[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, myself, and 
the manager of the bill, we want to propound a unanimous-consent 
request.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes under the control of 
the Senator from Arizona and 5 minutes under the control of the Senator 
from Massachusetts and that, at the expiration of that time, we vote. 
The yeas and nays have been requested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, under that unanimous-consent request, I 
ask the Senator from Arizona if I might be yielded up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk this 
afternoon--some constructive and some less so--about this resolution. 
It strikes me that the resolution is about prudence. A prudent nation, 
when faced with a building crisis, takes action. The President has 
expressed his willingness, and the Republican leader has expressed his 
desire that what we do would be in a bipartisan manner, that these are 
not times in which differences amongst parties ought to be prominent.
  Prudence says that we ought to be prepared. And to be prepared, 
prudence says that we ought to recognize a situation as we see it on 
the ground. And some of us, looking at the situation on the ground, 
find it a little bit alarming. Prudence says that we should pre-
position forces to take care of problems that might arise. This does 
two very clear, very simple, and very traditional diplomatic and 
military things:
  One, it demonstrates resolve.
  Two, it gives those on the ground, whose lives and positions are at 
stake, some confidence that their country is both watching and prepared 
to deal in their behalf.
  Prudence also says that we ought to jog the national conscience. The 
press has. But the Senate has an obligation to say, yes, Americans, 
there is a reason for concern. Your Senate is concerned and your 
Government is concerned, and it is calling on the President and 
Secretary of Defense to take action. This is an encouragement to, not a 
demand for, a behavior. So it strikes me that this resolution continues 
to reflect a desire for prudence and an anxiety that is thoroughly 
legitimate amongst the Members of this body.
  One of the things that we do not hear very much about is the massive 
number of American dependents whose lives and whose well-being are 
thoroughly at risk. Prudence says the Nation begins to think about 
those lives, and the welfare of those people as well, because there 
will not be time to act prudently should North Korea act irrationally. 
And nobody I know believes that they are incapable of irrational 
action. It is a nation which has demonstrated irrationality 
consistently.
  So it seems to me that this is, again, not a challenge to the 
President of the United States, but an encouragement that herein lies 
the Senate, saying to act prudently, we are with you, and we share your 
concern about the increasingly severe nature of that confrontation. And 
prudence says that it is not a time to act hysterically.
  I must say, Mr. President, that this is not a Gulf of Tonkin 
resolution, as it was characterized a while ago. This is nothing like 
that. It is not an authorization for hysterical action on the part of 
the United States. It is a call for considered action to be taken now 
in advance of a crisis that can only be exacerbated by action taken 
under crisis.
  There will be those--there always are--who claim that anything a 
strong nation does to take care of itself is destabilizing. But, Mr. 
President, the history of the world and our own history since the end 
of World War II has been that prudent, strong action, demonstrating 
will and confidence is anything but destabilizing. Quite to the 
contrary, it provides a reliable gauge of the intentions of the United 
States both to our allies and those who would confront us.
  Last, Mr. President, this also says something about SDI, an issue 
which we will visit when the armed services defense authorization is on 
the floor. But for Heaven's sake, the Government of the United States, 
Mr. Tony Lake, and others say the most destabilizing thing is the 
proliferation of missiles, and we are defanging our ability to confront 
them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Arizona and commend him for his 
outstanding work regarding the crisis in Korea. For 40 years, the truce 
between North and South Korea has held in large part because 38,000 
American troops have stood guard, a literal human tripwire, 
discouraging an invasion from the north.
  During the last year, those brave soldiers have been spun through the 
revolving-door policies of the current administration. Where they once 
stood as an invincible shield, they are now held hostage to the 
compromise, capitulation, and concessions of the Clinton 
administration. Each time the North threatens, the administration 
initially takes a tough stand and then retreats or reverses itself.
  Senator McCain has detailed the history of challenge and concession 
well. I was particularly struck by one sequence in this ongoing crisis. 
When the North Koreans added rocket launchers and artillery forces 
within striking distance of Seoul, the President responded by 
announcing we would meet this threat by dispatching Patriot missiles--
an appropriate, measured step. When the North challenged this step as 
provocative, the White House retreated and put the Patriots on a slow 
boat. Flip-flops, reversals, and retreat.
  The headlines today say it all. The headlines today: ``The U.S. 
Unveils Proposal for Sanctions.'' That is followed by the subheading: 
``But North Korea Will Be Given a Grace Period.''
  Mr. President, the North Koreans have had a grace period. In December 
1991, when the Bush administration threatened sanctions, North Korea 
agreed to sign a treaty with the IAEA. Instead of demanding that North 
Korea live up to those obligations, the Clinton team marched off on the 
course of compromise.
  The crisis has been brewing, as we know, for 16 months, a grace 
period which has afforded the North Koreans the opportunity to 
manipulate and exploit our policy of appeasement.
  Let us remember who we are up against. Kim Il-song is the man who 
cost the United States 55,246 lives during the Korean war. While I can 
understand Secretary Perry calling for imaginative and aggressive 
diplomatic actions, the time has passed for fancy foreign policy 
footsteps.
  George Will got it about right. This is what George Will said: If Kim 
Il-song feared sanctions, if he worried about international isolation, 
he would not be a Communist. It is as simple as that.
  I strongly support the Senator's amendment as a decisive statement of 
the Senate's resolve. Every single American serving in Korea, and each 
one of their family members, for that matter, our allies, the South 
Koreans, should understand we have the confidence of our convictions, 
and will take all appropriate steps to assure the safety of our 
soldiers and South Korea's security.
  Again, I commend the Senator from Arizona for his outstanding work in 
this area. I wish him well on his trip and look forward to getting a 
report when he gets back.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes, 51 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time has the Senator from Massachusetts?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes 
remaining, as well.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his 
kind words and his very thoughtful words on this issue. I would like to 
especially thank my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, for his 
cooperation and assistance on this issue. He and I have continued to 
work for a long time on issues of foreign policy concern to all of us.
  I would also like to thank my friend from Kentucky for his patience. 
He has gone through a many-day ordeal, attempting to get this very 
important legislation through. I certainly understand and appreciate 
the frustration he feels when the attention of the Senate is diverted 
from the issue at hand.
  I know that the Senator from Kentucky also understands that since I 
do not set the legislative agenda, I have to use the rules of the 
Senate as well as I can in order to bring what I believe is an 
important issue before the Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators D'Amato, Warner, 
McConnell, and Hutchison be added as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, initial wire reports indicate that former 
President Carter, as a result of his trip to Pyongyang, will be 
recommending that the sanctions proposed at this time to be brought 
before the Security Council of the United Nations be either postponed 
or canceled.
  Mr. President, when I heard of former President Carter's trip to 
North Korea, I predicted exactly this would happen, that the North 
Koreans would extend some kind of concession in return for which they 
would be able to stall further actions against them.
  Mr. President, it is important to remember why we went to the 
Security Council in the first place in order to seek sanctions against 
North Korea: Because they had destroyed our ability to find out what 
they had done with the material that they had obtained from the 1989 
shutdown of the facility before. In other words, we did not go to the 
Security Council to seek sanctions because of their threatening to 
withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  So now, if we follow former President Carter's recommendation, as I 
understand we may, then we will be back at the status quo and the North 
Koreans will not be punished for the violation of the Non-Proliferation 
Treaty, for which they have been condemned and sanctioned by the IAEA.
  Mr. President, I do not think that is appropriate. I think we should 
move forward to sanctions.
  Finally, I do not think there should be delay. I hope that the 
sanctions should be very tough, and I believe we can convince the 
Chinese and Japanese to go along.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the Senator from Rhode 
Island, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
  Mr. PELL. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, let us be creative. Whatever we may say 
today, whatever bravado we use, whatever implicit threats are made, I 
think we should be clear that we do not want war; nor do the South 
Koreans.
  As a South Korean official stated earlier today, war is something 
South Korea can never accept. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Wait, 
wait, is preferable to war, war.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Let me just say very quickly that this is a subject on which we 
really ought to be--and I know the Senator from Arizona agrees with 
this--having much greater Senate debate and much more significant 
discussion about this crisis.
  This is really, obviously, the first nuclear crisis in the post-cold-
war era, and it poses extraordinarily important serious questions to 
this Nation and to the international community.
  Americans must understand that this is not a question of the United 
States butting into an Asian issue. It is not a question of the United 
States merely talking about protecting South Korea. This is a question 
where vital national security interests of the United States are at 
stake.
  It is in our direct interest not to have a nuclear North Korea. It is 
in our direct interest not to have a country that has been willing to 
deal in weapons with Libya, Iraq, Iran, and other countries, outlaw 
nations. We cannot obviously face a world in which they can sell 
nuclear secrets to those nations. It is not in the United States 
interest to have that region become a region of potential nuclear 
conflict where, because North Korea had nuclear power, all of sudden 
our allies, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, have to consider having 
nuclear power in order to meet the potential of blackmail, the 
potential of preemptive strike, and a host of other scenarios which 
could be played out, ranging right up to terrorism.
  So this is a serious moment for us, and we all in the United States 
have to understand why this is important to the United States of 
America. We have spent years trying to prevent countries from having 
nuclear weapons. North Korea is a signatory to the nonproliferation 
treaty. We are about to go into the renegotiation of that treaty.
  We cannot possibly hope to contain other nations around the globe or 
reduce the risks of nuclear conflagration, especially in the wake of 
cold war, if North Korea were to be permitted to break out on its own, 
to turn heel on the treaty it has signed and prove that the 
international community is a paper tiger, unwilling to enforce 
international interests with respect to an issue like this.
  So this is worthy of our time. I congratulate the Senator from 
Arizona for bringing this effort before us, and I think we have reached 
an accommodation which, in the words of the amendment--apart from any 
rhetoric on the floor, but in the words of the amendment--states the 
interests of the United States and meets the needs of our country.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Simpson as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Again, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. I think the 
issue for the moment has been pretty well ventilated. I am assured and 
I am confident that we will address this issue in the days and weeks 
ahead, and hopefully we will resolve it in a peaceful manner.
  I share the view of the Senator from Massachusetts this could be the 
final crisis of the post-cold-war era, and I urge my colleagues to be 
well aware and well versed of the complications and complexities of the 
issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 1799, as 
amended, offered by the Senator from Arizona. On this question, the 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], the 
Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. 
Simon] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--3

     Dorgan
     Exon
     Hatfield

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boren
     Gramm
     Inouye
       
     Simon
       
  So the amendment (No. 1799), as amended, was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we are getting down fairly close with only 
three or four additional amendments that will be voted on. My 
colleague, Senator Pressler, and I have worked very hard. We now have 
four amendments that are acceptable. I want to explain each one of them 
briefly and submit them to the Chamber en bloc and try to get those 
behind us and then maybe get a unanimous-consent agreement, subject to 
the two leaders, working it out based on one contentious amendment and 
then we can know exactly where we will be and about how long it will 
take us.


              Amendment Nos. 1801, 1802 and 1803, En Bloc

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, with that statement, I send an amendment to 
the desk requiring for the continuation of radar approach control tower 
activities by Senator Levin; I have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution as 
it relates to the inspector general, Department of Transportation; I 
have a technical amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Lugar. I 
send these amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to considering the 
amendments en bloc? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1801, 1802, and 1803, en bloc.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments, en bloc, are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1801

    (Purpose: To require the continuation of radar approach control 
          activities at K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Michigan)

  Mr. FORD offered amendment No. 1801 for Mr. Levin.
       On page 37, below line 3, add the following:

     SEC. 27. REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUATION OF RADAR APPROACH 
                   CONTROL ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds the President's Five-Point 
     Plan for Revitalizing Base Closure Communities dated July 2, 
     1993, encourages all Federal agencies to marshall the 
     resources of such agencies in order to provide coordinated 
     assistance to communities that experience adverse economic 
     circumstances as the result of the closure of a military 
     installation under a base closure law.
       (b) Requirement.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall carry out on-going radar approach 
     control activities at K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Michigan. 
     The Administrator shall carry out such activities in the most 
     cost-effective manner using any funds available to the 
     Administrator.


                           amendment no. 1802

  Mr. FORD offered amendment No. 1802 for himself and Mr. Lugar.

       On page 21 of the committee modification, line 6, strike 
     ``carrier or foreign air carrier'' and insert ``carrier, or 
     foreign air carrier, for foreign air transportation''.


                           amendment no. 1803

       On page 29, line 10, strike ``and''.
       On page 29, line 11, strike the period and insert a 
     semicolon and the word ``and''.
       On page 29, lines 11 and 12, insert the following: ``(iii) 
     does not apply to the regulation of vehicle size and weight.
       On page 29, line 14, ``except'' and insert ``and''.
       On page 29, line 16, after ``routing'' insert ``shall not 
     be affected''.


                           amendment no. 1803

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the inspector 
              general of the Department of Transportation)

  Mr. FORD offered amendment No. 1803 for Mr. McCain.

