[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 39 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 2012. A bill to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil 
rights laws to prohibit employers from requiring employees to submit 
claims relating to employment discrimination to mandatory arbitration; 
to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


           protection from coercive employment agreements act

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that 
strengthens the guarantees the Constitution provides citizens for due 
process in a court of law. Essentially, this bill closes a gaping 
loophole in the enforcement of civil rights laws in our Nation, which 
if not addressed, could result in erosion of the right of many citizens 
to secure through the courts, if necessary, their right to equal 
opportunity in employment. This bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, and several other laws that protect the rights of workers against 
discrimination in the workplace to prohibit employers from requiring 
employees to waive their statutory rights and agree to submit claims 
relating to employment discrimination to mandatory arbitration as a 
condition of employment or advancement.
  The immediate problem that gives rise to the need for this 
legislation concerns the growing practice of securities firms, and now 
other employers in information technology, legal services, and 
insurance fields, of requiring their employees to submit claims of 
discrimination, including sexual harassment, to mandatory and binding 
arbitration. According to an article published in the New York Times, 
``some companies are unilaterally imposing the restriction on their 
non-union employees, while others are insisting that job applicants 
forfeit their right to sue as a condition of employment. Still other 
companies are making such an agreement a condition for promotion, stock 
options or other benefits.''
  In a study released in March, ``Employment Discrimination: How 
Registered Representatives Fare in Discrimination Disputes,'' March 
1994, (GAO/HEHS-94-17), the GAO found that in the securities industry, 
arbitration of disputes is a long standing practice. Until recently, 
the practice was primarily used when securities firm employees, known 
as registered representatives, were the subject of complaints by 
customers involving securities transactions. According to the GAO, 
securities firms require their registered representatives to file a 
registration and disclosure document known as the U-4 agreement. Filing 
the U-4 is a condition of employment, and it requires those who sign it 
to arbitrate disputes that may arise with their firms.

  Unfortunately, some trail courts at the State and Federal level in 
upholding the legality of the U-4, have interpreted the mandatory 
arbitration provision as applicable to employment disputes, as well as 
those arising from securities transactions. In doing so, the courts 
have endorsed a practice, that when applied in the context of equal 
employment opportunity law, reeks with patent unfairness. As the GAO 
study points out, there are weaknesses in recordkeeping regarding 
employment discrimination claims that have gone to arbitration--the New 
York Stock Exchange and groups of industry professionals commonly 
referred to as SRO's don't even require that the arbitration decisions 
explain the disposition of each issue; the SRO's do not maintain data 
on the demographic characteristics of arbitrators--but GAO found that 
nearly 97 percent of them are white males over 60 years old; the SRO's 
do not have criteria for excluding arbitrators with a history of 
disciplinary actions taken against them; nor does the SEC in their 
oversight role require SRO's to report to it on discrimination cases 
filed and arbitrated--the GAO reports that SEC does not know the 
nature, types, or outcomes of these cases. And while the SEC response 
to GAO readily agrees to remedy the deficiencies identified, no such 
public agency regulates other industries where this problem is growing 
or may arise.
  The court decisions upholding this mandatory arbitration program, and 
the ongoing practice of securities firms and others clearly disregard 
one of the basic underpinnings of civil rights law, that access to 
justice is essential to meaningful enforcement. It is the intent of 
this legislation to halt the further erosion of workers' civil rights, 
and to reverse the widening application of mandatory arbitration 
requirements to resolve employment discrimination cases. I emphasize 
mandatory arbitration because I want to be clear that this legislation 
is in no way intended to bar the use of voluntary arbitration, 
conciliation, medication, or other informal quasi-judicial methods of 
dispute resolution. In fact, I strongly support the use of voluntary 
dispute resolution methods as a way of reducing the caseloads of civil 
and criminal courts where appropriate. But to require workers to waive 
their constitutional right to settle their disputes before a judge and 
jury as a condition of employment, or promotion vitiates the several 
laws amended by this legislation that protect the civil rights of 
several classes of workers.

