[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 2125. A bill to provide for the designation of certain Federal 
lands in Montana as wilderness areas, to provide for multiple use and 
recovery of certain other Federal lands in Montana, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


       the montana jobs security and lands protection act of 1994

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this morning I am introducing the Montana 
Jobs Security and Lands Protection Act of 1994. This bill sets aside as 
wilderness approximately 800,000 acres of Montana's Forest Service and 
Bureau of Land Management lands and almost 500,000 acres in special 
management areas. Equally important, it releases 5 million acres of 
lands which have not met the wilderness test to their traditional 
multiple uses.
  This bill is made in Montana. It was written by natural resource 
providers in the living rooms of Montana. It is supported by more than 
20 of Montana's most respected organizations representing more than 
100,000 members.
  This bill is historic because, for the first time, lands not 
designated wilderness will be managed with an emphasis on the job-
producing activities that have sustained Montana's economy and 
maintained the public lands of which we are so proud.
  This bill will help protect water rights and property rights which 
were established before designation of the wilderness areas.


               preserving wilderness and protecting jobs

  While Montana's economy has been expanding, the jobs of people who 
work in Montana's natural-resources based industries have been 
disappearing. Job losses in timber, mining, energy, and agriculture are 
readily apparent.
  Mr. President, I am submitting for the Record a list of 16 mine and 
sawmill closings which have taken place in Montana since 1990. These 
closings, which are only a partial accounting of jobs lost in mining 
and timber, meant the loss of more than 1,500 good paying, family jobs 
in Montana. This list I am submitting is only a partial accounting of 
the total number of jobs lost in mining and timber during the last few 
years. Total job losses and the loss of secondary jobs generated by 
mining and timber are much, much higher. I ask unanimous consent that 
that list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                        MONTANA SAWMILL AND MINE CLOSURE DETAILS                                                        
                                                                       [1990-1994]                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Status               Operation               Year                Location                             Company                         Employees  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1990................  Col. Falls..........  WTD/CF Forest Prod..............................             150
Closed..............  Mine................  1991................  Libby...............  W.R. Grace......................................             130
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1991................  Dillion.............  Stoltze Lumber..................................              95
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1992................  Dillion.............  Stoltze Lumber..................................             110
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1992................  Dixon...............  Flathead Post & Pole............................              80
Closed..............  Mine................  1992................  Troy................  Sarco...........................................             340
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1992................  Kalispell...........  Industrial Wood Products........................  ..............
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1992................  Polson..............  Pack River Lumber...............................              60
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1993................  Libby...............  Champion International..........................              35
Closed..............  Mine................  1993................  Garrison............  Cominco.........................................             150
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1993................  Libby...............  Champion International..........................             150
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1993................  Darby...............  Stoltze Lumber..................................              58
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1993................  Livingston..........  Park County Lumber..............................              10
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1994................  Bonner..............  Stimpson Lumber.................................  ..............
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1994................  Drummond............  Tricon Lumber...................................              63
Closed..............  Sawmill.............  1994................  Superior............  Crown Pacific...................................             160
                                                                                                                                         ---------------
      Total.........  ....................  ....................  ....................  ................................................           1,591
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Intermountain Forest Industry Association, Montana Mining Association.                                                                          

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, too many of our young people are forced to 
leave Montana to find good-paying, family jobs. I want to see Montana's 
economy grow and job opportunities created in Montana.
  That is why I am introducing a bill which will help ensure that 
Montana's economy will prosper while we preserve our best lands. 
Besides designating wilderness, this bill will also allow for the 
environmentally responsible recovery of our natural resources on our 
public lands.
  This means jobs in agriculture, mining, timber, and energy, and it 
means jobs in our service industries. The businesses on Montana's main 
streets will grow with new natural resource jobs. Communities which are 
dependent on these industries will have the certainty they need and 
deserve.
  Our entire State benefits as our businesses grow. Our counties have a 
larger tax base to provide for the services our communities need, and 
our schools do not have to look for additional areas to cut when they 
are already just getting by.
  Montanans expect to be able to find jobs within our State to support 
their families. This bill helps assure that their expectations will be 
met.
  My bill seeks a balance between protecting wilderness, jobs, and 
Montana's economy. We are already approaching that threshold of that 
balance. Montana already has 3.4 million acres of wilderness. With this 
bill, Montana will become the third-highest State in the Nation in 
total wilderness acres. Already, there are already three times the 
wilderness acres in Montana than in all the States east of the 
Mississippi combined.
  Montana's economic future depends on achieving the vital balance 
between protecting wilderness and preserving jobs. One of the reasons 
we all enjoy living in Montana is the diversity of its people. We all 
have neighbors who work in town, on our farms and ranches, and in our 
vital natural resources sector. By using these resources, Montanans are 
able to provide a stable income for their families, pay community taxes 
for schools, and contribute to the economic health of small towns 
across Montana.
  Sadly, there are those who want to close these family jobs down. 
Urged on by out-of-State special interests, they want to lock away our 
renewable timber base for all time, and eliminate the jobs to the 
thousands of Montana families that depend upon them.


                    releasing land to multiple uses

  My bill provides the best opportunity we have to put Montanans to 
work in good-paying, family jobs in natural resources industries such 
as timber, mining, and energy production. It is balanced. That is what 
we have to strive for, a balance, in these communities who depend 
socially and economically in primarily western Montana to have some 
sort of stability. They deserve a balanced piece of legislation that 
will protect their jobs and also their social viability.
  For too long the problem with wilderness bills has been that they do 
nothing concrete for the lands that they release. And the wilderness 
extremists simply take another bite of the apple--lock up as much land 
in wilderness as possible and fence everyone else out. Not only are we 
locked out of the areas designated as wilderness, but we are also 
locked out of those lands designated for further study, otherwise known 
as defacto wilderness.
  What has been lacking has been language that provides direction to 
the Forest Service and to the courts that the lands released should be 
managed in a responsible way for the resource-based jobs that they can 
sustain. That helps our families, it helps our communities, and 
ultimately it helps our State.
  The release language in this bill does just that. Without repealing 
any of our environmental laws, it offers direction to the Federal land 
managers, requiring them to manage for multiple uses of nonwilderness 
lands, preserving local jobs for Montanans on the 5 million acres of 
lands which have been carefully studied and have not met the wilderness 
test. This bill offers a real solution to the release problem--a 
problem that has kept these lands in wilderness limbo and off limits to 
Montana resource providers for almost a decade.
  The mining industry, so vital to Montana, has come under attack 
recently, and I believe much of that attack is unwarranted. So-called 
mining reform, in my view, is another effort by out-of-State 
preservationists who simply want mining, and the good paying, family 
jobs that they represent, to move away, overseas or wherever. Out of 
sight, out of mind is their view.
  Now the Eastern elite have decided they have another tool to help 
them eliminate mining, and the jobs they represent. That tool is 
wilderness. I was surprised to learn that most of Montana has never 
been mapped for its mineral potential. I do not believe Montana can 
afford to lock away forever some of its best job producing potential. 
That is why I have introduced a wilderness bill with a different focus.
  My bill would actively seek ways to use our resources on released 
lands in an environmentally sound manner that would create the 
diversified job base that can support families, pay taxes, and 
contribute to the health of our communities. I want to see the 
wilderness issue put to rest in Montana, while at the same time, 
securing the jobs for Montanans that will continue to make our State 
such a special place in which to live.


          protecting water, property rights, and existing uses

  My bill helps protect Montana against threats to our most precious 
natural resource--our water. Indications are that the Justice 
Department and other Federal agencies have reversed their long-standing 
position of not aggressively working to reserve portions of Montana's 
water to the Federal Government. I believe that they are going to make 
a run at our water.
  We live in a semiarid State that is very dependent upon our limited 
water resources. And we have a long history of giving to the people of 
the State of Montana the authority to decide how that water is used. 
There are instances when the Federal Government should be given water, 
but, and this is an important point--the Federal Government should 
stand in line like everyone else in our State, for its share.
  In no way does this bill diminish the Federal Government's current 
authority to use water to protect wilderness values. It has that 
authority now. It simply helps assure that Montana's lifeblood--its 
water--will not be disrupted and will continue to flow through the 
intricate appropriations system which has been developed by the State 
of Montana during the last 150 years. We just cannot let the Federal 
Government grab our water, it is that simple.
  Property rights rival water rights in their importance to Montanans. 
Besides taking our water, the Federal Government wants to walk over our 
individual private property rights, as well. Whether it is by law or 
regulation, this constitutionally protected right is under assault. Now 
the bureaucrats want to infringe on our private property rights through 
land management policies. That is why I have included a provision in 
the bill which protects private property.
  Private property rights are guaranteed to us by the fifth amendment 
to the Constitution. And I want to safeguard that right--that is also 
why I am a founding member of the Senate Private Property Rights 
Caucus.
  My wilderness bill will not only help create the jobs Montana needs, 
it will ensure that when implementing the bill, the land management 
agencies will respect and protect private property rights.
  Private property rights are important for all of Montana's 
businesses, including our four largest industries--agriculture, mining, 
timber, and oil and gas. If these industries are threatened, Montana's 
diversified economy is threatened. If these industries are allowed to 
grow, our entire economy will benefit. I believe my bill is responsive 
to the working men and women of Montana because it will provide jobs 
and it protects our private property rights.
  This bill takes an extra step to protect the rights of those who 
cannot step out on their own. Under current wilderness regulations, 
handicapped persons can be denied access to wilderness areas if they 
try to enter using a motorized wheelchair. My bill would end this 
ridiculous impediment.