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Sense of the Senate--
       It is the Sense of the Senate that the Inspector General of 
     the Department of Transportation in carrying out the duties 
     and responsibilities of the Inspector General Act of 1978 has 
     oversight responsibilities and may conduct and supervise 
     audits and investigations relating to any funds appropriated 
     by the Congress and made available for any programs or 
     operations at Washington National Airport and Dulles 
     International Airport, and that the Inspector General shall--
       (a) provide leadership and coordination and recommend 
     policies for activities designed to promote the economy, 
     efficiency, and effectiveness of such programs and 
     operations; and
       (b) act to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in such 
     programs and operations; and
       (c) inform the Secretary of the Department of 
     Transportation and the Congress about problems and 
     deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs 
     and operations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not the question 
is on agreeing to the amendments, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1801, 1802, and 1803), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, there are four amendments that I know of 
that will be considered tonight. Senator Metzenbaum has two amendments 
as it relates to former PATCO--I have PEPCO and PATCO; one is energy 
and one is controllers. He has those two amendments.
  Then Senator Harkin has an amendment as it relates to the Railroad 
Labor Act as it applies to airline crews outside the continental United 
States.
  I understand that Senator Nickles and maybe one other Senator has an 
amendment as it relates to child restraint seats in airlines. I have 
nothing on that. Does the Senator from South Dakota have anything on 
that? Those are the only three. And, of course, the Whitewater 
amendment, whether we take it up on this bill or not.
  So, Mr. President, I alert my colleagues, those are the amendments. 
If there are no other amendments, at some point--does the Senator from 
Colorado have an amendment?
  Mr. BROWN. Senator Heflin and I have an amendment.
  Mr. FORD. What does it relate to?
  Mr. BROWN. A sense-of-the-Senate and relates to the Equal Employment 
Opportunity guidelines. The reason we burden the bill with it here is 
because the comment period has run out. So it is a matter of essence 
and time that we have some expression before they finalize those 
guidelines.
  Mr. FORD. Is there any other amendment we might find? We have 
Whitewater, we had Korea, now we have the EEOC. Whatever comes next, I 
guess, is what anybody thinks of. I am going to try to get a unanimous 
consent agreement and shut these amendments off. I have worked on this 
too long and too hard to let it be weighted down. This has to stay on 
in conference. All of these amendments have to stay on in conference. I 
think I will be on conference. I would like to get a little cooperation 
instead of loading it down like a Christmas tree.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1804

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding the issuance 
   under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of administrative 
      guidelines applicable to religious harassment in employment)

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], for himself, Mr. 
     Heflin, Mr. Grassley, Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Burns, Mr. Mathews, 
     Mr. Gorton, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
     Pressler, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
     Gramm, and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 1804.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the liberties protected by our Constitution include 
     religious liberty protected by the first amendment;
       (2) citizens of the United States profess the beliefs of 
     almost every conceivable religion;
       (3) Congress has historically protected religious 
     expression even from governmental action not intended to be 
     hostile to religion;
       (4) the Supreme Court has written that ``the free exercise 
     of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe 
     and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires'';
       (5) the Supreme Court has firmly settled that under our 
     Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be 
     prohibited merely because the content of the ideas is 
     offensive to some;
       (6) Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
     of 1993 to restate and make clear again our intent and 
     position that religious liberty is and should forever be 
     granted protection from unwarranted and unjustified 
     government intrusions and burdens;
       (7) the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has written 
     proposed guidelines to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964, published in the Federal Register on October 1, 1993, 
     that expand the definition of religious harassment beyond 
     established legal standards set forth by the Supreme Court, 
     and that may result in the infringement of religious liberty;
       (8) such guidelines do not appropriately resolve issues 
     related to religious liberty and religious expression in the 
     workplace;
       (9) properly drawn guidelines for the determination of 
     religious harassment should provide appropriate guidance to 
     employers and employees and assist in the continued 
     preservation of religious liberty as guaranteed by the first 
     amendment;
       (10) the Commission states in its proposed guidelines that 
     it retains wholly separate guidelines for the determination 
     of sexual harassment because the Commission believes that 
     sexual harassment raises issues about human interaction that 
     are to some extent unique in comparison to other harassment 
     and may warrant separate treatment; and
       (11) the subject of religious harassment also raises issues 
     about human interaction that are to some extent unique in 
     comparison to other harassment, and thus warrants separate 
     treatment.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, for purposes of issuing final regulations under title 
     VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in connection with the 
     proposed guidelines published by the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission on October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 
     51266)--
       (1) the category of religion should be withdrawn from the 
     proposed guidelines and receive separate treatment from the 
     other categories of harassment;
       (2) any new guidelines for the determination of religious 
     harassment should be drafted so as to make explicitly clear 
     that symbols or expressions of religious belief consistent 
     with the first amendment and the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act of 1993 are not to be restricted and do not 
     constitute proof of harassment;
       (3) the Commission should hold public hearings on such new 
     proposed guidelines; and
       (4) the Commission should receive additional public comment 
     before issuing similar new regulations.

  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I allowed the measure to be read in full 
because it is simple and straightforward. I first want to address a 
question that I think was properly raised by the distinguished senior 
Senator from Kentucky. This amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate. It is 
not related to airports. I am sensitive to the concerns, what I believe 
are very legitimate concerns, of the Senator from Kentucky. The reason 
it is offered on this measure is that it is essential from a time point 
of view that this be considered and the Senate make its feelings known 
on this matter.
  The guidelines, what we are talking about here, were first published 
in the Record on October 1. The Federal Register filing received little 
notice. There were some comments toward the end of that period. They 
were of sufficient gravamen that they were reissued for a new comment 
period. That new comment period expired this week. Because we have had 
congressional hearings on this--Senator Heflin had held hearings in the 
Judiciary Committee. There is a 2-year grace period before the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission will act. But the reason for asking 
for this to be considered now by the Senate is simply that it is 
essential we make our views felt very quickly on this measure so that 
they can be considered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
when they decide what portion of these guidelines and regulations to 
finalize.
  If we did not move forward in this manner, we would not have the 
opportunity to impact them, and it is my belief that Members will, when 
they are familiar with the issue, be very strongly motivated to express 
their feelings on it.
  What the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has done is extend 
guidelines and regulations to the area of religion. This is not an area 
that they have had guidelines on before. Unfortunately, what they have 
done is basically provide the same kind of guidelines for religion as 
they have for sexual harassment. They are different subjects.
  Mr. President, the guidelines I believe should be much different. To 
equate a picture of Moses or of Martin Luther King or of Christ with a 
pornographic depiction in an office setting is absurd. To suggest that 
each can be used to prove harassment overlooks not only the freedom of 
speech and freedom of religion that attaches to the constitutional 
provisions in those areas but overlooks simple common sense. The 
reality is that preventing religious harassment in the workplace is 
appropriate, is a valid concern, and is something the Commission ought 
to address. But for them to make proof of harassment out of someone 
wearing a simple logo that indicates religious belief or the process of 
having a Bible or of having a calendar with Martin Luther King's 
picture on it is absurd. These are not proof of religious harassment. 
They are simple expressions of belief.
  Under the guidelines issued, companies will be responding, as one 
airline already has, with their own guidelines that will prevent 
freedom of expression in this area. One airline already has issued 
those guidelines, and they basically prohibit things that I believe 
most Members will consider absurd to ban. Here are some of the things 
that the guidelines that are being put out will restrict: Wearing a 
yarmulke could be considered proof of religious harassment. Now, that 
is absurd. Having a Christmas party could be proof of religious 
harassment. Having a Hanukkah party could be considered proof of 
religious harassment. Displaying a picture of Christ on a calendar on a 
desk or on a wall could be proof of religious harassment. Wearing a T-
shirt or hat, clothing which has any religious emblem or even a 
religious face on it could be considered proof of religious harassment.
  Mr. President, the list goes on and on and on. What the EEOC I think 
has inadvertently done is to come down with guidelines that will lead 
to unwarranted liability in the workplace and an absolute chilling 
effect on the freedom of expression that Americans prize so deeply.
  Let me emphasize, Mr. President, myself and the numerous cosponsors 
of this measure are sensitive to the concerns about religious 
harassment and believe strongly that religious harassment should be 
dealt with and should have guidelines that deal with it. But we just as 
strongly believe that the guidelines issued by the EEOC are not well 
thought out and, most important, we believe the suggestion that you 
ought to restrict freedom of expression in this area is absolutely 
inappropriate.
  It is my own belief that the question of religious harassment can be 
dealt with without extinguishing freedom of expression.
  Let me also emphasize for Members who look at the potential areas 
that could be considered proof of harassment that these are not 
itemized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These are 
guidelines that will result from their request. Businesses are 
literally put in a position of having to issue guidelines that restrict 
this kind of activity. If they do not, they will be subject to 
liability.
  So the meaning of this resolution and this amendment is quite simple. 
It asks the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to withdraw the 
guidelines they have put out, to hold new hearings, to move forward 
with guidelines that focus on stopping harassment in the workplace and, 
most important of all, make sure that simple expressions of ideas or 
convictions are not used as proof of harassment.
  That is basically what we are looking at. It is simple; it is 
straightforward; and it is direct. I wish to assure Members it does 
specifically mention and emphasize the need to address the problem of 
harassment in the workplace.
  For those who are interested, let me say that in checking with the 
Commission we find that 1.8 percent of the complaints brought before 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission do, indeed, relate to 
religion. It is not an area without problems. Approximately one-fifth 
of that 1.8 percent of the complaints did deal with religious 
harassment. So we recognize there is a problem there. We recognize 
there have been complaints there. We recognize there is a need for the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to issue regulations. But this 
is meant to send a message to the Commission that we do not want 
freedom of expression curtailed.
  I would like to read for the Members a copy of a letter that Senator 
Heflin received with regard to this, and I take the liberty of reading 
a letter that has been addressed to him, or at least summarizing it, 
because Senator Heflin is a cosponsor of this amendment, because he 
chaired the hearing on this matter.
  This is from the Society for Human Resource Management.

       Dear Senator Heflin:
       The Society for Human Resource Management would like to 
     share with you our concern regarding the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission's proposed rulemaking on harassment.
       SHRM is the leading voice of the human resource profession, 
     representing the interests of almost 60,000 professional and 
     student Members from around the world. SHRM provides its 
     membership with education and information services, 
     conferences and seminars, Government and media 
     representation, and publications that equip human resource 
     professionals to become leaders and decision makers within 
     their organizations.
       SHRM members are the individuals within U.S. corporations 
     who are responsible for ensuring employment decisions are 
     made without regard to race, sex, color, religion, national 
     origin, disability or veteran status. SHRM members are the 
     individuals who will be responsible for ensuring corporate 
     compliance with the proposed harassment guidelines. We are 
     therefore very concerned because we fear that the proposed 
     guidelines may impose an undue burden and create unnecessary 
     confusion in the workplace.
       As a result of input we have received from our members on 
     the proposal, we are most concerned about the proposed 
     guidelines regarding harassment based on religion.
       Initially, we would like to note that the EEOC has 
     apparently decided to issue these guidelines not because of 
     some upsurge in charges of religious harassment, or because 
     the existing prohibitions against harassment contained in 
     Title VII are inadequate.

  Mr. President, let me pause and interject. There are existing under 
current law remedies to deal with this problem.
  Let me continue on with the letter.

       Rather, these guidelines are being issued to partially 
     consolidate guidelines, ``reiterate and emphasize'' existing 
     law, provide ``more detailed information'' (despite no 
     evidence that such detailed information is necessary) and 
     because of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act. SHRM does not believe a case has been made by the EEOC 
     that these guidelines are necessary.
       Sec. 1609.1 (b) states that harassment is verbal behavior 
     that has ``the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, 
     hostile, or offensive work environment''. Harassing conduct 
     includes ``epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, or 
     threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts, that relate to . 
     . . religion.'' The standard for determining whether the 
     conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile or 
     abusive work environment would be based on what a 
     ``reasonable person'' would find abusive, including the 
     ``perspective of persons of the alleged victim's . . . 
     religion.''
       We believe that this standard will impose an impossible 
     burden on employers to restrict employees from expressing 
     their views on issues which might be construed as religious. 
     Under the proposed guidelines the simple expression of a 
     religious belief by one employee could be considered to be 
     religious harassment by another.

  Let me repeat that.

       Under the proposed guidelines, the simple expression of a 
     religious belief by one employee could be considered to be 
     religious harassment by another.
       Therefore, an employer would be required to restrict an 
     employee of the Muslim faith from talking about or describing 
     the religion because a Jewish employee might file a charge 
     that this discussion was hostile, intimidating, and created 
     an offensive work environment. An individual who strongly 
     disagreed with the Muslim faith could charge that those 
     talking about their faith were ``. . . unreasonably 
     interfering with the [individual's] . . . work performance''. 
     A pro-choice employee could claim religious discrimination 
     because a devout Catholic was discussing her prolife beliefs, 
     which are based upon religious convictions.
       While an employer could attempt to ban any discussion of 
     religion in the workplace in an effort to avoid liability 
     under the guidelines, this would be impossible to do.

  Mr. President, let me interject here. One airline, a very large 
employer in this Nation, has already issued guidelines that essentially 
do exactly that. They do it not because they want to stifle freedom of 
expression. They do it because, if they do not issue guidelines, their 
lawyers are telling them that they are subject to suit.
  Let me continue on with the letter.

       How could an employer establish rules spelling out what 
     subjects could be considered ``religious,'' and therefore 
     prohibited? Unlike race and sex, religion is not an immutable 
     characteristic. It is a system of beliefs and values. An 
     employer would have to be ever-vigilant to ensure that it was 
     aware of each individual employee's views (which might be 
     constantly changing) on religion to ensure that no one was 
     exposed to behaviors they felt to be harassing.

  Understand the guideline here. The standard is what someone feels is 
offensive and harassment. That standard not only involves some 61 
different religious affiliations in this country, but even among 
individuals it reflects their beliefs, their own feelings, and values 
which can change.
  Let me continue on with the letter.

       When the 1991 amendments to the Civil Rights Act were 
     enacted and created a right to punitive and compensatory 
     damages, the incentive to file complaints and to litigate 
     became stronger. By proposing guidelines which broadly define 
     religious harassment, EEOC is proposing to open the flood 
     gates to litigation charging employers with religious 
     harassment because employers failed to read the minds of 
     their employees and failed to know what each employee 
     considered to be religious harassment.
       At a time when employers are striving to value diversity in 
     the workforce, and urging all workers to treat and understand 
     co-workers as individuals, it is unfortunate that EEOC would 
     propose guidelines which would force employers to restrict 
     communication on such an important aspect of worker 
     diversity. It is particularly troublesome since employers 
     have an obligation under Title VII to provide accommodation 
     for individuals' religious beliefs. Employers will be caught 
     in the middle of two EEOC interpretations. Will an employer, 
     for example, be charged with allowing a hostile work 
     environment by accommodating an employee's request to wear 
     clothes dictated by that employee's religion, if the religion 
     offends another employee?
       SHRM believes that existing Title VII precedent and 
     interpretations provide adequate guidance and protection to 
     ensure that religious harassment is actionable. At a minimum, 
     however, SHRM believes that if the EEOC did not intend to 
     create such an overly broad and potentially burdensome 
     guideline for employers, then the EEOC must recast the 
     proposal and provide more guidance to employers on what 
     behaviors the agency will consider impermissible. The 
     difficulty in distinguishing between religious beliefs and 
     expression and expressions of values and opinions certainly 
     merit more detailed treatment by the agency on the subject.
       In addition, if the agency does re-propose religious 
     harassment guidelines, SHRM urges the Senate to recommend to 
     the EEOC that the guidelines be drafted to provide the 
     clearest guidance possible to employers. Specifically, SHRM 
     has found that the question and answer format used by the 
     EEOC in the agency's Americans With Disabilities Act 
     Technical Assistance Manual has been well received by our 
     members.
       For these reasons SHRM asks the Senate to encourage the 
     EEOC to withdraw the proposed guidelines on religious 
     harassment as overbroad and unnecessarily restrictive, or, at 
     a minimum, re-propose separate guidelines on religious 
     harassment that address these difficult areas.

