance with title V) of both the construction and 
     operation and maintenance costs. The allocation shall 
     determine which portion of the construction and operation and 
     maintenance costs are attributable to actions occurring 
     before December 11, 1980, and which are attributable to 
     actions occurring after such date, and shall provide for the 
     reimbursement of the potentially responsible party, from the 
     Retroactive Liability Fund, of those costs attributable to 
     actions occurring before December 11, 1980.
       ``(C) Discovery after January 1, 1994.--For such sites or 
     facilities that are discovered after January 1, 1994, the 
     President shall use amounts from the Retroactive Liability 
     Fund to pay for costs of the response action, including 
     construction and operation and maintenance, attributable to 
     actions occurring before December 11, 1980.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `actions' includes ownership or operation of 
     a facility at which hazardous substances were disposed of, 
     disposal of hazardous substances, arrangement with a 
     transporter for transport for disposal or treatment of a 
     hazardous substance, and any other activities described in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(B) The term `person' has the meaning provided in section 
     101(21) but does not include the United States Government.

     SEC. 103. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF CERTAIN OWNERS AND 
                   OPERATORS.

       (a) Exemption for Grantees of Certain Easements.--
     Subsection (a) of section 107 of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking out ``shall be liable 
     for--'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``shall be liable, 
     except as provided in paragraph (4), for the costs and 
     damages set forth in paragraph (2).'';
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(2) The costs and damages for which persons described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be liable are--'';
       (3) by aligning the margins of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), 
     and (D) so as to be cut in two ems;
       (4) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Notwithstanding any other 
     provision or rule of law,'';
       (5) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), respectively;
       (6) by inserting ``(3)'' before the text beginning with 
     ``The amounts recoverable in an action under this section'' 
     (and aligning such text as a paragraph below paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) (as redesignated)) and in that text--
       (A) by inserting ``of paragraph (2)'' after ``subparagraphs 
     (A) through (D)'';
       (B) by striking out ``(i)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``(A)''; and
       (C) by striking out ``(ii)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``(B)''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) In the case of a person who is a qualified 
     organization under section 170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 and who is the grantee of a conservation 
     easement with respect to real property on which a facility is 
     located, the person shall not be considered an owner or 
     operator of the facility under subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     paragraph (1) unless the person, by any act or omission, 
     causes or contributes to the release or threatened release of 
     a hazardous substance that causes the incurrence of response 
     costs. For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     ``conservation easement'' means a restriction on the use of 
     land for purposes of protecting in perpetuity a conservation 
     purpose listed in section 170(h)(4) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       (b) Safe Harbor for Innocent Landowner Defense.--(1) 
     Section 101(35) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.) is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) 
     as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively and inserting 
     after subparagraph (B), the following:
       ``(C)(i) A defendant who has acquired real property shall 
     have established a rebuttable presumption that he has made 
     all appropriate inquiry within the meaning of subparagraph 
     (B) if he establishes that, immediately prior to or at the 
     time of acquisition, he obtained an environmental assessment 
     of the real property which meets the requirements of this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term 
     `environmental professional' means an individual, or an 
     entity managed or controlled by such individual who, through 
     academic training, occupational experience and reputation 
     (such as engineers, environmental consultants and attorneys), 
     can objectively conduct one or more aspects of an 
     environmental assessment. For purposes of this subparagraph, 
     the term `environmental assessment' means an investigation of 
     the real property, conducted by environmental professionals, 
     to determine or discover the likelihood of the presence or 
     substantial reason to suspect the presence of a release or 
     threatened release of hazardous substances on the real 
     property and which consists of a review of each of the 
     following sources of information concerning the previous 
     ownership and uses of the real property:
       ``(I) Recorded chain of title documents regarding the real 
     property, including all deeds, easements, leases, 
     restrictions, and covenants for a period of 50 years.
       ``(II) Aerial photographs which may reflect prior uses of 
     the real property and which are reasonably accessible through 
     State or local government agencies.
       ``(III) Determination of the existence of recorded 
     environmental cleanup liens against the real property which 
     have arisen pursuant to Federal, State, and local statutes.
       ``(IV) Reasonably obtainable Federal, State, and local 
     government records of sites or facilities where there has 
     been a release of hazardous substances and which are likely 
     to cause or contribute to a release or threatened release of 
     hazardous substances on the real property, including 
     investigation reports for such sites or facilities; 
     reasonably obtainable Federal, State, and local government 
     environmental records of activities likely to cause or 
     contribute to a release or a threatened release of hazardous 
     substances on the real property, including landfill and other 
     disposal location records, underground storage tank records, 
     hazardous waste handler and generator records and spill 
     reporting records; and such other reasonably obtainable 
     Federal, State, and local government environmental records 
     which report incidents or activities which are likely to 
     cause or contribute to a release or threatened release of 
     hazardous substances on the real property. A record is 
     considered to be reasonably obtainable for purposes of this 
     subclause if a copy or reasonable facsimile of the record is 
     obtainable from the government agency by request.
       ``(V) A visual site inspection of the real property and all 
     facilities and improvements on the real property, and a 
     visual inspection of immediately adjacent properties from the 
     real property, including an investigation of any chemical 
     use, storage, treatment and disposal practices on the 
     property.
       ``(iii) No presumption shall arise under clause (i) unless 
     the defendant has maintained a compilation of the information 
     reviewed in the course of the environmental assessment.
       ``(iv) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     paragraph, if the environmental assessment discloses the 
     presence or likely presence of a release or threatened 
     release of hazardous substances on the real property to be 
     acquired, no presumption shall arise under clause (i) with 
     respect to such release or threatened release unless the 
     defendant has taken reasonable steps, in accordance with 
     current technology available, existing regulations, and 
     generally acceptable engineering practices, as may be 
     necessary to confirm the absence of such release or 
     threatened release.''.
       (2) Subparagraph (C) of section 101(35) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980, as added by paragraph (1), shall take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 104. CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION.

       Section 113(f)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9613(f)(2)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting 
     ``or cost recovery'' after ``contribution''.

     SEC. 105. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.

       Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)), 
     as amended by section 103(a), is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) A person who owns or operates real property that is 
     contiguous to or otherwise situated with respect to real 
     property on which there has been a release of a hazardous 
     substance and that is or may be contaminated by such release 
     shall not be considered an owner or operator of a facility 
     under paragraph (1)(A) solely by reason of such 
     contamination. The President may issue assurances of no 
     enforcement action under this Act to any such person and may 
     grant any such person protection against cost recovery and 
     contribution actions pursuant to section 113(f)(2).''.

     SEC. 106. LENDER AND FIDUCIARY LIABILITY.

       (a) Rulemaking Authority for Security Interest Exemption.--
     Section 115 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 9615) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating the text of the section as subsection 
     (a); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b)(1) Pursuant to the authority conferred by this 
     section, the President shall issue, within 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of the Comprehensive Superfund Improvement 
     Act, regulations to define the terms of this Act as they 
     apply to lenders and other financial services providers. 
     These regulations shall clarify the definition of the term 
     `owner or operator' contained in section 101(20)(A) by--
       ``(A) defining the terms `indicia of ownership', `security 
     interest', `primarily to protect a security interest', and 
     `participation in management'; and
       ``(B) specifying the types of activities that may be 
     undertaken without voiding the exemption to liability 
     provided by section 101(20)(A).
       ``(2) The following clarifications shall be included among 
     the provisions in the regulations issued under paragraph (1):
       ``(A) The term `participation in management' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) the mere capacity to influence, or ability to 
     influence, or the unexercised right to control facility 
     operations; or
       ``(ii) any act of the security interest holder to require 
     another person or itself, to comply with applicable laws or 
     to respond lawfully to disposal of any hazardous substance.
       ``(B) A security interest holder will not be deemed to be 
     participating in management of a facility unless the security 
     interest holder--
       ``(i) has undertaken responsibility for the facility's 
     hazardous substance handling or disposal practices; or
       ``(ii) has undertaken overall management of the facility 
     encompassing day-to-day decisionmaking over either 
     environmental compliance or over the operational, as opposed 
     to financial and administrative, aspects of the facility.
       ``(C) Legal or equitable title acquired by a security 
     interest holder through foreclosure or its equivalents will 
     be deemed to be held primarily to protect a security interest 
     provided that the holder undertakes to sell, re-lease, or 
     otherwise divest the property in a reasonably expeditious 
     manner on commercially reasonable terms.''.
       (b) Protection for Fiduciaries From Individual Liability.--
     (1) Section 101(20) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601(20)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E)(i) The term `owner or operator' does not include a 
     fiduciary who holds legal title to, is the mortgagee or 
     secured party with respect to, controls, or manages, directly 
     or indirectly, any facility or vessel for purposes of 
     administering an estate or trust of which such facility or 
     vessel is a part.
       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term `fiduciary' 
     means a person who is acting in any of the following 
     representative capacities, but only to the extent such person 
     is acting in such representative capacity:
       ``(I) An executor or administrator of an estate, including 
     a voluntary executor or a voluntary administrator.
       ``(II) A guardian.
       ``(III) A conservator.
       ``(IV) A trustee under a will under which the trustee takes 
     title to, or otherwise controls or manages, property for the 
     purpose of protecting or conserving such property under the 
     ordinary rules applied in State courts.
       ``(V) A court-appointed receiver.
       ``(VI) A trustee appointed in proceedings under Federal 
     bankruptcy laws.
       ``(VII) An assignee or a trustee acting under an assignment 
     made for the benefit of creditors.
       ``(VIII) A trustee, or any successor thereto, pursuant to 
     an indenture agreement, trust agreement, lease, or similar 
     financing agreement, for debt securities, certificates of 
     interest of participation in any such debt securities, or 
     other forms of indebtedness as to which it is not, in its 
     capacity as trustee, the lender.''.
       (2) Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9607), as amended by sections 102 and 103, is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Fiduciary Liability.--(1) Except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), a fiduciary (as defined in section 101(20)) 
     shall not be liable in its individual capacity under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Nothing in this paragraph may be construed as 
     preventing claims under this Act against--
       ``(A) the assets of the estate or trust administered by a 
     fiduciary; or
       ``(B) non-employee agents or independent contractors 
     retained by a fiduciary.
       ``(3) Nothing in this paragraph may be construed as 
     preventing claims under this Act against a fiduciary in its 
     individual capacity whose negligent acts or intentional 
     misconduct caused a release or threatened release of 
     hazardous substances at a facility or vessel. A fiduciary 
     shall not be attributed with the negligence or intentional 
     misconduct of non-employee agents or independent contractors 
     if the fiduciary has conducted itself without negligence or 
     intentional misconduct with regard to its relationship with 
     such agents or contractors.''.

     SEC. 107. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(39) The term `potentially responsible party' means any 
     person identified as potentially liable under section 107, 
     potentially responsible to perform any response action under 
     sections 104 or 106, or potentially liable for contribution 
     under section 113.
       ``(40) The term `de micromis party' means a potentially 
     responsible party who is a generator or transporter who 
     contributed less than 100 pounds or 100 liters of material 
     containing hazardous substances at a facility, or such 
     greater or lesser amount as the Administrator may determine 
     by regulation.
       ``(41) The term `de minimis party' means a liable party 
     whose assigned share of liability is determined to be 1.0 
     percent or less in a final binding allocation of 
     responsibility decision under title V.
       ``(42) The term `liable party' means any potentially 
     responsible party determined by an allocation panel or a 
     court to be liable under section 107, responsible to perform 
     any action under sections 104 or 106, or liable for 
     contribution under section 113.
       ``(43) The term `assigned share' means the percentage of 
     liability assigned, in accordance with the factors set forth 
     in section 503(g)(2), to a liable party by an allocation 
     panel in a binding allocation of responsibility or by a court 
     of law.
       ``(44) The term `orphan party' means a liable party at a 
     site who is defunct, unknown, insolvent, or whose assigned 
     share has been subject to discharge or limitation in 
     bankruptcy, or who is otherwise financially unable to pay all 
     or part of its assigned share.
       ``(45) The term `creditor party' means the Administrator, a 
     State, or any person who is determined to be a liable party 
     with respect to a National Priority List site and who incurs 
     or has incurred costs with respect to the site that are not 
     inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan.
       ``(46) The term `debtor party' means the Hazardous 
     Substance Superfund and any person who is determined to be a 
     liable party with respect to a National Priority List site.
       ``(47) The term `binding allocation of responsibility' 
     means a final binding determination by an allocation panel 
     pursuant to title V.
       ``(48) The term `orphan share' means the total of the 
     assigned shares of all orphan parties at a site, including 
     all shares eligible for reimbursement or payment pursuant to 
     section 107(n).
       ``(49) The term `guardian of the fund' or `guardian' means 
     the person appointed by the Administrator to represent the 
     Environmental Protection Agency in a binding allocation of 
     responsibility proceeding.
       ``(50) The term `National Priority List site' means any 
     site or facility that the Administrator has listed on, or 
     proposed for listing on, the list established pursuant to 
     section 105(a)(8)(B).''.

     SEC. 108. ASSIGNMENT OF SHARES OF LIABILITY FOR COSTS OF 
                   RESPONSE ACTIONS AT NATIONAL PRIORITY LIST 
                   SITES.

       Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(a)), 
     is amended by inserting before the phrase ``The amounts 
     recoverable'' the following: ``With respect to any National 
     Priority List site, each liable party who accepts the results 
     of the allocation of responsibility process under title V or 
     who successfully appeals the results of such process shall be 
     liable only for its assigned share of the costs incurred 
     pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of this section. 
     The orphan share of a National Priority List site shall be 
     paid out of the Hazardous Substance Superfund or the 
     Retroactive Liability Fund, or any combination thereof, as 
     determined by final binding allocation of liability.''.

     SEC. 109. ENFORCEMENT OF RESPONSE ACTIONS THROUGH JOINT AND 
                   SEVERAL LIABILITY.

       Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Joint and Several Liability of Parties Who Fail To 
     Perform Response Actions.--In any case in which no liable 
     party or potentially responsible party agrees to perform a 
     response action at a National Priority List site, or a liable 
     party or potentially responsible party agrees to perform a 
     response action but the party fails to perform such response 
     action, as determined by the Administrator or the State in 
     which the site is located, the following provisions apply:
       ``(1) The party is considered to have not resolved its 
     liability to the United States, notwithstanding the party's 
     acceptance of the results of the binding allocation of 
     responsibility process under title V or the party's 
     successful appeal of the results of such process.
       ``(2) The party is subject to civil action under section 
     106, subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of subsection (a) of 
     this section, and section 113 for the response action and all 
     costs of the response action with respect to the National 
     Priority List site.
       ``(o) Payment of Certain Response Costs by Fund.--A 
     potentially responsible party who performs and pays for a 
     response action at a National Priority List site shall be 
     reimbursed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
       ``(p) Authority To Collect Response Costs From Others.--A 
     liable party who performs and pays for a response action at a 
     National Priority List site is a creditor party under section 
     508 with respect to the site and may recover its response 
     costs in accordance with that section.''.

     SEC. 110. ESTABLISHMENT OF BINDING ALLOCATION OF 
                   RESPONSIBILITY PROCESS.

       The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new title:
            ``TITLE V--BINDING ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITY
``Sec. 501. General rules governing binding allocations of 
              responsibility.
``Sec. 502. Qualifications and powers of administrative law judges and 
              allocation panels.
``Sec. 503. Specific rules and procedures.
``Sec. 504. Duty to answer information requests and requests for 
              production of documents.
``Sec. 505. Civil and criminal penalties.
``Sec. 506. Document repository; confidentiality; no waiver.
``Sec. 507. Final agency action and judicial review.
``Sec. 508. Collection, enforcement, and implementation.
``Sec. 509. Transition provisions.
``Sec. 510. Voluntary settlements.
``Sec. 511. New binding allocations of responsibility.

     ``SEC. 501. GENERAL RULES GOVERNING BINDING ALLOCATIONS OF 
                   RESPONSIBILITY.

       ``(a) Allocation Panels.--The Administrator shall appoint 
     panels of administrative law judges to perform expedited 
     administrative proceedings, to be known as `binding 
     allocations of responsibility', for purposes of determining 
     the liability of potentially responsible parties at National 
     Priority List sites. Each such panel shall be composed of 
     three administrative law judges appointed by the 
     Administrator under section 3105 of title 5, United States 
     Code, and shall be known as an `allocation panel'.
       ``(b) Rules of Decision.--The decisions of allocation 
     panels under this title shall be rendered based on the 
     provisions of this Act and the court decisions interpreting 
     such provisions.
       ``(c) Relationship to Natural Resources Damage.--Binding 
     allocations of responsibility shall not address or affect the 
     liability of any person with respect to damage to natural 
     resources under section 107(a)(1)(C).

     ``SEC. 502. QUALIFICATIONS AND POWERS OF ALLOCATION PANELS.