  The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it makes the 
prohibition applicable to the U.S. Senate as an employer. It would be 
inconsistent at best, and simply hypocritical overall if we as a body 
of Congress sought an exemption for ourselves.
  The bill amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. An 
increasing number of these cases involve claims submitted to mandatory 
arbitration that arise when older workers are forced to resign, retire, 
or be fired because an employer wants a younger and cheaper work force.
  The bill amends the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 [ADA] and 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which protects the rights of workers 
with physical and mental disabilities, and other appropriate statutes 
relating to the enforcement of equal employment opportunity 
protections.
  As a body, the Congress has taken great strides in the advancement of 
employment law. The Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the ADA are examples. 
But the intent of those laws are being circumvented by some companies 
and entire industries bent on conducting commerce without regard to the 
basic civil rights of American workers to secure final resolution of 
disputes in a court of law under the rules of fairness and due process. 
It is simply unfair to require an employee to waive, in advance, his or 
her statutory right to seek redress in a court of law in exchange for 
employment or a promotion.
  Let's not turn a blind eye toward the rights of workers. Let's 
enforce civil rights law with appropriate fairness and vigor. Let's 
restore integrity in the relations between employers and employees. 
Only in these ways will we advance the American ideals of equal 
protection, due process, and genuine justice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
legislation be printed in the Record with two articles from the New 
York Times discussing the problem.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2012

       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 ``Protection From Coercive 
     Employment Agreements Act''.

     SEC. 2. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

       (a) In General.--Section 704 of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-3) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an 
     employer to--
       ``(1) fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any 
     individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any 
     individual with respect to the compensation, terms, 
     conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, 
     because the individual refuses to submit any claim under this 
     title to mandatory arbitration; or
       ``(2) make the submission of such claim to mandatory 
     arbitration a condition of the hiring, continued employment, 
     or compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of 
     employment, of the individual.''.
       (b) Federal Government Employment.--Section 717(a) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a)) is amended by striking the period 
     and inserting the following: ``, including any unlawful 
     employment practice described in section 704(c).''.

     SEC. 3. AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967.

       (a) In General.--Section 4 of the Age Discrimination in 
     Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 623) is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) It shall be unlawful for an employer to--
       ``(1) fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any 
     individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any 
     individual with respect to the compensation, terms, 
     conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, 
     because the individual refuses to submit any claim under this 
     Act to mandatory arbitration; or
       ``(2) make the submission of such claim to mandatory 
     arbitration a condition of the hiring, continued employment, 
     or compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of 
     employment, of the individual.''.
       (b) Federal Government Employment.--Section 15(a) of such 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 633a(a)) is amended by striking the period and 
     inserting the following: ``, including any unlawful practice 
     described in section 4(g).''.

     SEC. 4. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990.

       Section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12112) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) at the end of paragraph (6), by striking ``and'';
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) conducting an act prohibited by subsection (c).'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Prohibition on Required Submission to Mandatory 
     Arbitration.--No covered entity shall discriminate against a 
     qualified individual with a disability--
       ``(1) in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, 
     advancement, or discharge of employees, employee 
     compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and 
     privileges of employment, because the individual refuses to 
     submit any claim under this title to mandatory arbitration; 
     or
       ``(2) by making the submission of such claim to mandatory 
     arbitration a condition of the eligibility to apply for 
     employment, hiring, advancement, continued employment, 
     employee compensation, or job training, or a term, condition, 
     or privilege of employment, of the individual.''.

     SEC. 5. REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973.

       (a) Employment by Departments, Agencies, and 
     Instrumentalities.--Section 501(b) of the Rehabilitation Act 
     of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791(b)) is amended by inserting after the 
     first sentence the following: ``Such plan shall include 
     provisions prohibiting the department, agency, or 
     instrumentality from conducting any discrimination prohibited 
     under section 102(c) of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
     of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112(c)) with respect to a claim under 
     this section.''.
       (b) Employment Under Federal Contracts.--Section 503(a) of 
     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 793(a)) is amended 
     by inserting after the first sentence the following: ``Such 
     contract shall include provisions prohibiting the party from 
     conducting any discrimination prohibited under section 102(c) 
     of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12112(c)) with respect to a claim under this section.''.

     SEC. 6. REVISED STATUTES.

       Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) With respect to contracts relating to employment 
     between such a person and another individual or entity, no 
     such individual or entity shall--
       ``(1) fail or refuse to hire or to discharge the person, or 
     otherwise to discriminate against the person with respect to 
     the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of 
     employment of the person, because the person refuses to 
     submit any claim under this section to mandatory arbitration; 
     or
       ``(2) make the submission of such claim to mandatory 
     arbitration a condition of the hiring, continued employment, 
     or compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of 
     employment, of the person.''.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Mar. 18, 1994]

      Right To File Suit for Bias at Work--Arbitration Is Required

                         (By Steven A. Holmes)

       Washington.--Prompted largely by fears that Federal juries 
     will grant large monetary awards in bias cases, more and more 
     companies are requiring their employees to submit claims of 
     discrimination, including sexual harassment, to binding 
     arbitration.
       Some companies are unilaterally imposing the restriction on 
     their nonunion employees, while others are insisting that job 
     applicants forfeit their right to sue as a condition of 
     employment. Still other companies are making such an 
     agreement a condition for promotion, stock options or other 
     benefits.
       Corporations like I.T.T., Hughes, Rockwell International, 
     N.C.R., Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, Brown and Root, 
     and Travelers have adopted policies that require arbitration 
     for discrimination claims, often precluding workers from 
     filing lawsuits in Federal courts, according to court 
     records, representatives of some of the companies and lawyers 
     involved in civil rights litigation. Other companies, like 
     T.R.W., General Mills, M.C.I. and Conoco, are considering 
     putting similar policies into effect.


                      watching from the sidelines

       Lawyers involved in civil rights litigation say scores of 
     other companies are waiting on the sidelines to see how 
     Congress and the Supreme Court will deal with the issue. Some 
     members of the House are beginning to study these practices, 
     and the Supreme Court has dealt with them only once, 
     upholding the policy on fairly narrow grounds.
       Three years ago, in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Corp., the 
     Court upheld the legality of requiring licenses securities 
     dealers to submit claims to arbitration panels, like the one 
     established by the New York Stock Exchange.
       Citing the Gilmer case, a string of lower-court decisions 
     has held that it is legal for companies to require new 
     employees or those accepting promotion to agree to submit 
     future complaints to arbitration. But the courts have not 
     ruled on whether it is legal for companies to tell current 
     employees that as of a certain date they may not bring a 
     complaint of discrimination or harassment to court and must 
     instead submit to arbitration.


                          thwarting congress?

       The issue only involves nonunion workers because the 
     Supreme Court has long held that workers cannot lose their 
     right to sue as a result of a collective-bargaining 
     agreement.
       Civil rights lawyers say that companies that require 
     binding arbitration for discrimination complaints are 
     thwarting the will of Congress, which in 1991 voted to allow 
     jury trials and larger damage awards in cases involving bias 
     on the basis of sex, religion or disability. Before the 
     passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, cases were heard by 
     Federal judges and awards were limited to back pay and 
     attorney fees.
       ``What's going on is that Congress has passed significant 
     employment laws like the Civil Rights Act and the Americans 
     with Disabilities Act, and companies are basically opting out 
     of the law,'' said Cliff Palefsky, a San Francisco lawyer who 
     represents plaintiffs in discrimination cases.
       Some lawmakers who are looking at the issue also said that 
     Congress wanted jury trials in discrimination cases because 
     it was felt that the Federal judiciary was dominated by white 
     men who, in awarding damages to plaintiffs, might undervalue 
     the pain and suffering of discrimination or sexual 
     harassment.
       ``If Anita Hill had been a stock broker and had been 
     sexually harassed by her employer, would she really get a 
     fair hearing from a panel of white males who are managers in 
     the securities industry?'' asked Representative Edward J. 
     Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts.
       Lawyers and spokesmen for corporations that routinely 
     submit discrimination claims to arbitration say they merely 
     want to provide a quicker and less costly means for all 
     parties of resolving employee disputes and to keep such 
     fights out of an overburdened Federal court system.
       ``It is a way for individual employees, without having to 
     spend a lot of money, to vindicate their rights,'' said Bob 
     Carabell, the senior labor counsel for T.R.W., which is 
     considering a form of arbitration.