                          more than wilderness

  As we consider new wilderness legislation for Montana, we must 
remember that we are considering much more than what acres we want to 
designate as wilderness. We are also making decisions about the jobs of 
Montanans that we are willing to protect and those that we are willing 
to sacrifice.
  Yes, we must protect our very best wild areas. But we also must work 
to find a reasonable balance. We cannot just permanently lock away all 
our natural resources, because in doing so, we jeopardize Montana's 
economic diversity and economic future. That is not fair to the 
Montanans who live and work here today and want their children and 
grandchildren to have the same opportunities to live and work here in 
the future.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if 
in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, my colleague from Montana has just 
introduced his version of the wilderness solution in our State of 
Montana. It is my very fervent hope that we who represent Montana and 
this country can finally resolve this issue.
  Montanans have been attempting for many years to solve the wilderness 
issue. At issue is how many of Montana's 6 million acres of roadless 
acreage in national Forest Service land should be designated as 
wilderness and how much should be returned to the forest planning 
process.
  Montana has been wrestling with this question for 16 years. We are in 
this situation because about that number of years ago the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals held that the national Forest Service did not 
correctly apply NEPA with respect to roadless acres in national Forest 
Service land.
  As a consequence, the Forest Service asked the U.S. Congress to 
allocate the various designations of use of roadless acreage in 
national Forest Service land. If the Forest Service had to go back and 
rewrite the environmental impact statements for every roadless area in 
the national Forest Service System it would be too expensive and in 
effect break the bank.
  Therefore, the U.S. Congress has for the 29 States in our Nation that 
have national Forest Service roadless acreage, addressed the wilderness 
allocation question. Congress has done so, that is, for every State but 
two; Montana and Idaho.
  It is a very contentious issue in our State because Montanans are 
outdoors people. Everybody in our State loves the out-of-doors. We 
hunt. We fish. We backpack. We ride horses. We also harvest grain, 
raise livestock, mine minerals, and harvest timber. We have recreation 
industries, tourist industries. Montanans are also somewhat independent 
people. We pride ourselves on our individualism, and each of us has our 
own idea as to how the land should be managed.
  I would hope, Mr. President, that finally this year for the sake of 
Montanans and the Nation that we can finally resolve this issue.
  The House of Representatives passed its version of the roadless 
acreage bill just yesterday. This legislation introduced by our 
Congressman Pat Williams, allocates about 1.7 million acres for 
wilderness--out of the total of 6 million.
  The bill now introduced by my colleagues essentially provides for 
about 800,000 acres of wilderness.
  I have told my colleague from Montana on many occasions that it was 
my intention, as soon as the House passed its version, to ask him to 
join me in reintroducing the same bill that he and I agreed to when we 
last dealt with this issue 2 years ago. Under that version, about 1.2 
million acres of wilderness would be allocated wilderness. This is the 
measure that passed the Senate, and is the same measure that he and I 
agreed to a couple of years ago.
  It is my firm belief that if the Senate can move the same bill that 
moved out of the Senate a couple of years ago the that Senator Burns 
and I agreed to, and send it to conference with the House, then we can 
get Wilderness fairly resolved, and get this issue behind us.
  I urge my colleague to reconsider cosponsoring the same bill that he 
and I agreed to a couple years ago. We must find a compromise.
  So I urge my colleague, in addition to introducing his own bill, to 
join me in cosponsoring the same bill he and I agreed to so we can 
compromise with the House.
  My colleague my disagree with the compromise that comes out of the 
conference. At the very least, let us keep the process on track.
  Montanans want a solution. They want their delegation to resolve it; 
to do it in a fair, balanced way, but to resolve it.
  I also think that most Montanans do not want us, as a delegation, to 
listen to the extremists on either side of the issue. They want a 
balanced, fair solution.
  I do hope, finally, this year we can get this resolved. I urge my 
good friend and colleague to join with me in getting a compromise and 
in getting a compromise and in getting this finally resolved.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I extend the invitation to my friend to 
also take a look at the bill I have just introduced and take a good, 
close look at it, because it is a different approach. It does come up 
to around the 800,000 plus 500,000 special management.
  We can sure get together and work out something, I think, that would 
be acceptable to both Senators which can pass this body before Mr. 
Williams' bill comes to the Senate or we go into conference.
  So I invite Senator Baucus to take a look at it. I know it is a very 
contentious issue. It is an issue that I would like to get settled. We 
all would. We are all going to try very hard to do that.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DANFORTH:
  S. 2127. A bill to improve railroad safety at grade crossings, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


             the railroad grade crossing safety act of 1994

 Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, every year we see improvements in 
transportation safety. For example, 10 million fewer motor vehicle 
traffic accidents occurred last year than in 1978, with 10,000 fewer 
deaths. Transportation mishaps involving the release of hazardous 
materials were cut by 80 percent during that time, from 138 to 27. The 
annual number of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline incidents was down 
from about 1,600 in 1978 to about 400 in 1992.
  Similarly, accidents involving railroads fell from 11,300 to 2,300. 
The number of collisions involving trains and motor vehicles at grade 
crossings also dropped dramatically, from 13,400 in 1978 to 4,800 in 
1993. There were 83 fewer collisions in 1993 than in 1992, despite 
record high levels of freight traffic. The number of people injured in 
grade crossing accidents reached a record low last year, dropping 9 
percent from 1,969 in 1992 to 1,792 in 1993. There is a tragic 
exception to this good news trend, however. Last year alone, grade 
crossing fatalities increased from 579 to 614, a jump of 6 percent.
  In fact, a vehicle and train collide every 90 minutes in the United 
States, at an average annual cost as high as $1.8 billion in terms of 
medical costs, insurance payments, legal fees, and damages to railroad 
property. The driver of the car or truck that collides with a train is 
30 times more likely to be killed than in a crash involving 2 motor 
vehicles. The main cause of these deaths is not inadequate signage. 
Over 50 percent of collisions between trains and motor vehicles occur 
at crossings with active warning gates, lights, and bells. Most of the 
time, motorists simply fail to recognize that to race a train is to 
race death.
  The legislation that I am introducing today, the Grade Crossing 
Safety Act of 1994, creates no new, expensive programs. It is modest in 
scope, and limited to issues within the jurisdiction of the Commerce 
Committee. Simply stated, this bill is intended to save lives. 
Specifically, the measure would:
  First, maximize the impact of Federal, State, and railroad safety 
efforts by directing the Secretary of Transportation to make clear the 
allocation of responsibility for selection and installation of signal 
devices at public railroad-highway grade crossings;
  Second, reduce public risk by including plans to close dangerous and 
redundant grade crossings, and policies to limit the creation of new 
crossings, in the highway safety management systems that States are 
required to develop by October 1, 1996;
  Third, help ensure that existing signs and warning devices are in 
working order by establishing a toll-free 800 telephone number for the 
public to use to report problems and malfunctions at grade crossings;
  Fourth, improve awareness of grade crossing dangers by increasing 
Federal, State, and private sector support for a multiyear, multimedia 
public information and law enforcement campaign through Operation 
Lifesaver, Inc., a nationwide, nonprofit organization created 22 years 
ago to reduce crashes, fatalities, and injuries at grade crossings;
  Fifth, promote advanced technology development by directing the 
Secretary of Transportation to conduct at least two operational tests 
of intelligent vehicle-highway system technologies focused on grade 
crossing safety;
  Sixth, encourage public safety by creating Federal civil penalties 
for any motor carrier operator who enters, without sufficient space to 
clear, a grade crossing; any individual who vandalizes grade crossing 
signs, signal, or devices; or anyone who trespasses on a railroad 
right-of-way, roadbed, or bridge;
  Seventh, increase compliance by establishing sanctions against 
commercial motor vehicle operators who repeatedly violate grade 
crossing safety laws; and
  Eighth, improve compliance with and enforcement of grade crossing 
laws by encouraging cooperation between the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, the Office of Motor Carriers within the 
Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration, the 
National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, the 
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and Operation Lifesaver.
  Mr. President, these grade crossing safety provisions will be 
discussed during the Commerce Committee's June hearing on reauthorizing 
Federal rail safety programs. I will recommend that they be included in 
the committee's rail safety reauthorization bill. I urge my colleagues 
to support this lifesaving legislation when it is considered by the 
Senate.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 2128. A bill to authorize an entrance fee surcharge at the Grand 
Canyon National Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                 grand canyon national park act of 1994

