[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 87 (Friday, July 1, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MITCHELL (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Metzenbaum, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Mack, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Helms):
  S. 2260. A bill to provide conditions for renewing nondiscriminatory 
(most-favored-nation) treatment for the People's Republic of China; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                    UNITED STATES-CHINA ACT OF 1994

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, last year President Clinton issued an 
executive order which renewed most-favored-nation trading status for 
China while setting reasonable and obtainable standards on emigration, 
illegal prison labor exports, human rights, trades and nuclear 
nonproliferation as conditions for future renewal.
  I supported the President's action in sending a firm signal to the 
Communist Chinese leaders that the people of the United States strongly 
believe in fundamental American principles of human rights and fair 
trade and want our relations with other nations to reflect those 
values.
  While I continue to support the President's goal of promoting 
international human rights, I disagree with his decision to delink 
human rights considerations from future renewal of MFN status for 
China.
  I do not believe the Government of China has met the standards set 
forth in the President's Executive order.
  The human rights situation has deteriorated in the last year and 
there is compelling evidence that China continues to export prison-made 
products to the United States in clear violation of our laws.
  It has been alleged that it is in the best interests of our country 
to delink China's record on human rights from MFN because it promotes 
American business with China's 1.2 billion people and the third largest 
economy in the world. And we are told that last year United States 
exports to China supported over 150,000 American jobs. Some would 
conveniently have us believe that we need China's market more than they 
need ours.
  But what is the reality of this market and our trade relationship.
  Last year the Communist Chinese Government's exports to the United 
States amounted to over $31 billion nearly 40 percent of their total 
exports, while American exports to China totaled only $8.8 billion, 
less than 2 percent of our total worldwide exports. Our trade deficit 
with China is second only to our trade deficit with Japan and growing 
at a faster rate.
  China's only trade surplus with a major industrialized trading 
partner is with the United States. China obviously needs our market 
much more than we need theirs, because other major trading partners are 
unwilling to import quantities of low-wage Chinese products.
  The administration calculates that each $1 billion of last year's $8 
billion net exports to China supports 20,000 jobs, using this 
calculation it has been optimistically stated that over 150,000 
American jobs result from our trade with China. But, by the same 
argument, each $1 billion of our $23 billion trade deficit with China 
causes American workers to lose jobs? The AFL-CIO estimates that 
460,000 American jobs were lost last year because of our large trade 
deficit with China. It's not a good deal for America to gain 150,000 
jobs and lose 460,000 jobs.
  The trade in nonrubber footwear provides a good example of how 
Chinese imports have affected United States industry. Imports of 
Chinese nonrubber footwear have increased from 143 million pairs in 
1989 to 622 million pairs in 1993, a 335 percent increase. During this 
same period, U.S. production has dropped from 221 million pairs to 164 
million pairs. And American employment has fallen from 77,300 workers 
in 1989 to 61,500 workers in 1993.
  The Chinese footwear industry has overwhelmed the United States 
companies and workers because the low wages paid in Chinese enterprises 
enable them to produce shoes at extremely low costs.
  In 1993, the customs value of nonrubber footwear imported from China 
was $6.23 a pair which was about one-half the costs of footwear from 
all other sources, and approximately one-quarter of the United States 
costs. Over the past 4 years, the U.S. footwear industry has lost both 
production and employees. We cannot continue to ignore the devastating 
impact that these low-cost Chinese imports have on United States 
industry and jobs.
  Now some have suggested that we must grant unconditional MFN status 
to China because we need their help with respect to the possibility of 
development by North Korea of a number of nuclear weapons.
  My response to that is threefold: First, within days of the 
President's announcement of his decision on China, the Chinese 
Government stated that it would not support sanctions against North 
Korea. There's been no evidence of any cooperation.
  Second, in any event, I believe the issue of conditioning MFN because 
China has failed to meet the conditions of the President's executive 
order stands on its own merits, and should not be dependent on the 
North Korean issue one way or the other.
  Third and most important, I find it incredible that anyone would 
suggest that we must make concessions to China to induce it to take 
actions which are in its obvious self-interest. China, as all nations, 
will ultimately act out of its self-interest. I have never heard a 
single person suggest that it is in China's self-interest to have a 
nuclear-armed North Korea with the capacity to deliver those nuclear 
weapons within a range that includes China.
  I've not heard a single person make that argument, and therefore, why 
anyone would suggest that we are somehow now compelled to make 
concessions to China to induce it to do something which is obviously in 
its self-interest doesn't make any sense.
  The experience of recent years has been that each concession to the 
Chinese Communist regime encourages its intransigence. I believe this 
will be the unfortunate result of the decision to delink human rights 
from MFN. It will confirm for the Chinese Communist regime the success 
of its policy of repression on human rights and manipulation on trade. 
It is likely to produce a result that is the opposite of what the 
President intends.
  I therefore intend to offer legislation which supports the intent and 
requirements of the President's May 28, 1993 executive order by placing 
conditions on the renewal of MFN trading status for China.
  This legislation requires that during the next year goods produced, 
manufactured, or exported by the Chinese People's Liberation Army, 
defense industrial trading companies and certain categories of goods 
exported by Chinese State-owned enterprises may not be granted 
nondiscriminality MFN trade treatment.
  Favorable nondiscriminatory MFN tariff rates would remain in force 
for goods exported by private and joint venture enterprises.
  When enacted into law, this legislation will affect the costs of 
about $5 billion of China's exports to the United States. It will not 
affect United States exports to China.
  I do not believe the American people want to buy goods produced by 
the People's Liberation Army [PLA], the same army which massacred 
hundreds of defenseless Chinese students and workers in Tiananmen 
Square 5 years ago.
  Nor do I believe the American people wish to continue to have their 
consumer dollars subsidizing the profits of the Chinese military 
controlled defense industrial trading companies such as China North 
Industries Corporation [NORINCO], which last year shipped nearly 
500,000 military rifles and 993 metric tons of furniture to the United 
States under most-favored-nation nondiscriminatory tariffs.
  Many of these American consumer's dollars that are flowing to the 
Communist People's Liberation Army and its trading companies are being 
used to purchase and develop sophisticated weapons for use by the 
Chinese military.
  Also, removing most-favored-nation trade status from goods produced 
by low-paid Chinese military personnel working in state-owned factories 
will help level the competitive playing field for the thousands of 
American workers who are losing their jobs because the companies that 
employ them are unable to compete against such as unfair advantage.
  I'm offering this legislation because I believe the United States has 
a responsibility and right to ask that Chinese Communist leaders make 
the significant progress called for in the President's Executive order, 
to abide by international standards of human rights, and to cease 
unfair trade practices including the illegal export of prison labor 
products to our country, before we grant them unconditional renewal of 
a trade status which is so disproportionately advantageous to the 
Chinese Communist regime.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2260