       ``(a) Qualifications.--An administrative law judge may not 
     be appointed to an allocation panel under section 501 unless 
     the judge completes at least 40 hours of education and 
     training, as specified by the Administrator, in the following 
     subject areas:
       ``(1) The operation of this Act and the regulations 
     promulgating this Act.
       ``(2) The science of soil and groundwater contamination and 
     the technology for treating such contamination.
       ``(b) General Powers.--An allocation panel shall have the 
     power and authority to perform all functions necessary to 
     administer and perform the binding allocations of 
     responsibility, including the power to--
       ``(1) issue information requests and requests for 
     production of documents to any person;
       ``(2) require the Administrator and the State concerned to 
     provide all information relevant to a binding allocation of 
     responsibility, including the production of copies of all 
     documents and information obtained pursuant to section 104(e) 
     or pursuant to similar State law;
       ``(3) rule upon motions, requests, and offers of proof, 
     dispose of procedural requests, and issue all necessary 
     orders;
       ``(4) administer oaths and affirmations and take 
     affidavits;
       ``(5) examine witnesses and receive documentary or other 
     evidence;
       ``(6) grant and manage such discovery by the parties as the 
     allocation panel deems appropriate and consistent with the 
     expedited nature of the binding allocation of responsibility 
     process;
       ``(7) admit or exclude evidence;
       ``(8) hear and decide questions of fact and law;
       ``(9) require the parties, including the State and the 
     guardian of the Fund, to attend conferences for the 
     settlement or simplification of the issues or the expedition 
     of the proceedings;
       ``(10) require, at any time, that potentially responsible 
     parties wishing to present similar legal or factual arguments 
     use a common spokesman or consolidated briefing for the 
     presentation of such facts and legal positions;
       ``(11) obtain or employ such support services as are 
     necessary to conduct the binding allocation of 
     responsibility, including secretarial and clerical services, 
     investigative services, and computer information and database 
     management services;
       ``(12) establish a document repository where all documents 
     associated with the binding allocation of responsibility 
     shall be maintained and made available to all parties to the 
     binding allocation of responsibility in accordance with 
     section 506; and
       ``(13) do all other acts and take all measures necessary 
     for the maintenance of order and for the efficient, fair, and 
     impartial adjudication of issues arising in the binding 
     allocation of responsibility.
       ``(c) Subpoena Power.--Allocation panels shall have the 
     power of subpoena to collect information necessary or 
     appropriate for conducting the binding allocation of 
     responsibility or for otherwise implementing this section. 
     This authority shall include the power to compel the 
     attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of 
     reports, papers, documents, answers to questions, and other 
     information that the allocation panel deems necessary. 
     Witnesses shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are 
     paid witnesses in the courts of the United States. In the 
     event of contumacy or failure or refusal of any person to 
     obey any such subpoena, any district court of the United 
     States in which venue is proper shall have jurisdiction to 
     order any such person to comply with such subpoena.
       ``(d) Informal Rules of Evidence.--In conducting the 
     binding allocation of responsibility, an allocation panel 
     shall not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence, but 
     shall instead use such informal rules of evidence and 
     evidentiary procedures, such as those set forth at sections 
     22.22 and 22.23 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations, as will promote the expeditious completion of 
     the proceeding.
       ``(e) Nationwide Service of Process.--Any document required 
     to be served on a party under this title may be served in any 
     district where the person is found, resides, transacts 
     business, or has appointed an agent for service of process. 
     Any such document is deemed to be served on a party if it is 
     mailed to the counsel of record for the party or to the 
     address designated by the party if the party is not 
     represented by counsel.

     ``SEC. 503. SPECIFIC RULES AND PROCEDURES.

       ``(a) Initiation of Allocation Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--A binding allocation of responsibility 
     with respect to a National Priority List site shall be 
     initiated by filing a petition with the Office of the 
     Administrative Law Judges of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency. Such a petition may be filed by the Administrator or 
     the State where the National Priority List site is located.
       ``(2) When initiated.--The Administrator or a State shall 
     file a petition to initiate a binding allocation of 
     responsibility at a National Priority List site not later 
     than 30 days after initiating the remedial investigation 
     study (or its equivalent) for the site. In any case where the 
     petition is filed more than 30 days after initiation of the 
     remedial investigation study (or its equivalent), all 
     governmental response costs incurred or contracted for prior 
     to the filing of the petition shall be allocated entirely to 
     the orphan share.
       ``(3) Contents of petition.--The petition to initiate the 
     binding allocation of responsibility proceeding shall 
     identify the petitioner and shall include all relevant 
     information reasonably available concerning--
       ``(A) the identity, location, history, current status, and 
     environmental condition of the National Priority List site;
       ``(B) the identity and address of each person believed by 
     the petitioner to be a liable party and the basis for such 
     belief;
       ``(C) any proposed questions and document requests that the 
     petitioner believes should be included in the allocation 
     panel's first information request and document request; and
       ``(D) a list of any legal or technical issues that the 
     petitioner believes may be raised in the binding allocation 
     of responsibility.
       ``(4) Service.--A copy of the petition shall be served by 
     mail, publication, or otherwise on the Administrator, the 
     State where the site is located, and each potentially 
     responsible party identified in the petition. Within 20 days 
     after the filing of the petition, the Hearing Clerk of the 
     Office of Administrative Law Judges shall cause a notice of 
     the filing of the petition, together with a brief description 
     of the site and a list of all potentially responsible parties 
     identified in the petition, to be published in the Federal 
     Register. The petitioner shall cause a similar notice, 
     description, and list to be published in a newspaper of 
     general circulation within the State where the site is 
     located.
       ``(5) Prior investigation and search.--The Administrator or 
     the State, as the case may be, shall, prior to filing a 
     petition, conduct a thorough investigation and search, under 
     section 104(e) or any other relevant Federal or State 
     statutory or regulatory authority, for all potentially 
     responsible parties. All information, answers, and documents 
     discovered in such investigation or search and relevant to 
     any aspect of the binding allocation of responsibility shall, 
     simultaneously with the filing of the petition, be filed in 
     the document repository for the binding allocation of 
     responsibility. If the allocation panel determines that the 
     Administrator or the State failed to conduct a diligent 
     search for potentially responsible parties in accordance with 
     this paragraph, and if another party performs additional 
     investigations and successfully identifies additional 
     potentially responsible parties, then the allocation panel 
     shall credit all of the reasonable costs of such additional 
     search against the assigned share, if any, of the party that 
     performed such additional investigation or search.
       ``(6) Appointment of guardian for the hazardous substance 
     superfund and the retroactive liability fund.--Any petition 
     filed by the Administrator shall include the name and address 
     of the person appointed to serve as the guardian for the 
     Hazardous Substance Superfund and the Retroactive Liability 
     Fund for that binding allocation of responsibility. In any 
     case where a petition is initiated by a State, the 
     Administrator shall notify the Hearing Clerk of the Office of 
     the Administrative Law Judges within 10 days after the 
     petition is filed of the name and address of the person 
     designated by the Administrator as the guardian for the 
     Hazardous Substance Superfund and the Retroactive Liability 
     Fund. If the Environmental Protection Agency is also a 
     potentially responsible party or a liable party with respect 
     to the National Priority List site concerned, then the agency 
     may participate in the binding allocation of responsibility 
     with regard to such liability, but the person designated as 
     the guardian shall not represent the agency with regard to 
     the agency's status as a potentially responsible party or 
     liable party.
       ``(b) Identification of Potentially Responsible Parties.--
       ``(1) Initial statement.--(A) Not later than 30 days after 
     receipt of a copy of a petition or after publication in the 
     Federal Register of a notice of the filing of an initial 
     petition (whichever is earlier) under subsection (a)(4), the 
     guardian, the State and any potentially responsible party may 
     file an initial statement setting forth--
       ``(i) any defenses to liability;
       ``(ii) any equitable considerations pertaining to any 
     party's potential liability;
       ``(iii) any additional facts and issues relevant to the 
     binding allocation of responsibility;
       ``(iv) any proposed questions or document requests that the 
     person filing the statement believes should be included in 
     the first information request issued by the allocation panel; 
     and
       ``(v) the name and address of any additional person or 
     persons that the person filing the statement believes may be 
     a liable party at the National Priority List site and all 
     reasonably available information as to the relationship 
     between each proposed additional party and the site.
       ``(B) Any initial statement shall be filed with the Hearing 
     Clerk and served on all parties named in the petition and 
     named in such initial statement.
       ``(2) Information requests and requests for production of 
     documents.--(A) Not later than 30 days after the filing of 
     the petition, the allocation panel shall mail initial 
     information requests and requests for production of documents 
     to the guardian, the State, all potentially responsible 
     parties identified in the petition, and all additional 
     parties identified in the initial statements. Responses to 
     such requests shall be made in accordance with this paragraph 
     and section 504.
       ``(B) Within 45 days after a person receives any 
     information request or request for production of documents, 
     such person shall file a response with the Hearing Clerk. For 
     good cause shown, the allocation panel may grant a single 45-
     day extension for the filing of any such response. Each party 
     shall have a continuing obligation to supplement its response 
     upon the receipt of additional relevant information.
       ``(3) Additional nominations of potentially responsible 
     parties.--The parties may identify and nominate additional 
     potentially responsible parties until the expiration of the 
     120-day period beginning on the date of filing of the 
     petition. Any nominations received by the Hearing Clerk after 
     that period may be disregarded by the allocation panel. Each 
     nomination shall include all reasonably available information 
     supporting the assertion that the nominee is a liable party 
     and shall be made at the earliest possible time. Any party 
     making an additional nomination shall serve notice of such 
     nomination on the nominated party and file a copy of such 
     notice with the Hearing Clerk. The nominated party may file 
     its initial response not later than 30 days after receipt of 
     the notice. The allocation panel may issue information 
     requests and requests for the production of documents to any 
     nominated party at any time.
       ``(4) Initial list of all potentially responsible 
     parties.--Within six months after the filing of the petition, 
     the allocation panel shall cause to be published in the 
     Federal Register and a newspaper of general circulation in 
     the State where the site is located a list identifying all 
     parties that the allocation panel preliminarily deems to be 
     potentially responsible parties with respect to the site. The 
     allocation panel also shall attempt to mail a copy of the 
     list to all parties to the binding allocation of 
     responsibility. The allocation panel shall reject the 
     nomination of any person as a liable party or potentially 
     responsible party if it finds that the nomination alleges no 
     connection between the nominated person and the site. The 
     allocation panel may also identify, on its own motion or the 
     motion of a potentially responsible party, additional 
     potentially responsible parties at any time before issuance 
     of the final binding allocation of responsibility.
       ``(c) De micromis Parties.--(1) Not later than six months 
     after the filing of the petition, the allocation panel shall 
     issue a list identifying all potentially responsible parties 
     that the allocation panel determines contributed only 100 
     pounds or 100 liters of material containing hazardous 
     substances at the facility (or such greater or lesser amount 
     as the Administrator may determine by regulation), to be 
     known as `de micromis parties'. The allocation panel shall 
     base the determination on an evaluation of all evidence 
     received at the time of the issuance of the list with respect 
     to the amount of hazardous substances contributed by 
     potentially responsible parties.
       ``(2) The allocation panel shall notify each de micromis 
     party of its inclusion on the list issued under paragraph (1) 
     not later than 20 days after issuing the list.
       ``(3) Any person included on the list of de micromis 
     parties is exempt from liability to the United States and 
     shall have no other liability (including liability for 
     contribution), under Federal or State law, to any person for 
     response actions or for any past, present, or future costs 
     incurred at the site, provided that the person takes no other 
     actions after being included on the list that would give rise 
     to a separate basis for liability under this Act.
       ``(d) Identification of Liable Parties and Determination of 
     Assigned Shares.--
       ``(1) First allocation advocacy paper.--Unless the 
     allocation panel determines that it would unduly delay the 
     process, the guardian, the State, and any potentially 
     responsible party may file an allocation advocacy paper with 
     the Hearing Clerk not later than 30 days after the 
     publication of the initial list of potentially responsible 
     parties in the Federal Register. Any such allocation advocacy 
     paper, which shall be served on the guardian, the State, and 
     each potentially responsible party, shall be a concise 
     statement, together with citations to relevant supporting 
     evidence and law, of the party's position with regard to--
       ``(A) the legal and factual criteria that should be used in 
     determining whether a potentially responsible party at the 
     site is a liable party; and
       ``(B) how the allocation factors set forth in subsection 
     (g)(2) should be applied to determine the assigned share of 
     each liable party.
       ``(2) First allocation report.--Within 90 days after the 
     publication of the initial list of potentially responsible 
     parties in the Federal Register, the allocation panel shall 
     issue its first allocation report tentatively specifying the 
     criteria to be used in identifying the liable parties, 
     tentatively specifying how the allocation factors will be 
     applied to the case to determine assigned shares, and setting 
     forth the process and schedule that will be used to allow 
     parties the opportunity to present written evidence and 
     argument regarding how such criteria and factors apply to the 
     case. The first allocation report shall be served on the 
     guardian, on the State, and on each potentially responsible 
     party.
       ``(3) Second allocation advocacy paper.--The guardian, the 
     State, and each potentially responsible party may file an 
     allocation advocacy paper with the Hearing Clerk not later 
     than 60 days after receipt of the first allocation report. 
     The allocation advocacy paper, which shall be served on the 
     guardian, the State, and each potentially responsible party, 
     shall be the primary opportunity for the guardian, the State, 
     and each potentially responsible party to present evidence 
     and argument regarding how the liability criteria and the 
     allocation factors should be applied to such party and, if 
     desired by the person filing the paper, how those criteria 
     and factors should be applied to other potentially 
     responsible parties at the site.
       ``(4) Hearing.--Any potentially responsible party may 
     request a hearing on the determination that such party is a 
     liable party and on the determination of its assigned share. 
     The allocation panel may hold such a hearing if the 
     allocation panel determines that it would expedite or 
     materially assist in the resolution of disputed factual or 
     legal issues. The allocation panel shall have broad 
     discretion in managing the conduct of any such hearing, 
     including limiting the time available to each party and 
     requiring that parties with generally similar interests be 
     represented by a single spokesperson or common counsel. The 
     allocation panel may allow or prohibit the cross-examination 
     of witnesses.
       ``(5) Rule of decision.--Any party may present written 
     evidence or argument on whether it, or any other potentially 
     responsible party, is a liable party and on the appropriate 
     assigned share for itself or any other potentially 
     responsible party. A potentially responsible party shall be 
     deemed a liable party if the allocation panel determines that 
     the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion 
     that such party is liable.
       ``(6) Second allocation report.--Following the submission 
     of advocacy papers and at the conclusion of any hearings, the 
     allocation panel shall issue a second allocation report 
     identifying all liable parties at the site and specifying the 
     assigned share of each liable party. If the second allocation 
     report changes or expands the list of potentially responsible 
     parties or the criteria or factors set forth in the first 
     allocation report, then the second report shall so specify 
     and provide a brief explanation of any such change. The 
     second allocation report shall be served on the guardian, the 
     State, all potentially responsible parties, and all liable 
     parties.
       ``(e) Determination of Orphan Share.--
       ``(1) Orphan share advocacy paper.--Unless the allocation 
     panel determines that it would unduly delay the process, the 
     guardian, the State, and each liable party may file an orphan 
     share advocacy paper with the Hearing Clerk not later than 
     the 30-day period beginning on the date of issuance of the 
     second allocation report. The orphan share advocacy paper 
     shall be the primary opportunity for the guardian, the State, 
     and each liable party to present written evidence and 
     argument as to which liable parties are orphan parties whose 
     assigned share should, in whole or in part, be assigned to 
     the orphan share.
       ``(2) Orphan share report.--Following the expiration of the 
     30-day period referred to in paragraph (1), the allocation 
     panel shall issue an orphan share allocation report 
     identifying the orphan share. The orphan share report shall 
     be served on the guardian, the State, all potentially 
     responsible parties, and all liable parties.
       ``(f) Determination of Nonliable Parties.--(1) At any time 
     during the period beginning six months after the filing of 
     the petition and ending 18 months after the filing of the 
     petition, the allocation panel shall issue a list identifying 
     all potentially responsible parties that the allocation panel 
     determines did not contribute any amount of hazardous 
     substances to the National Priority List site. The allocation 
     panel shall base the determination on an evaluation of all 
     evidence received at the time of the issuance of the list 
     with respect to the amount of hazardous substances 
     contributed by potentially responsible parties.
       ``(2) The allocation panel shall notify each nonliable 
     party of its inclusion on the list issued under paragraph (1) 
     not later than 20 days after issuing the list.
       ``(3) Nonliable parties shall have no other liability, 
     under Federal or State law, to any person for response 
     actions or for any past, present, or future costs incurred at 
     the site, provided that they take no other actions after 
     making such settlement payment that would give risk to a 
     separate basis for their liability under this Act.
       ``(g) Final Binding Allocation of Responsibility 
     Decision.--
       ``(1) Decision.--(A) Not later than the deadline set forth 
     in subparagraph (B), the allocation panel shall issue a final 
     binding allocation of responsibility decision (in this 
     subsection referred to as the `final BAR decision') based on 
     the allocation factors listed in paragraph (2). The panel 
     shall include the Government's costs of carrying out the 
     allocation as part of the response costs to be included in 
     the final BAR decision. The decision shall include a list of 
     all potentially responsible parties, a list of all liable 
     parties and the assigned share for each (including all de 
     minimis parties as determined under paragraph (3)), a list of 
     all orphan parties and the portion of the assigned share of 
     each orphan party that is assigned to the orphan share, and 
     the total orphan share assigned to the Fund and to the 
     Retroactive Liability Fund. Where an orphan party is able to 
     pay only a portion of its assigned share, the allocation 
     panel shall allocate to the orphan share the portion of the 
     assigned share that the party is unable to pay and require 
     the party to pay the remainder. The final BAR decision shall 
     provide a concise explanation of the basis for the decision. 
     The decision may consist, in whole or in part, of a 
     compilation of the first allocation report, the second 
     allocation report, and the orphan share report.
       ``(B) The final BAR decision shall be issued not later than 
     18 months after the date of publication under section 
     503(a)(4) of notice that a petition for a binding allocation 
     of responsibility has been filed, except that, in a case of 
     exceptional complexity, the final decision shall be issued 
     not later than 24 months after such date.
       ``(2) Allocation factors.--An allocation panel shall 
     determine the assigned share of each liable party based on 
     the following factors:
       ``(A) The degree to which the liable party's contribution 
     to a discharge, release, or disposal of a hazardous substance 
     can be distinguished.
       ``(B) The amount of hazardous substances contributed by the 
     liable party at the site concerned, compared to the total 
     amount of hazardous substances at that site.
       ``(C) The degree of toxicity of the hazardous substance 
     contributed by the liable party.
       ``(D) The degree of involvement by the liable party in the 
     generation, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal 
     of the hazardous substance.
       ``(E) The degree of care exercised by the liable party with 
     respect to the hazardous substance concerned, taking into 
     account the characteristics of such hazardous substance.
       ``(F) The degree of cooperation by the liable party with 
     Federal, State, or local officials to prevent any harm to the 
     public health or the environment.
       ``(G) The weight of the evidence as to the liability and 
     the appropriate share of the liable party.
       ``(H) The ability to pay of the liable party.
       ``(I) Any other equitable factors deemed appropriate.
       ``(3) De minimis settlements.--(A) As part of the final BAR 
     decision, or at any time before the issuance of the final BAR 
     decision, the allocation panel shall issue a list identifying 
     all potentially responsible parties that the allocation panel 
     determines contributed only 1.0 percent or less of the total 
     quantity of hazardous substances present at the National 
     Priority List site, to be known as `de minimis parties'.
       ``(B) Not later than 60 days after issuance of the final 
     BAR decision or the issuance of the list of de minimis 
     parties under subparagraph (A), whichever is earlier, the 
     Administrator shall make a firm written offer of settlement 
     to all de minimis parties. The amount of the settlement offer 
     for a de minimis party shall be based on the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's estimate of the total cleanup cost at the 
     site multiplied by the de minimis party's allocated share as 
     determined by the allocation panel and increased by a 
     reasonable premium (expressed as a percentage) to reflect the 
     benefit of an early and complete resolution of liability, 
     including consideration of whether the remedy at the site 
     will entail multiple phases or operable units. All settlement 
     offers by the Administrator to de minimis parties at the same 
     site shall be based on the same estimate of cleanup costs and 
     the same premium percentage. The settlement offer under this 
     subparagraph is not subject to judicial review.
       ``(C) A de minimis party may accept or decline a settlement 
     offer, but any acceptance of the offer must be made within 60 
     days after receipt of the offer. A de minimis party that 
     accepts the offer may resolve its liability to the United 
     States by paying the amount of the offer to the Hazardous 
     Substance Superfund. Such settlement may not be reopened 
     after payment is made, except on grounds of fraud.
       ``(D) De minimis parties that accept the settlement offer 
     and pay the amount of the offer shall have no other 
     liability, under Federal or State law, to any person for 
     response actions or for any past, present, or future costs 
     incurred at the site, provided that they take no other 
     actions after making such settlement payment that would give 
     risk to a separate basis for their liability under this Act.
       ``(E) All proceeds from de minimis settlements under this 
     paragraph that represent the allocated shares of de minimis 
     parties at a site shall be paid by the Administrator directly 
     to the person performing the response action at the site. All 
     proceeds from de minimis settlements under this paragraph 
     that represent premiums paid by de minimis parties at the 
     site shall be earmarked in the Hazardous Substance Superfund 
     to be used specifically for costs of response action at the 
     site. Any amounts of such settlements remaining in the Fund 
     after completion of the response action shall be available in 
     the Superfund for general use.
       ``(4) Service and publication.--The binding allocation of 
     responsibility decision shall be served on the guardian, the 
     State, and all liable parties. The Hearing Clerk shall cause 
     a notice of the binding allocation of responsibility decision 
     to be published in the Federal Register and in a newspaper of 
     general publication in the State where the site is located.
       ``(5) Binding effect.--The binding allocation of 
     responsibility decision shall be binding as to all past, 
     present, or future liability (i) for response costs incurred 
     under section 107(a)(1)(A), (B), or (D), and (ii) for 
     contribution under section 113. The binding allocation of 
     responsibility decision shall be binding on all persons, 
     including, without limitation, the United States, any 
     affected State or local governmental agency or Indian Tribe, 
     any alleged or nominated potentially responsible party 
     (regardless of whether such party participates in the binding 
     allocation of responsibility), and the public.
       ``(6) Effect on other proceedings.--A determination that a 
     person is a liable party under a binding allocation of 
     responsibility proceeding is applicable only with respect to 
     liability being assigned in the proceeding and not with 
     respect to liability being determined in any other criminal, 
     civil, or administrative proceeding.