                        keeping it confidential

       Some companies prefer arbitration to trials because 
     testimony and the decision can be kept confidential. And 
     because arbitrators are often selected by both the employee 
     and the company, managers have some control over who will 
     ultimately judge a case.
       ``If you get an arbitrator or an arbitration decision you 
     don't like, you don't pick him again,'' said T. Warren 
     Jackson, the corporate counsel for Hughes Aircraft in Los 
     Angeles.
       But corporate lawyers acknowledge that the prime reason is 
     concern that juries will grant large cash awards.
       ``It's the existence of jury trials which is the major 
     impetus towards arbitration agreements,'' said Paul Grossman, 
     a Los Angeles lawyer who represents corporations and who is a 
     strident advocate of arbitration.
       One person who has been prevented from bringing her case in 
     Federal court is Elaine L. Williams, a partner in Katten 
     Muchin & Zavis, a Chicago law firm whose clients include the 
     Chicago Bulls and the Chicago White Sox.
       Last August, Ms. Williams, who is black, sued the firm, 
     alleging sexual and racial discrimination. She said she had 
     received less bonus money than other lawyers, despite her 
     having higher monthly billable hours, was subjected to 
     derogatory jokes and made the object of lewd remarks. A 
     spokesman for the law firm denied her accusations.
       In November, a Federal judge in Chicago dismissed Ms. 
     Williams suit, citing a clause in an agreement she signed in 
     1991 when she was made a partner; it said all employee 
     disputes must be submitted to binding arbitration. Ms. 
     Williams' lawyer, James D. Montgomery, said: ``We have no 
     options but to proceed with it, and then, based on what 
     happens in arbitration, go back to court and see what else we 
     can do.''
       While the number of companies that have sought to restrict 
     their employees' ability to sue is relatively small, the 
     trend has caught the attention of some in Congress.
       Three weeks ago, Representative William D. Ford of Michigan 
     and Major Owens of Brooklyn, both Democrats, asked the 
     General Accounting Office to study how these policies affect 
     ``employees and the enforcement of Federal laws enacted to 
     eradicate employment discrimination.''
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Apr. 5, 1994]

              Securities Arbiters Mostly White Men Over 60

                         (By Steven A. Holmes)

       Washington.--A Congressional study of the securities 
     industry has found that at a time when more employees are 
     compelled to submit complaints of job discrimination and 
     sexual harassment to arbitration, the people who decide the 
     cases are overwhelmingly white men in their 60's with little 
     experience in labor law.
       The study, conducted by the General Accounting Office and 
     made public last week, looked at companies affiliated with 
     the New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of 
     Securities Dealers. And though neither the stock exchange nor 
     the securities dealers keep detailed statistics on the 
     arbitrators who decide such discrimination cases, 
     investigators for the accounting office estimated that 89 
     percent of the 726 arbitrators used by the exchange at the 
     end of 1992 where white men whose average age was 60. The 
     estimate was drawn from data on 349 arbitrators whom the 
     G.A.O. was able to identify by age, sex and race.
       The report was limited to the securities industry, which 
     for years has required people seeking to become licensed 
     brokers for stocks or bonds to agree that any complaint of 
     discrimination--including sexual harassment--be submitted to 
     arbitration panels selected from a pool of approved 
     arbitrators.


                            growing practice

       Since 1991, when the Supreme Court rules that such 
     arrangements were legal, the practice has grown. Several 
     companies outside the securities field now require that as a 
     condition of employment, promotion or other benefits, workers 
     agree to take discrimination claims to arbitration rather 
     than Federal or state courts.
       The stock exchange's and dealers' arbitration panels are 
     made up of retired brokers and executives, lawyers who have 
     worked in the securities field and members of the general 
     public. The panels are not required to give written 
     explanations of the legal theory on which they base their 
     decisions, and, by agreement, their rulings cannot be 
     appealed to Federal or state courts.
       A spokeswomen for the stock exchange declined to comment on 
     the study by the accounting office, which is the 
     investigative arm of Congress, until officials of the 
     exchange had studied it.
       Advocates of arbitration say it provides a speedier 
     alternative than Federal court for resolving disputes between 
     employers and their workers, while reserving the right of 
     workers to seek redress in cases of discrimination.
       Critics say companies are setting up a private judicial 
     system and trying to thwart the will of Congress, which in 
     1991 expanded the right to sue for discrimination, for the 
     first time giving women and the disabled access to jury 
     trials and higher money damages.


                           barred from court

       ``Everyone is committed to coming up with alternative 
     dispute-resolution methods,'' said Kerry Scanlon, director of 
     the Washington office of the NAACP Legal Defense and 
     Education Fund Inc. ``But the answer is not to get a 
     procedure that insures that everything will be brief but 
     throws everything else out the window.''
       Among the securities workers who have found that they are 
     unable to press their discrimination cases in Federal court 
     is Robin Harris, 36, who said she had been demoted from her 
     supervisory position of Citibank because of racial prejudice 
     against her.
       Ms. Harris signed a registration form with the National 
     Association of Securities Dealers when she was hired in 
     October 1989 by Landmark Brokerage Services Inc. to sell 
     securities directly to the public in office space leased from 
     Citibank. The form contained a clause in which Ms. Harris 
     promised that any dispute between her and her employer would 
     be handled by a panel of arbitrators selected from the pool 
     maintained by the securities dealers association.
       ``You had to sign it to work there,'' Ms. Harris said. ``It 
     never occurred to me that it was a document that I would have 
     to challenge later on.''