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``United States-China Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In Executive Order 12850, dated May 28, 1993, the 
     President established conditions for renewing most-favored-
     nation treatment for the People's Republic of China in 1994.
       (2) The Executive order requires that in recommending the 
     extension of most-favored-nation trade status to the People's 
     Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning July 3, 
     1994, the Secretary of State shall not recommend extension 
     unless the Secretary determines that such extension 
     substantially promotes the freedom of emigration objectives 
     contained in section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2432) and that China is complying with the 1992 bilateral 
     agreement between the United States and China concerning 
     export to the United States of products made with prison 
     labor.
       (3) The Executive order further requires that in making the 
     recommendation, the Secretary of State shall determine if 
     China has made overall significant progress with respect to--
       (A) taking steps to begin adhering to the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights;
       (B) releasing and providing an acceptable accounting for 
     Chinese citizens imprisoned or detained for the nonviolent 
     expression of their political and religious beliefs, 
     including such expressions of beliefs in connection with the 
     Democracy Wall and Tiananmen Square movements;
       (C) ensuring humane treatment of prisoners, and allowing 
     access to prisons by international humanitarian and human 
     rights organizations;
       (D protecting Tibet's distinctive religious and cultural 
     heritage; and
       (E) permitting international radio and television 
     broadcasts into China.
       (4) The Executive order requires the executive branch to 
     resolutely pursue all legislative and executive actions to 
     ensure that China abides by its commitments to follow fair, 
     nondiscriminatory trade practices in dealing with United 
     States businesses and adheres to the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
     Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines and 
     parameters, and other nonproliferation commitments.
       (5) The Government of the People's Republic of China, a 
     member of the United Nations Security Council obligated to 
     respect and uphold the United Nations charter and Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights, has over the past year made less 
     than significant progress on human rights. The People's 
     Republic of China has released only a few prominent political 
     prisoners and continues to violate internationally recognized 
     standards of human rights by arbitrary arrests and detention 
     of persons for the nonviolent expression of their political 
     and religious beliefs.
       (6) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     not allowed humanitarian and human rights organizations 
     access to prisons.
       (7) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, or his representative, 
     to discuss the protection of Tibet's distinctive religious 
     and cultural heritage.
       (8) It continues to be the policy and practice of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China to control all 
     trade unions and suppress and harass members of the 
     independent labor union movement.
       (9) The Government of the People's Republic of China 
     continues to restrict the activities of accredited 
     journalists and Voice of America broadcasts.
       (10) The People's Republic of China's defense industrial 
     trading companies and the People's Liberation Army engage in 
     lucrative trade relations with the United States and operate 
     lucrative commercial businesses within the United States. 
     Trade with and investments in the defense industrial trading 
     companies and the People's Liberation Army are contrary to 
     the national security interests of the United States.
       (11) The President has conducted an intensive high-level 
     dialogue with the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China, including meeting with the President of China, in an 
     effort to encourage that government to make significant 
     progress toward meeting the standards contained in the 
     Executive order for continuation of most-favored-nation 
     treatment.
       (12) The Government of the People's Republic of China has 
     not made overall significant progress with respect to the 
     standards contained in the President's Executive Order 12850, 
     dated May 28, 1993.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the Congress that, since 
     the President has recommended the continuation of the waiver 
     under section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 for the 
     People's Republic of China for the 12-month period beginning 
     July 3, 1994, such waiver shall not provide for extension of 
     nondiscriminatory trade treatment to goods that are produced, 
     manufactured, or exported by the People's Liberation Army or 
     Chinese defense industrial trading companies or to 
     nonqualified goods that are produced, manufactured, or 
     exported by state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic 
     of China.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY 
                   TREATMENT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law--
       (1) if nondiscriminatory treatment is not granted to the 
     People's Republic of China by reason of the enactment into 
     law of a disapproval resolution described in subsection 
     (b)(1), nondiscriminatory treatment shall--
       (A) continue to apply to any good that is produced or 
     manufactured by a person that is not a state-owned enterprise 
     of the People's Republic of China, but
       (B) not apply to any good that is produced, manufactured, 
     or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China,
       (2) if nondiscriminatory treatment is granted to the 
     People's Republic of China for the 12-mpnth period beginning 
     on July 3, 1994, such nondiscriminatory treatment shall not 
     apply to--
       (A) any good that is produced, manufactured, or exported by 
     the People's Liberation Army or a Chinese defense industrial 
     trading company, or
       (B) any nonqualified good that is produced, manufactured, 
     or exported by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China, and
       (3) if nondiscriminatory treatment is or is not granted to 
     the People's Republic of China, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     should consult with leaders of American businesses having 
     significant trade with or investment in the People's Republic 
     of China, to encourage them to adopt a voluntary code of 
     conduct that--
       (A) follows internationally recognized human rights 
     principles,
       (B) ensures that the employment of Chinese citizens is not 
     discriminatory in terms of sex, ethnic origin, or political 
     belief,
       (C) ensures that no convict, forced, or indentured labor is 
     knowingly used,
       (D) recognizes the rights of workers to freely organize and 
     bargain collectively, and
       (E) discourages mandatory political indoctrination on 
     business premises.
       (b) Disapproval Resolution.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the two 
     Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of 
     which is as follows: ``That the Congress does not approve the 
     extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the 
     Congress on ______________________ with respect to the 
     People's Republic of China because the Congress does not 
     agree that the People's Republic of China has met the 
     standards described in the President's Executive Order 12850, 
     dated May 28, 1993.'', with the blank space being filled with 
     the appropriate date.
       (2) Applicable rules.--The provisions of sections 153 
     (other than paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b)) and 
     402(d)(2) (as modified by this subsection) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 shall apply to a resolution described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (c) Determination of State-Owned Enterprises and Chinese 
     Defense Industrial Trading Companies.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine which 
     persons are state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic 
     of China and which persons are Chinese defense industrial 
     trading companies for purposes of this Act. The Secretary 
     shall publish a list of such persons in the Federal Register.
       (2) Public hearing.--
       (A) General rule.--Before making the determination and 
     publishing the list required by paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall hold a public hearing for the purpose 
     of receiving oral and written testimony regarding the persons 
     to be included on the list.
       (B) Additions and deletions.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     may add or delete persons from the list based on information 
     available to the Secretary or upon receipt of a request 
     containing sufficient information to take such action.
       (3) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of making 
     the determination required by paragraph (1), the following 
     definitions apply:
       (A) Chinese defense industrial trading company.--The term 
     ``Chinese defense industrial trading company''--
       (i) means a person that is--

       (I) engaged in manufacturing, producing, or exporting, and
       (II) affiliated with or owned, controlled, or subsidized by 
     the People's Liberation Army, and

       (ii) includes any person identified in the United States 
     Defense Intelligence Agency publication numbered VP-1920-271-
     90, dated September 1990.
       (B) People's liberation army.--The term ``People's 
     Liberation Army'' means any branch or division of the land, 
     naval, or air military service or the police of the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China.
       (C) State-owned enterprise of the people's republic of 
     china.--(i) The term ``state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China'' means a person who is affiliated with or 
     wholly owned, controlled, or subsidized by the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China and whose means of production, 
     products, and revenues are owned or controlled by a central 
     or provincial government authority. A person shall be 
     considered to be state-owned if--
       (I) the person's assets are primarily owned by a central or 
     provincial government authority;
       (II) a substantial proportion of the person's profits are 
     required to be submitted to a central or provincial 
     government authority;
       (III) the person's production, purchases of inputs, and 
     sales of output, in whole or in part, are subject to state, 
     sectoral, or regional plans; or
       (IV) a license issued by a government authority classifies 
     the person as state-owned.
       (ii) Any person that--
       (I) is a qualified foreign joint venture or is licensed by 
     a governmental authority as a collective, cooperative, or 
     private enterprise; or