     ``SEC. 504. DUTY TO ANSWER INFORMATION REQUESTS AND REQUESTS 
                   FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

       ``(a) Duty to Answer.--Each person who receives any 
     information request or request for production of documents 
     from the allocation panel during a binding allocation of 
     responsibility must provide full and timely responses to the 
     request.
       ``(b) Certification of Documents.--Answers to information 
     requests and requests for production of documents shall 
     include a certification by a responsible representative who 
     meets the criteria established in section 270.11(a) of title 
     40 of the Code of Federal Regulations that the answers--
       ``(1) are true and correct to the best of their knowledge;
       ``(2) are based on a diligent good faith search of records 
     in the possession or control of the person to whom the 
     request was directed;
       ``(3) are based on a reasonable inquiry of the current and 
     former officers, directors, employees, and agents of the 
     person to whom the request was directed;
       ``(4) accurately reflect information obtained in the course 
     of conducting such search and such inquiry;
       ``(5) that the person executing the certification 
     understands that there is a duty to supplement any such 
     answers if, during the binding allocation of responsibility, 
     any significant additional, new, or different information 
     becomes known or available to the answerer; and
       ``(6) that the person executing the certification 
     understands that there are significant penalties for 
     submitting false information, including the possibility of 
     fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
       ``(c) Sanction.--In addition to any other penalty or 
     sanction, any person who fails to answer an information 
     request or request for production of documents, and who is 
     determined to be a liable party, shall be assigned an 
     assigned share of up to 500 percent of whatever its assigned 
     share would otherwise have been, or up to 50 percent of the 
     total liability at the site, whichever is greater. If this 
     results in a binding allocation of responsibility that 
     allocates more than 100 percent of the total liability, then 
     the excess shall be deposited into the Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund.

     ``SEC. 505. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

       ``(a) Civil Penalties.--Any person who fails to submit a 
     complete and timely answer to an allocation panel's 
     information request or request for production of documents or 
     other discovery request, or who submits a response that lacks 
     the certification required under section 504(b), or who makes 
     any false or misleading material statement or representation 
     in any submission to the allocation panel during the binding 
     allocation of responsibility process, including statements or 
     representations in connection with the nomination of another 
     potentially responsible party, shall be subject to civil 
     penalties of up to $10,000 per day of violation. The 
     violation shall be deemed a continuing one until such time as 
     the request is answered or the necessary certification is 
     submitted or the false or misleading statement or 
     representation is corrected. Such penalties may be assessed 
     by the President in accordance with section 109 or by any 
     other party in a citizen suit brought under section 310. A 
     prevailing plaintiff in such a citizen suit shall be awarded 
     its attorneys fees and up to 50 percent of the penalty 
     imposed by the court.
       ``(b) Criminal Penalties.--Any person who knowingly makes 
     any false material statement or representation in the 
     response to an allocation panel's information request or 
     request for the production of documents or other discovery 
     request, or in any other submission to the allocation panel 
     during the binding allocation of responsibility, including 
     statements or representations in connection with the 
     nomination of another potentially responsible party, may be 
     fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not 
     more than 2 years, or both.

     ``SEC. 506. DOCUMENT REPOSITORY; CONFIDENTIALITY; NO WAIVER.

       ``(a) Document Repository.--The allocation panel shall 
     establish and maintain a document repository where copies of 
     all petitions, initial statements, advocacy papers, reports, 
     answers to information requests and requests for production 
     of documents by the allocation panel, answers to Federal or 
     State information requests or requests for the production of 
     documents issued prior to the filing of the petition, 
     produced documents, and all other similar material shall be 
     maintained and organized. The documents and information in 
     the document repository shall be available only to the 
     parties to the binding allocation of responsibility for 
     review and copying at their own expense, subject only to the 
     confidentiality provisions of subsection (b). All responses 
     to any information request or request for production of 
     documents by the allocation panel shall be filed with the 
     clerk for the document repository and need not be served on 
     other potentially responsible parties, the State, or the 
     guardian.
       ``(b) Confidentiality.--(1) All pleadings, documents, and 
     materials submitted to the allocation panel or placed in the 
     document repository, together with the record of any 
     depositions or testimony adduced during the binding 
     allocation of responsibility, shall be confidential and shall 
     not be subject to release under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code (the Freedom of Information Act). The 
     Hearing Clerk and each party to the binding allocation of 
     responsibility proceeding shall maintain such pleadings, 
     documents, and materials, together with the record of any 
     depositions or testimony adduced during the binding 
     allocation of responsibility, as confidential. Such material 
     shall not be discoverable or admissible in any other Federal, 
     State or local judicial, administrative, or legislative 
     proceeding of any kind whatsoever, except--
       ``(A) to the extent necessary to collect or otherwise 
     enforce in court the assigned share of a liable party as 
     determined by the binding allocation of responsibility;
       ``(B) in a proceeding for judicial review of the binding 
     allocation of responsibility;
       ``(C) in any new binding allocation of responsibility 
     proceeding concerning the same site; and
       ``(D) in any binding allocation of responsibility involving 
     a different site where the allocation panel determines that 
     the sites are related and that specified documents from the 
     first binding allocation of responsibility could materially 
     assist the second binding allocation of responsibility.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D), if the original of 
     any document or material submitted to the allocation panel or 
     placed in the document repository during the binding 
     allocation of responsibility was, while in the possession of 
     the party which provided it, otherwise discoverable or 
     admissible, then such original document, if subsequently 
     sought from such party, shall remain discoverable or 
     admissible. If a fact covered in any deposition or testimony 
     adduced during the binding allocation of responsibility was, 
     in the knowledge of the witness or deponent, otherwise 
     discoverable or admissible, then such testimony, if 
     subsequently sought from such other party, shall remain 
     discoverable or admissible.
       ``(c) No Waiver of Privilege.--The submission of documents 
     or information pursuant to the binding allocation of 
     responsibility proceeding shall not be deemed to be a waiver 
     of any privilege, applicable to the original document or 
     fact, under any Federal or State law, regulation, or rule of 
     discovery or evidence .
       ``(d) Discovery.--In any case where a party to a binding 
     allocation of responsibility receives any request for any 
     pleading, document, or material, or for the record of any 
     depositions or testimony adduced in a binding allocation of 
     responsibility, such party shall promptly notify the person 
     who originally submitted such item and shall provide such 
     submitting person the opportunity to assert and defend the 
     confidentiality of such item. No party to the binding 
     allocation of responsibility shall release or provide a copy 
     of any pleading, document, or material, or the record of any 
     depositions or testimony adduced therein, to any person not a 
     party to such binding allocation of responsibility, except in 
     compliance with an order from a court.
       ``(e) Civil Penalty for Violation of Confidentiality 
     Requirements.--Any person who fails to maintain the 
     confidentiality of any pleadings, documents, or materials, or 
     the record of any deposition or testimony adduced during the 
     binding allocation of responsibility, or who releases any 
     such information in violation of this section, shall be 
     subject to a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation. 
     Such a penalty may be assessed by the President in accordance 
     with section 109 or by any other party in a citizen suit 
     brought under section 310. A prevailing plaintiff in such a 
     citizen suit shall be awarded its attorneys fees and up to 50 
     percent of the penalty imposed by the court.

     ``SEC. 507. FINAL AGENCY ACTION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       ``(a) Final Agency Action.--The binding allocation of 
     responsibility decision of the allocation panel shall 
     constitute final agency action pursuant to section 706 of 
     title 5, United States Code, subject only to review by the 
     Administrator in situations of fraud or gross misconduct.
       ``(b) Judicial Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--No Federal or State court shall have 
     jurisdiction to review, modify, or enjoin any aspect of any 
     binding allocation of responsibility proceeding except as 
     expressly set forth in this subsection. No aspect of any 
     action, decision, ruling, or determination by an allocation 
     panel in any binding allocation of responsibility proceeding 
     shall be subject to administrative or judicial review in any 
     Federal or State court until after the final binding 
     allocation of responsibility decision (in this subsection 
     referred to as the `final BAR decision') is issued by the 
     allocation panel. Thereafter the Administrator, the guardian, 
     the State, or any person determined by the allocation panel 
     to be a liable party may obtain judicial review of a final 
     BAR decision by filing a petition for review with the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the facility 
     is located or for the District of Columbia.
       ``(2) Petition.--Any such petition for review must be filed 
     within 60 days after the date of the final BAR decision by 
     the allocation panel. The petition shall set forth either the 
     specific assigned share of liability that the petitioner 
     believes should have been assigned to it (or, in the case of 
     a petition filed by the guardian, the assigned share that the 
     guardian believes should have been assigned to the orphan 
     share) in the binding allocation of responsibility, or 
     stating specifically that the petitioner believes it should 
     not have been found to have any liability at all.
       ``(3) Review.--Judicial review of the final BAR decision 
     shall be conducted on the administrative record, which shall 
     include all materials relating to the issues raised on appeal 
     by the petitioner that are contained in the document 
     repository described in section 506(a). The court shall set 
     aside the binding allocation of responsibility only if it is 
     found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or 
     immunity.
       ``(4) Payment during pendency of review.--During the 
     pendency of a petition for review under this section, the 
     petitioner shall pay any demand notices rendered for its 
     assigned share in accordance with the binding allocation of 
     responsibility decision, subject to later refund if the 
     petitioner prevails in the litigation.
       ``(5) Conduct of response action during pendency of 
     review.--During the pendency of a petition for review under 
     this section, response action with respect to the site may 
     occur, but only as provided in section 121(b)(7).
       ``(6) Liability of successful petitioner.--If the 
     petitioner is a liable party and the court adopts the 
     assigned share proposed by the petitioner, then the 
     difference between that share and the share originally 
     assigned to the petitioner shall be added to the orphan 
     share. If the petitioner is the guardian and the court adopts 
     the orphan share proposed by the petitioner, then the matter 
     shall be remanded to the allocation panel for the issuance, 
     as soon as possible, of a revised binding allocation of 
     responsibility decision in accordance with the decision of 
     the court.
       ``(7) Liability of unsuccessful petitioner.--(A) In the 
     case of a petitioner who is a liable party petitioning for a 
     change in the petitioner's assigned share, and the court does 
     not adopt the assigned share proposed by the petitioner, the 
     following provisions apply:
       ``(i) The petitioner shall reimburse all other parties that 
     participated in the appeal for the actual attorneys' fees and 
     costs that they incurred in defending the binding allocation 
     of responsibility decision.
       ``(ii) The petitioner may participate in the settlement 
     based on its assigned share if the petitioner notifies the 
     court of such intention within 10 days after the court's 
     decision on the petition.
       ``(iii) If the petitioner does not give notice as described 
     in clause (ii), the petitioner is considered to have not 
     resolved its liability to the United States and is subject to 
     civil action under section 106, 107(a), and 113 for the 
     following response costs with respect to the National 
     Priority List site concerned:
       ``(I) The assigned share of the petitioner, as determined 
     in the final BAR decision, plus
       ``(II) the orphan share for that site.
       ``(iv) A petitioner covered by clause (ii) is subject to 
     claims for contribution from, and may make claims for 
     contribution against, other unsuccessful petitioners with 
     respect to the National Priority List site concerned.
       ``(B) In the case of a petitioner who is a liable party 
     petitioning for a determination that the petitioner is not 
     liable with respect to the site concerned (for reasons such 
     as the fact that the petitioner is a successor to, or a 
     parent or subsidiary of, a company which the petitioner 
     believes should be assigned liability instead), and the court 
     denies the petition, the petitioner is liable for its 
     assigned share as determined in the final BAR decision.

     ``SEC. 508. COLLECTION, ENFORCEMENT, AND IMPLEMENTATION.

       ``(a) Collection.--
       ``(1) Amount recoverable.--After a final binding allocation 
     of responsibility decision is made with respect to a National 
     Priority List site, any creditor party may, in accordance 
     with paragraph (2), recover from any debtor party the 
     following:
       ``(A) With respect to a debtor party who is a liable party, 
     that party's assigned share, as determined under the binding 
     allocation of responsibility.
       ``(B) With respect to a debtor party which is the Hazardous 
     Substance Superfund or the Retroactive Liability Fund, the 
     orphan share, as determined under the binding allocation of 
     responsibility.
       ``(C) With respect to a debtor party who is either a liable 
     party or the Hazardous Substance Superfund or the Retroactive 
     Liability Fund, any attorneys' fees incurred by the creditor 
     party in a judicial action seeking to recover costs from the 
     debtor party.
       ``(2) Procedures for recovery.--Recovery by a creditor 
     party from a debtor party shall be carried out in accordance 
     with the following provisions:
       ``(A) The creditor party shall file a certified copy of the 
     final decision of the binding allocation of responsibility in 
     the United States District Court for the district in which 
     the site is located.
       ``(B) The creditor party shall file a verified statement 
     with the same court specifying the actions taken and the 
     costs incurred by the creditor party, and stating that such 
     actions and costs are not inconsistent with the National 
     Contingency Plan.
       ``(C) The creditor party shall serve a demand notice to 
     each debtor party against whom enforcement is sought and 
     shall deliver a copy of each such notice to the Administrator 
     and the State in which the site is located. The demand notice 
     shall specify the total amount of costs covered by the 
     notice, state a demand amount (consisting of the debtor 
     party's assigned share or, with regard to the Fund, the 
     orphan share), and demand that the debtor party pay such 
     demand amount within 30 days after receipt of the notice. Any 
     demand notice served by a creditor party shall provide that a 
     debtor party may pay the demand amount over a period of time 
     in installment payments. A copy of the demand notice shall be 
     filed with the United States District Court for the district 
     in which the site is located.
       ``(D) With respect to any response actions or expenditures 
     of a continuing nature, verified statements and demand 
     notices shall be filed with the court and delivered to the 
     debtor parties and the guardian quarterly.
       ``(E) Where several liable parties, or a liable party and 
     the Administrator or the State, each take actions or incur 
     costs not inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan, 
     different demand notices may be issued concurrently.
       ``(b) Penalties and Damages.--Except in the case of a 
     challenge to collection duly filed in accordance with 
     subsection (c), if a liable party, including any Federal, 
     State, or local governmental agency, fails to pay the sum 
     specified in a demand notice within 30 days after receipt of 
     the notice (or, in the case of a debtor party paying by 
     installments, within 30 days after an installment payment is 
     due), such party shall be liable for the interest thereon, 
     civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day, and damages of up 
     to an amount equal to 3 times the sum specified in the demand 
     notice. In the case of the orphan share, if the Hazardous 
     Substance Superfund or the Retroactive Liability Fund fails 
     to pay the sum specified in a demand notice within 30 days 
     after receipt of the notice, the Fund or the Retroactive 
     Liability Fund shall be liable for interest thereon and 
     damages of up to the amount equal to 2 times the sum 
     specified in the demand notice.
       ``(c) Challenges to Enforcement.--There shall be no 
     administrative or judicial review of any aspect of a demand 
     notice filed and delivered pursuant to subsection (a) except 
     in accordance with this subsection. Within 30 days after 
     receipt of a demand notice, a liable party or, in the case of 
     the orphan share, the guardian may file a petition with the 
     allocation panel that issued the binding allocation of 
     responsibility decision contending that the costs reflected 
     in the demand notice were incurred for actions inconsistent 
     with the National Contingency Plan. If such a petition is 
     filed, the allocation panel shall conduct an expedited review 
     of the matter. The review shall be limited solely to the 
     issue of the alleged inconsistency of the response actions 
     and costs with the National Contingency Plan. The person 
     challenging the demand notice shall have the burden of proof 
     that such actions and the claimed costs are inconsistent with 
     the National Contingency Plan. The allocation panel's 
     decision shall not be subject to judicial review. Payment 
     need not be made, and no interest shall accrue, pending the 
     allocation panel's decision.
       ``(d) Subsequent Additions to Orphan Share.--If good faith 
     collection and enforcement efforts, whether by the Federal or 
     State government or by any other creditor party, against a 
     liable party results in a judicial or administrative 
     determination that such liable party is an orphan party, then 
     such liable party's share will be added to the orphan share 
     amount and will be recoverable from the Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund.
       ``(e) Contribution Protection.--Liable parties that pay 
     their assigned share and comply with the binding allocation 
     of responsibility decision shall have no other liability, 
     under Federal or State law, to any person for costs incurred 
     at the site, and shall be granted covenants not to sue by the 
     Federal Government and the State government concerned, except 
     that the binding allocation of responsibility decision shall 
     not affect any contract for insurance or indemnification.