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help 
finance desperately needed improvements at our Nation's premier 
national park--our great pride and joy--the Grand Canyon.
  The measure would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
establish a special public-private partnership account, under which 
entrance fee revenues would be matched with private donations to help 
fund vital projects called for in the park's general management plan.
  This legislation will provide additional resources for the Grand 
Canyon at a time when park needs far outstrip the ability of Treasury 
to fund them. The measure enjoys the support of two important 
organizations dedicated to protecting the interests of the Grand 
Canyon: The Grand Canyon Trust; and, the Grand Canyon Natural History 
Association.
  We in Arizona are proud to be home to the crown jewel of our National 
Park System. We take immense pride in the park and appreciate the 
awesome responsibility with which our country has been vested as 
stewards of this world class resource. We also understand that we have 
much work to do in order to meet those responsibilities.
  By some accounts, $2.2 billion is needed to make repairs to the 
park's aging infrastructure. Compare that need to be canyon's park 
budget this year which is only $13 million--a gap as wide and 
formidable as the Grand Canyon itself.
  The need is enormous and it is growing. Last year, 5 million people 
visited the Grand Canyon--a number that is expected to double by the 
turn of the century. The ever increasing demand will place even more 
stress on the park's aging and needy infrastructure.
  To address future needs, the National Park Service has been working 
diligently on the park's general management plan. The plan will guide 
management perogatives into the next century. The draft plan which was 
released earlier this year, identifies projects and programs which will 
help us to cope with the increased visitation, enhance visitor 
experience and protect the canyon's valuable resources for this and 
future generations.
  While the plan has not been completed, preliminary reports estimate 
that it will cost nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to fully fund. 
Providing the necessary resources is a staggering challenge. The 
proposal I am presenting here today is one way to help us meet this 
enormous need.
  As I said, the bill would authorize the Secretary to use fee revenues 
to leverage private contributions to help finance park projects.
  In order to fund the Federal share of such partnerships, the 
Secretary would be authorized to add a surcharge of up to $2 on the 
current $10 per vehicle park entrance fee.
  Mr. President, no one, least of all this Senator, likes the idea of 
higher park entrance fees. But, visitors understand that park services 
and infrastructure cost money and they are willing to support the park 
with their fees as long as they know the revenue will be used for that 
purpose.
  Under current procedures, entrance fees are collected at the park, 
returned to the General Treasury and appropriated by Congress in many 
instances for purposes other than the needs at the Grand Canyon.
  The revenues raised under the measure I am proposing would remain in 
a special account at the park to be used only in concert with private 
donations for vital park needs. Such public-private partnerships have 
ample and successful precedent in other areas of public administration, 
and are an excellent means of stretching our resources. I believe they 
could be a useful tool at the Grand Canyon and perhaps other national 
parks as well.
  Again, no one likes the idea of any increase in park fees. But, 
ironically, we need only to look to Disney World for a reality check. 
Today, visitors to Disney World pay $35 a piece to see Mickey Mouse. By 
comparison, Grand Canyon visitors pay a relatively modest $10 per 
carload to view what John Wesley Powell aptly described as the most 
sublime spectacle on Earth. We all understand and accept the fact that 
keeping that spectacle sublime and providing for its employment by the 
millions who visit costs money. An added surcharge to leverage private 
dollars would seem to be a justified and efficient means of making ends 
meet, and it deserves our thoughtful consideration.
  We estimate that the surcharge would generate an additional $2 
million a year. Once leveraged with money from the private sector the 
fund would make a significant contribution to park improvements and 
maintenance of infrastructure such as upgrading the park's 
transportation system to relieve overcrowding; maintaining trails; and 
improving the water system and housing, just to name a very few.
  Mr. President, the creation of a special partnership account raises 
many questions. I, like others, want to make absolutely certain that 
private contributions to the park are not used in any way that would 
compromise park interests or values. This measure seeks to address that 
issue because management of the fund must be dictated solely by the 
needs of the park and the ethic of stewardship.
  The measure calls on the Secretary of the Interior to establish 
regulations, with full public comment and participation, to guide how 
the fund will be managed, how private donations will be solicited, for 
what purposes they will be used and how the partnerships will be 
structured and managed.
  In addition, the bill specifically requires that any project funded 
under the partnership must be consistent with the statutes, regulations 
and rules governing the park, and that it is specifically approved and 
prioritized within the general management plan. These plans are 
developed with public participation and are subject to all the 
applicable environmental laws. Ensuring that partnership funds are used 
only for purposes authorized by the relevant management plan will 
ensure that only necessary and appropriate projects are undertaken.
  Many businesses and individuals want to contribute to the protection 
of Grand Canyon National Park because they realize that it is a 
national treasure and that it needs and deserves our assistance. 
Nevertheless, we must take steps to ensure that these donations are not 
offered with strings attached that would place commercial interests 
ahead of park needs and values.
  Mr. President, Grand Canyon and our other national parks are at a 
critical point. Demand for park resources is increasing, as is the cost 
of maintenance. Several weeks ago, Secretary Babbitt began a tour to 
examine many of these problems firsthand. I commend him for taking this 
action.
  While his tour is not yet complete, he is certain to discover that 
the needs of our parks far outstrip the ability of a limited Federal 
treasury to finance them. When our parks are not properly funded it 
makes resource management, interpretation and other essential duties of 
the Park Service impossible.
  Last year, the Interior Appropriations committee increased the 
operations account of the Parks Service by 9 percent above the fiscal 
year 1993 level in an effort to improve conditions. While this increase 
was helpful, it is not nearly enough to meet the needs at the Grand 
Canyon and I am sure other parks as well. Given the current budget 
situation the administration and Congress is not likely to provide 
further increases to adequately to meet the need.
  We must look for innovative ways to fully fund the preservation and 
enhancement of our Nation's Park System. I believe the method I am 
proposing is a viable option that should be fully examined and 
considered.
  Mr. President, this year we celebrate the 75th anniversary of Grand 
Canyon National Park. It is most appropriate that we recommit ourselves 
to the charge of Theodore Roosevelt ``to keep the canyon for our 
children and our children's children, and for all who come after us, as 
one of the great sights which every American if he can travel at all 
should see.''
  Let us work to meet the needs at the Grand Canyon with that purpose 
firmly in mind.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2128

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) As of the date of enactment of this Act, the existing 
     infrastructure of Grand Canyon National Park is not adequate 
     to serve the purposes for which the Park was established.
       (2) Improving the infrastructure of the Park would enhance 
     the natural and cultural resources of the Park and the 
     quality of the experiences of visitors to the Park.
       (3) Through the development of a general management plan, 
     the Director of the National Park Service has identified 
     reasonable measures that are necessary to improve the 
     infrastructure and related services of the Park, including 
     making improvements to transportation facilities and visitor 
     services, and reusing historic structures appropriately.
       (4) In order for the Director to implement the general 
     management plan referred to in paragraph (3) at the Park, it 
     is necessary for the Director to be authorized to--
       (A) enter into agreements with non-Federal entities to 
     share the costs of the improvements; and
       (B) assess and collect a special surcharge in addition to 
     the entrance fees otherwise collected by the National Park 
     Service.

     SEC. 2. GRAND CANYON ENTRANCE FEE SURCHARGE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall--
       (1) authorize the Superintendent of the Grand Canyon 
     National Park to charge and collect, in addition to the 
     entrance fee collected pursuant to section 4 of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a), a 
     surcharge in an amount not to exceed $2 for each individual 
     charged such entrance fee; and
       (2) remit to the special account for Grand Canyon National 
     Park infrastructure improvement amounts collected as a 
     surcharge under such authority.

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL ACCOUNT FOR GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK 
                   INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall 
     establish in the Treasury of the United States a special 
     account for Grand Canyon National Park infrastructure 
     improvement.
       (b) Administration of Account.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall--
       (1) credit to the special account amounts remitted pursuant 
     to section 2(2); and
       (2) make funds in the special account available for use 
     only as provided in subsection (c).
       (c) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Director of the National Park Service, may use 
     funds in the special account only to pay the Federal share of 
     the cost of eligible projects.
       (2) Daily operations.--No funds in the special account may 
     be used for daily operation of the Grand Canyon National 
     Park.

     SEC. 4. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.