  It is signed by their Vice President of Government and Public 
Affairs.
  Mr. President, ask unanimous consent that this be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 Society for Human


                                          Resource Management,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 15, 1994.
     Hon. Howell Heflin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Heflin: The Society for Human Resource 
     Management (SHRM) would like to share with you our concern 
     regarding the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 
     (EEOC) proposed rulemaking on harassment.
       SHRM is the leading voice of the human resource profession, 
     representing the interests of almost 60,000 professional and 
     student members from around the world. SHRM provides its 
     membership with education and information services, 
     conferences and seminars, government and media 
     representation, and publications that equip human resource 
     professionals to become leaders and decision makers within 
     their organizations.
       SHRM members are the individuals within U.S. corporations 
     who are responsible for ensuring employment decisions are 
     made without regard to race, sex, color, religion, national 
     origin, disability or veteran status. SHRM members are the 
     individuals who will be responsible for ensuring corporate 
     compliance with the proposed harassment guidelines. We are 
     therefore very concerned because we fear that the proposed 
     guidelines may impose an undue burden and create unnecessary 
     confusion in the workplace.
       As a result of input we have received from our members on 
     the proposal, we are most concerned about the proposed 
     guidelines regarding harassment based on religion.
       Initially, we would like to note that the EEOC has 
     apparently decided to issue these guidelines not because of 
     some upsurge in charges of religious harassment, or because 
     the existing prohibitions against harassment contained in 
     Title VII are inadequate. Rather, these guidelines are being 
     issued to partially consolidate guidelines, ``reiterate and 
     emphasize'' existing law, provide ``more detailed 
     information'' (despite no evidence that such detailed 
     information is necessary) and because of the enactment of 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act. SHRM does not believe 
     a case has been made by the EEOC that these guidelines are 
     necessary.
       Sec. 1609.1(b) states that harassment in verbal behavior 
     that has ``the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, 
     hostile, or offensive work environment.'' Harassing conduct 
     include ``epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, or 
     threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts, that relate to * 
     * * religion.'' The standard for determining whether the 
     conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile or 
     abusive work environment would be based on what a 
     ``reasonable person'' would find abusive, including the 
     ``perspective of persons of the alleged victim's * * * 
     religion.''
       We believe that this standard will impose an impossible 
     burden on employers to restrict employees from expressing 
     their views on issues which might be construed as religious. 
     Under the proposed guidelines the simple expression of a 
     religious belief by one employee could be considered to be 
     religious harassment by another.
       Therefore, an employer would be required to restrict an 
     employee of the Muslim faith from talking about or describing 
     the religion because a Jewish employee might file a charge 
     that this discussion was hostile, intimidating, and created 
     an offensive work environment. An individual who strongly 
     disagreed with the Muslim faith could charge that those 
     talking about their faith were ``* * * unreasonably 
     interfering with the [individual's] * * * work performance.'' 
     A pro-choice employee could claim religious discrimination 
     because a devout Catholic was discussing her pro-life 
     beliefs, which are based upon religious convictions.
       While an employer could attempt to ban any discussion of 
     religion in the workplace in an effort to avoid liability 
     under the guidelines, this would be impossible to do. How 
     could an employer establish rules spelling out what subjects 
     could be considered ``religious'', and therefore prohibited? 
     Unlike race and sex, religion is not an immutable 
     characteristic. It is a system of beliefs and values. An 
     employer would have to be ever-vigilant to ensure that it was 
     aware of each individual employee's views (which might be 
     constantly changing) on religion to ensure that no one was 
     exposed to behaviors they felt to be harassing.
       When the 1991 amendments to the Civil Rights Act were 
     enacted and created a right to punitive and compensatory 
     damages, the incentive to file complaints and to litigate 
     became stronger. By proposing guidelines which broadly define 
     religious harassment, EEOC is proposing to open the flood 
     gates to litigation charging employers with religious 
     harassment because employers failed to read the minds of 
     their employees and failed to know what each employee 
     considered to be religious harassment.
       At a time when employers are striving to value diversity in 
     the workforce, and urging all workers to treat and understand 
     co-workers as individuals, it is unfortunate that EEOC would 
     propose guidelines which would force employers to restrict 
     communication on such an important aspect of worker 
     diversity. It is particularly troublesome since employers 
     have an obligation under Title VII to provide accommodation 
     for individuals' religious beliefs. Employers will be caught 
     in the middle of two EEOC interpretations. Will an employer, 
     for example, be charged with allowing a hostile work 
     environment by accommodating an employee's request to wear 
     clothes dictated by that employee's religion, if the religion 
     offends another employee?
       SHRM believes that existing Title VII precedent and 
     interpretations provide adequate guidance and protection to 
     ensure that religious harassment is actionable. At a minimum, 
     however, SHRM believes that if the EEOC did not intend to 
     create such an overly broad and potentially burdensome 
     guideline for employers, then the EEOC must recast the 
     proposal and provide more guidance to employers on what 
     behaviors the agency will consider impermissible. The 
     difficulty in distinguishing between religious beliefs and 
     expression and expressions of values and opinions certainly 
     merit more detailed treatment by the agency on the subject.
       In addition, if the agency does re-propose religious 
     harassment guidelines, SHRM urges the Senate to recommend to 
     the EEOC that the guidelines be drafted to provide the 
     clearest guidance possible to employers. Specifically, SHRM 
     has found that the question and answer format used by the 
     EEOC in the agency's Americans With Disabilities Act 
     Technical Assistance Manual has been well received by our 
     members.
       For these reasons SHRM asks the Senate to encourage the 
     EEOC to withdraw the proposed guidelines on religious 
     harassment as overbroad and unnecessarily restrictive, or, at 
     a minimum, repropose separate guidelines on religious 
     harassment that address these difficult areas.
           Sincerely,

                                           Susan R. Meisinger,

                                             SPHR, Vice President,
                                    Government and Public Affairs.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the Society for Human Resource Management 
expresses their concerns about the trap that employers feel themselves 
caught in; that is, facing liability, facing lawsuits if they do not 
issue guidelines, and at the same time feeling they do not have 
adequate guidance for any guidelines that come into these areas.
  It is compounded by the fact that they have conflicting or 
potentially conflicting dictates coming out of the EEOC in title VII. 
What they are asking for basically is someone to step forward and make 
the rules clear. They are not objecting to complying. They are simply 
asking for help in knowing what the rules are and making sure that they 
are not at odds with each other.
  But I rise out of an additional concern. My concern is that we should 
not impose on the American working men and women restrictions on their 
ability to express their beliefs. Freedom of expression, even offensive 
expression, is a cherished right of Americans. We have chosen to deal 
with each other, not by silencing each other but allowing a competition 
of ideas in the marketplace; allowing people to express their ideas no 
matter how foolish, but trusting that the good common sense of the 
American people will sort out those problems rather than have 
Government regulate what we say.
  I believe sincerely that religious harassment, where it is a problem, 
should be addressed. I believe that the EEOC should issue guidelines 
that deal in the area of religious harassment. That is what this 
resolution and sense-of-the-Senate calls for. But I believe just as 
strongly that for the Federal Government and the EEOC to prohibit 
people from expressing their beliefs is absurd, that it violates the 
very tenet and the heart of what this Nation stands for. To deny people 
the right to express or articulate their beliefs or wear insignias that 
represent their beliefs is more characteristic of a Fascist society 
than the freedom and the sensibility that Americans have brought forth 
in their Constitution and the kind of basic freedom of expression that 
all Americans expect to have.
  I believe we can work out our problems far better if the EEOC goes 
back and rethinks their guidelines.
  As Members consider this, let me suggest one of the problems that is 
faced here. In setting a standard for what is offensive, we do not have 
one standard. We have a religious standard, based on people who are 
Catholic, Baptist, Prostestant, Methodist, Lutheran, Christian, 
Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Mormon, Church of Christ, and the list goes 
on. There are 61 recognized different religious groups. There are 
standards for each one that must be considered and restrictions on 
expressions that must be considered. My hope is that this body will 
vote overwhelmingly to ask the EEOC to reconsider their guidelines and 
to go on record as being opposed to making freedom of expression proof 
of harassment.
  It seems to me that this proposal by the EEOC has great danger in it 
in terms of the diversity of America and in terms of danger to our 
freedom of expression. I hope this Chamber will overwhelmingly endorse 
this sense-of-the-Senate and make it clear to the EEOC that these 
guidelines do not embody the kind of diversity and openness that we 
expect in American society.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Will the Senator from Colorado yield for a few 
questions?
  Mr. BROWN. I do not have the floor, but I would be glad to respond to 
any questions the Senator has.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. The Senator from Colorado has put up a list including 
such things as wearing a cross, a yarmulke, having a Christmas party or 
Hanukkah party, and various other things.
  Is it not a fact that there is nothing in the EEOC-proposed 
guidelines that addresses itself to any of those specific issues?
  Mr. BROWN. The Senator would be quite correct that these specific 
examples are not included in the guidelines. The reason they are 
brought forth here is that they are the kind of things that the 
guidelines will require the employer to restrict. As a matter of fact, 
one employer who already issued guidelines has come up with guidelines 
that will restrict these kinds of activities.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Would the Senator express the exact language of the 
EEOC-proposed guidelines that he finds offensive and finds are going to 
create problems for employers? I am having difficulty in understanding 
what it is the Senator is objecting to.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate the question, and it is a very appropriate 
question.
  My concern is that, under the EEOC guidelines and the related 
regulations and laws, these particular activities will become proof of 
religious harassment.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Just give me, if you would, please, the specific 
language that creates the problem, because as I understand it, the EEOC 
has proposed guidelines, and then the broad brush has been used to 
include, I think, these 25 or 30 items that you have listed over there. 
I am having difficulty in following how we get from those guidelines to 
these specifics.
  Mr. BROWN. Specifically, the portion of the guidelines that forms 
part of the basis for this comes as follows:

       Verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows 
     hostility or aversion toward an individual because of his or 
     her religion or that of his or her relatives, friends, or 
     associates.

  If the Senator would permit me, let me emphasize that my concern is 
not over the physical conduct. My concern is over the verbal portion of 
this. I guess my concern is also that the standard for what is 
determined to be verbal comments that are found offensive is a standard 
that fits the individual. In other words, it could be any one of 61 
different religious affiliations which would all have a different 
standard toward verbal comments.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. But none of us, if I may say to my colleague from 
Colorado--they are saying if you make some snide remark about some 
religious practice of yours, mine, or whatever the employee's religion 
might be, that could be a basis for sexual harassment. But you have 
carried it beyond that point. You have said that a woman or man wearing 
a cross or a yarmulke, or whatever be their designation or religious 
preference, that somehow that is being precluded by the EEOC. But as I 
understand what you are reading, all that the EEOC is saying is that if 
you make a snide remark or harass somebody by reason of their dress or 
conduct, that is sexual harassment.
  But the mere fact that somebody wears the yarmulke, cross, or 
whatever, that is not a problem, and they are not saying that it is. It 
just seems to me that you are carrying the reasoning beyond the reality 
of what is in the proposal.
  I would stand as strongly as you or anybody else on the whole 
question of the right of an individual at work to wear whatever he or 
she wants to wear and not to be bothered by reason of that fact, or 
harassed. But it seems to me that we are sort of reasoning from the 
specific to the absurd. I am having difficulty in following you. I am 
not sure we are in disagreement, but I think we are in disagreement. I 
think you have arrived at a conclusion that is an illogical conclusion 
based upon what the EEOC is attempting to do. I cannot see how you get 
there.
  Mr. BROWN. If I may respond to the distinguished Senator. Let me say 
that I do believe we are on the same track in terms of looking at this. 
I do not think there is a disagreement. Let me mention three points 
that I think may be helpful to the Senator, or at least I hope they 
will be.
  One, EEOC themselves admitted they have problems with these 
guidelines.
  Second, the word ``aversion''--and this has been acknowledged--that 
is included in those guidelines, they admit, does not have a statutory 
basis to it. The word ``aversion''--the reason I focus on that is 
because you could have a verbal comment that would merely create an 
aversion to someone, which is a very vague standard, not well defined 
and not in the statute, so that is a broad standard and a vague 
standard that, I think, causes problems.
  The third one, I think, goes right to the heart of your comment and 
concern. If you and I were setting the standard--and I do not mean to 
be presumptive for the Senator, but I think he referred to it--none of 
these things would be considered proof of harassment to either of us.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. That is correct. That would be my interpretation and 
yours.
  Mr. BROWN. And I think that is because we are both reasonable men. 
Others in this Chamber may not agree with that assessment--that we are 
reasonable. But I think they might, and I think they would agree that 
these are reasonable things. The problem here is that the test is not 
of a reasonable man; the test is of a reasonable person of each 
particular faith.
  So it is not the same standard. There is a test for a reasonable 
Catholic. There is a test for a reasonable Buddhist. There is a test 
for a reasonable Protestant.
  This is a floating test, not of a reasonable man overall test as we 
consider it in other areas of law, but a reasonable man test for 
someone of each individual's faith and each individual's reaction.
  That is part of the problems with the standards as they have come 
down. It is not an overall reasonable man test, a test that floats and 
changes with each individual.
  Lastly, let me say the concern I have, and it is the key point. It is 
how corporate attorneys, which are going to write these guidelines for 
companies, are going to take a look at the EEOC guidelines, and they 
are going to say, how do I protect our company from liability under 
these guidelines? And they are going to respond, as the U.S. airline 
already has, and come out with guidelines that will restrict all of 
these activities.
  The reason they will is that they want to make sure that no matter 
what individual is involved they are protected from offending them.
  It is complicated, I admit that, but it comes from the fact of the 
way corporations will respond to these guidelines.
  Let me lastly suggest to the distinguished Senator because I do 
believe we are on the same tract. I know the Senator wants to protect 
freedom of expression, and I know the Senator is sensitive and wants to 
protect people's freedom from being harassed on religious subjects.
  Let me say I join him in that. The language of this amendment is to 
do exactly that--to maintain the ability to protect people from 
harassment and also make it clear that simple expressions do not 
constitute proof of harassment.
  I want to invite the Senator, if there is a better way to say it in 
this resolution, I hope he will help us with that, because believe me 
it is not our intent to preclude or in any way inhibit the prohibition 
of harassment but we do want to get at this kind of fault.
  The Senator has been most kind with his time.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I think the difficulty the Senator 
from Colorado and I are having relates to the fact that he is talking 
about the acts of individual employees, the very ones he has spelled 
out in those charts. That is really not the issue. That is not the 
problem.
  The problem is not what the employee does. The problem is not the 
fact of the employee wearing a cross or a yarmulke, or whatever the 
case may be, because under no circumstances could that be sexual 
harassment.
  The problem is when the employer says that you may not wear a cross 
or the yarmulke or have a Christmas party or Chanukah party, or 
whatever the case may be.
  But I would like to accept the suggestions of the Senator from 
Colorado that we put in a quorum call and see if we can work out some 
language. Excuse me. I think the Senator from Alabama was seeking the 
floor and I did not mean to preclude that.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I simply want to 
make it clear what this resolution calls for. Let me quote it. I am 
reading from the second paragraph:

       Any new guidelines for the determination of religious 
     harassment should be drafted so as to make explicitly clear 
     that symbols or expressions of religious belief consistent 
     with the first amendment and the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act of 1993 are not to be restricted and do not 
     constitute proof of harassment.