     ``SEC. 509. TRANSITION PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     person may initiate any administrative or judicial action 
     under section 106, subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of section 
     107(a)(1), or section 113, or under any other Federal or 
     State law or regulation, for the recovery of response costs, 
     contribution, or performance of response actions regarding 
     any National Priority List site until 90 days after a final 
     binding allocation of responsibility is issued.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) is subject to only the 
     following exceptions:
       ``(1) Administrative orders for emergency removal 
     actions.--The President may issue an order under section 106, 
     prior to the issuance of a final binding allocation of 
     responsibility, if the order is limited to those actions 
     required to implement immediate risk reduction measures 
     pending the issuance of the final binding allocation of 
     responsibility decision.
       ``(2) Continuation of pending response actions.--In any 
     case where, as of the date of enactment of this title, the 
     Administrator or a State has already issued a binding 
     contract for the performance of a remedial investigation/
     feasibility study or has issued an administrative order or 
     executed a consent decree for the performance of any response 
     action, the binding allocation of responsibility process 
     shall not affect the timing or manner of implementation of 
     such response actions.
       ``(c) Stay of Existing Actions.--
       ``(1) Stay of pending enforcement actions.--In any case 
     where, as of the date of enactment of this title, the 
     Administrator or the State has already initiated any 
     administrative or judicial enforcement action regarding the 
     liability of any party under section 106, subparagraph (A), 
     (B), or (D) of section 107(a)(1), or section 113, or under 
     any other Federal or State law or regulation for the response 
     costs, contribution, or performance of response actions, such 
     action shall be automatically stayed until 90 days after a 
     binding allocation of responsibility is issued, any judicial 
     review of such allocation is completed, and a final 
     administrative or judicial allocation decision is rendered.
       ``(2) Stay of pending private party litigation.--In any 
     case where, as of the date of enactment of this title, any 
     private person has initiated any administrative or judicial 
     action regarding the liability of any party at a National 
     Priority List site under section 106, subparagraph (A), (B), 
     or (D) of section 107(a)(1), or section 113, or under any 
     other Federal or State law or regulation for the response 
     costs, contribution, or performance of response actions, such 
     action shall be automatically stayed until 90 days after a 
     binding allocation of responsibility is issued, any judicial 
     review of such allocation is completed, and a final 
     administrative or judicial allocation decision is rendered.
       ``(d) Credit for Actions and Costs in Pending Matters.--In 
     the case of any response action performed or cost incurred in 
     any activity carried out pursuant to subsection (b), the 
     liability for such response action shall be governed by, and 
     the costs of implementing any such response action or other 
     activity carried out pursuant to subsection (b), shall be 
     included in, the subsequently issued binding allocation of 
     responsibility for such National Priority List site. In 
     conducting the binding allocation of responsibility, the 
     allocation panel shall, to the extent reasonably possible, 
     give credit for any prior costs incurred or response actions 
     performed at the National Priority List site.
       ``(e) Limitations on Existing Actions.--(1) The time period 
     described in paragraph (2) shall not be counted in 
     determining the statute of limitations applicable to any 
     administrative or judicial action under section 106, 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of section 107(a)(1), or 
     section 113, or under any other Federal or State law or 
     regulation, for the recovery of costs, for contribution, or 
     for the investigation, cleanup, or remediation of any 
     National Priority List site.
       ``(2) The time period referred to in paragraph (1) is the 
     period beginning on the date that any person first files a 
     petition for the initiation of a binding allocation of 
     responsibility for that site and ending on the date that a 
     binding allocation of responsibility is issued.

     ``SEC. 510. VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENTS.

       ``Prior to the issuance of a binding allocation of 
     responsibility decision, any group of potentially responsible 
     parties may submit a private allocation for the National 
     Priority List site (to be known as a `voluntary binding 
     allocation of responsibility') to the allocation panel. If 
     such voluntary binding allocation of responsibility meets the 
     following criteria, the allocation panel shall promptly adopt 
     it as the binding allocation of responsibility:
       ``(1) The voluntary binding allocation of responsibility 
     shall be a binding allocation of 100 percent of past, 
     present, and future recoverable response costs at the site.
       ``(2) The voluntary binding allocation of responsibility 
     shall not allocate any costs or requirements--
       ``(A) to the orphan share, unless the guardian agrees, in 
     writing, to such allocation; or
       ``(B) to any person who is not a signatory to the voluntary 
     binding allocation of responsibility.
       ``(3) Signatories to the voluntary binding allocation of 
     responsibility shall be entitled to contribution protection 
     as specified in section 508(e). Such signatories shall be 
     prohibited from pursuing any cost recovery action or 
     contribution against any non-signatory, but may seek 
     additional recovery against non-signatories based on a 
     contract for insurance or indemnification.
       ``(4) Signatories to the voluntary binding allocation of 
     responsibility shall be entitled to enforce it in the same 
     manner as any binding allocation of responsibility final 
     decision by the allocation panel.

     ``SEC. 511. NEW BINDING ALLOCATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY.

       ``A binding allocation of responsibility shall constitute a 
     permanent determination of the assigned share of each liable 
     party and of the orphan share and, except for additions to 
     the orphan share pursuant to section 508(d) and judicially 
     mandated changes pursuant to section 507(b), the binding 
     allocation of responsibility shall not be subject to any 
     change or revision for at least 5 years after the date of the 
     binding allocation of responsibility final decision. 
     Thereafter a new binding allocation of responsibility process 
     shall be available only if the party requesting it 
     demonstrates that, due to new information not reasonably 
     available during first binding allocation of responsibility, 
     a 35 percent or greater increase in total waste-in volume has 
     been discovered. If such a request for a new binding 
     allocation of responsibility is granted, the same rules and 
     procedures described for initial binding allocations of 
     responsibility apply to the new or revised binding allocation 
     of responsibility. New binding allocations of responsibility 
     shall only apply to funds actually expended after the 
     effective date of the new binding allocation of 
     responsibility decision, with no credits for funds already 
     expended. Subsequent new binding allocations of 
     responsibility requests are prohibited until 5 years after 
     the date of issuance of the prior new binding allocation of 
     responsibility.''.

     SEC. 111. SITE REDEVELOPMENT.

       Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is 
     amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(n) Site Redevelopment.--
       ``(1) Exemption.--No person who is a qualified redeveloper 
     shall be liable under this title for costs or damages with 
     respect to the release of any hazardous substance or the 
     threat of any such release from any facility solely by reason 
     of an agreement by such person to redevelop such facility 
     after a response action has been completed (as determined by 
     the President) at such facility.
       ``(2) Qualified redeveloper.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `qualified redeveloper' means a person 
     who is not otherwise liable under section 107 and did not 
     cause or contribute to the release or threat of release which 
     necessitated the response action referred to in paragraph 
     (1).''.

     SEC. 112. LIABILITY OF RESPONSE ACTION CONTRACTORS.

       (a) Extension of Negligence Standard.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 119 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking out ``title or under any 
     other Federal law'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``title, 
     under any other Federal law, or under the law of any State or 
     political subdivision of a State''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of paragraph (2) the following: 
     ``Such conduct shall be evaluated based on the generally 
     accepted standards and practices in effect at the time and 
     place that the conduct occurred.''.
       (b) Extension of Indemnification Authority.--Section 119(c) 
     of such Act is amended by adding at the end of paragraph (1) 
     the following: ``Any such agreement may apply to claims for 
     negligence arising under Federal, State, or common law.''.
       (c) Extension of Coverage.--Section 119(e) of such Act is 
     amended in the text appearing after subparagraph (D)--
       (1) by striking out ``List, or any removal under this 
     Act,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``List, any removal 
     under this Act, or any response action under this Act at a 
     facility using an alternative or innovative technology,''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or to 
     undertake appropriate natural resource restoration actions 
     necessary to protect and restore any natural resources 
     damaged by such release or threatened release of a hazardous 
     substance or pollutant or contaminant''.
       (d) Indemnification for Threatened Releases.--Section 
     119(c)(5) of such Act is amended in subparagraph (A) by 
     inserting ``or threatened release'' after ``release'' both 
     places it appears.
       (e) Clarification of Liability.--Section 101 of such Act, 
     as amended by section 106, is further amended by adding at 
     the end of paragraph (20) the following:
       ``(F) The term `owner or operator' does not include any 
     person carrying out a written contract or agreement with any 
     Federal agency, any State (or any political subdivision of a 
     State), or any responsible party to provide any response 
     action or any form of services or equipment ancillary to such 
     response action. Any such person shall not be considered to 
     have caused or contributed to any release or threatened 
     release of, or to have arranged for disposal or treatment of, 
     or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or 
     treatment of, or transported, hazardous substances or 
     pollutants or contaminants. This subparagraph shall not apply 
     to any person potentially responsible under section 106 or 
     107 other than those persons associated solely with the 
     provision of response action or any form of ancillary 
     services or equipment.''.
       (f) Federal Statute of Repose.--Section 119 of such Act is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Limitation on Actions Against Response Action 
     Contractors.--No action to recover for any injury to 
     property, real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful 
     death, or any other expenses or costs arising out of the 
     performance of services under a response action contract, nor 
     any action for contribution or indemnity for damages 
     sustained as a result of such injury, shall be brought 
     against any response action contractor more than 6 years 
     after the completion of work at any site under such contract. 
     The limitation prescribed in this subsection shall not affect 
     any right of indemnification that such response action 
     contractor may have under this section or may acquire by 
     written agreement with any party.''.
                     TITLE II--STATE IMPLEMENTATION

     SEC. 201. STATE AUTHORITY.

       (a) State Authorization.--Title I of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9600 et seq.) is amended by adding after 
     section 126 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 127. State authority

       ``(a) State Program Authorization.--
       ``(1) In general.--At any time after the promulgation of 
     regulations required by paragraph (2), a State may apply to 
     the Administrator to carry out, under its own legal 
     authorities, response actions and enforcement activities at 
     all facilities listed or proposed for listing on the National 
     Priorities List, or certain categories of facilities listed 
     or proposed for listing on the National Priorities List, 
     within the State. If the Administrator determines that the 
     State meets the criteria for eligibility, the Administrator, 
     pursuant to a contract or agreement entered into between the 
     Administrator and the State, shall authorize the State to 
     assume the responsibilities established under this Act at all 
     such facilities or categories of facilities. Except as 
     otherwise provided in this Act, such responsibilities 
     include, but are not limited to, responding to a release or 
     threatened release of a hazardous substance or pollutant or 
     contaminant; selecting response actions; expending the Fund 
     and the Retroactive Liability Fund in amounts authorized by 
     the Administrator to finance response activities; and taking 
     enforcement actions, including cost recovery actions to 
     recover Fund and the Retroactive Liability Fund expenditures 
     made by the State. In an application for authorization, a 
     State shall acknowledge its responsibility to address all 
     response actions at the facilities for which it seeks 
     authorization.
       ``(2) Promulgation of regulations.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive 
     Superfund Improvement Act, the Administrator shall issue 
     regulations to determine a State's eligibility for 
     authorization and to establish a process and criteria for 
     withdrawal of such an authorization. A State shall be 
     considered eligible for authorization if the Administrator 
     determines that the State possesses the legal authority, 
     technical capability, and resources necessary to conduct 
     response actions and enforcement activities in a manner that 
     is substantially consistent with this Act and the National 
     Contingency Plan at the facilities listed or proposed for 
     listing on the National Priorities List for which it seeks 
     authorization.
       ``(b) Authorized Use of Funds.--At facilities listed on the 
     National Priorities List for which a State is authorized 
     under subsection (a), and at facilities listed on the 
     National Priorities List which are referred to a State under 
     subsection (b), the State shall be eligible for response 
     action financing from the Fund and the Retroactive Liability 
     Fund. The Administrator shall ensure that all allocations of 
     the Fund and the Retroactive Liability Fund to the States for 
     the purpose of undertaking site-specific response actions are 
     based primarily on the relative risks to human health and the 
     environment posed by the facilities eligible for funding. The 
     amount of Fund and Retroactive Liability Fund financing for a 
     State-selected response action at a facility listed on the 
     National Priorities List shall--
       ``(1) take into account the number and financial viability 
     of parties identified as potentially liable for response 
     costs at such facility, and
       ``(2) be limited to the amount necessary to achieve a level 
     of response that is not more stringent than that required 
     under this Act.

     A State also may obtain Fund financing to develop and enhance 
     its capacity to undertake response actions and enforcement 
     activities. The Administrator, in consultation with the 
     States, shall establish, within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Comprehensive Superfund Improvement Act, 
     specific criteria for allocating expenditures from the Fund 
     and the Retroactive Liability Fund among States for the 
     purposes of undertaking response actions and enforcement 
     activities at referred and State-authorized facilities, and 
     building State capacities to undertake such response actions 
     and enforcement activities.
       ``(c) State Cost Share.--Notwithstanding section 
     104(c)(3)(C) of this Act, a State shall pay or assure payment 
     of 10 percent of the costs of all response actions (including 
     response actions at facilities operated by the State or a 
     political subdivision of the State) for which the State 
     receives funds from the Fund under this section. A State the 
     receives funds from the Retroactive Liability Fund under this 
     section shall not be subject to any cost share requirements 
     for the receipt of those funds.
       ``(d) Terms and Conditions; Cost Recovery.--A contract or 
     agreement for a State authorization or referral under this 
     section is subject to such terms and conditions as the 
     Administrator prescribes. The terms and conditions shall 
     include requirements for periodic auditing and reporting of 
     State expenditures from the Fund and the Retroactive 
     Liability Fund. The contract or agreement may cover a 
     specific facility, a category of facilities, or all 
     facilities listed or proposed to be listed on the National 
     Priorities List in the State. The contract or agreement shall 
     require the State to seek cost recovery, as contemplated by 
     this Act, of all expenditures from the Fund. Ten percent of 
     the moneys recovered by the State may be retained by the 
     State for use in its hazardous substance response program, 
     and the remainder shall be returned to the Fund. Before 
     making further allocations from the Fund to any State, the 
     Administrator shall take into consideration the effectiveness 
     of the State's enforcement program and cost recovery efforts.
       ``(e) Enforcement of Agreements.--If the Administrator 
     enters into a contract or agreement with a State pursuant to 
     this section, and the State fails to comply with any terms 
     and conditions of the contract or agreement, the 
     Administrator, after providing 60 days notice, may withdraw 
     the State authorization or referral, or seek in the 
     appropriate Federal district court to enforce the contract or 
     agreement to recover any funds advanced or any costs incurred 
     because of the breach of the contract or agreement by the 
     State.
       ``(f) More Stringent State Standards.--Under either an 
     authorization or referral, a State may select a response 
     action that achieves a level of cleanup that is more 
     stringent than required under section 121 of this Act if the 
     State agrees to pay for the incremental increase in response 
     cost attributable to achieving the more stringent cleanup 
     level. Neither the Fund, the Retroactive Liability Fund, nor 
     any party liable for response costs shall incur costs in 
     excess of those necessary to achieve a level of cleanup 
     required under section 121 of this Act.
       ``(g) Opportunity for Public Comment.--The Administrator 
     shall make available, for public review and comment, 
     applications for authorization under subsection (a) and 
     applications for referral under subsection (b). The 
     Administrator shall not approve or withdraw authorization or 
     referral from a State unless the Administrator notifies the 
     State, and makes public, in writing, the reasons for such 
     approval or withdrawal.
       ``(h) Periodic Review of Authorized State Programs and 
     Referrals.--The Administrator shall conduct a periodic review 
     of authorized State programs and referrals to determine, 
     among other things, whether--
       ``(1) the response actions were selected and conducted in a 
     manner that was substantially consistent with this Act, the 
     National Contingency Plan, and the contract or agreement 
     between the Administrator and the State;
       ``(2) the State response costs financed by Fund and 
     Retroactive Liability Fund expenditures were incurred in the 
     manner agreed to by the State, in accordance with the 
     contract or agreement between the Administrator and the 
     State; and
       ``(3) the State's cost recovery efforts and other 
     enforcement efforts were conducted in accordance with the 
     contract or agreement between the Administrator and the 
     State.

     Within 1 year after the date of enactment of the 
     Comprehensive Superfund Improvement Act, the Administrator, 
     in consultation with the States, shall develop specific 
     criteria for periodic reviews of authorized State programs 
     and referrals. The Administrator shall establish a mechanism 
     to make the periodic State reviews available to the 
     public.''.
       (b) Transition and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Sections 104(c)(5), 104(c)(7), 104(d)(1), and 104(d)(2) 
     of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
     and Liability Act of 1980 are each amended by inserting after 
     the heading in each paragraph the following--``This paragraph 
     applies only to response actions for which a Record of 
     Decision or other decision document is signed before the date 
     of enactment of the Comprehensive Superfund Improvement 
     Act.''.
       (2) Section 114(a) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``Nothing'' and inserting--``Except as otherwise provided in 
     this Act, nothing'';
       (3) Paragraph (1) of section 121(f) of such Act is amended 
     to read as follows: ``(1) The President may repeal, no 
     earlier than one year after the promulgation of final 
     regulations under sections 127(a)(3) and 127(b)(3), the 
     regulations issued under this paragraph prior to the date of 
     enactment of the Comprehensive Superfund Improvement Act.'';
       (4) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 121(f) of such Act 
     are each amended in the second sentence of subparagraph (A) 
     by striking ``does not attain a legally applicable or 
     relevant and appropriate standard, requirement, criteria, or 
     limitation, under the authority of subsection(d)(4)'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``is not relevant and appropriate 
     under subsection(d),''.
       (5) Section 302(d) of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``Nothing'' and inserting--``Except as otherwise provided in 
     this Act, nothing''.