       (a) Eligible Projects.--Subject to subsection (b), any 
     project for the design, construction, operation, maintenance, 
     repair, or replacement of a facility within the Grand Canyon 
     National Park is eligible for funding in accordance with this 
     Act.
       (b) Limitation.--A project referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall be consistent with--
       (1) the laws governing the National Park Service;
       (2) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the Grand Canyon 
     National Park in the State of Arizona'', approved February 
     26, 1919 (16 U.S.C. 221 et seq.), the Grand Canyon National 
     Park Enlargement Act (16 U.S.C. 228a et seq.), and any 
     related law; and
       (3) the general management plan for the Park.

     SEC. 5. COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES.

       (a) Agreements Required.--The Director of the National Park 
     Service, in consultation with the Superintendent of the Grand 
     Canyon National Park, shall enter into a cost-sharing 
     agreement with a non-Federal Government entity for each 
     eligible project.
       (b) Content.--The cost-sharing agreement shall specify the 
     Federal share and the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project and shall provide for payment of the non-Federal 
     share by the non-Federal entity.
       (c) Authority To Cover Several Projects.--A cost-sharing 
     agreement may cover more than one eligible project.

     SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

       (a) Regulations Required.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall prescribe regulations to carry out this Act.
       (b) Content.--The regulations shall include the following 
     matters:
       (1) The procedures for the management of the special 
     account.
       (2) The manner in which funds for payment of the non-
     Federal share of the cost of an eligible project may be 
     solicited and acknowledged.
       (3) Provisions for ensuring the protection of the natural, 
     cultural, and other resources that the Park was established 
     to protect.
       (4) Provisions to encourage funding from the private sector 
     only for projects that contribute to the restoration and 
     protection of the resources referred to in paragraph (3).
       (5) Protections against the commercialization of the Grand 
     Canyon National Park.
       (6) Procedures to prevent the creation of a conflict of 
     interest with respect to an employee of the Federal 
     Government.
       (7) Provisions for continuous participation of the general 
     public in the oversight of the implementation of this Act.
       (c) Notice and Public Comment.--The Secretary shall carry 
     out subsection (a) in accordance with section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code (relating to publication of notice and 
     opportunity for public comment), without regard to any 
     applicable exception provided in such section.

     SEC. 7. REPORT.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 5 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the Grand Canyon National Park 
     infrastructure improvement authority provided in this Act.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report shall include the 
     following matters:
       (1) An assessment of the effectiveness of the exercise of 
     authority under this Act to improve the infrastructure of the 
     Grand Canyon National Park.
       (2) Any recommended legislation with respect to--
       (A) the surcharge authorized under section 2;
       (B) the special account;
       (C) the use of the special account for funding eligible 
     projects; or
       (D) any other matter that the Secretary determines to be 
     related to the authority provided under this Act.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Facility.--The term ``facility'' includes any 
     structure, road, trail, utility, or other facility that is 
     used or to be used for or in support of--
       (A) the protection or restoration of a natural or cultural 
     resource;
       (B) an interpretive service; or
       (C) any other service or activity that the Secretary 
     determines to be related to the operation of the Grand Canyon 
     National Park.
       (2) Federal share.--The term ``Federal share'', with 
     respect to the cost of an eligible project, means the percent 
     of the cost of such project that is paid with Federal funds, 
     including funds disbursed from the special account.
       (3) Non-Federal share.--The term ``non-Federal share'', 
     with respect to the cost of an eligible project, means the 
     percent of the cost of such project that is paid with funds 
     other than funds referred to in paragraph (2).
       (4) Eligible project.--The term ``eligible project'' is any 
     project that is eligible for funding in accordance with this 
     Act.
       (5) Special account.--The terms ``special account for Grand 
     Canyon National Park infrastructure improvement'' and 
     ``special account'' mean the account established pursuant to 
     section 3.
                                  ____



                                           Grand Canyon Trust,

                                                      May 9, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for providing the Grand 
     Canyon Trust with the opportunity to review and comment on 
     both draft and final versions of your proposed legislation 
     regarding entrance fees and public/private cost-sharing at 
     Grand Canyon National Park.
       We believe that your proposed legislation will greatly 
     assist the efforts of the National Park Service and other 
     entities who are struggling to find appropriate means to 
     generate the additional funding so urgently needed by Grand 
     Canyon National Park. In this regard, we strongly support the 
     core concepts in your bill: new fees to generate incremental 
     revenue for park projects and cost-sharing arrangements 
     between the Park Service and nongovernmental entities.
       We share your concern that Grand Canyon's pressing 
     infrastructure and resource management needs will not be met 
     unless Congress acts to provide the new authorities described 
     in your legislation. And, if those needs are not met, the 
     park environment and visitor experience will continue to 
     deteriorate--an utterly unacceptable and unnecessary fate for 
     the crown jewel of America's parks.
       Senator McCain, we applaud your consistent leadership on 
     behalf of Grand Canyon. This bill, the National Parks 
     Overflights Act, Grand Canyon Protection Act, and so many 
     other measures reflect your unwavering dedication to the 
     needs of the park. Please be assured that we are prepared to 
     assist you in your efforts to move the bill through the 
     legislative process to final enactment.
       Again, thank you for all you have done for the Grand 
     Canyon.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas C. Jensen,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                      Grand Canyon


                                  Natural History Association,

                                                      May 6, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I am very happy to be able to write 
     this letter of complete and enthusiastic support for your 
     bill designed to authorize an entrance fee surcharge at the 
     Grand Canyon National Park, for the purpose of assuring a 
     Federal matching pool of funds for necessary capital projects 
     at the Park. We have previously discussed the value of such a 
     tool to be used to foster public/private partnerships to 
     accomplish the overdue rebuilding of infrastructure to 
     support the crush of visitors. We further believe that the 
     choice of Grand Canyon as the test case for such an effort 
     will enable us to create a model that can be used by other 
     National Parks and Monuments across the country. Please let 
     us know how else we can support this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert W. Koons,
                                             General Manager, CEO.
                                  ____


                           In Search of Help

       When droning airplanes and rattling helicopters were 
     swooping unchecked below the rim of the Grand Canyon, 
     destroying the natural quiet, Congress wisely took steps to 
     restore peace and tranquility by creating flight-free zones 
     and banning aircraft below the rim.
       This idea, passed into law in 1987, is now being touted as 
     a solution to the soaring decibel levels being generated by 
     an increase in the number of low flying aircraft in many of 
     the nation's national parks.
       If U.S. Sen. John McCain has his way, Arizona's most prized 
     natural treasure may again serve as a model for the rest of 
     the nation. This time, the Arizona Republican has proposed a 
     novel public-private partnership as a way to pump some badly 
     needed dollars into rebuilding and improving the 
     infrastructure of Grand Canyon National Park.
       Under his proposed legislation, to be introduced this week, 
     the Secretary of the Interior would be required to impose 
     upon visitors to Grand Canyon a surcharge of up to $2 per 
     vehicle. The surcharge would be placed into a special trust 
     account, when it would be matched by contributions from 
     corporations, foundations and individuals.
       The special account could be drawn down to design, build, 
     repair or replace the park's infrastructure, but not for 
     daily operational expenses.
       The concept behind McCain's proposal is two-fold. First is 
     the belief that any additional entrance fees ought to stay 
     with the park: As it is, visitors fees flow to the federal 
     treasury and are appropriated back to the National Park 
     Service for park operations each year. Second is the idea 
     that the park service be allowed to enter into flexible cost-
     sharing agreements with the private cost-sharing agreements 
     with the private sector in order to maximize donations 
     earmarked for park improvements.
       When it comes to the plight of the National Park Service, 
     the financial dilemma is not illusory. Park usage is on a 
     stampede upward, but this popularity has a price--a steep 
     one. It is estimated that $2.2 billion worth of park repairs 
     are needed--a considerable undertaking even in the best of 
     times.
       Grand Canyon, the grande dame of the park system, is being 
     loved to death and it shows. Trails could be improved. 
     Housing is inadequate. Transportation and water systems are 
     at a capacity. And if Interior Department officials are 
     serious about a South Rim that is auto-free and capable of 
     handling the 5 million visitors each year--a figure expected 
     to double by the turn of the century--some form of mass 
     transit would appear to be in the cards.
       All of these are expensive propositions at a time that 
     Congress is especially sensitive to new spending proposals. 
     This is a reality of the times. If the American people are 
     serious about preserving the nation's cultural and natural 
     resources, Congress must examine creative financing measures.
       McCain has thrown out one. Cost-sharing, of course, is not 
     a new idea. Corporations and foundations underwrite numerous 
     and worthwhile causes. What's important to keep in 
     perspective is that the national parks cannot be for sale. 
     Not under any circumstance. The Coney Islands and Disneylands 
     have their place and it is not in our national treasures.
       We have said it before and we'll say it again: The almighty 
     dollar must not drive the needs of the park; the needs of the 
     park ought to drive the fund-raising. Tom Jensen, executive 
     director of the Grand Canyon Trust, a non-profit advocacy 
     group of the Colorado Plateau, was right when he said, ``The 
     devil is in the details.''
       With adequate protections against commercialization of the 
     park system, there may be merit in McCain's proposal. He is 
     to be commended for trying park surcharges and private 
     donorship into a plan that, at the least, is worthy of being 
     discussed. One thing is a given: the more time that passes 
     without the fiscal needs of Grand Canyon and the park system 
     being met, the situation can only worsen.
                                  ____