       (II) is wholly owned by a foreign person,
     shall not be considered to be state-owned.
       (D) Qualified foreign joint venture.--The term ``qualified 
     foreign joint venture'' means any person--
       (i) which is registered and licensed in the agency or 
     department of the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China concerned with foreign economic relations and trade as 
     an equity, cooperative, contractual joint venture, or joint 
     stock company with foreign investment;
       (ii) in which the foreign investor partner and a person of 
     the People's republic of China share profits and losses and 
     jointly manage the venture;
       (iii) in which the foreign investor partner holds or 
     controls at least 25 percent of the investment and the 
     foreign investor partner is not substantially owned or 
     controlled by a state-owned enterprise of the People's 
     Republic of China;
       (iv) in which the foreign investor partner is not a person 
     of a country the government of which the Secretary of State 
     has determined under section 6(j) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) to have 
     repeatedly provided support for acts of international 
     terrorism; and
       (v) which does not use state-owned enterprises of the 
     People's Republic of China to export its goods or services.
       (E) Person.--The term ``person'' means a natural person, 
     corporation, partnership, enterprise, instrumentality, 
     agency, or other entity.
       (F) Foreign investor partner.--The term ``foreign investor 
     partner'' means--
       (i) a natural person who is not a citizen of the People's 
     Republic of China; and
       (ii) a corporation, partnership, instrumentality, 
     enterprise, agency, or other entity that is organized under 
     the laws of a country other than the People's Republic of 
     China and 50 percent or more of the outstanding capital stock 
     or beneficial interest of such entity is owned (directly or 
     indirectly) by natural persons who are not citizens of the 
     People's Republic of China.
       (G) Nonqualified good.--The term ``nonqualified good'' 
     means a good to which chapter 39, 44, 48, 61, 62, 64, 70, 73, 
     84, 93, or 94 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
     States applies.
       (H) Convict, forced, or indentured labor.--The term 
     ``convict, forced, or indentured labor'' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1307).
       (I) Violations of internationally recognized standards of 
     human rights.--The term ``violations of internationally 
     recognized standards of human rights'' includes but is not 
     limited to, torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment 
     or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, 
     causing the disappearance of persons by abduction and 
     clandestine detention of those persons, secret judicial 
     proceedings, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, 
     liberty, or the security of any person.
       (J) Missile technology control regime.--The term ``Missile 
     Technology Control Regime'' means the agreement, as amended, 
     between the United States, the United Kingdom, the Federal 
     Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and Japan, 
     announced on April 16, 1987, to restrict sensitive missile-
     relevant transfers based on an annex of missile equipment and 
     technology.
       (d) Semiannual Reports.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and the end of each 6-month period 
     occurring thereafter, report to the Congress on the efforts 
     of the executive branch to carry out subsection (c). The 
     Secretary may include in the report a request for additional 
     authority, if necessary, to carry out subsection (c). In 
     addition, the report shall include information regarding the 
     efforts of the executive branch to carry out subsection 
     (a)(3).

     SEC. 4. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

       The President may waive the application of any condition or 
     prohibition imposed on any person pursuant to this Act, if 
     the President determines and reports to the Congress that the 
     continued imposition of the condition or prohibition would 
     have a serious adverse effect on the vital national security 
     interests of the United States.

     SEC. 5. REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT.

       If the President recommends in 1995 that the waiver 
     referred to in section 2 be continued for the People's 
     Republic of China, the President shall state in the document 
     required to be submitted to the Congress by section 402(d) of 
     the Trade Act of 1974, the extent to which the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China has made progress during the 
     period covered by the document, with respect to--
       (1) adhering to the provisions of the Universal Declaration 
     of Human Rights,
       (2) ceasing the exportation to the United States of 
     products made with convict, force, or indentured labor,
       (3) ceasing unfair and discriminatory trade practices which 
     restrict and unreasonably burden American business, and
       (4) adhering to the guidelines and parameters of the 
     Missile Technology Control Regime, the controls adopted by 
     the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the controls adopted by the 
     Australia Group.

     SEC. 6. SANCTIONS BY OTHER COUNTRIES.

       If the President decides not to seek a continuation of a 
     waiver in 1995 for the People's Republic of China under 
     section 402(d) of the Trade Act of 1974, the President shall, 
     during the 30-day period beginning on the date that the 
     President would have recommended to the Congress that such a 
     waiver be continued, undertake efforts to ensure that members 
     of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade take a similar 
     action with respect to the People's Republic of China.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 2261. A bill to amend section 922 of title 18, United States Code, 
to make unlawful a person's failure to comply with firearm purchase 
requirements after moving to a new State of residence; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