     SEC. 202. TRANSFER OF AUTHORITIES.

       Section 120(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(g)) 
     is amended by inserting after ``the Environmental Protection 
     Agency,'' the following: ``and except as provided in section 
     127,''.

     SEC. 203. EPA OVERSIGHT COSTS.

       (a) Oversight Cost Accounting and Appeal Procedure.--
     Section 104(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(a)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Oversight cost accounting and appeal procedure.--(A) 
     The President shall maintain detailed and timely records of 
     the costs incurred under, or in connection with, any 
     oversight contract or arrangement referred to in paragraph 
     (1). The President shall submit such records to the 
     responsible party that has agreed to reimburse the Fund for 
     such costs with each demand or bill for such costs.
       ``(B) The President shall establish an administrative 
     procedure under which a party that conducts any response 
     action may contest the amount of costs incurred by the 
     President in overseeing the conduct of that response action. 
     The procedure shall be carried out separately from the 
     conduct of the response action at the facility concerned.''.
       (b) Limitation on Oversight Costs.--Any costs of oversight 
     incurred by the President that exceed 50 percent of the 
     response costs incurred by the responsible party or parties 
     at the facility concerned shall be paid by the Fund, unless 
     the responsible party or parties have previously agreed to 
     pay a larger sum under a court decree or the response action 
     is being conducted under an order issued under section 106 of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980.
                      TITLE III--REMEDY SELECTION

     SEC. 301. IMMEDIATE RISK REDUCTION MEASURES.

       (a) Immediate Risk Reduction Measures.--Section 104(a) of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5), respectively;
       (2) in paragraph (5) (as redesignated), by striking out 
     ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``paragraph 
     (4)''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``(a)'' the following new paragraph 
     (1): ``(1) Immediate risk reduction measures.--
       ``(A) Authority to act.--Whenever any hazardous substance, 
     pollutant, or contaminant is released or there is a 
     substantial threat of such a release into the environment, 
     and such release may present an imminent and substantial 
     danger to the public health, the President, or the State in 
     the case of a facility for which a State has responsibility 
     under section 127, is authorized to act to minimize and 
     prevent to the extent possible the endangerment to the public 
     health.
       ``(B) Types of measures allowed.--The actions that the 
     President or a State may take under this paragraph 
     (hereinafter in this section referred to as `immediate risk 
     reduction measures') may include, but are not limited to, the 
     following:
       ``(i) The removal of waste from barrels, tanks, or lagoons.
       ``(ii) The provision of alternative water supplies or 
     point-of-use treatment.
       ``(iii) The prevention of discharges to surface waters or 
     ground waters.
       ``(iv) The installation of fencing.
       ``(v) The institution of other institutional controls.
       ``(C) Measures prohibited.--The authority provided by this 
     paragraph does not include authority for the President or a 
     State to institute long-term remediation measures.
       ``(D) Timing.--The President or a State shall commence 
     immediate risk reduction measures under this paragraph--
       ``(i) in the case of a facility that is not listed on the 
     National Priorities List, as soon as practicable after the 
     President or the State becomes aware of an endangerment to 
     the public health; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a facility that is listed on the 
     National Priorities List, not later than 60 days after the 
     facility is so listed.
       ``(E) Cost effectiveness.--Any immediate risk reduction 
     measure carried out under this paragraph shall be conducted 
     in the most cost-effective manner practicable.
       ``(F) Funding.--The Fund may be used to pay for immediate 
     risk reduction measures taken under this paragraph. The 
     President may (in accordance with title V) recover the costs 
     of such measures from any person determined to be liable for 
     such costs but, in the case of measures costing less than 
     $1,000,000, the President may choose not to recover such 
     costs.
       ``(G) Judicial review.--The decision of the President or a 
     State to act under this subsection is subject to review as 
     provided in chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, except 
     that a reviewing court may set aside an action only if it is 
     found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with law. Review may be had only 
     in the United States district court for the district in which 
     the facility or site is located.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 302. SITE SCORING.

       Section 105(c)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9605(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``Revision.--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph
       ``(B)(i) After the date of enactment of the Comprehensive 
     Superfund Improvement Act, the hazard ranking system shall be 
     applied to a site or facility only after the site or facility 
     has undergone immediate risk reduction measures pursuant to 
     section 104(a)(1). In applying such ranking system, 
     conditions existing at the site or facility before the 
     immediate risk reduction measures were taken shall not be 
     taken into account.
       ``(ii) Clause (i) shall apply to all sites and facilities 
     to be newly listed on the National Priorities List after such 
     date of enactment and to any sites already so listed as of 
     such date of enactment but for which a remedial investigation 
     and feasibility study has not been conducted as of such date.
       ``(iii) As soon as practicable after such date of 
     enactment, the President shall revise the hazard ranking 
     system regulations to reflect the requirements this 
     subparagraph. ''.

     SEC. 303. LONG-TERM RESPONSE PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Section 104(a) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980, as amended by section 301, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Long-term response plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--Before carrying out or allowing another 
     person to carry out a response action at a facility under 
     this subsection, the President, or the State in the case of a 
     facility for which a State has responsibility under section 
     127, shall prepare a long-term response plan (hereinafter in 
     this section referred to as an `LTRP' or `plan') for such 
     facility. The President or State may allow a potentially 
     responsible party to prepare such a plan and to carry out the 
     elements of the plan listed in clauses (i), (ii), and (iv) of 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Elements of ltrp.--The LTRP shall address the 
     following elements:
       ``(i) Site characterization.--The site characterization 
     element of the plan shall determine the type, nature, and 
     extent of contamination at the facility, including the 
     location of the sources of the release or threatened release. 
     The site characterization component shall be completed within 
     12 months after a facility is listed on the National 
     Priorities List.
       ``(ii) Risk assessment.--The risk assessment element of the 
     plan shall be carried out in accordance with paragraph (7). 
     The risk assessment component shall be performed 
     simultaneously with the site characterization component and 
     shall be completed within 12 months after a facility is 
     listed on the National Priorities List.
       ``(iii) Community advisory councils.--The plan shall take 
     into account any recommendations made by the community 
     advisory council for the facility created under section 
     117(f). The council shall provide its recommendations with 
     respect to the facility within 12 months after a facility is 
     listed on the National Priorities List.
       ``(iv) Response option identification.--The response option 
     identification element of the plan shall be carried out in 
     accordance with paragraph (8) during the 3-month period 
     beginning on the date on which the elements listed in clauses 
     (i) through (iii) are completed.
       ``(C) Applicability.--(i) A long-term response plan shall 
     be required for the following:
       ``(I) A facility to be newly listed on the National 
     Priorities List after the date of enactment of the 
     Comprehensive Superfund Improvement Act.
       ``(II) A facility or site listed on the National Priorities 
     List as of such date of enactment but for which a remedial 
     investigation and feasibility study has not been conducted as 
     of such date.
       ``(III) A facility or site listed on the National 
     Priorities List as of such date of enactment, for which a 
     remedial investigation and feasibility study has been 
     conducted as of such date, but for which a contract has not 
     been executed for remedial design and remedial action as of 
     such date, if the potentially responsible parties and the 
     State in which the facility or site is located agree, within 
     30 days after such date, to subject themselves to the 
     requirements of an LTRP.
       ``(ii) A long-term response plan shall not be required for 
     any facility or site with respect to which a contract has 
     been executed for remedial design and remedial action as of 
     such date of enactment. ''.
       (b) Risk Assessments.--(1) Section 104(a) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(a)), as amended by 
     section 301 and this section, is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Risk assessments.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out a remedial investigation 
     with respect to a facility, the President or other person 
     carrying out the investigation shall assess the risk to human 
     health and the environment presented by the release or threat 
     of release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or 
     contaminant. The risk assessment component of the remedial 
     investigation shall be carried out in compliance with 
     regulations promulgated by the President. The President shall 
     ensure that the regulations do not conflict with regional or 
     State guidance on risk assessments. At a minimum, the 
     regulations shall--
       ``(i) require risk assessments to use exposure factors that 
     accurately describe site or facility conditions; and
       ``(ii) require that values used to describe quantities of a 
     substance consumed by people accurately reflect average 
     conditions.
       ``(B) Current risk versus future risk.--In carrying out the 
     risk assessment component of the remedial investigation, the 
     President or other person carrying out the assessment shall 
     separately evaluate (i) the current risks, and (ii) the 
     likely future risks, to human health and the environment, 
     based on current and likely future land use of the site. If 
     the President determines that one or more such risks exist 
     and warrant remedial action, the President shall specify in 
     the record of decision which risks support the decision for 
     remedial action, which risks are current risks, and which 
     risks are likely future risks.
       ``(C) Best estimates versus worst case.--In carrying out 
     the risk assessment component of the remedial investigation, 
     the President or other person carrying out the assessment 
     shall rely to the maximum extent practicable on actual data 
     rather than on assumptions. The President or other person 
     shall provide the most plausible estimate of any risk to 
     human health and the environment. The President or other 
     person also shall describe any assumptions or uncertainties 
     that pertain to such estimate, including the likelihood of 
     human exposure actually occurring. Whenever the President or 
     other person considers it feasible, the President shall 
     provide a quantitative estimate of the uncertainty associated 
     with the most plausible estimate of the risk.''.
       (1) Performance of risk assessments by prps.--Section 
     104(a)(1) of such Act is amended in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking out ``may'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``shall''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``remedial investigation'' the 
     following: ``(including the risk assessment component of the 
     remedial investigation)''.
       (c) Community Advisory Councils.--Section 117 of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(f) Community Advisory Councils.--
       ``(1) Creation.--The Administrator shall create a Community 
     Advisory Council for each facility listed on the National 
     Priorities List. Such Council shall be comprised of not more 
     than 20 persons appointed by the Governor of the State in 
     which the facility is located from among persons in the 
     community in which the facility is located. Each such council 
     shall represent a wide variety of local interests.
       ``(2) Purpose.--The Community Advisory Councils shall 
     provide information to potentially responsible parties, the 
     Administrator, and the State with regard to the future use of 
     the facility and affected off-site areas and resources. The 
     councils shall provide a public forum for citizens to voice 
     concerns regarding the response action to be taken and the 
     future use of the site.
       ``(3) Recommendations.--The President and the State shall 
     taken into consideration any recommendations made by a 
     Community Advisory Council in making decisions regarding any 
     response action under this title at the facility for which 
     such council was established.
       ``(4) Technical and administrative support for community 
     advisory councils.--The Administrator's regional offices 
     shall provide administrative and technical services for 
     Community Advisory Councils, including technical assistance 
     in understanding this title and the regulations under this 
     title.''.
       (d) Response Option Identification.--Section 104(a) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(a)), as amended by 
     section 301 and this section, is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Response option identification.--(A) The response 
     option identification element of a long-term remediation plan 
     shall consist of the development of the range of possible 
     response actions for a facility and the conduct of a cost-
     benefit analysis on each of the following categories of 
     possible response actions:
       ``(i) Containment (both permanent and temporary).
       ``(ii) Remediation.
       ``(iii) Monitoring.
       ``(iv) Delisting.
       ``(v) Institutional controls.
       ``(B) The President, the State, or the other person 
     carrying out the identification shall take into account 
     advice from the Community Advisory Council created for the 
     facility concerned.
       ``(C) During the 30-day period occurring after completion 
     of the response option identification, the Community Advisory 
     Council, potentially responsible parties, and any other 
     interested parties may submit comments to the President or 
     the State on preferred options.''.
       (2) Cost-benefit regulations.-- Section 105 of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Cost-Benefit Regulations.--(1) The President shall 
     promulgate and include in the national contingency plan 
     guidelines for conducting cost/benefit analyses of response 
     actions conducted pursuant to this Act. The guidelines shall 
     include a standard methodology for evaluating benefits and 
     costs over the lifetime of a remedial action.
       ``(2) In developing the standard methodology under 
     paragraph (1), the President shall seek and take into account 
     suggestions from States and political subdivisions of States 
     for which costs and benefits to include in a cost-benefit 
     analysis, and which methods to use in evaluating the costs 
     and benefits. The costs may include costs related to public 
     welfare.
       ``(3) In developing the methodology for measuring the costs 
     of a remedial action, the President, at a minimum, shall take 
     into account the following costs:
       ``(A) Costs associated with the remedial action, including 
     the following:
       ``(i) Direct capital costs.
       ``(ii) Operation and maintenance costs.
       ``(iii) Preconstruction costs, including permitting, 
     siting, and regulatory compliance costs.
       ``(iv) Capital acquisition, amortization, and debt service 
     costs.
       ``(v) Consulting costs.
       ``(vi) Costs and potential liabilities of future 
     environmental remediation if the remedial action does not 
     provide for a permanent remedy.
       ``(vii) Land acquisition costs.
       ``(viii) Costs of insurance.
       ``(B) Avoided or additional costs of cleaning up the 
     contamination using an alternative treatment technology.
       ``(4) In developing the methodology for measuring the 
     benefits of a remedial action, the President shall, at a 
     minimum, take into account the costs of benefits associated 
     with the remedial action, including the following:
       ``(A) Increased property values.
       ``(B) Reduced public health risks.
       ``(C) Reduced ecological risks.
       ``(D) Improved environmental quality in the community.''.

     SEC. 304. LONG-TERM RESPONSE SELECTION.

       (a) Long-term Response Selection.--Section 121(a) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9621(a)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(a) Response Selection.--
       ``(1) Section 104.--After completion of the long-term 
     response plan for a facility under section 104, the 
     President, or the State in the case of a facility for which a 
     State has responsibility under section 127, shall select that 
     response or combination of responses (from among the options 
     identified in the plan) that best achieves an acceptable 
     level of residual risk reduction at the facility or site 
     (referred to as the `cleanup goal'), in accordance with the 
     general rules stated in subsection (b).
       ``(2) Section 106.--With respect to actions determined to 
     be necessary by the President to be secured under section 
     106, the President shall select appropriate remedial actions 
     that are in accordance with this section and, to the extent 
     practicable, the national contingency plan, and which provide 
     for cost-effective response.''.
       (b) General Rules for Response Selection.--Section 121(b) 
     of such Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) General Rules.--
       ``(1) Selection process.--In selecting a response action 
     under this section, the President (or State, as the case may 
     be) shall review the long-term response plan for the facility 
     or site and consider any recommendations submitted to it from 
     the Community Advisory Council, the potentially responsible 
     parties, and the general public.
       ``(2) Factors to be considered.--In selecting a response 
     action, the President shall take into account the following:
       ``(A) Site-specific factors, including the current and 
     likely future uses of the land and the ground water 
     (including any designated uses or institutional controls), 
     the potential for human exposure to contamination, the actual 
     risk to human health, and the degree and type of 
     contamination.
       ``(B) The economic impact of the action on the potentially 
     responsible parties. In the case of a potentially responsible 
     party which is a municipality or other subdivision of a State 
     (including municipalities that are owners or operators of 
     landfills), the President shall take into account the funding 
     priorities of the community.
       ``(C) The costs and benefits of the response options, as 
     determined by cost-benefit analysis under section 104(a)(8).
       ``(3) Types of responses that may be selected.--The types 
     of response actions that the President (or State, as the case 
     may be) may select include the following:
       ``(A) Monitoring.
       ``(B) Containment or stabilization, if the President or 
     State finds that any of the following conditions exist with 
     respect to the facility concerned:
       ``(i) The risks to human health or the environment are low.
       ``(ii) The costs of other types of remediation, including 
     treatment, are extremely high.
       ``(iii) No proven technology exists for achieving a 
     permanent and significant decrease in the toxicity, mobility, 
     or volume of the hazardous substance, pollutant, or 
     contaminant concerned that is proportionate to the risk to 
     human health or the environment.
       ``(C) Institutional controls as part of a permanent remedy. 
     The President shall give preference to using such controls at 
     facilities with low future risk (as determined in the risk 
     assessment component of a Long-Term Response Plan). Such 
     controls include zoning ordinances and other ordinances that 
     restrict access to or use of property (including groundwater 
     management zones), physical barriers that restrict access to 
     property (such as fences), and such other controls as the 
     President (or State) considers appropriate.
       ``(4) Preference for certain type of action.--In selecting 
     a response action, the President (or State) shall, with 
     reference to the factors set forth in section 121(b)(2), 
     prefer response actions that significantly reduce the volume, 
     toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances, 
     pollutants, and contaminants, or that significantly reduce 
     actual or threatened exposure to such hazardous substances, 
     pollutants, or contaminants.
       ``(5) Limitation on standardized remedies.--The President 
     (or State) shall not select a response action that is a 
     standardized remedy in any case in which the use of an 
     alternative technology would be less expensive but as 
     protective of health and the environment as the standardized 
     remedy. For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `standardized remedy' means a remedy that is determined by 
     the President to be protective of human health and the 
     environment for a category of facilities.
       ``(6) Compliance boundaries.-- The President (or State), in 
     determining the boundaries within which a response action is 
     to be achieved, shall extend site or facility boundaries to 
     include areas subject to easements or other institutional 
     controls, such as zones of groundwater management.
       ``(7) Judicial review.--The selection of a response action 
     by the President or a State under this subsection is subject 
     to review as provided in chapter 7 of title 5, United States 
     Code, except that a reviewing court may set aside an action 
     only if it is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 
     discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Review 
     may be had only in the United States district court for the 
     district in which the facility or site is located. In any 
     such review, the facts of the case are subject to a trial de 
     novo by the reviewing court. Any appeal of the selection of a 
     response action shall be filed within 60 days after the 
     selection is made.
       ``(8) Deadline for implementation to begin.--The 
     implementation of a response action selected pursuant to this 
     section shall begin no later than 60 days after the selection 
     has been made and--
       ``(A) an appeal of such selection has been filed and a 
     court has finally acted upon such appeal; or
       ``(B) the time for filing an appeal of such selection has 
     expired and no appeal has been filed.''.
       (c) Repeal of ARARs Cleanup Standards.--Section 121(d) of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9621(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking out paragraphs (2), (3), and (4); and
       (2) by striking out ``(1)''.
       (d) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to any facility or site with respect 
     to which--
       (1) no contract for remedial design and remedial action has 
     been executed as of the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) the pertinent parties have not opted to subject 
     themselves to the long-term response plan and related 
     requirements within 30 days after such date of enactment (as 
     described in section 104(a)(6)(C)).
       (e) Cross Reference Amendment.--Section 104(c)(4) of such 
     Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Selection of Response.--The President shall select 
     response actions to carry out this section in accordance with 
     section 121 of this Act.''.