              [From the Arizona Daily Star, May 16, 1994]

                        Funding a Healthy Canyon

       Sen. John McCain--a good fighter for Grand Canyon--has now 
     proposed a novel plan to fund efforts to attack overcrowding 
     at the park.
       With a few caveats, the Arizona Republican's proposal looks 
     like a sound blueprint for the maintenance of a superb Canyon 
     experience even despite a use crisis that now portends near 
     chaos along those ledges and cliffs.
       McCain's proposal possesses the virtues of both pragmation 
     and timeliness.
       By allowing the park to raise millions of dollars through 
     corporate donations as well as a surcharge up to $2 on the 
     $10 entrance fee, McCain's new legislation would enable 
     Canyon administrators to attack their expensive problems in 
     an era of scanty appropriations.
       The surcharge alone should yield at least $2.5 million a 
     year toward the enormous needs now being identified in the 
     still incomplete General Management Plan, since some five 
     million visitors will strain park roads and buildings this 
     year.
       And presumably tens of millions dollars more could be 
     solicited from corporate America for the infrastructure 
     account. In this way, McCain's scheme would go far toward 
     instituting a steady funding mechanism by which the park 
     could begin enacting the forthcoming GMP, whose 
     implementation may cost a quarter of a billion dollars.
       McCain's plan innovates with its establishment of a 
     dedicated add-on fee. Such fees may well represent the wave 
     of the future all through the Park Service by allowing parks 
     to retain collected money for their own use, rather than send 
     them into the general fund.
       Once major concern does linger about Sen. McCain's 
     pragmatic strategy to supplement Grand Canyon National Park's 
     $15 million budget.
       This touches the sure knowledge that in America corporate 
     ``cost sharing'' agreements all too easily lend to subtle 
     ``promotional'' agreements providing, for instance, for 
     tramways plastered with corporate logos and viewpoints 
     brought to you by big business.
       True, McCain aides point out that language in the bill 
     limits expenditures from the infrastructure fund to less 
     visible capital uses. Yet anyone familiar with a university 
     capital drive or museum construction knows that does not 
     preclude the distraction of nameplates and corporate logos, 
     even on public lands.
       Furthermore, no rules now exist in the bill to guard 
     against excessive commercialization, though its text does 
     provide for the Secretary of Interior to write such 
     regulations and guarantee public oversight. This leaves cause 
     for worry about the fine line Sen. McCain's plan walks 
     between securing new financial resources for the Canyon, and 
     opening it to hype.
       But then, it is early. For now, those who care about the 
     Canyon should keep the creation of adequate rules curbing 
     undue commerce in mind, even as they urge Congress to move 
     quickly on McCain's grounddbreaking, pragmatic plan to 
     preserve a national treasure.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request):
  S. 2131. A bill to authorize additional major medical facility 
construction projects for fiscal year 1994, at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center Sepulveda, CA, and to waive the notice 
and wait requirement for an administrative reorganization at that 
facility; to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.


     sepulveda, ca, construction project authorization act of 1994

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2131, a bill to authorize additional 
major medical facility construction projects for fiscal year 1994 at 
the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Sepulveda, CA, and 
to waive the congressional waiting period requirement for an 
administrative reorganization at that facility. The Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the 
Senate by letter dated April 13, 1994.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2131

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

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

       The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out the 
     following major medical facility projects for which funds 
     were appropriated in Public Law 103-211 in the amounts 
     specified:
       (1) Construction of a new ambulatory care/support services 
     facility at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center 
     in Sepulveda, California, $53,700,000.
       (2) Other major medical facility projects required to 
     repair, restore, or replace earthquake damaged facilities at 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in 
     Sepulveda, California, $50,000,000.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (A) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1994, 
     $103,700,000 for the major medical facility projects 
     authorized by section 1.
       (b) Limitation.--The projects authorized in subsection (a) 
     may only be carried out using the following funds:
       (1) Funds appropriated for the Construction, major projects 
     account of the Department of Veterans Affairs by chapter 7 of 
     title I of Public Law 103-211 and available for obligation 
     for major construction projects.
       (2) Funds appropriated for the Construction, major projects 
     account of the Department of Veterans Affairs for a fiscal 
     year before year 1994 that remain available for obligation.
       (3) Funds appropriated for the Construction, major projects 
     account of the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 
     1994 for a category of activity not specific to a project.
       (4) Funds in an amount not to exceed $10,600,000 out of the 
     funds appropriated to the Medical Care account of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs by chapter 7 of title I of 
     Public Law 103-211 that are transferred to the Construction, 
     major projects account of the Department by an appropriations 
     Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO CARRY 
                   OUT SPECIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION.

       (a) Authority for Administrative Reorganization.--The 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out the 
     administrative reorganization described in subsection (b) 
     without regard to section 510(b) of title 38, United States 
     Code.
       (b) Specified Reorganization.--Subsection (a) applies to a 
     reorganization at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Center in Sepulveda, California, necessitated by the January 
     1994 earthquake damage at that location as such 
     reorganization was described in the detailed plan and 
     justification submitted by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     in April, 1994, letters to the Chairmen of the Committees on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.
                                  ____