  So that it is the focus of this. I do not think Members will have a 
problem with that when they look at it.
  Lastly, let me quote some guidelines that were already issued by a 
major airline in this country in response to EEOC dictates. This is 
from the airlines guidelines they issued.

  Technical operations personnel should not possess nor display in any 
manner on the premise any material which may be construed by anyone to 
have racial, religious, or sexual overtones, whether positive or 
negative, or which contain suggestive profanity or vulgarity.
  What we are literally talking about is anything that suggests or is 
displayed by anyone in any way related to religion. That is the way 
businesses are responding to these guidelines, and it is why we need 
the EEOC to perfect the guidelines.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. MIKULSKI). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the Brown-Heflin 
resolution. We have held hearings in the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Administrative Practices on the proposed EEOC guidelines.
  I want to say a few words, but first let me address the question of 
the distinguished Senator from Ohio.
  First, I think to understand and the answer to his question is that 
these are guidelines. They are not regulations. The purpose of 
guidelines is to give guidance, in this instance to employees as well 
as employers.
  I do not think there is any question that Senator Brown and I believe 
that there ought to be guidelines established to give guidance on the 
issue of religious harassment.
  The problem that was universally brought forth by all of the 
witnesses who testified at the committee is that the EEOC guidelines 
are vague and they are indefinite. When the Senator from Ohio asked the 
question, point to something here that creates such a problem, the 
problem is that they are vague and indefinite.
  The purpose of the guidelines is that they ought to establish such 
matters as the wearing of a yarmulke or the wearing of a cross in the 
lapel button is not a religious harassment. There are a number of 
different issues involved in developing such guidelines.
  Last year we passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and this 
is quite similar to the situation that arose relative to the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act. As my colleagues will recall in a case of 
Employment Division versus Smith, a closely divided court abandoned the 
compelling interest standard and dramatically weakened the 
constitutional protection for the freedom of religion. That case 
involved two Native American employees at a private drug and alcohol 
rehabilitation facility who were fired and denied unemployment benefits 
after admitting that they had ingested a controlled substance as a 
sacrament during a religious ceremony of a Native American church of 
which they were members.
  Congress reacted to this decision by passing, with the support of 
every conceivable religious group, the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act. Congress established what the guidelines for the courts, rather 
the standards for the courts, ought to be. The Government may 
substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it 
demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person first is 
in furtherance of a compelling Government interest and second is the 
least restrictive means of furthering that compelling Government 
interest.
  Now the EEOC proposed these guidelines on October 1, 1993, and put 
them out for comment. They have been out for comment, and that period 
was extended a second time.
  At the time of the guidelines original proposal, the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act had not been passed. But it seems to me that we 
have said to the Supreme Court of the United States that whatever 
decision you make, you ought to follow, first, whether or not the 
burden upon a person's exercise of religion is in furtherance of a 
compelling Government interest. Second, is the burden the least 
restrictive means of furthering that compelling Government interest.
  Now, if we are willing to say that to the Supreme Court, I think the 
EEOC ought to be guided by the same rationale, the same standards apply 
to the Supreme Court.
  This resolution calls on EEOC to withdraw religion from their present 
guidelines and to look at religious harassment separately. In my 
opinion, they ought to have a separate comment period, and public 
hearings. And they should come up in the end with guidelines to help 
employees and employers that set forth in some detail what is and is 
not religious harassment on the job.
  These guidelines are vague and indefinite. They include some broad, 
general standards. Adding to the problem the EEOC has lumped religion 
in together with race, color, gender, national origin, age, or 
disability all of which are protected from harassment on the job.
  And so what we are saying is withdraw religion from these particular 
guidelines. Let us look at religion separately.
  Religion occupies a different position from most of the other matters 
pertaining to harassment on the job. Therefore, it has a different 
status. First, because the first amendment gives you the right to the 
free exercise of religion and prohibits Congress and regulatory 
agencies from issuing regulations or laws that would, in effect, 
prohibit the free exercise of religion. The second factor which 
distinguishes religion is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which 
should be considered.
  When the guidelines were considered and published in October, there 
were only three of the five commissioners seated on the EEOC. They are 
all hold-overs from the previous administration. It seems to me that, 
by the time that final guidelines are considered, you will have--and I 
hope very shortly--a full EEOC membership for the consideration of this 
matter.
  There are a lot of things in the guidelines that go beyond existing 
law. Certainly, I do not think the guidelines are the least restrictive 
means of carrying out the issues pertaining to religious harassment in 
the workplace.
  There is the question of the guideline's reasonable person test and 
how an employer or employee must take into account the perspective of 
their fellow employees. That means, in effect, that you have to be a 
student of comparative religion to know the perspective of each 
employee. They may be Moslems, they may be Jewish, they may be 
Baptists, they may be Methodists, or any denomination and faith.
  The way that these guidelines are written and this language was taken 
from the sexual harassment language, which is separate. We should note 
the EEOC separated sexual harassment from all the other protected 
catagories and lumped everything else together.
  For an employer to know the perspective of every employee is quite a 
burden. The guidelines suggests to the employers that they should 
endeavor to ascertain the various religions and faiths of their 
employees, to try to notify all coworkers of the people of the various 
employees' religion. These guidelines may bring about a situation that 
results in the deprivation of freedom of religion or violates the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  So it seems to me there has been a lot of misunderstanding by the 
EEOC pertaining to this. The EEOC has extended liability in a manner 
that goes beyond what I think the law was ever intended to do. They 
expand the protection for conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or 
aversion toward an individual because of his or her religion or that of 
his or her relatives, friends, and associates.
  Now you are getting into a situation where you must know the 
perspective of a relative, of a friend, of an associate. My Lord, that 
is an impossible burden. How am I, as an employer, going to know that I 
have to be on the lookout, as a reasonable person, not to harass in any 
way, from a religious viewpoint, the third cousin of some employee? 
Well, that is actually what the EEOC has done. I mean, the Senator from 
Ohio speaks about something being absurd, but we have an absurd 
situation being provided by the EEOC.
  So, this resolution says that the EEOC ought to withdraw their 
present guidelines; have a separate procedure involving a comment 
period that is separate from the other harassment issues; bring about a 
public comment period and to have public hearings. Then consider the 
proposed guidelines. By doing that, I think we would find that we could 
clarify this issue completely. There would not be all of the 
objections. But right now, as it is written, it is left in the hands of 
an employer.
  An employer, therefore, turns to his lawyer, and he says, ``How am I 
going to avoid liability? What action can I take to prevent me from 
being sued?'' Well, the lawyer responds, ``What you are going to have 
to do is just say, make the workplace religion neutral. You cannot talk 
about religion on the job. You cannot wear any emblems or do anything 
like that.'' And the employer would issue orders pursuant to that 
advise to protect themselves. Well, if they did that, there would be a 
violation of the free exercise of religioun clause. So, what we have 
here is a proposal which makes no sense.
  There are few freedoms more sacred to our way of life than religious 
freedom. I happen to have grown up in a Methodist parsonage, and prayer 
and faith played a central role in my life. Added to this, is a deep 
respect for the Constitution which has come over the years from being 
involved in public service as an attorney and as a judge.
  Over the past few months, there has been a great debate and public 
outcry over these proposed guidelines on religious harassment in the 
workplace. While I believe that the EEOC probably had good intentions, 
the effect of the guidelines will be to create a workplace in which 
religious freedom is stifled and employers are put into an untenable 
position.
  I chaired a hearing on June 9 regarding this issue. I called it when 
I realized what the EEOC was proposing. We had a forum and we had 
representatives from the ACLU, the American Jewish Congress, the 
Southern Baptist Convention. There was also a labor lawyer from the 
management perspective, and a constitutional authority, a law school 
professor. Every one of them agreed that the guidelines were vague, 
indefinite, and ought to be rewritten.
  We have had other people respond. I have a letter that I would like 
to put into the Record from the Society for Human Resource Management 
which is very critical of the guidelines. Let me read a part of it. It 
reads:
       We believe that this standard will impose an impossible 
     burden on employers to restrict employees from expressing 
     their views on issues which might be construed as religious. 
     Under the proposed guidelines the simple expression of a 
     religious belief by one employee could be considered to be 
     religious harassment by another.
       Therefore, an employer would be required to restrict an 
     employee of the Muslim faith from talking about or describing 
     the religion because a Jewish employee might file a charge 
     that this discussion was hostile, intimidating, and created 
     an offensive work environment. An individual who strongly 
     disagreed with the Muslim faith could charge that those 
     talking about their faith were ``. . . unreasonably 
     interfering with the [individual's] . . . work performance''. 
     A pro-choice employee could claim religious discrimination 
     because a devout Catholic was discussing her prolife beliefs, 
     which are based upon religious convictions.

  I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my speech that this 
letter from the Society of Human Resource Management be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HEFLIN. I found numerous problems with the proposed guidelines, 
including that the guidelines do not make it necessary for an employee 
to inform the employer of his or her objection to the offensive 
behavior. If you have repetitive instances where a person is constantly 
after another employee, that can be harassment. The person should have 
to put the company that he is working for on notice, or at least the 
foreman or the supervisor that he considers the behavior offensive. 
Under these guidelines it is not necessary for the employee to inform 
the employer of his or her objection.
  Also, they expand the employer's liability beyond comments directed 
to the employee to include comments that show aversion--and averse is a 
word which needs to be clarified or defined to give some more guidance. 
Frankly, I think it ought not to be used--``to the religious belief of 
employees,'' or to the employee's ``friends, relatives and 
associates.''
  One of the most significant departures from established law and 
precedent is the subjective, and vague, reasonable person test, which 
would require the employer to be conscious of each employee's 
individual religious views.
  The expansion of the reasonable person test to something that is 
inherently personal and subjective will put employers in the position 
of being liable for actions that they may not know to be offensive.
  There is a consensus on all sides of the political and religious 
spectrum that these guidelines, as currently worded, are seriously 
flawed at best. To be sure, we all want to do whatever is possible to 
prevent harassment of any kind in the workplace. However, we cannot do 
this as a trade-off for religious freedom.
  We also cannot forget that these guidelines as worded will create a 
tremendous burden for employers who would be forced to make policies in 
anticipation of employee reactions to almost every manifestation of 
religious belief. In fact, I have been contacted by a number of human 
resource management associations about it that are concerned that the 
guidelines will impose an impossible burden on employers in managing 
their employees.
  Along with Senator Hank Brown, I want to introduce the other 
cosponsors who are sponsoring this. The cosponsors of this resolution 
are: Senator Grassley, Senator DeConcini, Senator Burns, Senator 
Mathews, Senator Gorton, Senator Cochran, Senator Baucus, Senator 
Hutchison, Senator Pressler, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Smith, 
Senator Nickles, and Senator Gramm of Texas.
  So as you can see, it is a wide group of Senators from both sides of 
the aisle who have joined in this resolution.
  I believe the steps we are advocating will provide an opportunity for 
the EEOC to clear up the confusion and the concern raised by these 
proposed guidelines. I am optimistic that this resolution will provide 
a reasonable process by which religious freedom can be provided for in 
a way that is consistent with the first amendment, Title VII of the 
1964 Civil Rights Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 
1993.
  Let me just say it is my understanding that the EEOC is aware of many 
of the problems involved with these guidelines and is working to clear 
up some of these problems. Nonetheless, I do think religion should be 
looked at in a separate procedure. No other matter pertaining to 
harassment has the protections that religion has. If you stop and think 
about constitutional protection and the laws that have been passed. It 
is clear that there are standards that the Supreme Court follows and 
any guidelines should follow those same standards. It seems to me the 
same standards ought to be followed by the EEOC.
  As someone who has lived through some of the most difficult and 
changing times in American history, I must observe that the security 
and resulting cynicism of modern times has led many to grow very 
complacent in support of our morals, values, and institutions. You look 
around us, there is a hardening shell of cynicism that fosters this 
modern society's disrespectful attitude toward some of our most basic 
institutions: schools, families, marriages, expression of faith and 
worship. Nothing that the Government does should add to the cynicism 
that already exists.
  Let me read the resolution as to resolving what it does. Some people 
misunderstand this. It says:

       It is the sense of the Congress that, for purposes of 
     issuing final regulations under title VII of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 in connection with the proposed guidelines 
     published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on 
     October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266)--
       (1) the category of religion should be withdrawn from the 
     proposed guidelines at this time; and receive separate 
     treatment from the other categories of harassment,
       (2) any new guidelines for the determination of religious 
     harassment should be drafted so as to make explicitly clear 
     that symbols or expressions of religious belief consistent 
     with the first amendment and the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act of 1993 are not to be restricted and do not 
     constitute proof of harassment;
       (3) the Commission should hold public hearings on such new 
     proposed guidelines; and
       (4) the Commission should receive additional public comment 
     before issuing similar new regulations.