     SEC. 305. PERIODIC REVIEW.

       Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9621(c)) 
     is amended by striking out the first two sentences and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``The President, or 
     the State in the case of a facility for which a State has 
     responsibility under section 127, shall review each response 
     action selected under this section not less often than once 
     every 5 years after the initiation of the action to assure 
     that human health and the environment are being protected by 
     the action being implemented. If upon such review it is the 
     judgment of the President or State that additional actions 
     are appropriate at such site in accordance with section 104, 
     the President or State shall take or require such action, 
     including a supplemental long-term response plan under 
     section 104. In the case of a review carried out by the 
     President, if it is the judgment of the President that 
     additional actions are appropriate at such site in accordance 
     with section 106, the President or State shall take or 
     require such action.''.

     SEC. 306. DELISTING OF FACILITIES AND SITES.

       Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Delisting of Facilities and Sites.--After a response 
     action selected for a site or facility achieves the cleanup 
     goal set for such facility under section 121(a), the 
     President shall delist the site or facility from the National 
     Priorities List. Such delisting may occur even if monitoring 
     or operation and maintenance are being conducted at the 
     facility.''.
                           TITLE IV--FUNDING

     SEC. 401. 5-YEAR EXTENSION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND.

       (a) Extension of Taxes.--
       (1) The following provisions of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 are each amended by striking ``January 1, 1996'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``January 1, 2001'':
       (A) Section 59A(e)(1) (relating to application of 
     environmental tax).
       (B) Paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 4611(e) (relating to 
     application of Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate).
       (2) Paragraph (2) of section 4611(e) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``1993'' and inserting ``1998'',
       (B) by striking ``1994'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``1999'', and
       (C) by striking ``1995'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``2000''.
       (b) Increase in Aggregate Tax Which May Be Collected.--
     Paragraph (3) of section 4611(e) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``$11,970,000,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$26,970,000,000'' and by striking ``December 31, 
     1995'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''.
       (c) Extension of Repayment Deadline for Superfund 
     Borrowing.--Subparagraph (B) of section 9507(d)(3) is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 1995'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2000''.
       (d) Extension of Authorization of Appropriations to Trust 
     Fund.--Subsection (b) of section 517 of the Superfund Revenue 
     Act of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9507 note) is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8), by striking the period 
     at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting ``, and'', and by 
     adding at the end thereof the following new paragraphs:
       ``(10) 1996, $250,000,000,
       ``(11) 1997, $250,000,000,
       ``(12) 1998, $250,000,000,
       ``(12) 1999, $250,000,000, and
       ``(13) 2000, $250,000,000,''.

     SEC. 402. INCREASE IN ENVIRONMENTAL INCOME TAX.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 59A of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to environmental tax) 
     is amended by inserting ``(0.24 percent in the case of 
     taxable years beginning after December 31, 1994, and before 
     January 1, 2000)''.
       (b) Increased Revenues Not Deposited in Superfund.--
     Subsection (b) of section 9507 of such Code (relating to 
     Hazardous Substance Superfund) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``Only 50 percent of the 
     taxes received in the Treasury under section 59A with respect 
     to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1994, and 
     before January 1, 2000, shall be taken into account under 
     paragraph (1).''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1994.

     SEC. 403. ENVIRONMENTAL FEES AND ASSESSMENTS ON INSURANCE 
                   COMPANIES.

       (a) In General.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by inserting after section ____ the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec.   . Environmental fees and assessments on insurance 
       companies''.


                               [reserved]

       (b) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections for chapter 
     ____ of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section ____ the 
     following:

     ``Sec.   . Environmental fees and assessments on insurance 
       companies''.

     SEC. 404. RETROACTIVE LIABILITY FUND.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to trust fund code) is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

     ``SEC. 9512. RETROACTIVE LIABILITY FUND.

       ``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     `Retroactive Liability Fund', consisting of such amounts as 
     may be appropriated or credited to such Fund as provided in 
     this section or section 9602(b).
       ``(b) Transfers to Fund.--There are hereby appropriated to 
     the Retroactive Liability Fund--
       ``(1) amounts equivalent to 50 percent of the revenues 
     received in the Treasury from the tax imposed by section 59A 
     (relating to environmental tax) for taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 1994, and before January 1, 2000; and
       ``(2) amounts received from fees and assessments imposed by 
     the amendments made by section 403 of this Act.
       ``(c) Expenditures From Fund.--Amounts in the Retroactive 
     Liability Fund shall be available, as provided in 
     appropriation Acts, only for purposes of making expenditures 
     to carry out section 107(n) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     subchapter A is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 9512. Retroactive Liability Fund.''
                                 ______

      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Metzenbaum, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Wofford, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Pell):
  S. 1995. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize 
migrant, community and homeless health center programs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


               health centers reauthorization act of 1994

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Health Centers 
Reauthorization Act of 1994, with my colleagues Senators Kassebaum, 
Metzenbaum, Mikulski, Wofford, Pell, and Bingaman. This legislation 
continues the migrant, community, and homeless health center programs 
for 1 year. The Labor Committee plans to undertake a full 
reauthorization of these successful programs next year, following 
action on health care reform this year. Since the current authorization 
for these programs expires this year, an extension is needed.
  Community and migrant health centers play a vital role in bringing 
affordable and accessible community-based primary care to millions of 
Americans in underserved areas. Since its beginning in 1975, the 
community health center program has been the backbone of Federal 
efforts to bring quality health care to needy persons and areas 
throughout the country. In inner cities and isolated rural areas, these 
health centers have served millions of uninsured and under-insured 
people, including the elderly, women, and children at risk, and those 
with other special needs. Nationwide, over 2,000 centers provide basic 
health services to approximately 6.5 million individuals each year.
  In addition to basic care, these centers provide many other services 
tailored to the needs of the populations they serve, including health 
education, public health screening, laboratory services, preventive 
dental care, emergency care, pharmacy services, substance abuse 
counseling, and certain social services. Many centers maintain extended 
hours for working families, offer care at multiple sites, use mobile 
clinics to reach rural patients, employ multilingual staff to reduce 
barriers to care, and stay in touch with community needs by working 
closely with local boards.
  A key feature of the health center programs is the strong emphasis on 
preventive care. For the high risk populations they serve, the centers 
reduce the demand for costly emergency and in-patient hospital care by 
emphasizing prevention, early intervention, and case management with 
good followup. One of the many vital missions of the centers is to 
reduce infant mortality and low birthweight, by reaching out and 
helping pregnant women and their infants receive timely care.
  In Massachusetts, community health centers have played a vital role 
in providing these services. Over 800,000 persons receive primary and 
preventive health care through the centers--care that would otherwise 
be delayed or unavailable for many people without access to other 
health care providers. In Western Massachusetts, health centers have 
mobilized to address problems such as high teenage birth rates, 
increasing rates of HIV infection, and the high incidence of drug abuse 
and alcohol-related problems. In those areas hard hit by the recession, 
the centers provide a realistic opportunity for uninsured 
and struggling families to receive comprehensive care.

  As we move forward with health reform, the role of these centers will 
become an even more vital link in bringing health care to many under-
served populations, and will help turn the promise of universal health 
coverage into the reality of accessible care. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to consider this extension bill in a timely manner, 
and to recognize the important contributions that health centers make 
to serving so many Americans.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 1995

       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 ``Health Centers 
     Reauthorization Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN HEALTH CENTER PROGRAMS.

       (a) Migrant Health Centers.--Section 329(h)(2)(A) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b(h)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``1994'' and inserting ``1995''.
       (b) Community Health Centers.--Section 330(g) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 254c(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``1994'' and inserting 
     ``1995''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``1994'' and inserting 
     ``1995''.
       (c) Homeless Health Services.--Section 340(q)(1) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 256(q)(1)) is amended by striking ``1994'' and 
     inserting ``1995''.
       (d) Public Housing Health Services.--Section 340A(p)(1) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 256a(p)(1)) is amended by striking ``and 
     1993'' and inserting ``through 1995''.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague 
Senator Kennedy in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Community 
and Migrant Health Centers Programs, the homeless Health Services 
Program, and the Public Housing Health Services Program. These programs 
play a vital role in making health care services more accessible and 
affordable to the poor and to those residing in rural and urban areas 
suffering from a shortage of health professionals.
  The legislation we are introducing today provides for a 1-year 
reauthorization of current program policy. I had hoped that my 
colleagues and I on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources would 
have had the opportunity to hold comprehensive hearings on these 
programs and consider policy changes which might be necessary to 
enhance their ability to meet the needs of special populations and of 
those residing in medically undeserved areas. However, I believe a 1-
year reauthorization is appropriate, given the demands health care 
reform will make on our committee schedule and the need to reassess the 
role of these programs should Congress pass a comprehensive health care 
reform plan this year.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DURENBERGER:
  S. 1996. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide Medicare beneficiaries a choice among health plans, and for 
other purposes; read the first time.


                    the medicare choice act of 1994

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, when President Clinton spoke to the 
Joint Session of Congress about health care reform, he said that he was 
introducing a group of reforms which would bring six essential elements 
to the Nation's health care system: Security, simplicity, savings, 
choice, quality and responsibility.
  My views on where the President's plan meets those goals--and where 
it falls short--are pretty well known. And in both the Senate and the 
House, we are now engaged in a useful and productive debate over how 
best to reach those goals.
  I personally believe we are going to meet the President's goals, by 
passing legislation this year. I believe we are going to meet those 
goals by changing the market incentives, so that those markets do what 
only markets can do: Increase efficiency, lower costs, and improve 
quality. I believe that we will provide security, simplicity, savings, 
choice, quality, and responsibility. And we will do it without creating 
cumbersome bureaucracies, Federal or State Government regulatory 
schemes or price controls.
  Mr. President, between the House and the Senate we have about a dozen 
health reform proposals. But not one of them brings these essential 
elements of health care reforms to America's seniors and to people with 
disabilities.
  Mr. President, I am blessed with two living parents. My parents are 
intelligent, educated people who are living a well-deserved retirement 
in their eighties. Through their experience, I have seen that Medicare 
part A, Medicare part B, MediGap, and other supplemental plans are 
often confusing, bureaucratic, time consuming, frustrating, and costly.
  I am also blessed with four sons. Through them, I have felt the 
inequity that my generation is doing them. I know that I am piling on 
them the obligation to pay for my health care and the health care of my 
parents. They bear this burden at a time when they are struggling to 
find jobs with good pay, struggling to pay for expensive education, 
struggling to cover their own health care costs, and struggling with an 
uncertain future as they start their own families.
  I am blessed to come from a state with fantastic health care 
providers, with progressive and responsible corporate citizens, with 
innovative health plans and creative thinkers. Through them, I have 
learned that the current Medicare system creates inequities and 
inefficiencies in our system by dictating payments that may or may not 
accurately reflect costs, and thereby force hidden cost shifts.
  Through the country hospitals and country doctors of rural Minnesota, 
I know that the Medicare system--and Congress' attempts to reduce the 
deficit on the shoulders of Medicare--is undermining the quality and 
availability of health care for rural seniors.
  And through my work in the Senate, I have learned that the costs of 
Medicare have soared and are projected to continue to grow at an 
unsustainable pace. The result will be bankruptcy, a crushing tax 
burden on future generations, or reduced access to quality medical 
services.
  Many of these problems are addressed in some of the health care 
reform plans currently under consideration in the Congress. But out of 
fear that some interest groups might react negatively, every health 
care reform plan, including the ones of which I am a sponsor, have 
failed to address the underlying problems and the integration of our 
senior population and of Americans with disabilities into the 21st 
century of health care.
  I believe they deserve better. They certainly deserve the same 
benefit as the rest of the population.
  That is why I rise today to introduce the Medicare Choice Act: An 
essential part of health reform that will allow seniors and people with 
disabilities to fully share in the benefits that we will all receive 
from the historic health reform legislation of 1994.
  For the past year, I have worked closely with my colleague from New 
Mexico, Senator Domenici, to develop this bill. We have approached 
reform of the Medicare program from two different angles, which I 
believe serve the program, the Congress and the people well. He, from a 
budget perspective, realizes the strain of the program's spiralling 
costs on our deficit. I, from a Medicare policy perspective, recognize 
the need to increase efficiency in the Medicare program to secure its 
future.
  Later this spring, Senator Domenici will be introducing a health care 
reform bill. The Medicare Choice Act will serve as the core of the 
Medicare title in his bill. I will continue to work with Senator 
Domenici toward this goal.
  I believe this legislation provides the basic structure for 
integrating Medicare beneficiaries into any health reform proposal. 
This bill is based on studies conducted by Dr. Bryan Dowd at the 
Institute for Health Services Research at the University of Minnesota's 
School of Public Health. Dr. Dowd's work, and Alain Enthoven's before 
him, introduced the principles of competitive bidding for the Medicare 
program.
  It is my intent to initiate discussion on this essential component of 
health reform. I am certain that many groups will offer their input on 
the specifics outlines in my proposal. Debate will be helpful toward 
crafting a truly comprehensive health care reform bill.
  Mr. President, I have served as chairman or ranking member of the 
Finance Committee's Health Subcommittee for 10 years, and ranking 
member on its Medicare and Long-term Care Subcommittee for 6. I have 
been ranking Republican on the Labor and Human Resources Committee's 
Subcommittee on Disability Policy for 6 years. I have learned a lot.
  While serving on these committees, I recognized the need to 
restructure the Medicare program to fulfill the promise of true health 
care security. In the 99th Congress, I introduced the Medicare Voucher 
Act of 1986 to allow Medicare beneficiaries the full range of health 
care options available to the rest of the population. The concept was 
the same in that bill as it is today in the Medicare Choice Act--to 
allow providers to compete for senior and disabled patients who will 
buy their medical care with a voucher.
  During the following Congress, I introduced the Medicare Private 
Health Plan Capitation Improvement Act of 1987. This bill sought to: 
First, promote the provision of high-quality and cost-effective health 
care to all Medicare beneficiaries; second, manage an individual's 
lifetime expenditures; third, prohibit discrimination based on an 
individual's health or disability status, the area where they live, or 
the health plan they choose; fourth, increase an individual's choice of 
health plans; and fifth, provide for equitable capitation payments to 
health plans. The goals of this bill were identical to the goals of the 
Medicare Choice Act of 1994.
  I continue to believe that restructuring the market to encourage 
competition and consumer choice is preferable to the alternative--more 
regulation.
  Mr. President, the Medicare Choice Act, which I introduce today, is, 
in my view, an essential part of any health care reform discussion that 
really wants to get serious about health care reform that benefits all 
Americans.
  We actually planted the seeds for this bill in 1982. That year we 
created TEFRA risk contracts--these contracts allowed seniors to choose 
more benefits, at a lower cost and with less paperwork, through Health 
Maintenance Organizations [HMO's]. Unfortunately, we tied that program 
too tightly to the flawed fee-for-service payment scheme of Medicare. 
The result is that HMO's never had much enthusiasm for the project, and 
now have reduced their participation in many areas of the country. The 
promise that seniors would have a real choice in health care is 
disappearing.
  The Medicare Choice Act will deliver on that promise. There is every 
reason to do it now, when we are actively engaged in the larger issues 
of health care reform.
  Let's look at the six essential elements of health care reform--and 
how this bill will bring them to seniors.
  First, security. Right now, there is little security in Medicare. 
While the program currently pays the many bills for seniors, the future 
is not certain. The Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees 
predicts virtual bankruptcy by 1999. Absent a significant increase in 
taxes or the deficit, the current alternative is to further reduce 
spending. This will inevitably lead to loss of benefits, rationing, and 
second-class care for seniors and people with disabilities.
  The Medicare Choice Act offers an alternative. While eligible persons 
will still have the option of participating in the traditional fee-for-
service Medicare program, they will also have the choice of new 
Medicare health plans. these plans will match, and in most cases 
exceed, the benefits now available under Medicare. They will work to 
keep costs down while improving benefits and quality. It is our best 
hope for ending the cost spiral that threatens the future of Medicare. 
It is our best hope for security.
  Next, choice. Under this plan seniors will be able to choose from a 
variety of plans tailored to their needs. Just as participants in the 
Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program [FEHBP] or, in my State, the 
Minnesota Employee Benefits Program are able to make a choice of plans 
every year, seniors will be able to choose each year the plan that best 
fits their needs. The plans will be presented in simple comparisons, 
without any fine print or hidden exclusions. Seniors will have one-stop 
shopping for health care, and their choices will be explained in plain 
language. They will be able to see what the options cost, and how the 
costs compare.
  MediGap policies and supplemental policies will be included in the 
comparisons. In short, seniors will have the same ability to choose 
that we are planning for the rest of us in health care reform. In the 
future, these same plans offer access to long-term care services as 
well.
  Next, simplicity. Under this act, people will be able to opt for 
Medicare health plans that virtually eliminate paperwork, copays, 
deductibles, and confusing presentations of MediGap and supplemental 
options.
  This bill also enhances the option for retirees to stay with their 
employer's plan. I have often wondered why retirees should not receive 
health care at age 65 just as they received it at age 64. What could be 
simpler? One's 65th birthday need not be the introduction to the 
Federal medical bureaucracy. Under this bill, one of the options 
seniors can choose will be to continue in their former employer's 
health plan, as long as it at least matches current Medicare benefits. 
Under this provision, the only change at age 65 is the Federal 
contribution toward the plan's premium.
  Savings and quality are essential elements of health care reform, and 
are intrinsically related. In health care reform, most of us are 
looking for savings to come from reforming the market and letting 
competition in the market place drive costs down while improving 
quality. There is no reason why the senior and disabled population 
should be left out of this benefit.
  With people able to choose between plans based on services and costs, 
the plans will strive, as any competitor does, to increase services 
while lowering costs. This is our best hope for getting Medicare costs 
under control without the reduction of quality, availability, and 
services that will inevitably result from continuing efforts to squeeze 
money out of Medicare.
  What is uniquely better about the Medicare Choice Act is that seniors 
and the disabled will not only see savings, they will get to keep 
savings when the spend less.
  Finally, we need a system that places responsibility where it 
belongs. Under the bill, seniors will be responsible for making choices 
based on their needs and the costs.
  Health plans will be responsible for maintaining the health of their 
members and using the best medicine efficiently in order to compete.
  And the Federal Government will live up to its responsibility to 
provide the financial security that was the original intent to 
Medicare. No one will be surrepitously and irresponsibly shifting cost 
from the Federal Government to individuals.
  Mr. President, there are many details that we need to work out in 
health care reform. I am excited by the progress I see that we are 
making every day. I do not share the pessimism of some Members of 
Congress, who believe that we cannot accomplish great things this year 
in health reform.
  We can do it, and we will. And when we do, I want to include older 
Americans and Americans with disabilities in health care reform. The 
Medicare Choice Act begins this process--which should be, I believe the 
seventh essential element of health care reform.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. Kassebaum, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. McCain, Mr. Riegle, Mr. Graham, Mr. Stevens, 
        Mr. Bradley, Mr. Mack, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        DeConcini, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1997. A bill to amend title 13, United States Code, to require 
that the Secretary of Commerce produce and publish, at least every 2 
years, current data relating to the incidence of poverty in the United 
States; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                      poverty data improvement act