                                                  The Secretary of


                                             Veterans Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 1994.
     Hon. Al Gore,
     President of the Senate,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are transmitting a draft bill, ``To 
     authorize additional major medical facility construction 
     projects for Fiscal year 1994, at the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs Medical Center Sepulveda, California, and to waive 
     the Congressional waiting period requirement for an 
     administrative reorganization at such facility.'' I request 
     that this bill be referred to the appropriate committee and 
     promptly enacted.
       This measure would authorize specific funding for the 
     construction phase of a new ambulatory care/support services 
     facility at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical 
     Center Sepulveda, California, as well as other major medical 
     facility projects for extensive repairs and renovations at 
     that facility. Further, since the proposed replacement of the 
     Sepulveda hospital, with a new ambulatory care facility at 
     Sepulveda, is a change which constitutes an administrative 
     reorganization subject to the Congressional notice and 
     waiting period requirements of Section 510(b) of title 38, 
     United States Code, this measure would waive the waiting 
     period requirement in order to expedite this project.
       The January 1994 Southern California earthquake caused 
     enormous physical damage, leaving tens of thousands homeless, 
     closing major highways, demolishing schools and closing down 
     utilities. The VA's Sepulveda Medical Center was not spared. 
     It sustained extensive structural damage which required the 
     transfer of more than 300 hospital and nursing home patients 
     to other VA facilities in the Los Angeles area on the day of 
     the earthquake.
       Responding to the situation necessitated a reexamination of 
     the medical needs of veterans in the earthquake damaged area 
     and of the most effective manner in which VA could best meet 
     those needs. For example, even after the transfer of the 
     Sepulveda Medical Center patients, the West Los Angeles VA 
     Medical Center still had more than 170 inpatient beds 
     available. Furthermore, future (year 2005) hosptial bed 
     projections indicate a need for approximately 600 fewer VA 
     hospital beds than the current operating capacity in the Los 
     Angeles area.
       In addition, VA's health care delivery system in the Los 
     Angeles area must be properly positioned for future 
     competitiveness under health care reform. VA intends to 
     improve the efficiency of its health care delivery system in 
     order to be more competitive and to continue to move toward a 
     managed care system with a primary care focus. Under a 
     managed care system, there will be incentives to promote 
     alternatives to hospitalization and to avoid hospital 
     admissions whenever possible. Accordingly, VA has determined 
     that vetarans' medical care needs will be best served by 
     retaining and enhancing ambulatory care and nursing home 
     programs at VA's Sepulveda Medical Center and by permanently 
     shifting the hospital programs to the West Los Angeles VA 
     Medical Center.
       Congress, through the enactment of a supplemental emergency 
     appropriation, provided VA the initial funding necessary to 
     accomplish these objectives. On February 12, 1994, Congress 
     enacted the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994 
     (Public Law 103-211), which appropriated $21,000,000 to the 
     VA's Medical Care account to provide health care to veterans 
     affected by the earthquake. In addition, $45,600,000 was 
     appropriated to VA's Construction, Major Projects account to 
     repair and renovate buildings as well as to restore 
     electrical and water services at the VA Medical Centers in 
     Sepulveda and West Los Angeles. In addition, since only 
     preliminary damage estimates were available when these 
     supplemental appropriations were considered, Congress 
     included a contingency fund of $550,000,000 in the 
     Unanticipated Needs account of the Act.
       The contingency fund appropriation was made available for 
     transfer at the discretion of the President to various 
     agencies to meet disaster needs. In a letter to the Speaker 
     of the House of Representatives dated March 18, 1994 (copy 
     enclosed), the President stated that $47,500,000 from the 
     contingency fund would be transferred to the VA's 
     Construction, Major Projects account for constructing a 
     state-of-the art ambulatory care facility to replace the 
     damaged Sepulveda hospital. This request reflected a 
     reestimate of the additional Medical Care costs incurred as a 
     result of the earthquake that was $10,600,000 less than 
     originally assumed. The Department proposes to transfer to 
     the Construction, Major Projects account up to $10,600,000 of 
     the $21,000,000 appropriated to the Medical Care account to 
     complete all major medical facility projects at the Sepulveda 
     Medical Center.
       Despite the Congressional appropriation and Presidential 
     transfer of funds to the Construction, Major Projects 
     account, VA currently is barred by statute from obligating 
     these funds for the purposes appropriated. Section 8104(a)(2) 
     of title 38, United States Code, prohibits VA officials from 
     obligating any funds appropriated for any major medical 
     facility project (defined as a project for the construction 
     or alteration of a medical facility involving a total 
     expenditure of more than $3,000,000) unless funds for such 
     project have been specifically authorized by law. Therefore, 
     this draft bill would specifically authorize VA to obligate 
     the $45,600,000 appropriated by the Congress and the 
     $47,500,000 transferred by the President, as well as any 
     transfer to the Construction, Major Projects account of up to 
     $10,600,000 in Medical Care funds appropriated by the 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994.
       Further, section 510(b) of title 38, United States Code, 
     precludes any action, including the obligation of funds, to 
     carry out a reorganization at the Sepulveda Medical Center 
     prior to complying with the Congressional notice and waiting 
     period requirements of that section. Since the construction 
     of an ambulatory care facility at Sepulveda Medical Center in 
     lieu of replacing the damaged Sepulveda hospital would be 
     delayed for a minimum of 90 days of continuous session of 
     Congress while VA complies with the Congressional waiting 
     period requirement, the draft bill would waive the waiting 
     period requirement and expedite the proposed project.
       The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 requires that 
     all revenue and direct spending legislation meet a pay-as-
     you-go requirement. That is, no such bill should result in an 
     increase in the deficit and, if it does, it must trigger a 
     sequester if it is not fully offset. The funds provided by 
     the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994 were 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and the 
     President, in his March 18, 1994, request designated the 
     amount of funds made available from the Unanticipated Needs 
     account as emergency requirements pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended. Accordingly, this 
     legislative proposal would not score under the pay-as-you-go 
     provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the submission of this legislative proposal 
     to the Congress and that its enactment would be in accord 
     with the program of the President.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                      Jesse Brown.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 1994.
     The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
       Sir: In accordance with provisions of P.L. 103-211, the 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994, I am 
     transmitting a request to make available appropriations 
     totaling $103,000,000 in budget authority for the Departments 
     of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, 
     Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs, and the 
     Corporation for National Community Service. The funds to be 
     made available will be transferred from the Unanticipated 
     needs account within Funds Appropriated to the President to 
     support emergency requirements arising from the consequences 
     of the January 17th earthquake in Southern California and the 
     Midwest floods of 1993. As provided in P.L. 103-211, the 
     funds will be available 15 days from the date of this 
     transmittal.
       In addition, in accordance with provisions of P.L. 102-368, 
     the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1992, I 
     hereby make available appropriations of $75,000,000 in budget 
     authority for the Small Business Administration. These funds 
     will provide $326 million in additional disaster loans to 
     victims of the January 17th earthquake in Southern California 
     and will be available immediately.
       I designate the amounts made available as emergency 
     requirements pursuant to section 251(D)(2)(D)(i) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.
       The details of these actions are set forth in the enclosed 
     letter from the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget. I concur with his comments and observations.
           Sincerely,
                                               William J. Clinton.
                                  ____

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House.
       Submitted for your consideration are requests to make 
     available emergency appropriations totaling $429 million in 
     budgetary resources for the Departments of Commerce, Housing 
     and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, Transportation, 
     and Veterans Affairs, the Small Business Administration 
     (SBA), and the Corportion for National and Community Service. 
     Your approval of these requests would make available 
     previously appropriated funds to these agencies to enable 
     them to address needs arising from the consequences of the 
     January 17th earthquake in Southern California and the 
     Midwest floods of 1993.
       P.L. 103-211, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
     of 1994, provided $550 million for the Unanticipated needs 
     account within Funds Appropriated to the President that may 
     be transferred to any authorized Federal governmental 
     activity to meet requirements of disasters. The availability 
     of these funds was made contingent upon the President 
     submitting a budget request to the Congress and designating 
     the entire amount requested as an emergency requirement. At 
     this time, $103 million is required to support urgent needs 
     arising from recent disasters. As provided in P.L. 103-211, 
     the funds would be available 15 days after the submission of 
     your request to the Congress. As described in the enclosure, 
     the requests include: $90.8 million in continued emergency 
     support for victims of the January 17th earthquake in 
     Southern California; $12.2 million for the Department of the 
     Interior to support additional needs arising from the Midwest 
     floods of 1993.
       Public Law 102-368, the Dire Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act of 1992, provided $331.8 million in budget 
     authority to SBA for the cost of direct loans. Of this 
     amount, $256.8 million was made immediately, and the 
     availability of $75 million was made contingent upon the 
     President submitting a budget request to the Congress and 
     designating the entire amount of the request as an emergency 
     requirement. This $75 million in budget authority, which will 
     support additional disaster lending of $326 million to 
     victims of the Southern California earthquake, is now 
     required. Forwarding this request to the Congress will make 
     the funds available to SBA immediately.
       I recommend that you designate these requests as emergency 
     funding requirements in accordance with applicable provisions 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.
       I have carefully reviewed these proposals and am satisfied 
     that they are necessary at this time. Therefore, I join the 
     heads of the affected departments and agencies in 
     recommending that you approve these requests by signing the 
     enclosed letter to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives. This action would make the $75 million in 
     SBA funds available immediately. No further congressional 
     action will be required on the $103 million from the 
     Unanticipated needs account; however, P.L. 103-211 provides 
     Congress with 15 days to review your proposed allocation of 
     the funds before the funds can be released.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Leon E. Panetta,
                                                         Director.
                                  ____


    Emergency Appropriations: Amounts Previously Appropriated Made 
                       Available by the President

       Funds appropriated to the President:
       Unanticipated needs--$103,000,000.
       Public Law 103-211, the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act of 1994, which was enacted into law on 
     February 12, 1994, provided $550 million in contingent 
     emergency funding for the Unanticipated needs account within 
     Funds Appropriated to the President. These funds were made 
     available contingent upon the President submitting a budget 
     request to the Congress and designating the entire amount 
     requested at an emergency requirement.
       The Act further provides that the funds may be transferred 
     to any authorized Federal governmental activity to meet the 
     requirements of disasters. At this time, $103 million is 
     required to support needs arising from the consequences of 
     the January 17th earthquake in Southern California and the 
     Midwest floods of 1993 and will be transferred to the 
     following programs, projects, and activities in the amounts 
     specified.
       Department of Commerce, Economic Development 
     Administration: Economic development assistance programs--
     $8,000,000.
       These economic development assistance program funds will: 
     (1) support technical assistance grants to municipal 
     governments for long-term, post-earthquake economic recovery 
     planning, including financial management activities; and (2) 
     assist minority businesses in Southern California in 
     recovering from the impact of the January 17th earthquake.
       Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing 
     Programs: Annual contributions for assist housing--
     $1,000,000.
       This $1 million will enable the Department to help families 
     locate housing in areas affected by the January 17th 
     earthquake. These search funds are needed due to the limited 
     availability of affordable housing, particularly for large 
     families.
       Policy Development and Research: Research and technology--
     $1,500,000.
       These funds will enable the Department to conduct urgent 
     studies of housing issues related to the Southern California 
     earthquake, including minimizing residential damage and 
     monitoring and redirecting Federal emergency housing 
     response.
       Department of the Interior, Geological Survey: survey, 
     investigations, and research--$1,800,000.
       This $1,8 million will support the activities of the 
     interagency Scientific and Assessment Team (SAST). Arising 
     from the consequences of the Midwest floods of 1993, the SAST 
     is due to deliver a floodplain study on May 30, 1994.
       Fish and Wildlife Service: Resource management--$600,000.
       These funds will be used to create computerized wetlands 
     maps of the Midwest areas flooded in 1993.
       Construction--$400,000.
       These construction funds will be used to repair Fish and 
     Wildlife Service facilities damaged in the Midwest floods of 
     1993.
       Land acquistion--$3,900,000.
       These funds will allow the Department to acquire 
     environmentally valuable wetlands in the Midwest. In the 
     absence of this proposal, the lands would revert to 
     agricultural production, which would be subject to repeated 
     flooding and associated crop losses.
       National Park Service: Historic preservation fund--
     $5,500,000.
       This $5.5 million will be used to repair levee damage in 
     St. Genevieve, Missouri, caused by the flooding of 1993.
       Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
     Administration: Training and employment services--
     $28,000,000.
       These funds will finance temporary jobs for dislocated 
     workers to support cleanup, repaid, and reconstruction of 
     property damaged by the January 17th earthquake in Southern 
     California.
       Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
     Administration: Facilities and equipment--$2,000,000.
       These funds will be used to repair air traffic control and 
     other facilities in Southern California damaged by the 
     January 17th earthquake.
       Department of Veterans Affairs, Construction: Construction, 
     major projects--$47,500,000.
       These funds are needed to construct a state-of-the-art 
     ambulatory care/research facility to replace the hospital 
     damaged at the Sepulveda California Medical Center by the 
     January 17th earthquake.
       Corporation for National and Community Service: National 
     service initiative--$2,800,000.
       This $2.8 million will enable the Corporation to expand and 
     coordinate service programs in Southern California areas 
     affected by the January 17th earthquake.
       Small Business Administration: Disaster loans program 
     account--$75,000,000.
       Public Law 102-368, the Dire Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act of 1992, which was enacted into law on 
     September 23, 1992, provided $331.8 million in budget 
     authority to the Small Business Administration for the cost 
     of direct loans. Of this amount, $256.8 million was made 
     available immediately, and $75 million was made available 
     contingent upon the President submitting a budget request to 
     the Congress and designating the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement. This $75 million in budget 
     authority is now required and will support $326 million in 
     additional disaster lending to victims of the Southern 
     California earthquake.
                                 ______