  I do not think many people would disagree with those provisions if 
they read it and understood it. The resolution is being proposed for 
the purpose of clarifying it, to remove the vagueness in it, for the 
EEOC to be more specific, and to give protection to certain things that 
are commonly accepted.
  It is commonly accepted to wear a yarmulke. It is commonly accepted 
to wear a religious fish. It is commonly accepted that Bibles are 
allowed to be on officers' desks or supervisors' desks. You go down the 
line in regards to the very sample of actions that Senator Brown has 
brought to the Senate's attention and all could be prohibited.
  Any guidelines that are adopted should meet the standards of the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The standard is that there must be a 
compelling Government interest, and it must be the least restrictive 
means of obtaining that compelling Government interest.
  So, I feel that this resolution is a good resolution and ought to be 
adopted.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                 Society for Human


                                          Resource Management,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 15, 1994.
     Hon. Howell Heflin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Heflin: The society for Human Resource 
     Management (SHRM) would like to share with you our concern 
     regarding the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 
     (EEOC) proposed rulemaking on harassment.
       SHRM is the leading voice of the human resource profession, 
     representing the interests of almost 60,000 professional and 
     student members from around the world. SHRM provides its 
     membership with education and information services, 
     conferences and seminars, government and media 
     representation, and publications that equip human resource 
     professionals to become leaders and decision makers within 
     their organizations.
       SHRM members are the individuals within U.S. corporations 
     who are responsible for ensuring employment decisions are 
     made without regard to race, sex, color, religion, national 
     origin, disability or veteran status. SHRM members are the 
     individuals who will be responsible for ensuring corporate 
     compliance with the proposed harassment guidelines. We are 
     therefore very concerned because we fear that the proposed 
     guidelines may impose an undue burden and create unnecessary 
     confusion in the workplace.
       As a result of input we have received from our members on 
     the proposal, we are most concerned about the proposed 
     guidelines regarding harassment based on religion.
       Initially, we would like to note that the EEOC has 
     apparently decided to issue these guidelines not because of 
     some upsurge in charges of religious harassment, or because 
     the existing prohibitions against harassment contained in 
     Title VII are inadequate. Rather, these guidelines are being 
     issued to partially consolidate guidelines, ``reiterate and 
     emphasize'' existing law, provide ``more detailed 
     information'' (despite no evidence that such detailed 
     information is necessary) and because of the enactment of 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act. SHRM does not believe 
     a case has been made by the EEOC that these guidelines are 
     necessary.
       Sec. 1609.1 (b) states that harassment is verbal behavior 
     that has ``the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, 
     hostile, or offensive work environment''. Harassing conduct 
     includes ``epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, or 
     threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts, that relate to * 
     * * religion.'' The standard for determining whether the 
     conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile or 
     abusive work environment would be based on what a 
     ``reasonable person'' would find abusive, including the 
     ``perspective of persons of the alleged victim's * * * 
     religion.''
       We believe that this standard will impose an impossible 
     burden on employers to restrict employees from expressing 
     their views on issues which might be construed as religious. 
     Under the proposed guidelines the simple expression of a 
     religious belief by one employee could be considered to be 
     religious harassment by another.
       Therefore, an employer would be required to restrict an 
     employee of the Muslim faith from talking about or describing 
     the religion because a Jewish employee might file a charge 
     that this discussion was hostile, intimidating, and created 
     an offensive work environment. An individual who strongly 
     disagreed with the Muslim faith could charge that those 
     talking about their faith were ``* * * unreasonably 
     interfering with the [individual's] * * * work performance''. 
     A pro-choice employee could claim religious discrimination 
     because a devout Catholic was discussing her pro-life 
     beliefs, which are based upon religious convictions.
       While an employer could attempt to ban any discussion of 
     religion in the workplace in an effort to avoid liability 
     under the guidelines, this would be impossible to do. How 
     could an employer establish rules spelling out what subjects 
     could be considered ``religious'', and therefore prohibited? 
     Unlike race and sex, religion is not an immutable 
     characteristic. It is a system of beliefs and values. An 
     employer would have to be ever-vigilant to ensure that it was 
     aware of each individual employee's views (which might be 
     constantly changing) on religion to ensure that no one was 
     exposed to behaviors they felt to be harassing.
       When the 1991 amendments to the Civil Rights Act were 
     enacted and created a right to punitive and compensatory 
     damages, the incentive to file complaints and to litigate 
     became stronger. By proposing guidelines which broadly define 
     religious harassment, EEOC is proposing to open the flood 
     gates to litigation charging employers with religious 
     harassment because employers failed to read the minds of 
     their employees and failed to know what each employee 
     considered to be religious harassment.
       At a time when employers are striving to value diversity in 
     the workforce, and urging all workers to treat and understand 
     coworkers as individuals, it is unfortunate that EEOC would 
     propose guidelines which would force employers to restrict 
     communication on such an important aspect of worker 
     diversity. It is particularly troublesome since employers 
     have an obligation under Title VII to provide accommodation 
     for individuals' religious beliefs. Employers will be caught 
     in the middle of two EEOC interpretations. Will an employer, 
     for example, be charged with allowing a hostile work 
     environment by accommodating an employee's request to wear 
     clothes dictated by that employee's religion, if the religion 
     offends another employee?
       SHRM believes that existing Title VII precedent and 
     interpretations provide adequate guidance and protection to 
     ensure that religious harassment is actionable. At a minimum, 
     however, SHRM believes that if the EEOC did not intend to 
     create such an overly broad and potentially burdensome 
     guideline for employers, then the EEOC must recast the 
     proposal and provide more guidance to employers on what 
     behaviors the agency will consider impermissible. The 
     difficulty in distinguishing between religious beliefs and 
     expression and expressions of values and opinions certainly 
     merit more detailed treatment by the agency on the subject.
       In addition, if the agency does re-propose religious 
     harassment guidelines, SHRM urges the Senate to recommend to 
     the EEOC that the guidelines be drafted to provide the 
     clearest guidance possible to employers. Specifically, SHRM 
     has found that the question and answer format used by the 
     EEOC in the agency's Americans With Disabilities Act 
     Technical Assistance Manual has been well received by our 
     members.
       For these reasons SHRM asks the Senate to encourage the 
     EEOC to withdraw the proposed guidelines on religious 
     harassment as overbroad and unnecessarily restrictive, or, at 
     a minimum, repropose separate guidelines on religious 
     harassment that address these difficult areas.
           Sincerely,

                                           Susan R. Meisinger,

                                                   Vice President,
                                    Government and Public Affairs.

  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Colorado, 
Senator Metzenbaum wished to be notified as soon as Senator Heflin was 
through speaking. I believe the Senator is close to some sort of 
agreement?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes. I have been able to reach agreement with Senator 
Metzenbaum. At the time the Senator feels is appropriate, I would like 
to offer a Metzenbaum-Brown amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator withhold until I notify Senator 
Metzenbaum?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I now suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1804, As Modified

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I send to the desk a modification of my 
amendment that I have worked out with Senator Metzenbaum and Senator 
Heflin. Let me just outline those changes.
  They eliminate some of the language on page 2 and page 3 and in the 
resolve clause under paragraph 1, they delete this language at the end 
of the sentence:

       *-*-* and receive separate treatment from the other 
     categories of harassment.

  It substitutes therefor ``at this time.'' Paragraph 1 would then 
read:

       The category of religion should be withdrawn from the 
     proposed guidelines at this time.

  And then the balance of the resolve clause continues on.
  Madam President, I send these modifications to the desk and ask they 
be incorporated in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment, with its modifications, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . RELIGION LIBERTY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the liberties protected by our Constitution include 
     religious liberty protected by the first amendment;
       (2) citizens of the United States profess the beliefs of 
     almost every conceivable religion;
       (3) Congress has historically protected religious 
     expression even from government action not intended to be 
     hostile to religion;
       (4) the Supreme Court has written that ``the free exercise 
     of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe 
     and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires'';
       (5) the Supreme Court has firmly settled that under our 
     Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be 
     prohibited merely because the content of the ideas is 
     offensive to some;
       (6) Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
     of 1993 to restate and make clear again our intent and 
     position that religious liberty is and should forever be 
     granted protection from unwarranted and unjustified 
     government intrusions and burdens;
       (7) the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has written 
     proposed guidelines to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964, published in the Federal Register on October 1, 1993, 
     that may result in the infringement of religious liberty;
       (8) such guidelines do not appropriately resolve issues 
     related to religious liberty and religious expression in the 
     workplace;
       (9) properly drawn guidelines for the determination of 
     religious harassment should provide appropriate guidance to 
     employers and employees and assist in the continued 
     preservation of religious liberty as guaranteed by the first 
     amendment;
       (10) the Commission states in its proposed guidelines that 
     it retains wholly separate guidelines for the determination 
     of sexual harassment because the Commission believes that 
     sexual harassment raises issues about human interaction that 
     are to some extent unique in comparison to other harassment 
     and may warrant separate treatment; and
       (11) the subject of religious harassment also raises issues 
     about human interaction that are to some extent unique in 
     comparison to other harassment.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, for purposes of issuing final regulations under title 
     VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in connection with the 
     proposed guidelines published by the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission on October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 
     51266)--
       (1) the category of religion should be withdrawn from the 
     proposed guidelines at this time;
       (2) any new guidelines for the determination of religious 
     harassment should be drafted so as to make explicitly clear 
     that symbols or expressions of religious belief consistent 
     with the first amendment and the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act of 1993 are not be to restricted and do not 
     constitute proof of harassment;
       (3) the Commission should hold public hearings on such new 
     proposed guidelines; and
       (4) the Commission should receive additional public comment 
     before issuing similar new regulations.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Murkowski and Durenberger be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I have not looked at these modifications 
yet. I would like to review them a little bit before we move forward.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I have discussed this procedure with the 
participants on the EEOC amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment presented by Senator Brown, of Colorado, be set aside 
temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment will be set aside.


                  gainesville airport industrial park

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask if the distinguished chairman of 
the Aviation Subcommittee would be wiling to turn his attention to the 
subject of the Gainesville Airport Authority and the Airport Industrial 
Park the city of Gainesville would like to develop adjacent to the 
airport.
  Mr. FORD. I am familiar with this issue and would be pleased to 
discuss it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The city of Gainesville owns about 1,900 acres of 
property which surrounds the Gainesville Airport. It has long been the 
city's desire to develop this land in a manner that will benefit both 
the airport authority and the local community.
  Unfortunately, deed restrictions and covenants on the land have 
hampered the city's efforts to develop the Airport Industrial Park. 
Meanwhile, the city has expended considerable time and effort to 
develop comprehensive land use and development master plans; a portion 
of the Industrial Park lands, which is owned by the city, has recently 
been subdivided and is available for industrial development subject to 
FAA approval.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation's airport compliance 
requirements contain the general policy for a total release which would 
permit the sale and disposal of this property. My understanding is that 
this policy allows for property which is no longer needed to directly 
support an airport activity or purpose to be released for sale or 
disposal. However, this policy also indicates that the disposal must 
produce an equal or greater benefit to the airport than the continued 
retention of the land.
  Madam President, one thing is abundantly clear--continued retention 
of the land is producing no benefit at all to the city, the airport 
authority, or anyone else. The primary draw for commercial air service 
to the Gainesville Airport is its proximity to the University of 
Florida. Maintenance and future expansion of this service is dependent 
on establishing new sources of demand, the Gainesville has identified 
the Industrial Park as a primary source of new development.
  The city seeks approval to modify existing restrictions in order to 
permit the sale of one or more Industrial Park parcels at below market 
value so as to enable the eventual development of the park. Federal 
Aviation Administration [FAA] approval is needed to accomplish this 
transaction in a manner that will not penalize the airport authority 
with regard to its receipt of formula funds under the Airport 
Improvement Program. Further, the approval should clarify that this 
collaborative agreement to develop the park does not constitute a 
diversion of revenues.
  The city of Gainesville has been attempting for years to attract 
development in this area and has been unable to do so because of the 
constraint that it must conduct all transactions at fair market value. 
The eventual revenues generated from the Airport Industrial Park would 
contribute to the funding of the airport's operations, stimulate 
increased use of the airport, and create long-term benefits to the 
entire area.

  The city wishes to be a catalyst to encourage the initial development 
of the Airport Industrial Park through the release of one or more of 
the subdivided lots from the restrictions and reverter clauses on a 
portion of the property. This action would allow the city to offer the 
property for development at less than fair market value, if needed, 
without penalty to airport authority. This initial development is 
intended to attract seed projects to stimulate further development.
  I know the chairman is already aware of the situation as I have just 
described it, but I wanted it to be a part of the record to establish 
the good intentions on the part of the city and the potential benefits 
to the Gainesville community--including the airport authority--if this 
project proceeds as envisioned.
  At this time, I seek the chairman's comments on three specific issues 
pertaining to the Gainesville Airport Industrial Park.
  First, would the Senator from Kentucky agree that the FAA should 
proceed with the agreement to allow the city of Gainesville to sell a 
portion of the industrial park land potentially at below market value 
in order to spur investment in the park?
  Mr. FORD. Yes. This seems like a great economic development 
initiative which will benefit the Gainesville Airport Authority, the 
adjacent Airport Industrial Park, and the local community.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The second area is the issue of revenue diversion. Given 
the fact that there is no revenue generated by the industrial park at 
this time, despite a concerted effort by the city to bring new 
businesses there, would the chairman agree that sale of certain of the 
park's lots--even if those sales required discounts below market 
value--would not constitute a diversion of revenue from the airport 
authority?
  Mr. FORD. I agree that approval of the plan would not contravene 
congressional intent on the issue of revenue diversion. The city's 
goal, after all, is to create revenue for the airport authority where 
there is none today and no apparent potential for any without future 
development.
  Mr. GRAHAM. That is most welcome guidance, and I hope the FAA will be 
mindful of the interpretation made by the chairman of the Aviation 
Subcommittee.
  The final issue on which I seek clarification pertains to the Airport 
Improvement Program funds received by the Gainesville Airport 
Authority. While previous AIP funds have been utilized to create access 
roads across the industrial park lands to FAA facilities, city 
officials and I are concerned that the FAA could interpret these past 
expenditures as an entitlement to offset any revenue generated by the 
Industrial Park with reductions in AIP grants. Would the chairman agree 
that the release and sale of these lots should not negatively affect 
AIP receipts by the Gainesville Airport Authority?