                        promotion, then demotion

       Ms. Harris says she compiled a stellar record at Landmark 
     and was promoted in February 1990 to supervising the 
     company's sales force in lower Manhattan. But in July, after 
     Citibank took over the brokerage company, she was demoted, 
     replaced by a white man and saw her salary cut because, she 
     says, Citibank executives did not want a black woman in a 
     position of such responsibility. Citibank denied the 
     accusations.
       Ms. Harris filed a $100 million discrimination suit against 
     Landmark and Citibank in the Bronx County Division of New 
     York State Supreme Court. But the companies filed a motion to 
     compel arbitration, and Ms. Harris and her lawyer decided 
     that they had no chance of pressing her case in court and 
     accepted arbitration, which has not yet begun.
       In the G.A. study, Congressional investigators found that 
     34 discrimination cases had been resolved by stock exchange 
     arbitration panels from 1990 through 1992. The Congressional 
     report provided a breakdown of only 18 cases decided between 
     August 1990 and December 1992. Of these, 10 resulted in 
     financial awards to the employees, which eight were decided 
     in favor of the brokerage house.
       The securities dealers did not provide the accounting 
     office investigators with several discrimination cases that 
     were submitted to arbitration panels.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HEFLIN:
  S. 2014. A bill to amend the coastwise trade laws to clarify their 
application to certain passenger vessels, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                 u.s.-flag passenger vessel act of 1994

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today 
regarding our domestic maritime industry. This legislation has as its 
sole purpose the closing of a longstanding loophole in our coastwise 
trade laws. Under present law, a vessel that transports passengers 
between two points in the United States must fly the U.S. flag, be 
built in a U.S. shipyard, be owned by U.S. citizens, and be manned by 
U.S. crews.
  However, under an unusual interpretation by the Customs Service, a 
vessel transporting passengers for hire which leaves a U.S. port, sails 
beyond the 3-mile territorial sea and returns to the original port is 
considered to be on an international voyage and can be foreign-flag, 
built in a subsidized foreign shipyard, owned by foreign citizens and 
manned by low-wage foreign personnel. To date, the Customs Service has 
cracked down only on charter fishing boats which take paying passengers 
out to sea beyond the 3-mile limit and return to the same port. The 
Customs Service now asserts that these vessels must comply with 
coastwise trade laws and must be U.S.-flagged. However, they have not 
taken this position across the board, with respect to cruises-to-
nowhere--dinner, entertainment, and pleasure cruises departing from and 
returning to the same U.S. port.
  This situation whereby certain vessels receive an exemption from 
applicable coastwise trade law is inherently unfair to the entire 
American merchant marine industry: shipbuilders, vessel operators, and 
labor. The legislation introduced today would make these so-called 
cruises-to-nowhere subject to our domestic shipping laws as are all 
other vessels that transport passengers between U.S. ports. To be fair 
to existing foreign-flag operators in this trade, the legislation 
provides for the phasing-out of existing foreign-flag operations to 
mitigate the effect on the owners of these ships and on our ports which 
may have terminal agreements with these operators.
  Mr. President, this legislation eliminates an unfortunate loophole in 
our coastwise law in a fair and equitable manner and restores to our 
domestic maritime industry the benefit of those laws as originally 
intended. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting and 
helping to pass this bill.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMPSON:
  S. 2015. A bill to provide for daylight saving time on an expanded 
basis, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.