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I join with Senators 
Moynihan, Kassebaum, Boxer, McCain, Riegle, Graham, Stevens, Bradley, 
Mack, Bingaman, Campbell, DeConcini, Johnston, and Wellstone to 
introduce legislation that will reform the way in which the Federal 
Government distributes funds for programs that serve low-income 
communities.
  This legislation, which was recently passed on the suspension 
calendar by the House of Representatives--and is entitled the Poverty 
Data Improvement Act of 1994--will substantially improve census 
tracking of low-income people living in communities throughout the 
Nation. This, in turn, will assure taxpayers that money from the 
Federal Government, for those programs which have funding based on the 
incidence of poverty, will be spent where there is the most need.
  Each year, more than $20 billion is provided to State and local 
governments based on data relating to income and poverty levels. 
However, these funds are distributed using census figures which are 
compiled just once each decade. Since there are constant shifts in 
income levels from one census to another, Federal funding allocations 
are made using data which is far from accurate, and which can be as 
much as 14 years old. This has often prevented funds from reaching 
those communities in the greatest need.
  Among Federal programs which use income or poverty criteria in 
allocation formulas are:
  The Chapter 1 Education Program, which is the Federal government's 
largest program to support the education of disadvantaged children.
  The Community Development Block Grant Program [CDBG], which as mayor 
of San Francisco, I found to be one of the most effective Federal 
programs. It allows communities to undertake a wide range of economic 
development and neighborhood revitalization efforts which can help 
stimulate the local economy as well as improve the quality of life for 
some of the more marginalized communities in our Nation's cities.
  The Job Training Partnership Act, which provides comprehensive 
training to youths and young adults in high-poverty areas.
  The HOME Program, which allows local governments to implement housing 
strategies designed to increase home ownership and affordable housing 
opportunities for low-income people.
  Also included are: Low Income Tax Credits, the Federal Housing 
Finance Board Affordable Housing Program, the Federal Housing Finance 
Board Community Investment Program, the Rural Housing Program, and 
others.
  The legislation, which we are introducing today, directs the 
Secretary of Commerce to publish--for each State, county or borough, 
local government unit--including Alaska Native villages, and school 
district--data relating to the incidence of poverty, at least 
biennially.
  Tracking these more gradual shifts in the poor population will 
provide for a more effective targeting of scarce Federal dollars. A 
more frequent and accurate count will reduce the dramatic changes in 
the reallocation of Federal funds, and will allow local units of 
government to better plan their resources whether that funding goes up 
or down.
  This means that those communities which experience a decline, in 
their poor populations, will not experience sudden and sharp cuts in 
the Federal funds they relay upon. And, communities which experience an 
increase in their poor populations will receive Federal funding, in a 
more timely manner, so that they can serve the people as they need it 
and when they need it.
  I'd like to give you some examples of the difference this legislation 
would have made had it been in effect for last year's chapter 1 funding 
allocations. The 1992-93 total basic, plus concentration, chapter 1 
grants to California were $541,365,000 because they were based on the 
1980 census. Had the 1990 census been used, the estimated allocation 
for California would have been $682,005,000. That is a difference of 
$140,640,000 for just 1 year. This difference reflects the increase in 
California's poor school age children during the 1980's.

  For Idaho, the actual allocation was $17,998,000 versus what would 
have been $19,511,000 had the 1990 census been used. For Wyoming, the 
actual allocation was $7,628,000, versus what would have been 
$10,555,000. For Wisconsin, $87,403,000 actual, versus $105,416,000 
with the 1990 census. For Oklahoma, $59,601,000 versus $75,325,000. And 
for Texas the actual chapter 1 allocations were $388,007,000, whereas 
if the 1990 census had been used, the amount would have been 
$513,493,000--a difference of $125,486,000 for just 1 year.
  It just makes no sense for the Federal Government to distribute 
scarce Federal dollars, which are intended to help those most in need, 
on demographic data which is as much as 14 years old.
  And let me just say that this is not a matter of winners and losers. 
This is a matter of accuracy and fairness involving the distribution of 
Federal funds, and I think it will be very difficult for anyone to 
argue against that.
  Let me give you one more example. The recession did not hit many 
parts of the country until after 1989. So the number of people that 
fell below the poverty line, in those areas, was far fewer then, and 
this is reflected in the 1990 census. However, this also means that the 
Federal funding allocations, for those communities, are set for the 
next 10 years, even though the incidence of poverty jumped sharply soon 
after the census was taken.
  So you see, the census becomes a snapshot, as it were, of regional 
economic conditions as they exist at the time of the census. And this 
in turn locks into place Federal funding allocations for the next 10 
years.
  This legislation will correct that.
  At any given point in time, the economic circumstances of a given 
region can change. When they do, the number of people that fall into, 
or out of, poverty, also changes. Without intercensal poverty data, 
communities with a high incidence of poverty will not receive the 
Federal funds to which they are entitled. At the same time, other 
communities will receive Federal dollars, for the next 10 years, even 
if their poor population has declined.
  Compared to the large amounts which are disbursed each year, the cost 
of producing the data required by this legislation is small. The Bureau 
of Census has estimated that the annual cost will be approximately 
$400,000--a minuscule amount, indeed, when considering the large number 
of people who will be denied assistance due to the flaw in the current 
system.
  This legislation will ensure a more frequent collection of income and 
poverty data, and will expedite the flow of Federal funds to the 
neediest populations in our Nation, at the time when those funds are 
needed the most. It will also greatly improve the planning and 
budgeting process for State and local governments at every level.
  This is legislation whose time has come.
  Madam President, 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. 1997

       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 ``Poverty Data Improvement Act 
     of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) more than $20,000,000,000 is provided to State and 
     local governments each year, under various Federal programs, 
     based on data relating to income and poverty status;
       (2) the infrequency with which such data are collected 
     diminishes their reliability and usefulness for public policy 
     purposes;
       (3) the relative lack of intercensal data can prevent 
     Federal funds from reaching those populations that are in 
     greatest need, as reflected in the dramatic and often 
     unforeseen shifts in the way Federal funds are reallocated 
     following each decennial census;
       (4) the more frequent collection of data relating to income 
     and poverty status would allow policymakers to target scarce 
     program funds more effectively and in a more timely fashion; 
     and
       (5) the cost of producing the data needed to achieve the 
     ends described in paragraph (4) would be small compared to 
     the amounts that are distributed based on such data.

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 13, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 181 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 181A. Data relating to poverty

       ``(a) The Secretary, to the extent feasible, shall produce 
     and publish for each State, county or borough, and local unit 
     of general purpose government, including Alaska native 
     village, for which data are compiled in the most recent 
     census of population taken under section 141(a), and for each 
     school district, data relating to the incidence of poverty. 
     Such data may be produced by means of sampling, estimation, 
     or any other method that the Secretary determines will 
     produce current, comprehensive, and reliable data.
       ``(b) Data under this section--
       ``(1) shall include--
       ``(A) for each school district, the number of children age 
     5 to 17, inclusive, in families below the poverty level; and
       ``(B) for each state and county referred to in subsection 
     (a), the number of individuals age 65 or over below the 
     poverty level, and
       ``(2) shall be published in 1996 and at least every second 
     year thereafter.
       ``(c)(1) If reliable data could not otherwise be produced, 
     the Secretary may, for purposes of subsection (b)(1)(A), 
     aggregate school districts, but only to the extent necessary 
     to achieve reliability.
       ``(2) Any data produced under this subsection shall be 
     appropriately identified and shall be accompanied by a 
     detailed explanation as to how and why aggregation was used 
     (including the measures taken to minimize any such 
     aggregation).
       ``(d) If the Secretary is unable to produce and publish the 
     data required under this section for any State, county, local 
     unit of general purpose government, or school district in any 
     year specified in subsection (b)(2), a report shall be 
     submitted by the Secretary to the President of the Senate and 
     the Speaker of the House of Representatives, not later than 
     90 days before the commencement of the following year, 
     enumerating each government or school district excluded and 
     giving the reasons for the exclusion.
       ``(e) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall use 
     the same criteria relating to poverty as were used in 
     compiling the then most recent census of population taken 
     under section 141(a) (subject to such periodic adjustments as 
     may be necessary to compensate for inflation and other 
     similar factors).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 181 the 
     following:

``181A. Data relating to poverty.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 1998. A bill to provide for the acquisition of certain lands 
formerly occupied by the Franklin D. Roosevelt family, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                 Roosevelt Family Land Acquisition Act

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, there cannot be many houses 
designed by our Presidents. We have the opportunity to acquire one for 
the National Park Service, and we should certainly do so. I refer to 
Top Cottage, where Franklin Roosevelt intended to live at the end of 
his Presidency. It was the site of many historic occasions, and is a 
most significant part of the Hyde Park estate.
  This bill authorizes the acquisition of Top Cottage. I urge my 
colleagues to support this effort while the opportunity presents 
itself. The president of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute 
assures me that the Institute will help raise funds for this purpose.
  Hyde Park is a wonderful tribute to President Roosevelt, but it is 
incomplete without this parcel. This bill gets us closer to its 
acquisition, and I hope we can act on it promptly.
  Mr. President, 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. 1998

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

     SECTION 1. ACQUISITION OF ROOSEVELT FAMILY LANDS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) General Authority.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     (hereinafter referred to as the ``Secretary'') may acquire, 
     by purchase with donated or appropriated funds, donation, or 
     otherwise, lands and interests in land (including development 
     rights and easements) in the properties located at Hyde Park, 
     New York, that were owned by Franklin D. Roosevelt or his 
     family at the time of his death, as depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Roosevelt Family Estate'' and dated November 19, 
     1993.
       (2) Limitations.--
       (A) Residential property.--the Secretary may only acquire 
     those residential properties on the lands and interests in 
     land depicted on the map referred to in subsection (a) that 
     were owned or occupied by Franklin D. Roosevelt or his 
     family, including his parents, siblings, wife, and children.
       (B) State lands.--Lands and interests in land depicted on 
     the map referred to in subsection (a) that owned by the State 
     of New York, or a political subdivision of the State, may 
     only be acquired by donation.
       (3) Priority.--In acquiring lands and interests in land 
     pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall, to the extent 
     possible, give priority to acquiring the tract of lands 
     commonly known as the ``Open Park Hodhome Tract'', as 
     generally depicted on the map referred to in subsection (a).
       (4) Costs.--The Secretary may pay the costs, including 
     title search and survey, associated with the acquisition of 
     lands and interests in land pursuant to this section.
       (b) Administration.--Lands and interests in land acquired 
     by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be added to, 
     and administered as part of, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
     National Historic Site or the Eleanor Roosevelt National 
     Historic Site, as appropriate.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 1999. A bill to establish the Lower East Side Tenement Museum 
National Historic Site; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


   Lower East Side Tenement Museum National Historic Site Act of 1994

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that will 
authorize a small but most significant addition to the National Park 
System. For 150 years the Lower East Side of New York City has been the 
most vibrant, populous, and famous immigrant neighborhood in the 
Nation. From the first waves of Irish and German immigrants to Italians 
and Eastern European Jews to the Asian, Latin, and Caribbean immigrants 
arriving today, the Lower East Side has provided millions their first 
American home.
  For many of them that home was a brick tenement; six or so stories, 
no elevator, maybe no plumbing, maybe no windows, a business on the 
ground floor, and millions of our forbearers upstairs. The Nation has 
with great pride preserved log cabins, farm houses, and other symbols 
of our agrarian roots. We have recently reopened Ellis Island to 
commemorate and display the first stop for 12 million immigrants who 
arrived in New York City. Until now we have not preserved a sample of 
urban, working class life as part of the immigrant experience. For many 
of those who disembarked on Ellis Island the next stop was a tenement 
on the Lower East Side, such as the one at 97 Orchard Street. It is 
here that the Lower East Side Tenement Museum will show us what that 
next stop was like.
  The tenement at 97 Orchard was built in the 1860's, during the first 
phase of tenement construction. It provided housing for 20 families on 
a plot of land planned for a single-family residence. Each floor had 
four three-room apartments, each of which had two windows in one of the 
rooms and none in the others. The privies were in the back, as was the 
spigot that provided water for everyone. The public bathhouse was down 
the street.
  In 1900 this block was the most crowded per acre on earth. Conditions 
improved after the passage of the New York Tenement House Act of 1901, 
though the crowding remained. Two toilets were installed on each floor. 
A skylight was installed over the stairway and interior windows were 
cut in the walls to allow some light throughout each apartment. For the 
first time the ground floor became commercial space. In 1918 
electricity was installed. Further improvements were mandated in 1935, 
but the owner chose to board the building up rather than follow the new 
regulations. It remained boarded up for 60 years until the idea of a 
museum took hold.
  The Tenement Museum will keep at least one apartment in the 
dilapidated condition in which it was found when reopened, to show 
visitors the process of urban archeology. Others will be restored to 
show how actual families lived at different periods in the building's 
history. At a nearby site there will be interpretive programs to better 
explain the larger experience of gaining a foothold on America in the 
Lower East Side of New York. There are also plans for programmatic ties 
with Ellis Island and its precursor, Castle Clinton. And the museum 
plans to play an active role in the immigrant community around it, 
further integrating the past and present immigrant experience on the 
Lower East Side.
  The Tenement Museum is to be affiliated with the National Park 
Service. That is the purpose of this legislation. The Museum will be 
able to enter into cooperative agreements with the Park Service for 
technical assistance, and with the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island and 
Castle Clinton for interpretation and other operations. It will be a 
productive partnership.
  Mr. President, I believe the Tenement Museum provides an outstanding 
opportunity to preserve and present an important stage of the immigrant 
experience and the move for social change in our cities at the turn of 
the century. I know of no better place than 97 Orchard Street to do so, 
and no other place in the National Park system doing so already. I look 
forward to the realization of this grand idea.
  Mr. President, 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. 1999

       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 ``Lower East Side Tenement 
     Museum National Historic Site Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (2) The term ``historic site'' means the Lower East Side 
     Tenement Museum designated as a national historic site by 
     section 4.
       (3) The term ``Museum'' means the Lower East Side Tenement 
     Museum at 97 Orchard Street, New York City, in the State of 
     New York, and related facilities owned or operated by the 
     Museum.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Lower East Side Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard 
     Street is an outstanding survivor of the vast number of 
     humble buildings that housed immigrants to New York City 
     during the greatest wave of immigration in American history;
       (2) the Museum is well suited to represent a profound 
     social movement involving great numbers of unexceptional but 
     courageous people;
       (3) no single identifiable neighborhood in the United 
     States absorbed a comparable number of immigrants;
       (4) the Lower East Side Tenement Museum is dedicated to 
     interpreting immigrant life on the Lower East Side and its 
     importance to United States history, within a neighborhood 
     long associated with the immigrant experience in America; and
       (5) the National Park Service found the Lower East Side 
     Tenement Museum to be nationally significant, suitable, and 
     feasible for inclusion in the National Park System.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to assure the preservation, maintenance, and 
     interpretation of this site and to interpret in the site and 
     in the surrounding neighborhood, the themes of early tenement 
     life, the house reform movement, and tenement architecture in 
     the United States;
       (2) to ensure the continuation of the Museum at this site, 
     the preservation of which is necessary for the continued 
     interpretation of the nationally significant immigrant 
     phenomenon associated with the New York City's Lower East 
     Side, and its role in the history of immigration to the 
     United States; and
       (3) to enhance the interpretation of the Castle Clinton 
     National Historic Monument and Ellis Island National Historic 
     Monument through cooperation with the Museum.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC SITE.

       In order to further the purposes of this Act and the Act of 
     August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461-7), the Lower East Side 
     Tenement Museum at 97 Orchard Street, in the city of New 
     York, State of New York, is hereby designated as a national 
     historic site.

     SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.

       (a) In General.--In furtherance of the purposes of this Act 
     and the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461-7), the 
     Secretary may either acquire the historic site with donated 
     or appropriated funds or enter into cooperative agreements 
     with the Lower East Side Tenement Museum designed to 
     effectuate the purposes of this Act.
       (b) Technical and Financial Assistance.--Such agreements 
     may include provisions by which the Secretary will provide 
     technical assistance to mark, restore, interpret, operate, 
     and maintain the historic site and may also include 
     provisions by which the Secretary will provide financial 
     assistance to the Museum to acquire ownership of and to 
     maintain the historic site, or to mark, interpret, and 
     restore the historic site, including the making of 
     preservation-related capital improvements and repairs.
       (c) Additional Provisions.--Such agreement may also contain 
     provisions that--
       (1) the Secretary, acting through the National Park 
     Service, shall have the right of access at all reasonable 
     times to all public portions of the property covered by such 
     agreement for the purpose of conducting visitors through such 
     properties and interpreting them to the public; and
       (2) no changes or alterations shall be made in such 
     properties except by mutual agreement between the Secretary 
     and the other parties to such agreements.

     SEC. 6. LAND ACQUISITION.