               the interstate gun control enforcement act

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation, the Interstate Gun Control Enforcement Act, to ensure that 
firearm owners cannot evade gun control protections when they move to 
another State.
  The bill would make it unlawful to transport a firearm into a State 
without complying with any State laws that require a permit to purchase 
a firearm. The prohibition would apply to individuals who intend to 
reside in the new State for more than 30 days. Violations would be 
punishable by up to 5 years in prison and fines of up to $5,000.
  Mr. President, the need for this legislation became apparent in light 
of a horrifying crime that occurred recently in Saddle Brook, NJ. Four 
people were playing cards at a motel when, without warning, they were 
shot by a complete stranger. The individual charged in the crime, Henry 
Levy, apparently didn't know the people he allegedly was shooting. Nor 
did he have any real provocation to start the assault. Instead, from 
all indications, the shooting was a result of a delusion.
  Levy apparently believed that the people he was shooting were somehow 
harrassing his daughter. When he began shooting, he reportedly shouted 
``I hate everybody'', and ``They are trying to get my family.'' Yet 
officials believe there is no evidence that his daughter was being 
harrassed. Apparently, it was all in his head.
  According to officials involved, Henry Levy had a history of mental 
illness. He was under the care of a psychiatrist and was taking drugs 
for his ailment. In the past, he had been treated for his psychiatric 
problems at a hospital. Clearly, if these facts are true--and there 
seems little dispute about it--Henry Levy is a man who should never 
have been able to get a gun. Anyone with such a history of mental 
problems should be kept as far from dangerous weapons as possible. 
Unfortunately, the system didn't work. Henry Levy got his gun. And the 
result was a terrible tragedy.
  Mr. President, there is no way to reverse the consequences of this 
shooting for the victims and their families. But what we can and must 
do is closely evaluate what happened, and then do everything we can to 
prevent this kind of incident from happening in the future.
  While many questions still remain about this shooting, the incident 
highlights at least one weakness in current law that should be 
addressed. New Jersey has some of the strongest gun control laws in the 
Nation. To buy a gun in New Jersey, an individual must obtain a permit 
to purchase the firearm. To obtain such a permit, an individual must 
undergo a thorough background check, and law enforcement officers can 
deny the permit if they conclude that the applicant would pose a threat 
to public safety. That is a pretty strong law, and it has stopped many 
dangerous people from obtaining deadly weapons.
  However, there is a class of people living in New Jersey who own 
guns, but who have not been subject to this rigorous background check, 
people who have moved to New Jersey and brought guns in from other 
States.
  Henry Levy apparently was such an individual. According to media 
reports, the gun in question was purchased in Arizona, where gun 
control laws are much weaker than in New Jersey. Therefore, Levy did 
not undergo the same kind of rigid background check that he would have 
undergone had he sought a permit in New Jersey.
  Levy, unfortunately, is not alone. Many people move into our State, 
and bring their guns with them, without undergoing the same kind of 
background check that would be necessary if they bought their gun in 
New Jersey. The result is that New Jerseyans are being put at risk.
  This legislation would address this weakness in current law by making 
it a Federal crime for an individual to transport a gun across State 
lines, with the intent to reside in the second State for at least 30 
days, if the individual does not apply within 10 days for a permit to 
purchase, or an equivalent permit. Then, if the application is denied, 
the individual must relinquish the firearm within 5 business days. 
These requirements would apply only in those States that require a 
permit to purchase a firearm.
  Mr. President, I recognize that under the new Brady Act, law 
enforcement officials are supposed to conduct background checks on 
prospective handgun purchasers. However, the Brady Act doesn't go 
nearly far enough.
  First, under the Brady Act, investigations of prospective handgun 
purchasers are limited to five business days. This often is 
insufficient to conduct a thorough investigation. In New Jersey, for 
example, to obtain a permit to purchase, applicants must undergo in-
depth background checks that can take months. Law enforcement officials 
use this time to contact references, check criminal records, and 
conduct very thorough investigations.
  Second, the Brady Act leaves law enforcement officials with limited 
authority to reject prospective purchases. So long as an individual is 
not a member of a class specifically prohibited from receiving 
firearms, and has not violated other legal requirements, applications 
may not be denied. By contrast, New Jersey law enforcement officials 
may reject applications if they determine that granting a permit to 
purchase ``would not be in the interests of the public health, safety 
or welfare.''
  This broad discretion to prevent gun transfers to dangerous 
individuals is especially important in the case of individuals who have 
a history of mental problems. Under current Federal law, guns may not 
be transferred to individuals who have been ``adjudicated as a mental 
defective'' or ``committed to a mental institution.'' However, many 
individuals with serious psychiatric problems are not covered. New 
Jersey's law, unlike Federal law, prevents gun transfers to such 
individuals, if they pose a threat to public safety.
  Mr. President, the people of New Jersey have decided that they want 
to be protected from mentally unstable people with guns. The problem, 
however, is that current laws still allow such people to bring guns 
into New Jersey from other States, where it's much easier to obtain 
dangerous weapons.
  This bill is designed to ensure that when a State establishes 
requirements for gun purchase permits, those State laws will not be 
circumvented by individuals who bring guns with them from out-of-State.
  Mr. President, if it were up to me, I would go much further than this 
proposal, and establish many of New Jersey's strong gun laws on a 
nationwide basis. Unfortunately, as a practical matter, that is 
unlikely to happen in the near future. The opponents of gun control 
have too much power, and the votes just are not there, at least not 
yet.
  I plan to continue doing all I can to change that political dynamic, 
and convince my colleagues to support much tougher gun control laws. 
But in the meantime, I also intend to pursue more narrow approaches 
that may have a more realistic chance of adoption. The fact that this 
bill directly affects only States with permit to purchase requirements 
should help facilitate its prompt enactment.
  Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation to John Fahy, 
the prosecutor of Bergen County, NJ, for his assistance in the 
development of this legislation. I appreciate his cooperation, and I 
wish him the best of luck in pursuing justice in the Saddle Brook 
shooting.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S.2261

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Interstate Gun Control 
     Enforcement Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FIREARM PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS 
                   IN NEW STATE OF RESIDENCE.

       Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection.
       ``(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to transport 
     or cause to be transported into a State and thereafter to 
     possess in the State a firearm any part or component of which 
     has been transported in or has been the object of a 
     transaction affecting interstate commerce if--
       ``(A) the law of the State into which the firearm is 
     transported requires a person to obtain a permit to purchase 
     a firearm; and
       ``(B)(i) within 10 business days after entering the State 
     with intent to reside in the State for a period of more than 
     30 days, the person does not submit an application for such a 
     permit, or another permit for which the standards and 
     procedures for approval are equivalent to a permit to 
     purchase; or
       ``(ii) such an application has been denied, and a period of 
     more than 5 business days has elapsed since the person 
     received notice of the denial.''. 
                                 ______

      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. Bradley):
  S. 2262. To amend the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration 
Act to provide greater flexibility in the expenditure of funds, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                 elwha river ecosystem restoration act

 Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I introduce legislation that is 
very important to resolving a long-standing natural resource dispute in 
my State. It is a bill which, if approved, will enable a project to go 
forward that will protect jobs on the Olympic Peninsula, preserve the 
treaty rights of certain tribes, and restore the once-magnificent 
salmon runs to the Elwha River.
  Congress passed the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration 
Act of 1992--Public Law 102-494--in an effort to end a protracted legal 
struggle over the relicensing of two small power dams on the Elwha 
River in, and adjacent to, the Olympic National Park. The struggle 
arose from the fact that these two dams, installed just after the turn 
of this century before enactment of the Federal Power Act, cut off 
salmon runs of tremendous productivity and cultural value from their 
spawning grounds in the upper reaches of the Elwha watershed. Pursuant 
to Public Law 102-495, the Park Service, working in conjunction with 
other Federal agencies and a local native American tribe, was required 
to complete a study on the procedural options for restoring salmon runs 
to the river.
  In May of this year, the Park Service completed a feasibility study 
on restoring salmon runs to the Elwha River pursuant to Public Law 102-
495, the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act. This 
study concludes it would be feasible to restore the salmon runs by 
removing the dams. Such course of action would enable the Federal 
Government, the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, and certain private 
interests to avoid lengthy, contentious, and expensive litigation. The 
Senate Appropriations Committee has provided $3.5 million in fiscal 
year 1995 for the Park Service to conduct an environmental impact 
statement on the acquisition and removal of the two dams in order to 
restore the Elwha River salmon.
  Assuming the EIS is concluded successfully, proceeding with dam 
removal in future years would force the Federal Government to incur 
significant costs. However, I believe the costs of such action would be 
less than exposing the Government to a costly, court-imposed 
settlement. I am introducing this bill today to repair a flaw in the 
original legislation that would preclude the Secretary of the Interior 
from using the financial resources of all agencies under his 
jurisdiction to address this issue.
  Specifically, the bill would strike language in the current law that 
requires the Secretary to limit his use of funds for Elwha restoration 
to the agencies under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary for 
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. There are other agencies within the 
Department, such as the Bureau of Reclamation, that have significant 
expertise in engineering and public works. I believe it is appropriate 
for the Secretary to have the ability to use this expertise to address 
this issue; fundamentally, the Secretary would be upholding native 
American treaty rights the Department is legally responsible for 
defending.
  Madam President, there is another important consideration this bill 
seeks to address. There is a pulp mill in the town of Port Angeles that 
draws electric power from the dams in question. Public Law 102-495 
provides access to alternate energy sources if the dams are removed. If 
the EIS is affirmative, and if the Secretary is unable to see this 
project through, the pulp mill's access to energy would be called into 
question. If action is forced through litigation to remove the dams--a 
very real possibility--the jobs at this mill would be threatened.
  Therefore, to protect these high-wage jobs, to uphold native American 
treaty rights, and to restore a cultural resource of immense value, it 
is very important for the U.S. Senate to ensure the Department of 
Interior has the resources necessary to implement Public Law 102-495. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that 
a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