        By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Riegle, and Mr. Wofford):

  S. 2129. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to preserve 
personal privacy with respect to medical records and health care-
related information, and for other purposes; read the first time.


                 the health care privacy protection act

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing, with Senators 
Riegle and Wofford, the Health Care Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 
legislation that I hope will be included in the health care reform 
measure that we are considering this year.
  President Clinton is showing tremendous leadership in tackling health 
care reform. Because of his efforts, the country and the Congress are 
engaged in a serious debate about how to make sure that every American 
has health insurance and how to bring costs under control so that 
health care is affordable for families and small businesses.
  Vermonters are particularly focused on health care reform because of 
our State's efforts to reform our system. I hear from hundreds of 
Vermonters every week who share with me their ideas about what needs to 
be done. They do not want a one-size-fits-all approach, and I have 
worked to ensure that the President's bill allows individual States the 
flexibility to tailor the plan to fit local needs. State flexibility 
has been and remains an important component of any health care reform 
plan if it is to be successful.
  I have also concentrated my efforts on making sure that Americans' 
expectations of privacy for their medical records are fulfilled. That 
is the purpose of this bill. As intractable as questions of financing 
and structure may seem, I have confidence that we will find a way to 
respond to the American people's profound need for health security. My 
fear has been that the Achilles heel of our health care reform efforts 
would turn out to be a perception that such legislation would lead to a 
loss of personal privacy.
  A recent public opinion poll sponsored by Equifax and conducted by 
Louis Harris indicated that 85 percent of those surveyed agreed that 
protecting the confidentiality of medical records is extremely 
important in national health care reform. I can assure you that if that 
poll had been taken in Vermont, it would have come in at 100 percent or 
close to it.
  The distinguished Republican leader put his finger on this in his 
response to the President's State of the Union Address earlier this 
year. Senator Dole remarked then that a ``compromise of privacy'' that 
sends information about health and treatment to a national data bank 
without a person's approval would be something that none of us would 
accept. I felt then and feel even more strongly now that health care 
reform will only be supported by the American people if they are 
assured that the personal privacy of their health care information is 
protected.
  Indeed, without confidence one's personal privacy will be protected 
many will be discouraged from seeking help from an improved health care 
system or taking advantage of the increased accessibility we are 
working so hard to create.
  In October last year we began a series of hearings before the 
Technology and the Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I was 
fascinated with smart card technology and the opportunities it presents 
to deliver better and more efficient health care services, especially 
in rural areas. The health security card can expedite care in medical 
emergencies and eliminate paperwork burdens. But it will only be 
accepted if it is used in a comprehensive and secure system protecting 
confidentiality of sensitive medical conditions and personal privacy.
  Fortunately, improved technology offers the promise of security and 
confidentiality and can allow levels of access limited to information 
necessary to the function of the person in the health care treatment 
and payment system.
  In January we continued our hearings and heard testimony from the 
Administration, health care providers and privacy advocates about the 
Health Security Act and the need to improve upon its privacy 
protections.
  In testimony I found among the most moving I have experienced in 
nearly 20 years in the Senate, the Subcommittee heard first-hand from 
Representative Nydia Velasquez, our House colleague who had sensitive 
medical information leaked about her during her campaign. She and her 
parents woke up to find disclosure of her attempted suicide smeared 
across the front pages of the New York tabloids. If any of us have 
reason to doubt how hurtful a loss of medical privacy can be, we need 
only talk to our House colleague.
  Unfortunately, this is not the only horrific story of a loss of 
personal privacy. I have talked with the widow of Arthur Ashe about her 
family's trauma when her husband was forced to confirm publicly that he 
carried the AIDS virus and how the family had to live its ordeal in the 
glare of media spotlight.
  We have also heard testimony from Jeffrey Rothfeder, who described in 
his book, Privacy for Sale, how a free-lance artist was denied health 
coverage by a number of insurance companies because someone had 
erroneously written in his health records that he was HIV-positive.
  The unauthorized disclosure and misuse of personal medical 
information has affected insurance coverage, employment opportunities, 
credit, reputation and a host of services for thousands of Americans. 
Let us not miss this opportunity to set the matter right through 
comprehensive Federal privacy protection legislation.
  As we began focusing on privacy and security needs last year, I was 
shocked to learn how catch-as-catch-can are the patchwork of State laws 
protecting privacy of personally identifiable medical records. A few 
years ago we passed legislation protecting records of our videotape 
rentals and library borrowings, but we have yet to provide even that 
level of privacy protection for our personal and sensitive health care 
data.
  Now is the time to accept the challenge and legislate so that the 
American people can have some assurance that their medical histories 
will not be the subject of public curiosity, commercial advantage or 
harmful disclosure.
  In my examination of the Health Security Act, I was encouraged by the 
fact that the administration clearly understands that health security 
must include assurances that personal health information will be kept 
private, confidential and secure from unauthorized disclosure. There is 
no doubt that the increased computerization of medical information has 
raised the stakes in privacy protection.
  The American public cares deeply about protecting their privacy. This 
has been demonstrated, again, most recently in the American Civil 
Liberties Union Foundation's Benchmark Survey on Privacy entitled 
``Live and Let Live'' wherein three out of four people expressed 
particular concern about computerized medical records held in databases 
used without the individual's consent. As policymakers, we must 
remember that the right to privacy is one of our most cherished 
freedoms--it is the right to be left alone and to choose what we will 
reveal of ourselves and what we will keep from others.
  The administration's health care reform proposal provides that 
privacy and security guidelines will be required for health data cards 
and computerized medical records. In this regard, the President is to 
be commended. The difficulties I had with the provisions of Health 
Security Act, as originally introduced, is that it delayed 
recommendations to Congress for consideration of comprehensive privacy 
legislation for 3 years and did not include a criminal penalty for 
unauthorized disclosure of someone's medical records.
  The bill we introduce today, the Health Care Privacy Protection Act 
seeks to provide a comprehensive framework for protecting the privacy 
of our medical records from the outset.
  This bill adds a number of important components necessary for health 
care reform legislation. It establishes in law the principle that a 
person's health information is to be protected and to be kept 
confidential. It creates both criminal and civil remedies for invasions 
of privacy for a person's health care information.
  The bill creates a set of rules and norms to govern the disclosure of 
personal health information and narrows the sharing of personal details 
within the health care system to the minimum necessary to provide care, 
allow for payment and to facilitate effective oversight. Special 
attention is paid to emergency medical situations, public health 
requirements and research.
  Further, this legislation would provide patients with a comprehensive 
set of rights of inspection and an opportunity to correct their own 
records, as well as information accounting for disclosures of those 
records.
  I want to commend Representative Condit, who chairs the House 
Subcommittee open Information, Justice, Transportation and Agriculture 
of the House Committee on Government Operations, for the leadership he 
is showing in this area. I have followed with interest the hearings he 
has recently held and companion legislation that he and Representative 
Velazquez introduced in the House. It is my hope and intention that 
introduction of the Health Care Privacy Protection Act moves us closer 
to our shared goal of enacting effective privacy protection for medical 
records.
  We have tried to simplify, clarify and strengthen the privacy 
protection provisions currently under discussion. We have also sought 
to accommodate legitimate oversight concerns so that we do not create 
unnecessary impediments to health care fraud investigations. Effective 
health care oversight is essential if a reformed health care system is 
to function and fulfill its intended goals. Otherwise, we risk 
establishing a publicly--sanctioned playground for the unscrupulous. 
Too much is being invested in health care reform to allow the resulting 
system to be the subject of undetected fraud or abuse.
  We look forward to working with our colleagues both here in the 
Senate and in the House as we refine this legislation. As Senator 
Kennedy prepared to mark up a Labor Committee bill, I have been 
consulting with him to ensure that privacy protection be included in 
that bill. I thank him and his able staff for the opportunity to work 
with them on this important issue and commend them for including health 
care privacy protections in the Labor Committee markup and for their 
longstanding commitment to personal privacy. I look forward to 
consulting with Senator Moynihan, as well, as the Finance Committee 
prepares for its markup and know of his strong resolve in this regard. 
With the help of Senators Riegle and Wofford, who have each shown 
sensitivity and leadership in this effort, we hope to provide a 
consensus on these important issues.
  I want to thank all of those who have been working with us on the 
issue of health information privacy and, in particular, wish to commend 
the Vermont Health Information Consortium, the American Hospital 
Association, the American Medical Association, the American Health 
Information Management Association, IBM, Equifax, the Working Group on 
Electronic Data Interchange, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the 
American Civil Liberties Union, and the Department of Health and Human 
Services for their tireless efforts in working to achieve a significant 
consensus on this important component of health care reform.
  With continuing support form the administration, health care 
providers and privacy advocates we can enact provisions to protect the 
privacy of the medical records of the American people in a reformed 
health care treatment and payment system in which health care security 
becomes a reality for all Americans.
                                 ______