  Mr. FORD. Yes. The Senate has before it legislation whose primary 
purpose is to further the development and maintenance of America's 
airports. Consideration of issues such as the Industrial Park in 
Gainesville must be framed with that primary goal in mind. I cannot see 
how the Gainesville Airport Authority benefits by not allowing the 
park's development. Further, I see no reason why the authority should 
be penalized for this collaborative initiative that should ultimately 
increase benefits to the FAA and the authority.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to extend my gratitude to 
the Senator from Kentucky for his attention to this issue of great 
concern to the Gainesville community. Throughout consideration of his 
legislation, he and his staff have been most accommodating.
  I sincerely hope that the FAA will work cooperatively with the city 
of Gainesville as it seeks to diversify its airport's clientele and 
simultaneously undertake an important economic development initiative 
for the area. Toward that end, the counsel and guidance from the 
chairman will be most helpful as the city continues its conversations 
with the FAA and works to finalize this process.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, it had been my intention to offer an 
amendment that some refer to as ``diversion'' or ``revenue sharing.''
  The cost of flying on commercial airlines continues to increase due 
in part to added fees and taxes associated with constructing and 
maintaining the infrastructure at airports. In part, this bill seeks to 
address these rising costs by somewhat shifting the balance toward a 
more level negotiating status between cities and airlines.
  However, we have failed to provide for--as a matter of fact we 
continue to prohibit by law--is an incentive for entrepreneurship to 
reduce these costs by providing for new economic activity at our 
airports.
  I believe it might be possible for airports to develop new revenue 
streams--coming entirely from the voluntary expenditure of money by the 
traveling public--which could partially supplant increased costs borne 
by airlines and existing Federal grants. And, this new business might 
even generate sufficient profits which could be used for pay for police 
protection or other services provided to the traveling public by our 
cities.
  I have encountered stiff opposition, in part due to what I believe is 
the mistaken notion that I support the immediate transfer of funds from 
airports to city coffers with the shortfall being picked up by 
increasing fees paid by airlines and increasing grants from the Federal 
Government. Let me state clearly that I would oppose such a plan.
  However, I also oppose a blanket statutory prohibition to the 
American entrepreneurial spirit.
  I have had a few discussions with the chairman of the Aviation 
Subcommittee and know that this matter is very complicated due in part 
to the many different revenue streams that exist today. However, I do 
not believe it is too complicated for us to provide for this 
possibility without upsetting the fine aviation transportation system 
in place today. The chairman has indicated another aviation bill will 
be considered this year and has pledged to explore with me the 
possibility of drafting such a compromise. Without asking him to offer 
his support for a plan yet to be negotiated, I ask my friend, the 
senior Senator from Kentucky, if that is his understanding.
  Mr. FORD. I agree with Senator Dole that airports should develop new 
revenue streams to lower the cost to the traveling public. 
Entrepreneurship should be encouraged. Nothing in the carefully crafted 
compromise discourages that.
  Existing law contains a prohibition on revenue diversion--this bill 
here restates that commitment and provides DOT the tools to address 
illegal revenue diversion.
  I recognize the Senator's desire to continue to seek a mechanism to 
allow funds to be diverted. However, having spent the last 5 or 6 
months debating, negotiating, and crafting a compromise supported by 
the entire aviation community, I do not want to suggest to my colleague 
that a solution is feasible. I look forward to working with him to 
reach a better understanding of the problems and solutions that are 
feasible.


                           amendment no. 1805

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to make available 
              information on the disinsection of aircraft)

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I have an agreed-upon amendment that is 
presented by Senator Leahy. I send the Leahy amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1805.

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the committee substitute, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 26. INFORMATION ON DISINSECTION OF AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Availability of Information.--In the interest of 
     protecting the health of air travelers, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall publish a list of the countries (as 
     determined by the Secretary) that require disinsection of 
     aircraft landing in such countries while passengers and crew 
     are on board such aircraft.
       (b) Revision.--The Secretary shall revise the list required 
     under subsection (a) on a periodic basis.
       (c) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish the list 
     required under subsection (a) not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary shall 
     publish a revision to the list not later than 30 days after 
     completing the revision under subsection (b).

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am offering this amendment today to 
make sure that American air travelers know if they will be sprayed with 
a pesticide in the course of their flight.
  Most people do not realize that many countries require flight 
attendants to spray airplane cabins with an insecticide before landing. 
For passengers with chemical sensitivities or respiratory problems, and 
for crew members who are repeatedly exposed to the chemical, this 
practice raises some very real health concerns.
  I have been working with the Department of Transportation and the 
Environment Protection Agency since February to establish a list of 
countries that require spraying of pesticides. I have written to each 
of the countries identified by the Air Transport Association as 
requiring disinsection of incoming flights, urging them to comply 
quickly with DOT's request for information on their disinsection 
practices.
  That was over 2 months ago. To date, only 21 of the 109 countries 
that were notified of the Department's request in April have responded. 
That includes only 4 of the 28 countries that have already been 
identified as probably requiring spraying.
  American air travelers have waited long enough.
  The Department of Transportation has assured me that a list of the 
countries requiring on-board spraying will be ready before the end of 
the month. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that this 
deadline is met.
  I had hoped to include in this amendment a requirement that Secretary 
Pena make this list of countries available to all people purchasing 
airline tickets in the United States. However, there were concerns 
about how this information would be made available. I intend to try to 
resolve these concerns in the next few weeks so that this issue can be 
settled in conference.
  Having a list of countries that require spraying does little good if 
consumers do not have access to that information. I will be working 
with the Department to ensure that this information is made readily 
available to all people purchasing airline tickets in the United 
States.
  Passengers have the right to know before purchasing their tickets 
whether they will be sprayed with an insecticide during their flight. 
Only with accurate and well-disseminated information on which countries 
require this practice can we protect the health of all passengers.


                           amendment no. 1806

          (Purpose: To provide for contract tower assistance)

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] for himself 
     and Mr. DeConcini, an amendment numbered 1806.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . CONTRACT TOWER ASSISTANCE.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall take appropriate 
     action to assist Chandler, Arizona, Aberdeen, South Dakota, 
     and other communities where the Secretary deems such 
     assistance appropriate, in obtaining the installation of a 
     Level I Contract Tower for those communities.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, this amendment would direct the 
Secretary of Transportation to assist Aberdeen, SD and Chandler, AZ, 
and other States in obtaining the installation of a level 1 contract 
tower for those communities. In my view, this will enhance aviation 
safety in the affected communities.
  Madam President, the objective of the Federal Aviation Administration 
[FAA] Contract Tower Program is to ensure that an efficient network of 
control towers is maintained to provide safe and effective service to 
the users of the National Airspace System. Contract towers provide a 
high level of air traffic control service to local communities.
  Aberdeen city officials have been working to include their airport in 
the FAA's contract tower program for some time. This goal became 
increasingly important when the Aberdeen Airport's Flight Service 
Station was closed last year. It is true that flight service stations 
and air traffic control towers do not serve the same function. However, 
given that flights at the Aberdeen Regional Airport reached a level of 
over 48,000 for 1993, one of these services should be available. 
Therefore, I am offering my amendment today.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and advance the safety 
of our air traveling public.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that these two 
amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I have no objection, but would the 
Senator from Kentucky be good enough to give us a 1-minute synopsis?
  Mr. FORD. I tried to. One is pesticides by Senator Leahy, sprayed in 
the cabin, and the other one is in relationship to towers under 
contract. Phase I of the towers.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. FORD. It is more technical.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1805 and 1806) were agreed to, en bloc.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I yield the floor, Madam President.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                    Amendment No. 1804, As Modified

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I call up the Brown amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Brown amendment is now the pending 
question.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for the 
modification that had been offered to the body and is at the desk, the 
Metzenbaum-Heflin-Brown modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is confusion in the Chamber.
  Will the Senator restate his request.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, we have sent to the desk a modification 
of the amendment, and I repeat my request for unanimous consent that 
that modification be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators 
Murkowski, Durenberger, Mikulski, and Thurmond as cosponsors of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I have a little problem pertaining to 
the modification, but I agreed to it. But basically the original 
modification called for the EEOC to conduct a separate procedure. 
Senator Metzenbaum was desirous of knocking that out. I am agreeable to 
it. But in my opinion the resolution does not prohibit the EEOC from 
dealing with it in a separate procedure.
  I just wanted to make that clear.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, if there are no other comments, I would 
ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, one of my concerns on this subject 
was that the question of religious harassment would be separate and 
apart from other kinds of harassment in the workplace. I do not believe 
that should be. I believe that the EEOC ought to have the opportunity 
to look at the entire field of harassment in the workplace.
  One of the other questions that came up had to do with whether or not 
the individual acts Senator Brown had put up on the board were to be a 
part of this problem, and they really are not. We are talking about 
employers taking action, and if an employer does provide for religious 
harassment it would still be possible for the EEOC to deal with it.
  There seems to have been considerable comment and concern about the 
original guidelines. I am not an authority on those original 
guidelines, but this would provide for the EEOC to reexamine that 
issue, not as a separate category but to go back and look at it as they 
were doing previously.
  I see no objection to doing that. I think this is a movement in the 
right direction. There was considerable objection to the EEOC's 
original actions. I am not sure that they were wrong. I am not sure 
that they were right. But in this manner there will be a chance for a 
reevaluation, and I think all parties to the discussion can be 
satisfied.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment 
before the Senate. This amendment seeks to preserve religious liberty 
in every workplace in the United States. Many are aware of the proposed 
Guidelines on Harassment Based on Race, Color, Religion, Gender, 
National Origin, Age, or Disability issued by the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission [EEOC]. I have concerns that the proposed 
guidelines would seriously infringe on the religious liberties of 
working men and women in the workplace.
  On June 9, 1994, 24 of my colleagues and I sent a letter to the 
Acting Chairman of the EEOC, Tony Gallegos, urging the Commission to 
remove the category of religion from the proposed guidelines or to 
create a separate category clarifying the issue relating to religion.
  Also on June 9, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and 
Administrative Practice held a hearing on this issue. It was clear at 
the hearing that no one approves either of religious harassment or 
supports the suppression of religious freedom. EEOC representatives, 
labor and constitutional law scholars, and business and religious 
leaders made it clear that changes must be made in the Guidelines.
  The standard set for religious harassment in the workplace is so 
vague and broad that expressions of religious belief by one employee 
could be considered religious harassment by another even if it simply 
shows aversion to the faith, religion or beliefs of another person or 
that person's relative, friend, or associate.
  The reasonable person standard, which determines whether actions on 
the job constitute harassment, is a modified reasonable person 
standard. The reasonable person must be a reasonable person of the 
claimant's particular segmented individual religious perspective. 
Therefore, there is no one standard an employer or employee may look to 
for guidance, thus making it ripe for litigation and dispute.
  The lack of clarity in the definitions of what constitutes religious 
harassment will cause severe problems for many employers and employees, 
who will be mandated to apply the vague and confusing regulations to 
every day situations. There is evidence to demonstrate that many 
employers in an effort to minimize their liability will move to limit 
or prohibit religious expressions in the workplace. How would the 
following real life situations be treated under the proposed 
guidelines.

  Would an employee or employer be able to wear a cross around his/her 
neck, a yarmulke, a turban, or any other religious symbol in the 
workplace?
  Could an employee or supervisor have a Bible, a Book of Morman, a 
picture of Jesus or a Star of David displayed at his/her work area?
  Could employees have a weekly prayer breakfast in which the employer 
participated with some, but not all, employees?
  Could an employee or employer discuss or make statements about his/
her religion to another employee in the workplace?
  Moreover, I am also concerned that these guidelines fail to take into 
account the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA], Public Law 103-
141. RFRA prohibits a law from ``substantially burden(ing) a person's 
exercise of religion'' unless the Government can demonstrate that the 
law is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling 
Government interest. I am concerned that the Guidelines do not meet the 
criterion of RFRA.
  The proposed guidelines, as currently written, are so broad and 
ambiguous that I believe that they will result in a workplace in which 
religious expression and religious freedom are repressed. Therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to support this sense of the Senate which would urge 
the Commission to address the unique concerns of religion in the 
workplace.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I want to say a few words in support of 
the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Colorado, 
Senator Hank Brown.
  Last May, I wrote to Acting EEOC Chairman Tony Gallegos expressing my 
concerns about the proposed EEOC guidelines, which appear to be a 
classic example of what is known here in Washington as the law of 
unintended consequences.
  As currently drafted, the guidelines are so broad in scope and so 
vague that employers seeking to avoid liability would resort to 
establishing rules prohibiting any discussion or expression of religion 
whatsoever in the workplace. In other words, to prevent lawsuits and 
the expenses that normally go hand-in-hand with lawsuits, employers 
would resort to requiring religion-free workplaces. This result would 
be disastrous for employers and workers alike, and it would be a major 
set-back for religious freedom in our country.
  I am also concerned that the guidelines are inconsistent with the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act. When Congress passed the act, we 
made clear that Government must demonstrate a compelling interest to 
justify any law that burdens religious freedom. As far as I can tell, 
the EEOC has not met this requirement.
  It is my hope that this amendment will send a strong signal to the 
EEOC that it should go back to the drawing board and remove the 
religion category from the proposed guidelines. While the prevalence of 
workplace sexual harassment has been well-documented, there is very 
little evidence to suggest that religious harassment in the workplace 
is a major problem.
  So, Madam President, as the old saying goes: If it ain't broke, don't 
fix it.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Acting 
EEOC Chairman Tony Gallegos be inserted in the Record immediately after 
my remarks.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                              Office of the Republican Leader,