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

     SECTION 1. ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM AND FISHERIES RESTORATION 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       Section 9 of the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries 
     Restoration Act (Public Law 102-495; 106 Stat. 3178) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``for expenditure through the Assistant 
     Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks''; and
       (2) by striking ``for expenditure through the National 
     Marine Fisheries Service''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Conrad, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Riegle, Mr. Simon, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Metzenbaum):
  S. 2264. A bill to provide for certain protections in the sale of a 
short line railroad, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


               short line railroad transfers legislation

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that 
will close a loophole being used by railroad companies to avoid 
providing compensation for workers who lose their jobs as a result of 
the company selling short lines. I am pleased that my colleagues 
Senators Leahy, Conrad, Mikulski, DeConcini, Feingold, Kohl, Jeffords, 
Riegle, Simon, Wellstone, and Metzenbaum are joining me today as 
original cosponsors. This bill is similar to legislation that 
Representative Sanders has introduced in the House of Representatives. 
His bill, H.R. 3866, already has over 120 cosponsors.
  Under current law, when workers are displaced because their companies 
abandon lines or merge with another company, the Interstate Commerce 
Commission [ICC] will require that workers are protected under the 
transaction. However, in cases where a company sells a short line to 
another entity, the workers are not protected because of a loophole in 
the law. Since the law provides for only discretionary authority with 
respect to this type of short line sales, some companies have taken 
advantage of the loophole and have created sham transactions to rid 
themselves of existing obligations to their employees. The result is 
that thousands of jobs have been lost without any accompanying 
protections for the displaced workers.
  I would like to point out just a couple of examples. In 1986 when the 
Chicago & North Western [C&NW] decided to sell 965 miles of its lines 
across South Dakota and Minnesota, a paper company, the DM&E, was 
created to purchase and operate those lines with $500,000 seed money 
from the C&NW.
  Workers were told their jobs were to be abolished and there would be 
no conditions imposed to protect them. Some employees affected under 
this transaction were over 50 years old with 25 or 30 years of service; 
2,000 C&NW workers were affected by the sale and D&ME began service 
with about 100 to 150 workers.
  It is interesting to note that when D&ME applied to the ICC for 
approval of the sale, it informed the agency that it was to be wholly 
independent of C&NW. Later when Union Pacific Railroad acquired control 
of C&NW, suddenly DM&E changed its story by claiming that it had been 
controlled by C&NW since its inception. This is a case of abuse of a 
section 10901 transaction as employees were left with either no jobs or 
jobs at lower wages.
  Another example involves a 1990 transaction by the Southern Pacific 
[SP] involving branch lines in Oregon. The SP determined that it could 
substantially reduce its cost of operations by ridding itself of the 
expense of operating and maintaining these branch lines while retaining 
all of the traffic generated by those lines for business on its 
trunkline system.
  The SP contracted with Genesse and Wyoming [G&W], an Eastern holding 
company of short line railroads, to operate and maintain the branch 
lines. G&W then created a paper railroad, the Willamette & Pacific, 
which leased all of SP's branch lines west of its north-south 
trunklines. Two other independent operators, the Willamette Valley and 
Mollala Valley, acquired the SP's less desirable lines east of the 
north-south trunkline. All this was accomplished through the section 
10901 loophole.
  But there was more to this deal. The leases effectively prohibited, 
by use of contractual penalties, the three lessees from dealing with 
any railroad other than the SP and the leases contained economic 
incentives to maintain or improve the level of traffic flowing to and 
from the SP. Meanwhile, the jobs of all the SP employees who had 
operated or maintained equipment used on the branch lines were 
abolished without the protective conditions normally provided employees 
in lease cases. Thus, while revenues were preserved for the SP, the new 
railroads employed far fewer workers, at lower wages, and with few 
contract protections.
  For the SP the end result was that it was able to rid itself of the 
cost of operating and maintaining 260 miles of branch lines while 
retaining all the traffic and revenues. In short, because of the misuse 
of section 10901 the carriers involved in these transactions were 
allowed to void collective-bargaining agreements, eliminate jobs, evade 
statutory obligations to employees, and cut workers' wages and 
benefits.
  My legislation would close this loophole and ensure that when 
companies apply for ICC approval of a short line, the same worker 
protections that apply in cases of approved abandonments and approved 
mergers will apply to short lines. Under this bill, railroad companies 
cannot use the existing loophole to avoid labor protections by setting 
up phony sales of short lines.
  Critics of this legislation will contend that this bill would impose 
excessive costs to short line transactions by requiring a carrier to 
provide affected workers 1 year of pay or 6 years of employment. That 
is not the case. I am not encouraging that level of protection with 
this legislation. The law does provide up to 6 years of protective 
payments or assured employment by the selling company in transfers 
subject to ICC approval.
  I want to be clear that this bill does not address what severance pay 
might be appropriate. It simply addresses when it is required.
  Carriers' costs are very sensitive in rural areas like North Dakota 
and I am mindful of this. Nevertheless, I do think that workers do make 
a good case that if the ICC is going to provide labor protections for 
workers affected by mergers, abandonments, and other transfers, then 
the ICC should provide similar protections for short line sales as 
well, just as it did prior to the mid-1980's. At that time the ICC was 
requiring labor protections for short line sales. It has only been in 
the last decade that protections were not provided in short line sales 
and the Sanders legislation that I am introducing would restore that 
situation.
  In introducing this legislation I want to make it clear to my 
colleagues that I hope this bill will serve as a starting point for 
negotiations between workers and carriers. It is my hope that 
ultimately, some agreement can be reached where affected workers are 
assured some protection--which they deserve--and carriers have some 
assurance that the costs of these protections will not be unreasonable.
  While protective levels and their duration may be debated, I feel 
strongly that it is unreasonable and unfair to allow railroads to 
create sham transactions to get rid of workers and leave the workers 
without any protection at all. That is plain unfair, and that's what I 
want to correct with this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT LINE CONSTRUCTION, ACQUISITION, AND 
                   OPERATION.

       Section 10901 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) the Commission shall, in any order approving an 
     application under this section, require a fair and equitable 
     arrangement for protection of the interests of railroad 
     employees who may be affected thereby no less protective of 
     and beneficial to the interests of such employees than those 
     established pursuant to section 11347 of this title.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (e).

     SECTION 2. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO AVOID ABANDONMENT AND 
                   DISCONTINUANCE.

       Section 10905 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) No sale or offer of financial assistance shall be 
     approved unless the Commission certifies a fair and equitable 
     arrangement for the protection of the interests of employees 
     who may be affected by such approval no less protective of 
     and beneficial to the interests of such employees than those 
     established pursuant to section 11347 of this 
     title.''.