       The Secretary is authorized to acquire properties owned or 
     occupied or required by the Museum or to assist the Museum in 
     the acquisition of properties which it occupies or requires 
     through the use of appropriated funds or by donation or 
     purchase with donated funds.

     SEC. 7. APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this 
     Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2000. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1995 
through 1998 to carry out the Head Start Act and the Community Services 
Block Grant Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


                   human services reauthorization act

 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I introduce on behalf of myself and 
Senator Kennedy, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1994. This 
bill is the vehicle we will use in the Labor Committee to reauthorize 
an important collection of antipoverty programs over the next several 
months. The Human Services Act consists of several social programs that 
have deep roots in our Nation's history of helping disadvantaged 
families make a better life for themselves. The most well known of 
these programs are Head Start, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, and the Community Services Block Grant.
  The administration's proposals for reauthorizing each of these three 
programs has already been introduced. The Head Start reauthorization 
proposal which was introduced by Senator Kennedy is S. 1862. Just last 
week I introduced the administration's proposal for Community Services 
Block Grant--S. 1937--and LIHEAP--S. 1938. The President's suggestions 
in these areas will be carefully considered and reviewed as we put 
together our umbrella proposal for these and other programs contained 
in the Human Services Act in committee next month.
  Many of the programs in the Human Services Act can be traced back to 
the war on poverty. Since then, they have undergone many structural and 
administrative changes, but the central principles they embody endure 
and are proof that antipoverty efforts have not all gone for naught.
  These programs share a common orientation, in that they work within 
the community to address the needs of individuals living there. They 
share a common goal, that of helping people move toward self-
sufficiency. They see families' needs as a whole and seek to address 
them comprehensively.
  In hearings on the three major programs, people they have helped told 
us over and over of how they needed a helping hand and found it in 
their community--through a knock on the door from a Head Start outreach 
worker, a supportive hand on the shoulder from a community action 
worker when a child was ill, through a local agency offering energy 
assistance with dignity to an elderly couples with nowhere else to 
turn.
  Mr. President, as we hear the ever-present drumbeat of welfare 
reform, I would suggest to my colleagues that they look to some of 
these programs for ideas about how to help families move toward self-
sufficiency. Their philosophy is one that promotes solutions to poverty 
that are comprehensive, supportive, and based in the communities in 
which families live. There is much to be said for this approach, and I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to continue these important 
programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 2000

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the Human 
     Services Reauthorization Act of 1994''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as 
     follows:

Sec. 1. Short title, table of contents.

                        Title 1--Head Start Act

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.

              Title II--Community Services Block Grant Act

Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.

Title III--Demonstration Partnership Agreements Addressing the Needs of 
                                the Poor

Sec. 301. Authorization of appropriations.

        Title IV--Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981

Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.

    Title V--Coordinated Services for Children, Youth, and Families

Sec. 501. Authorization of appropriations.

                        TITLE I--HEAD START ACT

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 639 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9834) is 
     amended--
       (1)in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``and $7,660,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$7,660,000,000''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 
     1995 through 1998'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``1996'' and inserting 
     ``1998''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``1992, 1993, and 
     1994'' and inserting ``1992 through 1998''.

              TITLE II--COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT ACT

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) General Authorization.--Section 672(b) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and $500,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$500,000,000''; and
       (2) by inserting before ``to carry out the provisions'' the 
     following: ``, and such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     the fiscal years 1995 through 1998''.
       (b) Community Food and Nutrition Programs.--Section 681A(d) 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 9910a(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and $25,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$25,000,000''; and
       (2) by inserting before ``to carry out this section'' the 
     following: ``, and such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     the fiscal years 1995 through 1998''.

TITLE III--DEMONSTRATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF 
                                THE POOR

     SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 408(h) of the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 
     1986 (42 U.S.C. 9910b(h)) is amended--
       (1) is paragraph (1), by striking ``1992, 1993, and 1994'' 
     and inserting ``1992 through 1998''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``1992 through 1994'' and 
     inserting ``1992 through 1998''.

        TITLE IV--LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1981

     SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 2602 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act 
     of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``1993, 1994, and 1995'' 
     and inserting ``1993 through 1998''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``1993, 1994, and 1995'' 
     and inserting ``1993 through 1998''.

    TITLE V--COORDINATED SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES

     SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 934 of the Augustus F. Hawkins 
     Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12340) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``for fiscal years 
     1992, 1993, and 1994'' and inserting ``for each of the fiscal 
     years 1992 through 1998''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``1992 through 1994'' 
     and inserting ``1992 through 1998''.
       (b) National Clearinghouse.--Section 960 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 12355) is amended--
       (1) is subsection (a), by striking ``1992 through 1994'' 
     and inserting ``1992 through 1998''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``1992 through 1994'' 
     and inserting ``1992 through 1998''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 2001. A bill to improve the administration of the Women's Rights 
National Historical Park in the State of New York, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


         women's rights national historical park expansion act

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will 
add several important properties to the Women's Rights National 
Historic Park in Seneca Falls, NY. In 1980 I introduced legislation to 
commemorate an idea, that of equal rights for women. It is commemorated 
in Seneca Falls because that is where in 1948 the Declaration of 
Sentiments was signed, stating that ``all men and women are created 
equal'' and that women should have equal political rights with men. 
From this beginning sprang the 19th amendment and all the other 
advances for women this century and last.
  With the historic park authorized in 1980, we began the planning, 
held a design competition, and paid for the construction. The park is 
now in operation and a tremendous success. Visitorship increased 50 
percent in fiscal year 1993 to 30,000. However, the park is not 
complete. As can be expected when starting such a venture from zero, 
not all the important properties could be acquired at the outset. 
Several remain in private hands or under the control of the trust for 
public land, and this bill authorizes their addition to the park.
  These properties include the last remaining parcel of the original 
Elizabeth Cady Stanton property, necessary so that the Stanton House 
can be restored to its original condition, and the Young House in 
Waterloo, important for safety, resource preservation, and preserving 
the historic scene at the M'Clintock House. The other two are the 
Baldwin property, which would provide a visitor contact facility, 
restrooms, and boat docking facilities, and a maintenance facility now 
being rented by the park.
  These additions to the park will add tremendously to the enjoyment 
and value of a visit. The National Park Service supports them, and in 
fact this legislation is the top priority for the North Atlantic 
region. We must pass it promptly, for time is not a luxury; the Nies 
property is in the early stages of foreclosure. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill, and to come to the Women's Rights Park themselves. 
It is a trip well worth making.
  Mr. President, 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. 2001

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

     SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES.

       Section 1601(c) of the Public Law 96-607 (16 U.S.C. 410ll) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``initially'' in the second sentence;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' the last place it 
     appears;
       (3) in paragraph (9) by striking the period and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(10) not to exceed 1 acre, plus improvements, as 
     determined by the Secretary, in Seneca Falls for development 
     of a maintenance facility;
       ``(11) dwelling, 1 Seneca Street, Seneca Falls;
       ``(12) dwelling, 10 Seneca Street, Seneca Falls;
       ``(13) parcels adjacent to Wesleyan Chapel Block, including 
     Clinton Street, Fall Street, and Mynderse Street, Seneca 
     Falls; and
       ``(14) dwelling, 12 East Williams Street, Waterloo.''.

     SEC. 2. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.

       Section 1601 of Public Law 96-607 (16 U.S.C. 410ll) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``Funds available to the Secretary for the 
     purposes of the park shall be available to establish and 
     administer within the park education and research facilities 
     and programs on the history of women's rights pursuant to 
     cooperative agreements with appropriate public or private 
     entities.'';
       (2) in paragraph (5) of subsection (h), by striking ``ten 
     years'' and inserting ``25 years''; and
       (3) in subsection (i)--
       (A) by striking ``$700,000'' and inserting ``$1,500,000''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting and 
     ``$15,000,000''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. EXON:
  S. 2002. A bill to authorize appropriations for the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                     amtrak investment act of 1994

 Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce by request 
the administration's Amtrak Reauthorization Act. As the chairman of the 
Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee and long time advocate for 
the Amtrak system, this legislation represents an historic turning 
point in the history of American passenger rail.
  For the first time in 12 years, a President of the United States has 
put forward a positive vision for Amtrak. This legislation calls for a 
world class system and takes the first step towards that goal.
  It is especially gratifying that a former staff member of the Senate 
Surface Transportation Subcommittee has had such a noticeable influence 
on the administration's agenda for Amtrak. Prior to entering public 
service, Don Itzkoff, the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Rail 
Administration warned the Nation in his book and columns that America's 
passenger rail system was moving off the track. With Don's help, the 
Clinton administration has put forward an Amtrak bill which will help 
get America back on the track.
  Of course, Mr. President, I have many of my own ideas about how to 
improve Amtrak service and maximize the return on Federal passenger 
rail investments. We must foster a customer friendly mode of operation, 
maximize the value of Amtrak assets and real estate, take a creative 
approach to generating advertising revenues and utilize information age 
technologies to improve operational efficiencies. I will discuss those 
ideas in much more detail when the subcommittee holds hearings soon 
after the spring recess.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Clinton 
administration to make Amtrak a world class railroad.
                                 ______

      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 2003. A bill for the relief of the heirs, successors, or assigns 
of Sadae Tamabayashi; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              sadae tamabayashi private relief legislation

 Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I introduce a bill for the relief of 
the family of Sadae Tamabayashi.
  In 1941, Mrs. Tamabayashi was the owner of Paradise Clothes Cleaning 
Shop in Honolulu, HI. On the morning of December 7, she and her family 
lost everything that they owned. The attack on Pearl Harbor not only 
had a national repercussion, but it affected the lives of many 
individuals as well, especially for those who lived in Hawaii at the 
time. For Sadae Tamabayashi and her family, the bombing was devastating 
to their livelihood.
  On the morning of December 7, Paradise Clothes Cleaning Shop was 
destroyed by fire which started as a result of the attack on Pearl 
Harbor and the subsequent retaliatory shots by U.S. Armed Forces. The 
entire building and its contents, which included the Tamabayashi's 
family quarters, were destroyed.
  The Tamabayashi family attempted to seek compensation through the War 
Damage Corporation Claims Service Office in 1942. Their efforts were to 
no avail. Their claim for reparations was denied by the Corporation 
because Mrs. Tamabayashi was a Japanese national. However, the United 
States prohibited Mrs. Tamabayashi from becoming a citizen under the 
Immigration Act of 1924, which sought to exclude persons of Japanese 
descent. It was not until 1952, 7 years after the end of the World War 
II, that the 1924 Immigration Act was repealed, and Asians were finally 
given equal status in this country.
  The family of Sadae Tamabayashi seeks fair treatment of their 
mother's losses. I hope that my colleagues will support this effort to 
bring to a close this sad chapter in the lives of the Tamabayashi 
family.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Brown):
  S. 2006. A bill to require Federal agencies to prepare private 
property taking impact analyses, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                        private property rights

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I have traveled around the country over 
the past year, time and again I have heard from the people that 
Congress must do more to stop the tide of infringement on private 
property rights. I believe Members on both sides of the aisle have 
heard this message. Even President Clinton has said that he wants to 
``put people first.'' One way he can do this is to ensure that 
government mandates and government bureaucrats do not run over 
individual citizens and individual rights.
  Today, Senator Heflin and I are introducing the Private Property 
Rights Act of 1994. Now, a lot has been said on this floor regarding 
private property rights. I think many of us agree on the need to 
protect private property. The question is--How do we best vote and get 
government out of peoples backyards? This bill is very simple.
  The legislation would require Federal agencies to conduct a takings 
impact assessment when promulgating any agency policy, regulation, 
guideline, or recommending legislative proposals to Congress. This bill 
does not stop legitimate regulatory processes and it only applies to 
any action which could result in an actual taking.
  The assessment must consider the effect of the agency action, the 
cost of the action to the Federal Government, the reduction in value to 
private property owners and require the agency to consider alternatives 
to taking private property.
  I seem to recall that the rights of property owners are supposed to 
be protected from the Federal Government under the fifth amendment and 
from State governments by the 14th amendment. Unfortunately, those who 
have sworn to uphold our Constitution are not always as vigilant as 
they need to be. Let's face it, there are billions of dollars in claims 
filed against the Federal Government by landowners who believe their 
private property has been taken.
  It is important to note that a taking can occur even though title to 
the property remains with the original owner and the government has 
only placed restrictions on its use. Fortunately, courts have 
recognized these partial taking are subject to just compensation. 
Unfortunately, the only check on the enforcement of the Constitution 
has been through the court system, wherein citizens can, at the expense 
of vast amounts of money and time, ensure the government complies with 
the Constitution.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to talk with their small 
businessmen and women, their farmers, their ranchers, those who believe 
in the private property rights contained in our Constitution, what they 
think about this most appropriate legislation. When they do, I am 
certain they will agree that we should move this legislation in 1994.
  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. 2006

       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 ``Private Property Rights Act 
     of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the protection of private property from a taking by the 
     Government without just compensation is an integral 
     protection for private citizens incorporated into the 
     Constitution by the Fifth Amendment and made applicable to 
     the States by the Fourteenth Amendment; and
       (2) Federal agencies should take into consideration the 
     impact of Governmental actions on the use and ownership of 
     private property.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The Congress, recognizing the important role that the use 
     and ownership of private property plays in ensuring the 
     economic and social well-being of the Nation, declares that 
     it is the policy of the Federal Government to use all 
     practicable means and measures to minimize takings of private 
     property by the Federal Government.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``agency'' means an Executive agency as 
     defined under section 105 of title 5, United States Code, 
     and--
       (A) includes the United States Postal Service; and
       (B) does not include the General Accounting Office; and
       (2) the term ``taking of private property'' means any 
     action whereby private property is taken in such a way as to 
     require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United 
     States Constitution.

     SEC. 5. PRIVATE PROPERTY TAKING IMPACT ANALYSIS.

       (a) In General.--The Congress authorizes and directs that, 
     to the fullest extent possible--
       (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the 
     United States shall be interpreted and administered in 
     accordance with the policies under this Act; and
       (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall submit a 
     certification to the Attorney General of the United States 
     that a private property taking impact analysis has been 
     completed before issuing or promulgating any policy, 
     regulation, proposal, recommendation (including any 
     recommendation or report on proposal for legislation), or 
     related agency action which could result in a taking or 
     diminution of use or value of private property.
       (b) Content of Analysis.--A private property taking impact 
     analysis shall be a written statement that includes--
       (1) the specific purpose of the policy, regulation, 
     proposal, recommendation, or related agency action;
       (2) an assessment of whether a taking of private property 
     may occur under such policy, regulation, proposal, 
     recommendation, or related agency action;
       (3) the effect of the policy, regulation, proposal, 
     recommendation, or related agency action on the use or value 
     of private property, including an evaluation of whether such 
     policy, regulation, proposal, recommendation, or related 
     agency action requires compensation to private property 
     owners;
       (4) alternatives to the policy, regulation, proposal, 
     recommendation, or related agency action that would lessen 
     the adverse effects on the use or value of private property;
       (5) an estimate of the cost to the Federal Government if 
     the Government is required to compensate a private property 
     owner; and
       (6) an estimate of the reduction in use or value of any 
     affected private property as a result of such policy, 
     regulation, proposal, recommendation, or related agency 
     action.
       (c) Public Availability of Analysis.--An agency shall--
       (1) make each private property taking impact analysis 
     available to the public; and
       (2) to the greatest extent practicable, transmit a copy of 
     such analysis to the owner or any other person with a 
     property right or interest in the affected property.
       (d) Presumptions in Proceedings.--For the purpose of any 
     agency action or administrative or judicial proceeding, there 
     shall be a rebuttable presumption that the costs, values, and 
     estimates in any private property takings impact analysis 
     shall be outdated and inaccurate, if--
       (1) such analysis was completed 5 years or more before the 
     date of such action or proceeding; and
       (2) such costs, values, or estimates have not been modified 
     within the 5-year period preceding the date of such action or 
     proceeding.

     SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to--
       (1) limit any right or remedy, or bar any claim of any 
     person relating to such person's property under any other 
     law, including claims made under section 1346 or 1402 of 
     title 28, or chapter 91 of title 28; or
       (2) constitute a conclusive determination of the value of 
     any property for purposes of an appraisal for the acquisition 
     of property, or for the determination of damages.

     SEC. 7. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       No action may be filed in a court of the United States to 
     enforce the provisions of this Act on or after the date 
     occurring 6 years after the date of the submission of the 
     certification of the applicable private property taking 
     impact analysis with the Attorney General.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of this Act shall take effect 120 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of 
the Private Property Rights Act of 1994. This bill recognizes the 
important role the use and ownership of property plays in American 
society and declares the policy of the Federal Government to be one 
that will minimize takings of private property. This bill will require 
Federal agencies to certify to the Attorney General that a taking 
impact assessment has been completed prior to promulgating any agency 
policy to Congress. The takings impact assessment will consider the 
effect of the agency action, the cost of the action to the Federal 
Government, the reduction in value to private property owners and 
require the agency to consider alternatives to taking private property.
  This bill will ensure that the impact on private property rights is 
duly considered in Federal Government agencies' regulatory activities. 
In no way does it limit an agency's authority to regulate or meet a 
legislative mandate. But it does require Government decisionmakers to 
analyze the potential impact of their regulatory actions on private 
property rights and to minimize those actions to the fullest extent 
possible. Compliance with this act will help avoid inadvertent takings 
of constitutionally guaranteed rights and therefore reduce the Federal 
Government's financial liability for such compensable takings.
  Government regulations too often harm American farmers and others by 
taking away the value of their land. For example, farmers complain that 
their property rights can be taken away without just compensation or 
due process when they are denied a wetlands permit. This legislation 
will give farmers and other private citizens a chance to be heard in 
court if they believe the Government has not properly followed its own 
procedures to make sure it does not take private property without 
adequate compensation.
  The Private Property Rights Act of 1994 will give statutory weight to 
procedures like those outlined in Executive Order 12630, issued by 
former President Reagan. Many organizations which strongly defend 
private property rights are supportive of this legislation, including 
the American Forest Council, National Cattlemen's Association, National 
Farmers Organization, National Milk Producers Association, National 
Water Resources Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Private 
property rights are the foundation of American agricultural production 
and the individual liberties we all enjoy. This bill provides a 
strategic method for balancing the Government's necessary action and 
protecting these private rights.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.

                          ____________________