                                     Washington, DC, May 26, 1994.
     Hon. Tony E. Gallegos,
     Acting Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gallegos: I have had the opportunity to 
     review the Commission's proposed Guidelines on Harassment 
     Based on Race, Color, Religion, Gender, National Origin, Age, 
     or Disability (``Guidelines''). It is my understanding that 
     the comment period for the Guidelines expires on June 13, 
     1994.
       As you know, the Guidelines define religious harassment 
     broadly as ``verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or 
     shows hostility or aversion toward an individual because of 
     his/her . . . religion . . . or that of his/her relatives, 
     friends, or associates, and that (1) has the purpose or 
     effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive 
     work environment; (2) has the purpose or effect of 
     unreasonably interfering with an individual's work 
     performance; or (3) otherwise adversely affects an 
     individual's employment opportunities.''
       I am concerned that the Guidelines, as currently drafted, 
     are so broad in scope and so vague that employers seeking to 
     avoid liability would resort to establishing rules 
     prohibiting any discussion or expression of religion 
     whatsoever in the workplace. In other words, to prevent 
     lawsuits, the employer would require a ``religion-free 
     workplace.'' Clearly, this is not your intention, though I 
     suspect that the Guidelines could have this practical effect.
       I am also concerned that the Guidelines are inconsistent 
     with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (``RFRA''). As you 
     may know, RFRA applies a strict scrutiny test to any law that 
     substantially burdens religious practice. Based on the 
     information available to me, I am not convinced that the 
     Guidelines would pass this test. For example, it appears that 
     the Commission has not adequately enunciated a ``compelling 
     government interest'' for the Guidelines. While the 
     prevalence of workplace sexual harassment has been well-
     documented, there is very little evidence to suggest that 
     religious harassment in the workplace is a major problem. In 
     addition, I do not believe that the Guidelines are the 
     ``least restrictive means'' of advancing whatever interest 
     the Commission intends to promote.
       In my view, the best course of action would be for the 
     Commission to consider deleting the religion category from 
     the Guidelines. As you know, existing law adequately protects 
     employees from religious discrimination and harassment in the 
     workplace. If there is a gap in the law that the Guidelines 
     seek to fill, I would appreciate your views on how the 
     Guidelines serve this purpose.
       Chairman Gallegos, thank you for your consideration of this 
     request.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Bob Dole.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I appreciate the resolution that 
Senators Brown and Heflin have brought to the floor this evening. As an 
original cosponsor, I join them in raising concern about the effect of 
the EEOC's proposed guidelines on harassment under title VII, and 
specifically, the effect of these guidelines on the expression of 
religion in the workplace.
  I have received numerous letters and phone calls from concerned 
constituents who worry that the guidelines as drafted will stifle, if 
not eliminate, constitutionally protected religious expression in the 
workplace.
  Considering how much time the average American spends at work every 
day, the idea that the workplace could somehow become sterile 
concerning religious expression is certainly a concern.
  Most of these constituents have requested that religion be dropped 
from the guidelines entirely.
  Last week, the Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice, of 
which Senator Heflin is the Chair, and I am the ranking member, held a 
hearing on this very important issue. The hearing included testimony 
from the EEOC and representatives of various organizations.
  While there were a range of opinions shared, there was one thing on 
which all agreed. That is, that religious expression is protected 
speech under the first amendment to the Constitution and under the 
recently passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  There were expressions of varying degrees on the perimeters of that 
protection, but there was no question raised about the principle.
  The resolution the Senate is considering is compromise language 
reached after consideration of the issues raised at that hearing.
  While some groups were calling for complete elimination of religion 
from these, or any, EEOC harassment guidelines, other groups argued 
strongly that religious harassment must be addressed in order to 
protect religious people from undue aggravation in the workplace.
  I believe the most appropriate step to take is to drop religion from 
these guidelines but have it addressed in separate guidelines in the 
same way that sexual harassment has been addressed in separate 
guidelines. This answers the concerns of both sides.
  It is crucial that any guidelines issued by the EEOC appropriately 
defer to Constitutional and Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
implications. With this in mind, more consideration should be given to 
the comments of imminent first amendment scholars, such as Prof. 
Douglas Laycock who testified at the hearing last week. He made 
specific suggestions of how the EEOC could erase the constitutional 
vagueness in the pending guidelines. Additionally, there should be 
public hearings on this issue since it touches the lives of so many 
Americans.
  At the same time, the resolution affirmatively recognizes the need 
for guidelines to address genuine religious harassment. Title VII 
covers religion as well as the other protected areas; it is not an 
acceptable option for religion to simply be ignored.
  I fully support the compromise reached by the language before us. It 
recognizes the need for regulations on religious harassment while it 
also recognizes the important constitutional implications of religious 
expression.
  I commend my colleagues for taking this step to clarify the Senate's 
concern on this issue.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I join my colleague from Colorado, 
Senator Brown, in offering this amendment.
  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] has proposed 
guidelines to provide employers with guidance in the elimination of 
workplace harassment based upon race, color, religion, gender, national 
origin, age and disability. There are worthy goals--the elimination of 
all forms of harassment in the workplace is something I strongly 
support.
  Unfortunately, when it comes to the matter of religious harassment, 
the EEOC guidelines could create serious problems for employers and 
threaten to stifle our freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They 
are vague. They are too broad. They show a lack of common sense. And, 
frankly, they make me question whether some of the folks at the EEOC 
are in touch with the reality of life in the American workplace.
  Expressions of religious belief by an individual in the workplace, 
for instance, could be considered religious harassment by another based 
solely on the fact that the statement showed aversion to the faith, the 
religion or the beliefs of another person or that person's relative, 
friend or associate.
  I shudder to think of the mischief this could cause. I shudder to 
think of the frivolous lawsuits this could spawn. And I shudder to 
think of the tensions this is likely to create for both employers and 
employees. Delta Airlines, for example, has already issued a directive 
to its employees asking them to refrain from any display or discussion 
of their religious beliefs.
  In essence, the EEOC could effectively designate every American 
workplace a ``Religion-Free Zone.'' Let me provide a few examples of 
the types of activities that could be grounds for a lawsuit under the 
EEOC guidelines:
  Wearing a cross around the neck; displaying a picture of Christ on an 
office desk or wall; having a Bible on your desk; or praying while at 
work.
  The EEOC needs to be sent back to the drawing board. Their proposed 
regulations are too board, too ambiguous, and they threaten two 
cherished values: freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I, 
therefore, urge my colleagues to support this worthy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? Is 
there further debate?
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
this amendment occur at 6:45 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Is there further debate on 
the amendment?
  Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be temporarily set aside in order that the Senator 
from Ohio may offer an amendment which would be considered subsequent 
in time to the Brown amendment but at least could be discussed in the 
interim.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, as I understood it, we were trying to 
make sure a recorded vote on this occurred at 6:45?
  Mr. FORD. Correct. There is no question about that. The Senator from 
Ohio agrees with that.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I have no problem with that. If the Senator from Ohio 
has not completed discussion or debate has not concluded, we will set 
the amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent request pending. 
Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Ohio? Hearing 
none, the Senator from Ohio may proceed.


                           Amendment No. 1807

(Purpose: To provide for the reemployment as air traffic controllers of 
              certain discharged air traffic controllers)

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk for 
consideration subsequent to the consideration of the Brown amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1807.

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . REEMPLOYMENT AND RECERTIFICATION AS AIR TRAFFIC 
                   CONTROLLERS OF CERTAIN DISCHARGED AIR TRAFFIC 
                   CONTROLLERS.

       (a) Reemployment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law and to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall--
       (1) notify persons referred to in subsection (b) of 
     openings in positions of employment with the Federal Aviation 
     Administration as air traffic controllers; and
       (2) if such persons express an interest in employment in 
     such positions, employ the persons in the positions on a 
     basis which is numerically equal to that of any person other 
     than a person referred to in subsection (b) in the positions.
       (b) Covered Persons.--Subsection (a) applies to any 
     person--
       (1) who was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration 
     in a position as an air traffic controller; and
       (2) whose employment in the position was terminated under a 
     1981 job action, and who is presently physically and mentally 
     capable of qualifying for a position as an air traffic 
     controller.
       (c) Program.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall carry out a program to provide training to persons 
     referred to in subsection (b). The purpose of the program 
     shall be to facilitate the employment of the persons provided 
     the training by the Federal Aviation Administration as air 
     traffic controllers.
       (d) Covered Persons.--Subsection (c) applies to any 
     person--
       (1) who was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration 
     in a position as an air traffic controller; and
       (2) whose employment in the position was terminated under a 
     1981 job action; and
       (3) who is re-employed by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration as an air traffic controller.
       (e) Funding.--The Administrator shall carry out the program 
     only if funds are appropriated to the Department of 
     Transportation specifically for purposes of carrying out the 
     program.

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, this amendment requires that when 
the FAA fills air traffic control jobs, it hire equally from qualified 
former controllers and from other applicants--a 50/50 basis.
  The amendment also requires the FAA to prepare retraining programs in 
order that the former controllers may be recertified for Federal 
service.
  A recertification program would help get former controllers back into 
control towers promptly, once they are rehired.
  Of course, it will be much less expensive to recertify the former air 
controllers than to wait for young, newly trained, inexperienced air 
traffic controllers to come up to speed.
  Recertifying the former controllers could take a matter of weeks. By 
contrast it takes years for a brand new controller to become seasoned.
  The point is simple--it is much more cost efficient to retrain the 
former controllers.
  Madam President, this amendment would give former air traffic 
controllers some fairness with respect to Federal air traffic control 
jobs that open up in the future.
  These air traffic controllers are the men and women who were fired 
after going out on strike in 1981. That strike was for the right 
reasons: bad working conditions, and obsolete equipment.
  But this job action violated a no strike oath. As a result, some 
11,400 traffic controllers were summarily fired by President Reagan.
  That firing did untold damage to labor-management relations. It also 
jeopardized the safety of our air traffic control system.
  However, no matter what one may think of the traffic controllers 
walkout and their subsequent firing, this issue is now far behind us. 
For 12 years, the controllers were barred from Federal employment in 
their profession. Plenty of convicted felons receive shorter sentences 
than the 12 years served by the traffic controllers.
  Last year, the ban on re-hiring these men and women was lifted by 
President Clinton. Lifting the ban was the right thing for the 
President to do.
  Lifting the ban was a gesture of decency to the former controllers. 
But it was also an enlightened management step: The controllers 
represent a vast pool of talent and experience of which the FAA should 
be able to take advantage.
  Mr. President, there is considerable debate as to how many air 
traffic controllers the FAA may need to hire in the coming years. The 
FAA feels it will need a very low number.
  Recent congressional testimony has indicated that there may actually 
be a much larger number needed. The GAO is expected to report its 
findings on this matter by the end of this month.
  This amendment does not mandate any hiring by the FAA. It does not 
require the FAA to create one single job.
  This amendment simply says that if--if--air traffic controller slots 
do happen to open up the former fired air traffic controllers ought to 
have a fair shot at those positions.
  This amendment also recognizes that, at some point, there will be a 
need for new controllers and that the FAA ought to take steps to be 
ready for the most experienced pool of talent.
  Madam President, this amendment gives meaning to President Clinton's 
lifting of the ban on rehiring. To date, not one single former 
controller has been rehired. These men and women deserve more than mere 
symbolism.
  But this amendment is not only about symbolism. This amendment is 
also about air safety. It would seem to this Senator that experienced, 
seasoned air traffic controllers make for safer skies.
  Air traffic control is obviously a complicated job. I would hope that 
any Federal Agency filling skilled positions would look to the most 
experienced candidates available.
  Madam President, many of these men and women have had very recent air 
traffic control experience through regular military service, and also 
through emergency service during the Persian Gulf War.
  There are nearly 5,000 former air traffic controllers interested in 
reemployment. There are certainly a large number of candidates within 
this pool who are just as experienced as anyone else.

  Furthermore, this amendment in no way requires the FAA to lower its 
standards for hiring and for recertification.
  Madam President, I do not want to micromanage FAA operations. This 
amendment is not about micromanagement. This amendment is about 
utilizing the best talent available.
  This amendment is about fairness.
  This amendment is about making good on the President's symbolic 
promise implied in lifting the rehiring ban.
  This amendment says that 12 years is more punishment than anyone--
probably even Ronald Reagan--ever intended to inflict on 11,400 
dedicated public servants.
  And this amendment is about putting the most experienced air traffic 
controllers in the country back in America's control towers.
  It is an important step not merely for former traffic controllers but 
also for the flying public.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I understand there may have been a little 
confusion at the time. I want to reiterate. I ask unanimous consent 
that the vote occur on the Brown-Metzenbaum-Heflin amendment at 6:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, my colleagues, I am going to speak 
against Senator Heflin's amendment and then ask for a rollcall vote. I 
will speak fairly briefly. If I could conclude in 3 or 4 minutes, we 
could perhaps have that vote at 7 following this one, if there be 
agreement, unless there are other speakers.
  I will begin speaking. In August 1993, the Clinton administration 
lifted the ban on rehiring the PATCO strikers. My colleague from Ohio 
argues these amendments are necessary to assist PATCO strikers in 
gaining reemployment under this policy. The arguments against it are 
that no rehiring preference should be granted because the PATCO 
controllers' illegal strike against the Federal Government crippled the 
Nation's aviation system.
  Serving as a controller is a privilege, not a right. The FAA will 
hire only 77 controllers this year and less than 100 controllers over 
the next 3 years. The FAA is not hiring controllers because it is fully 
staffed.
  The FAA has a pool of people from the College Training Initiative 
Program who are fully qualified to become controllers. These trainees 
can be placed directly in air control traffic facilities.
  FAA has also ex-military controllers and controllers from level 1 
facilities that are being contracted to private companies who like to 
be retained. In total, FAA has 1,500 to 2,000 non-PATCO strikers who 
are ready and qualified, if positions open.
  The additional cost of training PATCO strikers is derived from the 
fact that it costs an additional $5,000 for 4,800 PATCO strikers to go 
through the FAA academy compared to those who are graduated from the 
College Training Initiative Program and do not need the FAA academy 
phase of training.
  Madam President, those are the arguments against the Metzenbaum 
amendment that I would like to make.
  I do not know if there are other speakers who wish to speak against 
it. But I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask that we have two rollcall votes 
in a row stacked.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. That is agreeable to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. FORD. I cannot agree to that yet.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dole 
be added as a cosponsor of the Brown-Heflin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Coats be added as a cosponsor of the Brown-Heflin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, may I make a unanimous consent 
request? I would like to request that the vote on the Metzenbaum 
amendment occur immediately following the vote on the pending Brown 
amendment, unless either the majority leader or the minority leader 
have an objection which they can assert immediately after this vote.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I have to object to that. I understand 
what the Senator is trying to do. But under the circumstances--I will 
catch the heat for this--but I have to object to the Senator. I 
apologize to him for having to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on the Brown amendment has been 
ordered to occur at 6:45.
  The question is on agreeing to the Brown amendment, as modified. On 
this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the 
Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the Senator from Illinois [Ms. 
Moseley-Braun], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] and 
the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daschle.) Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Gramm
     Harkin
     Inouye
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Simon
  So the amendment (No. 1804), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1807

  Mr. FORD. Now Mr. President, we have before us the Metzenbaum 
amendment, and I believe there is no further debate. I ask for an 
immediate vote. There will be another vote about 9 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Ohio. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the 
Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], and the Senator from 
Illinois [Mr. Simon] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] would vote aye.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. 
McCain] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 65, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

                                YEAS--29

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Campbell
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--65

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Coats
     Gramm
     Inouye
     McCain
     Moseley-Braun
     Simon
  So the amendment (No. 1807) was rejected.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota, the comanager 
of the bill, has an amendment on behalf of Senators Bond and Nickles.