               Daylight Saving Time Extension Act of 1994

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, today, I am pleased to introduce the 
Daylight Saving Time Extension Act of 1994. Under the provisions of 
this act, daylight saving time would now begin on the third Sunday in 
March instead of the current date of the first Sunday in April, and the 
ending date would be on the first Sunday in November rather than the 
current date of the last Sunday in October.
  I became interested in extending daylight saving time to occur after 
the celebration of Halloween when a fine, talented, and enthusiastic 
Sheridan, WY, educator, Sharon Rasmussen, contacted me about making one 
of her third-grade class's favorite holidays a much safer one.
  I listened intently and heard her out and then did some research and 
determined that with the later sunset--these things do sound a bit 
arcane at times and perhaps inconsequential to some, but nevertheless 
with a later sunset, excited trick-or-treaters all across America would 
be able to cross streets and perform their ``mission,'' as they 
determine that, with greater safety. The safety of drivers and 
pedestrians on the streets is also another reason for the legislation 
to also extend daylight saving time by 2 weeks in the spring.
  Last spring, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a 
study which analyzed 1987-91 data from the Federal Government's fatal 
accident reporting system. They concluded that 900 fatal crashes 
involving 727 pedestrians could have been avoided during the study 
period if daylight saving time had been in effect.
  When the Senate first voted to extend daylight saving time by 3 weeks 
in 1986, the main argument against the extension was the fear of 
placing schoolchildren at risk on their way to school. Not only has 
this fear been proven false by the institute study, but children's 
lives will actually be saved by further extending daylight saving time.
  A few commonsense explanations as to why there will be decreased 
accidents are: First, the afternoon rush hour is longer and heavier 
than the morning rush hour; second, large numbers of children engage in 
unsupervised play in the afternoon; and, third, there are more alcohol-
impaired drivers in the afternoon. Those are simply the facts.
  Extended afternoon daylight will also make urban residents feel more 
secure in the early evening hours. Muggers do not like sunlight and 
they tend to strike in lighter evening hours rather than at 6 or 7 a.m. 
Concern about urban crime is a reason the Service Station Dealers of 
America have endorsed this legislation.
  The RP Foundation, the Retinitis Pigmentosa Foundation, fighting 
blindness and the 100,000 Americans who suffer from night blindness 
support daylight saving time because their vision effectively ends when 
the sun sets. More evening sunlight means more freedom for these 
individuals.
  Madam President, finally, I also have a clear parochial interest in 
extending daylight saving time and my rural State colleagues will be 
similarly interested. USDA data reveals that beef consumption increases 
in the spring and summer months. This is true for two reasons: People 
eat more beef when barbecuing outdoors--more evening hours spent 
outside while using barbecue means more sales of beef to them and fast 
food sales increase by as much as $880 per restaurant per week, 
according to 1984 research done by McDonald's Corp. Surely, not the 
most important reasons for the bill and yet they are significant, too, 
and, as I say, provincial.
  So support for extended daylight saving time comes from a significant 
variety of industries including the convenience stores, chain 
restaurants, sporting goods manufacturers, and, of course, the industry 
I just described. Yes, extended daylight saving time is good for the 
economy, but I would not want to simply lend my name to legislation 
which sought only to improve the economy while in any way risking the 
lives of children.
  Madam President, the Daylight Saving Time Extension Act of 1993 does 
and will save lives, and I encourage my colleagues to study and support 
this legislation.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, may I just say that I have gone through 
the daylight saving time question now for almost 20 years, and these 
statistics are not new. When you talk to farmers in my part of the 
country, daylight saving time means that the dew has not often dropped 
until the sun comes out and dries it. They go by Sun time and not 
necessarily by clock time. If you are on the western end of a time 
zone, in that early hour your lights are on for an hour earlier. Your 
heat is up in the western time zone. Even though a few industries might 
find that it is profitable, many of the major operations where you have 
huge assembly lines, and so forth, have to have their lights on; they 
have to have their heat on because they come in so much earlier in the 
western part of that time zone.
  I thought we had done pretty well when we had 6 months regular time 
or standard time and 6 months daylight saving time to kind of equalize 
it so everybody would be reasonably happy.
  I find that in my part of the country Halloween is not necessarily on 
Halloween night; they proclaim a different night locally. And so even 
though some may have it on the designated night of Halloween, other 
communities have it different times and have a period of safety and 
make all these arrangements so that our children will be safe, and they 
find the parents go with the smaller children.
  So we will get into this as time goes on. I do appreciate the 
interest that my distinguished colleague from Wyoming has, and I know 
he is sincere in that. I look forward to working with him on this 
legislation.
  Madam President, I do not believe there is any other Senator wishing 
to be recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I would just inquire, if I may, of my 
friend from Kentucky, in Wyoming they celebrate Halloween on Halloween. 
I see that in Kentucky they celebrate Halloween on other days.
  Mr. FORD. The communities have a right to decide, and the communities 
understand. They try to prepare for the youngsters who come by and 
trick-or-treat and that sort of thing. We try to cooperate with the 
parents and not necessarily the calendar.

                          ____________________