      By Mr. EXON:
  S. 2132. A bill to authorize appropriations to carry out the Federal 
Railroad Safety Act of 1970, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


           federal railroad safety authorization act of 1994

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee, I am pleased and honored to introduce the 
Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1994 by the request of the Clinton 
administration. My highest priority as a member and chairman of the 
subcommittee has been safety.
  This Monday, the Nation arose to news of an unfortunate accident in 
North Carolina. As safe as rail transportation has become, this 
incident reminds us all that more needs to be done. My thoughts and 
prayers go out to the family of the engineer who lost his life and the 
passengers and crew who were injured in the accident. The good people 
of Smithfield, NC, the passengers and crew of the Silver Meteor showed 
great courage, compassion, and composure in coping with a difficult 
ordeal. I assure my colleagues and the passengers of the Silver Meteor 
that this accident will be carefully investigated by the Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee. If there is a gap in the Federal 
regulatory structure, especially as it relates to securing cargo, it 
will be closed.
  Rail transportation remains by far one of the safest modes 
of transportation. It is impossible to anticipate every possible 
circumstance that confronts any mode of transportation. While every 
accident is different, we can study each one to find ways to reduce 
risk. In general, the railroads and State and Federal Government have 
done a good job. The overall trend for rail accidents is down.

  On occasion, the Congress has had to nudge the Federal Rail 
Administration into action. I am pleased to report that the current 
Rail Administrator needs very little encouragement. Jolene Molitoris 
has revitalized the FRA and has brought a much-needed energy and 
enthusiasm to the work of the agency. The seriousness in which the 
Administrator has taken her responsibilities with regard to mandated 
rulemakings is most appreciated.
  The administration's bill is a basic reauthorization with authority 
to conduct, with the cooperation of labor and management, a pilot 
project on hours of service.
  This legislation is a very good start. I will of course have some 
ideas of my own to add to this bill. In addition to addressing any 
issues which may arise from the Silver Meteor crash, I would like to 
enhance this legislation with a meaningful grade crossing safety 
initiative. I have discussed this matter with members of the Clinton 
administration and applaud the Secretary of Transportation for his 
ambitious review of grade crossing safety measures.

  We need to take advantage of improved technologies to advance safety 
where the rails meet the roads. States must be encouraged to close or 
upgrade crossings, drivers and children need to be educated as to the 
dangers of crossings and held responsible for violating the law at 
crossings, and new priorities must be created to assure that the most 
dangerous crossings receive immediate attention.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with all interested parties 
to continue the good work which has been done in rail safety and to 
make America's railroads even safer. I ask unanimous consent that this 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2132

       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 ``Federal Railroad Safety 
     Authorization Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 214(a) of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 
     (45 U.S.C. 444(a)) is amended by striking the first sentence 
     and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act not to 
     exceed $68,289,000 for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998.

     SEC. 3. HOURS OF SERVICE PILOT PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--The Hours of Service Act (45 U.S.C. 61 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section;

     ``SEC. 7. HOURS OF SERVICE PILOT PROJECT.

       ``(a) A railroad or railroads, and all labor organizations 
     representing any directly affected covered service employees 
     of the railroad or railroads, may jointly petition the 
     Secretary of Transportation for approval of one or more pilot 
     projects to demonstrate the possible benefits of implementing 
     alternatives to the requirements of this Act, including, but 
     not limited to, those concerning maximum on-duty and minimum 
     off-duty periods. Based on such a joint petition, the 
     Secretary, after notice and opportunity for comment, may 
     waive, in whole or in part, compliance with this Act for a 
     period of no more than 2 years, if the Secretary determines 
     that such waiver of compliance is in the public interest and 
     is consistent with railroad safety. Any such waiver may, 
     based on a new petition, be extended for additional periods 
     of up to 2 years, after notice and opportunity for comment. 
     An explanation of any waiver granted under this section shall 
     be published in the Federal Register.
       ``(b) The Secretary shall submit to Congress no later than 
     June 1, 1996, a report that explains and analyzes the 
     effectiveness of any pilot projects approved under this 
     section.''
       (b) Civil Penalty.--The first sentence of section 5(a)(1) 
     of the Hours of Service Act (45 U.S.C. 64a(a)(1) is amended 
     by inserting immediately before `` shall be liable'' the 
     following: ``or that violates any provision of a waiver 
     applicable to that person that has been granted under section 
     7 of this Act.''

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL RAILROAD SAFETY ACT OF 
                   1970.

       The first sentence of section 209(f) of the Federal 
     Railroad Safety act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 438(f)) is amended by 
     inserting ``any of the Federal railroad safety laws, as 
     defined in section 212(e) of this title (except for the 
     Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), or'' immediately 
     after ``individual's violation of''.

     SEC. 5. BIENNIAL REPORTING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL 
                   RAILROAD SAFETY ACT OF 1970.

       (a) In General.--Section 211(a) of the Federal Railroad 
     Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 440(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``on or before July 
     1 of each year a comprehensive report on the administration 
     of this title for the preceding calendar year'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``every 2 years, on or before July 1 of the 
     year due, a comprehensive report on the administration of 
     this title for the preceding 2 calendar years'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``occurring in such 
     year'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``occurring during each 
     of the 2 preceding calendar years, by calendar year'';
       (3) in paragraphs (2), (3), and (6), respectively, by 
     striking ``year'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``years''; 
     and
       (4) in paragraphs (9) and (10), by striking ``during the 
     preceding calendar year'' each place it appears and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``during the preceding 2 calendar years''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The section heading for section 
     211 of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 
     440) is amended by striking ``ANNUAL REPORT'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``BIENNIAL REPORT''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Biden, Mr. 
        Metzenbaum, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Brown, Mr. DeConcini, 
        Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Bond, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Robb, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Wofford, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Nunn, and 
        Mr. Cochran):
  S.J. Res. 192. A joint resolution to designate October 1994 as 
``Crime Prevention Month''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                    national crime prevention month

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure 
that declares October 1994 to be National Crime Prevention Month. The 
purpose of this bill is to encourage Americans to join in the fight 
against crime.
  We all know that too many Americans live their lives in fear. We know 
of the tragic statistics that have caused us to question what kind of 
society we have become. Day after day we are reminded of how crime--and 
especially juvenile crime--has twisted the American dream.
  Well, Mr. President, the time has come for us to stop lamenting this 
fact and start taking bold steps to make our streets and neighborhoods 
safe. And we need to encourage preventative measures that stop crime 
before it happens.
  Crime Prevention Month does this by celebrating community 
partnerships and encouraging individuals, families and neighbors to 
come together in the fight against crime. Last year, during Crime 
Prevention Month, over 27 million Americans participated in crime 
prevention activities, established community watch groups, and took 
part in self-protection courses. Together, through involvement in these 
kinds of activities, we can stop crime before it occurs.

                          ____________________