                           Amendment No. 1808

 (Purpose: To authorize a study of the use of infant restraint systems 
                     aboard air carrier aircraft.)

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], for Mr. 
     Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 1808.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Strike all from line 7 through line 18 and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

     SEC. 408. STUDY ON CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator shall conduct a study on the 
     availability, effectiveness, cost, and usefullness of 
     restraint systems that may offer protection to a child 
     carried in the lap of an adult aboard an air carrier aircraft 
     or provide for the attachment of a child restraint device to 
     the aircraft.
       (b) Study Criteria.--Among other issues, the study shall 
     examine the impact of the following:
       1. The direct cost to families of requiring air carriers to 
     provide restraint systems and requiring infants to use them, 
     including whether airlines will charge a fare for use of 
     seats containing infant restraining systems; such estimate to 
     cover a ten-year period;
       2. The impact on air carrier passenger volume by requiring 
     use of infant restraint systems, including whether families 
     will choose to travel to destinations by other means, 
     including automobiles, such estimate to cover a ten-year 
     period.
       3. The impact on fatality rates of infants using other 
     modes of transportation, including automobiles, subject to 
     the findings in subsection (b) 2, above; such estimate to 
     cover a ten-year period; and
       4. The efficacy of infant restraint systems currently 
     marketed as able to be used for air carrier aircraft.
       (c) Report.--The Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
     of the House of Representatives a report on the results of 
     the study required in subsection (a). The report shall be 
     submitted within 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I think this amendment has been agreed 
to on both sides.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we had Senator Exon on our side, who is on 
the committee, who had a study in the language of the bill. He has now 
also cleared it, so that leaves me clear and we will accept the 
amendment on our side.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1808) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1796

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I must express my strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum].
  While I have great respect for my colleague from Ohio, I must say 
that this is one of the worst amendments I have seen in a long time. It 
would almost be funny if the stakes were not so high.
  It is time for Congress to exercise a little more restraint and a lot 
more common sense. This is an example of mandates and regulation 
running amok. It would impose an unreasonable burden on individual 
businesses. And it could ground short-distance air service in Montana 
and throughout America.
  For instance, there are many commuter airlines across America 
operating on the margins. They cannot afford to keep flying if the cost 
of their equipment is increased.
  In Montana and many other states, we benefit from the Essential Air 
Service [EAS] program. Without the modest EAS subsidy, scheduled air 
service would cease in the communities of Miles City, Havre, Lewistown, 
Glasgow, Wolf Point, Sidney and Glendive. This amendment would only run 
up the costs of the EAS program--and, I fear, thereby threaten air 
service to these communities.
  And, beyond that, most of these planes are so small, it is hard to 
image where they would put the head.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to flush this very bad idea right 
down the drain.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to 
express my thoughts on the passage of S. 12491, the Federal Aviation 
Authorization Act. This bill authorizes $6 billion in airport 
improvement funds over the next 3 years, providing almost 300,000 jobs 
and critically needed improvements in our air transportation system.
  In the previous fiscal year California received nearly $159 million 
in these discretionary airport grants, and I expect the State will 
benefit from a comparable amount this fiscal year.
  These grants are critical to help airports reduce their congested 
airways. Five airports in California are among the primary airports in 
the country now exceeding annual capacity.
  Although I am pleased that we are finally moving this needed 
legislation for infrastructure investment, I am disappointed that we 
were not able to reach a complete resolution in the dispute between 
airports and the major air carrier over landing fees.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Senator 
Ford, for his considerable patience and perseverance in trying to reach 
a compromise on this difficult issue. Through his cooperation we were 
able to make significant changes in the legislation to pare down 
provisions that would be less harmful to airports.
  Previously, the bill disallowed the cost of service, or 
``compensatory,'' approach whereby airlines pay 100 percent of the cost 
of airside operations and instead reinstituted the residual approached 
whereby the airport would subsidize the airlines by reducing the 
landing fees with concession and other revenue. Under this approach, 
airports would lose control of their own destinies by impeding the 
airports ability to raise capital for needed improvements through 
bonds.
  Fortunately, the bill does not establish any particular approach. It 
does not attempt to define ``reasonable rates'' as the airlines had 
requested. The determination of the fairness and reasonableness of 
rates is ultimately left to the Secretary of Transportation, once 
negotiations fail to resolve the issue.
  In addition, the bill does not extend retroactively to the dispute 
between the carriers and Los Angeles International Airport. A 
retroactive provision would have been a detriment to all interests 
concerned.
  I also appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with the airport 
and financial communities, before the conference with the House, to 
smooth out problems which could harm bond financing capabilities that 
could lead to higher airport financing costs.
  The issue of the imposition of civil penalties on governmental grant 
recipients for violating grant agreements had raised considerable 
concern from inside and outside the aviation community. The National 
League of Cities said ``it is unprecedented that the breach of a grant 
assurance would * * * give rise to liability for substantial monetary 
penalties.''
  Under the legislation, civil penalties could be unlimited in amount. 
A grantee could be liable for millions of dollars in civil penalties. 
This provision is unnecessary considering that it is well understood 
that violation of grant agreements can lead to termination of the grant 
and disqualification from further grants of this type.
  I appreciate the openness of the Senator from Kentucky to our 
concerns in this regard and his willingness to modify this requirement, 
such as capping the amount of monetary penalty that can be imposed and 
clarifying the Secretary of Transportation's ability to provide an 
opportunity for an airport sponsor to cure any violation through 
corrective action prior to the imposition of civil penalties.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to add my support to the effort 
extended by Senator Dole and others to encourage airports and airlines 
to discuss in a reasonable fashion opportunities for revenue sharing. 
Many airports already have some form of exemption that allows the 
municipalities which own the airports to use airport revenue for city 
services.
  It is possible, I believe, for agreements to be reached that could 
reduce costs to airlines, provide needed revenue for city services and 
not gouge the traveling public with unreasonable concession rates. This 
is what the people of Los Angeles voted for when they approved a 
charter amendment in 1992 to lift restrictions on the use of surplus 
airport revenues for off-airport purposes.
  Los Angeles International Airport serves 48 million passengers a 
year. It is a booming success that no longer requires such a 
restriction to guarantee its healthy operation and growth. In time, I 
believe an agreement can be reached between the airlines and the 
airport that capitalizes on that success to the benefit of everyone.
  Unfortunately, this was not the place and time for such a consensus 
to develop.


                           truck deregulation

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, included in this bill is a provision which 
may well have the effect of deregulating intrastate truck rates. As I 
understand it, originally an amendment was added to codify a decision 
by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which held that some integrated 
freight companies could not be regulated by the States do to the Air 
Deregulation Act of the 1970's.
  The amendment would have had the impact of treating some companies in 
a more advantageous fashion than their competitors simply because of 
their reliance on the use of air transport as opposed to truck 
transport for a percentage of the freight hauled.
  I was advised of this amendment by a company in my home State of 
Kansas, a company which would have been left a competitive 
disadvantage. Following that notice, I worked with the committee to 
draft a compromise which did not disadvantage my constituent and a 
number of other trucking companies throughout the country.
  The amendment was further modified at the request of the 
distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms, so as 
to include an even greater number of trucking companies.
  I am concerned, however, with the process used in reaching this 
point. Some days ago, I was informed by another Midwest trucking 
company that it had only recently become aware of this action since no 
notice was received by that company from its trade association. 
Additionally, it appears hundreds if not thousands of small trucking 
companies may remain unaware of this action, since the association has 
failed to put out this notice.
  In general, I support deregulation. I generally believe the free 
market does a far superior job at regulating markets than does 
government, so I support this provision. I hope that State agencies 
which currently regulate truck rates will discover their jurisdiction 
has been sufficiently reduced that further rate regulation would not 
prove worthwhile. By so doing, all trucking companies would be put on 
an equal footing with respect to complying with State regulations.
  In closing, let me again state that, while I support the concept of 
deregulation, I wish this action had taken place with the full notice 
of all companies which might be impacted.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of section 211 of 
S. 1491, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act. This provision will at 
long last bring an end to the duplicative and excessively bureaucratic 
patchwork of State regulations governing the delivery of express 
packages within State borders.
  Section 211 of the committee substitute would exempt from State 
regulation the services, rates, or routes of intermodal air carriers 
which deliver their packages by truck.
  It is important to point out that this provision would not affect 
safety or environmental standards. Both the Federal and State 
governments would retain their authority over such standards.
  I am disappointed that we were not able to address the concerns of 
smaller truckers. Section 211 was broadened to include the larger 
trucking firms, but a formula to address the concerns of smaller trucks 
proved elusive. I realize that it just proved not to be possible and 
hope that it can be addressed on another day.
  However, Section 211 as contained in the bill recognizes the reality 
of modern American interstate commerce. Every day in this country, four 
to five million packages are shipped by air freight.
  Business has come to rely on express air carriers for timely delivery 
of documents and other critical shipments. The ability to send and 
receive packages rapidly often gives businesses a critical advantage.
  However, each of those packages must be picked up and delivered by 
truck. That surface delivery component is subject to State trucking 
regulation. Thus, when our national express package delivery companies 
make changes in their rates or services they must cope with the 
regulatory processes of 39 States.
  These intrastate trucking regulations unnecessarily delay the 
delivery of packages. Carriers must spend large amounts of time and 
money to satisfy regulations in different States.
  Intrastate regulation limits the ground transportation activities of 
air express carriers and impedes their ability to expand their 
operations through regional or local sorting centers. It raises the 
operational costs of carriers and the price of express package 
transportation for their customers. And they increase fuel consumption 
and cause more pollution.
  These regulations lead to some absurdly inefficient results.
  Under the regulations imposed by the State of Indiana, it is most 
economical for a driver for Federal Express--who collects a package in 
Terre Haute, Indiana, that is bound for Gary, Indiana--to deliver that 
package to the airport, where it is flown to Memphis and then on to 
Gary--even though Federal Express has a sorting hub in Indianapolis.
  It costs slightly more than $200 to ship a load of paper products 
from Richmond, VA, to Raleigh, NC--a distance of 146 miles. The cost of 
shipping the same cargo the same distance within Virginia--for example, 
from Richmond to Danville--is more than twice as much.
  And, Mr. President, before California's intrastate economic rules 
were eased last year by a ruling in the ninth circuit, it cost nearly 
twice as much to move 2,000 pounds of goods directly from Oakland to 
San Francisco--15 miles--than it cost to ship the same amount via 
Reno--200 miles away.
  Intrastate regulation of express package carriers costs American 
business thousands of dollars every day. As a matter of fact, a 1991 
study by the Department of Transportation concluded that intrastate 
regulation is costing the American economy between $4.9 and $7 billion 
dollars a year. Eventually, those costs are passed on to freight 
company customers, and indeed all consumers.
  American consumers and businesses are ready for lower prices, a wider 
range of services, and a greater variety of product and service 
innovations. We can help accomplish that goal here today by removing 
these burdensome, unnecessary State regulations.
  Mr. President, in the current world marketplace we cannot tie the 
hands of our Nation's businesses. We must work as a partner with them 
so that they can compete in an increasingly internationalized 
marketplace.
  I would urge my colleagues to look at the European Community. They 
have recognized the needs of modern commerce and deregulated 
transportation. They have removed their internal regulations, providing 
more efficient service between its member nations.
  We need to remove our own internal trade barriers to allow our own 
express air carriers to operate more effective and efficient service in 
our own country.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that the constraints placed 
on transportation through intrastate transportation regulations run 
contrary to the goal of a vibrant, efficient, open national economy. 
Higher transportation costs attributable to excessive regulation raise 
the price of American goods and place them at a competitive 
disadvantage to products from countries with less burdensome regulatory 
frameworks.
  These rates rules, which may have made good economic sense decades 
ago, no longer do. It's time for us to act in the best interests of our 
economy, and in the best interests of consumers and businesses all over 
the country.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman of the 
Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Ford, for crafting this legislation. As 
we all know, guiding a major reauthorization bill through the 
legislative process, and reconciling the often conflicting interests of 
all 100 Senators is a difficult proposition. As always, the Senator 
from Kentucky has managed this bill with great skill as well as good 
humor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have one amendment left, and then we are 
ready to debate that and we will have a rollcall vote. I have indicated 
to my colleagues that rollcall vote will be approximately 9 p.m.
  I see the Senator from Wyoming here, who will be opposed to the 
amendment. I am looking for Senator Harkin, who was here just a moment 
ago and said he was ready to go.
  Let me suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________