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Dorgan 
in introducing this legislation to plug a loophole in the Interstate 
Commerce Act that railroad companies have been running trains through 
for the past 12 years. Some railroad companies are forming paper 
corporations to avoid providing fair and equitable financial 
arrangements to workers displaced by the sale of a railroad. These 
financial arrangements, called labor protection benefits, provide 
railroad workers who lose their jobs with essential support while they 
make the transition to other work.
  More and more railroad companies get around this labor protection 
requirement by selling off small chunks of their lines to form regional 
railroads, or short line railroads. Today, short line railroads account 
for 24 percent of U.S. railroad trackage, up from 6 percent only two 
decades ago. From 1950 to 1980, 75 new short line railroads were 
formed. From 1980 to 1988, 190 new short line railroads, almost 24 per 
year, were formed. That's about 10 times faster than the historical 
average.
  This explosion of short line railroads was created by the Interstate 
Commerce Commission [ICC].
  When Congress passed the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 to promote 
competition among railroads, it gave the ICC discretion under section 
10901 of the act to impose labor protection benefits. It was designed 
to be available for the sale of small railroads only. In other railroad 
sales, and when a railroad is abandoned, Congress required the ICC to 
award labor protection benefits to all employees displaced by the sale 
or abandonment.
  Congress concluded that the ICC, as the independent Federal agency 
with expertise in railroad sales, should weigh the facts of each sale 
to decide if labor protection under section 10901 was appropriate. 
Congress reasoned that the ICC's railroad experience would be the best 
guide to determine when it was fair and equitable to impose the costs 
of labor protection benefits in small railroad sales.
  Since 1982, the ICC has refused to impose labor protection benefits 
in any railroad sale under section 10901. In fact, the ICC issued 
regulations in 1985 that exempt short line sales from virtually any 
review. Under these regulations, the ICC has made this section 
available to all nonrail carrier buyers--companies that did not provide 
rail transportation until after the ICC approved their purchase of a 
railroad. The regulations require the ICC to automatically approve 
section 10901 sales after 7 days.
  Under this ``Alice in Wonderland'' backward procedure, the ICC may--
but is not required to--review a short line railroad sale after the 
agency has already approved it and the sale has occurred. The ICC has 
ruled that when it reviews a section 10901 approval, it may award labor 
protection benefits only if it finds exceptional circumstances. You may 
ask what are these circumstances? Who knows? The ICC has never found 
exceptional circumstances in the hundreds of railroad sales under this 
law.
  The railroad industry knows that the ICC has never imposed labor 
protection benefits under this law, and many have exploited this hands-
off approach.
  I am all too familiar with this exploitation. In my home State, the 
Central Vermont Railway, the CV, may become the latest short line 
victim under this loophole. The CV has been headquartered in 
St. Albans, VT since 1843, establishing St. Albans' reputation as the 
railroad city. Today the railroad is still the heart and soul of this 
smalltown community and provides almost 200 Vermonters with quality 
jobs. But this could all change under a proposed deal that was 
announced just last month.
  The owners of the CV, CN North America, and the Grand Trunk Corp. 
plan to sell CV's assets to Railtex, Inc. of San Antonio, TX. To fit 
through this loophole and breeze by the ICC, Railtex intends to form a 
new corporate subsidiary to buy the CV. Although Railtex operates 23 
regional railroads and its stock is publicly traded as a rail company, 
its new paper corporation would claim to be a nonrail carrier under the 
law. Railtex plans to claim nonrail carrier status while it negotiates 
with the CV over long-term agreements on prices, schedule, marketing, 
and other critical factors governing the future operation of the 
railroad.
  After the 7 days, Railtex would then take control of the CV under the 
ICC's automatic approval process and fire all the CV's employees. 
Railtex's new paper corporation would hire 70 to 80 new employees, 
possibly among them some of the workers it had just fired. Employees of 
Railtex's new paper corporation would be forced to accept limited or no 
union representation, wage cuts, radically altered pension plans and 
work rules. And it is unclear what--if any--severance benefits would be 
offered to the CV's fired workers. What kind of a deal is that for the 
178 loyal CV employees and their families?
  In the past, the ICC merely rubber stamped its approval of deals like 
the proposed CV sale. This bill would change that. The legislation 
introduced today deletes the ICC's discretion in awarding labor 
protection benefits under section 10901. Under the bill, the ICC would 
be forced to award labor protection benefits in all railroad sales.
  I have no illusions about this legislation. It is not perfect. I have 
concerns that the imposition of labor protection benefits in all 
railroad sales may hurt the chances of some small railroads from ever 
being sold. The added cost of labor protection benefits may scuttle the 
sale of these railroads and eventually leave to a few lines being 
abandoned. Abandoned rail lines hurt everyone--the company, the workers 
and the surrounding community. I hope the Senate Transportation 
Committee and Surface Transportation Subcommittee will closely examine 
the potential for any increase in abandoned railroads under this bill.
  But even with these concerns, I support this bill because it sends a 
message to the ICC: Business as usual is unacceptable. The ICC must 
start doing its job and stop rubber stamping questionable deals. The 
time has come for the ICC to start considering the impact of short line 
railroad sales on rail workers and their families.
 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join Senator Dorgan in 
introducing S. 2264 because I believe that there is something amiss in 
the process by which short line railroads are being sold off by main 
line carriers and then bought up and operated by newly created, non-
rail companies. It is my hope that this bill can help to clarify the 
proper policy which should be applied in these situations.
  For the past decade or more, the railroad industry, like many other 
American industries, has undergone a substantial amount of 
consolidation and change. This has occurred across the Nation, 
affecting virtually every region of the country. Recently, the issue 
has come home to roost in my own State of Vermont in the form of the 
situation regarding proposed sale of the Central Vermont Railway.
  Mr. President, this is a very complex area of law and there clearly 
is much more that we need to learn about this issue.
  When such a sale is proposed, one of the issues to be resolved is 
whether the labor protective provisions are to be applied. These 
protections--which call for as much as 6 years of severance pay and 
benefits continuation--appear to be unique to the railroad industry. 
Certainly, there is nothing similar in the general body of labor law 
applicable to other American industries.
  The Interstate Commerce Commission is charged with the responsibility 
of overseeing such short line sales and making the determination 
whether labor protections should be invoked. It does so pursuant to 
statutory authority and longstanding interpretive decisions and 
regulations. However, the range of the ICC's options is very much 
dependent on the type of filing made by the parties to the sale. If the 
sale is presented as being from one rail carrier to another--under 
section 11343 or similar provisions of the act--the Commission has no 
discretion, it must award full protection at the level mandated by the 
New York Dock standard. On the other hand, if the filing is made on the 
basis of the sale being from a rail carrier to a noncarrier --under 
section 10901--the FCC has much greater discretion. The agency then can 
first determine whether this is a transaction in which labor 
protections are at all appropriate. Then, assuming they are deemed 
appropriate, the ICC can decide what level of protections should be 
imposed, with an unlimited range of options from zero up through the 
full New York Dock standard.
  Given this procedural reality, and the fact that the ICC has never 
ordered New York Dock protections on a filing presented under section 
10901, it is no surprise that most such sales are presented by the 
buyer and seller under that section. The cost savings in the deal are 
simply too large for them to ignore.
  The rail unions understandably are of the opinion that the section 
10901 filing procedure is being misused by these companies to avoid the 
labor protections which Congress enacted for the benefit of rail 
employees. Further, they contend that 10901 was never intended to be 
used as extensively as is now taking place, so that Congress should 
amend the act to correct this practice. The bill which we introduce 
today would do just that by requiring New York Dock protections to be 
imposed in carier-to-noncarrier transactions as well as those between 
carriers.
  In sponsoring this measure, I am mindful of the fact that the 
imposition of New York Dock standard protections may have the effect of 
killing some sales of marginal lines. Often short lines are being sold 
off precisely because they are barely profitable, or outright money 
losers, within the main line systems. In some measure, the option of a 
section 10901 sale is an alternative to the abandonment of these lines 
by the main line companies. Obviously, given the loss of jobs and 
negative economic impact on the surrounding communities that go along 
with abandonments, this is not a result that anyone wishes to see.
  It is my hope, Mr. President, that this matter can be given quick 
attention by Congress, including a thorough investigation of the issues 
of whether the current law is being abused, whether the ICC should be 
stripped of the authority to impose labor protections short of the full 
New York Dock standard, and whether the New York Dock protections lead 
to more railroad abandonments, job losses and economic disruption.
  In that regard, I am preparing to conduct a field hearing in St. 
Albans, VT next week to examine these issues as they relate to the 
proposed sale of the Central Vermont Railway. I hope that my colleagues 
on the Commerce Committee will follow up on this with their own 
hearings and investigation. This matter deserves their time and 
attention.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BRADLEY (by request):
  S. 2266. A bill to amend the Recreation Management Act of 1992, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          recreation management act of 1992 amendments of 1994

 Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce 
legislation on behalf of the administration to amend the Recreation 
Management Act of 1992 to provide the Secretary of the Interior with 
law enforcement authority to fulfill the Secretary's responsibility for 
protecting facilities and natural and cultural resources on Bureau of 
Reclamation lands and the many visitors who use Reclamation recreation 
resources.
  Let me provide some background on the need for these amendments to 
the Recreation Management Act. Public Law 161 (Act of June, 17, 1902) 
directs the Secretary of the Interior to examine, survey for, locate, 
and construct irrigation works for the storage, diversion and 
development of water for reclamation of arid and semiarid lands in the 
17 Western States. This law set aside a special fund within the U.S. 
Treasury to be known as the ``reclamation fund'' for use in carrying 
out these duties. While the Secretary is instructed to restore to 
public use any of the lands withdrawn and not required for projects, 
Public Law 161 provides that title to and management and operation of 
the reservoirs and the works necessary for their protection and 
operation will remain with the Federal Government unless Congress 
provides otherwise. The Secretary is authorized to perform any and all 
acts and to make any necessary rules and regulations to carry out the 
provisions of Public Law 161.
  On October 30, 1992, Public Law 102-575 was enacted as the 
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. Under 
section 2805(a)(2)(B) of that Act, the Commissioner of the Bureau of 
Reclamation is directed to make any regulations necessary to insure the 
protection, comfort, and well being of the public using reclamation 
lands. Section 2805(a)(2)(C) charges the Commissioner with making the 
necessary regulations for insuring the protection of resource values.
  While the Secretary, in Public Law 161, was given the responsibility 
for protection of land and physical resources and structures and in 
Public Law 102-575 responsibility for protection of the visitor and 
resources, neither public law gave the Secretary or the Commissioner 
the authority to accomplish the given tasks. This bill and the 
resulting regulations are an attempt to rectify this inconsistency.
  Of the 301 projects that the Bureau of Reclamation [BOR] has 
completed, the BOR now participates in the management of forty-four. 
These projects comprise about 600,000 acres and receive over 4 million 
visits annually. Although the Reclamation program covers the 17 Western 
States, the BOR directly manages only eight projects. Visitation to 
these areas vary from a few thousand annually, like Little Wood 
Reservoir in Idaho, to that of Lake Berryessa, in California, that has 
a visitation of over 1 million.

  As the economics of down sizing and cost tightening filters down to 
the States and its subdivisions (mostly sheriff's offices), the 
availability of competent support is harder and harder to assure. While 
acres managed and visitation often show valid cause for law 
enforcement, the distances to adequate support is often an added 
burden. In cases like Lake Berryessa, the local law enforcement offices 
have told the BOR that they will no longer afford any protection or 
patrol because the visitation is mainly from outside their jurisdiction 
and they are too busy taking care of their own constituents.
  Recently, several State and local cooperating agencies have informed 
the BOR that they were becoming financially burdened to the point of no 
longer being able to afford the operation of their project reservoirs. 
At the present time, the States or their political subdivisions manage 
over 1.5 million acres of land and water under agreements with the BOR. 
As some of these projects are returned to the BOR, they come with 
visitor facilities and an established visitation that expect management 
of the project.
  To further complicate the matter, many of the Reclamation project 
sites have concentrations of prehistoric resources. These archeological 
resources need particular protection from vandalism, inadvertent 
destruction, and outright theft. A recent case of inappropriate off-
road vehicle use became an issue at the American Falls Reservoir, in 
Idaho, when the BOR asked for law enforcement aid from the National 
Park Service [NPS]. The BOR found that the NPS could not help the BOR 
except by using deputy U.S. Marshals. While this particular incident 
was successfully concluded, through the cooperation of the Marshal's 
Service, this avenue of operation is neither correct nor expedient.
  This legislation addresses the issues of authority, jurisdiction, and 
techniques of accomplishing the protection responsibilities laid out in 
Public Laws 161 and 102-575. The bill in no way restricts the 
operations of either the State or its political subdivisions or that of 
other Federal agencies in their law enforcement actions. Instead, it 
supplements these activities with on-site personnel for quicker 
response in visitor emergencies and a more thorough protection of 
facilities and natural and cultural resources.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BROWN:
  S. 2267. A bill to enable all able-bodied Federal prisoners to work; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     federal prisoners-to-work act

 Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I read an article not long ago 
written by a Federal prisoner. The article described life in prison as 
being devoid of any meaning, of any positive influences and of any hope 
of improvement. He described prisoners watching TV all day, cheering 
the bad guys and booing the cops. Our criminal justice system basically 
locks prisoners up for a while, allows the negative influences to take 
root and grow, and then releases them into society to prey once again.
  Today, I am introducing a bill today that would go a long way toward 
addressing this problem. This bill would enable all Federal prisoners 
to work.
  There is already an existing work program in prison, but due to 
statutory limits and increasing populations, the numbers of prisoners 
who work in these programs has decreased from 50 percent to below 25 
percent.
  With so few prisoners working, inmates are robbed of the dignity that 
comes with being useful; the inmates miss a golden opportunity to learn 
a skill, to learn how to take orders, to learn how to live under a 
schedule, to learn how to interact with others. As a consequence, when 
inmates are released into society, with empty pockets, no skills and no 
diligence, they quite naturally fall into predatory criminal behavior 
again.
  The prison work bill would expand the opportunity for work in prisons 
by enabling Federal prisons to manufacture and sell goods for disaster 
relief, to recycle and sell products nobody else can recycle because of 
the costliness, to sell their excess equipment to private companies, to 
make and sell goods nobody else can because of the labor-intensive 
nature, and to conduct prison business without all the redtape.
  In so doing, we could put our Federal prison inmates to work. Work is 
the best way to turn someone around and make them a contributing member 
of society. Imagine this: No longer would prisoners laze around and 
watch TV; instead, they would be put to hard, meaningful work. 
Prisoners would come out of prison with a job skill and some hard-
earned money to make the transition back into society.
  If you question how well this would work, look at the statistics: 89 
percent of the inmates who worked in these programs successfully 
completed their halfway house stay--in other words, almost 9 out of 10 
did not recidivate; 85.5 percent of the inmates who worked in these 
programs found full-time work while at the halfway house. That makes 
them 25 percent more likely to find work than other inmates.
  The authors of the prison work study stated that:

       Inmates who participated in (prison) work and other 
     vocational programming during their imprisonment showed 
     better adjustment, were less likely to be revoked at the end 
     of their first year back in the community, were more likely 
     to be employed in the halfway house and community, and earned 
     slightly more money in the community than inmates who had 
     similar background characteristics, but who did not 
     participate in work and vocational training programs.

  As we hear all the rhetoric about new crime control measures, I hope 
we can look in our own back yard and make the Federal prison system a 
place where we don't just bring in a bad criminal one year and release 
an even worse criminal a few years later.
  In addition to putting prisoners to work, we can provide cheap goods 
to the Government. By selling products to the Government and elsewhere, 
prison work programs pay for themselves as well as some of the 
incarceration and security costs. To date, prison workers have 
manufactured wiring for the Patriot missile, helmets and blankets for 
Operation Desert Storm, and desks for Federal office buildings. Prison 
inmates become proud of their labor--I have heard of inmates who felt 
deeply about their input into Operation Desert Storm. This kind of 
meaningful work is second to none in turning criminals into productive 
citizens.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WOFFORD (for himself, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Riegle, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Mr. Metzenbaum, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 2268. A bill to provide for the establishment of a working group 
on trade-related worker rights and labor standards as part of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs, and Trade, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


          worker rights and labor standards trade act of 1994

 Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, today I'm introducing legislation 
to direct the administration to work to establish a standing committee 
in the World Trade Organization to examine the relationship between 
trade and internationally recognized worker rights.
  Improvements in worker rights and labor standards internationally are 
fundamentally related to the success of free trade. Trade is not and 
should not be viewed as an end in itself. It should be conducted in a 
way that improves living standards of workers as well as benefit 
consumers and producers.
  And as Secretary of Labor Bob Reich recently stated:

       If a country pursues policies that hold down living 
     standards and limit to a narrow elite the benefits of trade 
     and development, the promise of open commerce is perverted 
     and drained of its rationale.

  Former Secretary of Labor Bill Brock once described the relationship 
of trade and worker rights as follows:

       Those countries which are flooding world markets with goods 
     made by children, or by workers who can't form free trade 
     unions or bargain collectively, or who are denied even the 
     most minimum standards of safety and health . . . are doing 
     more harm to the principle of free and fair trade than any 
     protectionist groups I can think of.

  The concept of worker rights and trade being intertwined is long 
standing in U.S. policy. The earliest congressional attention to the 
issue came in 1890, when the McKinley Tariff prohibited imports 
manufactured by convict labor. During the last 10 years, the United 
States has applied a labor standard to several trade laws: in 1983, to 
the Caribbean Basin Initiative; in 1984, to the Generalized System of 
Preferences; in 1985, to the Anti-Apartheid sanctions against South 
Africa and to the operations of the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation; in 1988, to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act; and 
most recently the North America Free Trade Agreement.
  Addressing international labor standards and worker rights in the 
General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs is not new either. The 
commitment goes as far back as the Havana Charter in 1948, which stated 
``the members recognize that unfair labor conditions, particularly in 
production for export, create difficulties in international trade and 
accordingly, each member shall take whatever action may be feasible and 
appropriate within its territory.'' And the GATT allows countries to 
restrict imports made with prison labor.
  The U.S. has pursued the issue of improving labor rights in the GATT. 
In the 1988 Trade Act, Congress enacted into law a provision that made 
worker rights a principle United States negotiating objective in the 
Uruguay round of trade negotiations, which were just completed and the 
results of which we now are reviewing. Specifically, it called upon 
U.S. negotiators to the GATT ``to promote respect for worker rights; to 
secure a review of the relationship of worker rights to GATT articles, 
objectives, and related instruments with a view to ensuring that the 
benefits of the trading system are available to all workers; and to 
adopt, as a principle of the GATT, that denial of worker rights should 
not be a means for a country or its industries to gain competitive 
advantage in international trade.'' The Clinton administration had some 
success in achieving this goal. The legislation I am introducing today 
would direct them to keep going.

  Mr. President, we've had the bipartisan tradition of the United 
States to pursue improved living standards and democratic values world-
wide. This legislation comes out of that tradition. The goal of this 
legislation is not to impose a single, identical standard for all 
Nations. Rather, the goal of this legislation is to further the 
development of a global consensus for the need to safeguard workers and 
the tools to enforce that consensus.
  We have a domestic imperative for pursuing this agenda. American 
workers cannot afford to tolerate a trading system that puts them in 
competition with workers who are denied basic rights. In too many 
circumstances, international trade is an excuse for depressing working 
standards and denying worker rights here at home or for shutting down 
plants and moving them abroad, such as that done by Leslie Fay in 
Northeast Pennsylvania.
  We also have a responsibility to workers all around the world. The 
suffering some adults and children have to endure to make a living is 
unconscionable. With decent and appropriate labor standards, trade can 
truly help improve their living standards and promote more democratic 
economic development.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Worker Rights and Labor 
     Standards Trade Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF WORKING GROUP ON WORKER RIGHTS.

       (a) Action by the President.--The President shall seek the 
     establishment as part of the GATT of a working group to 
     examine the relationship for fundamental, internationally 
     recognized worker rights to the articles, objectives, and 
     related instruments of the GATT.
       (b) Objectives of Working Group.--The objectives of the 
     working group described in subsection (a) are--
       (1) to explore ways to link the conduct of international 
     trade and respect for fundamental, internationally recognized 
     worker rights;
       (2) to examine the economic impact of trade distortions 
     that are attributable to the systematic denial of 
     fundamental, internationally recognized worker rights;
       (3) to consider and develop information on the incidence 
     and effects of systematic, trade-distorting worker rights 
     practices and ways to address such practices; and
       (4) to establish a procedure for preventing any country or 
     industry from gaining a competitive advantage in 
     international trade through the systematic denial of 
     fundamental, internationally recognized worker rights.
       (c) Establishment of Standing Committee on Worker Rights 
     Within the World Trade Organization.--At such time as the 
     World Trade Organization becomes effective, the President 
     shall seek the establishment in the World Trade Organization 
     of a standing committee on worker rights to which the 
     functions and objectives of the working group described in 
     section 3 shall be transferred.

     Sec. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) The term ``fundamental, internationally recognized 
     worker rights'' shall have the meaning as defined in section 
     502(a)(4) of the Trade Act of 1974.
       (2) GATT.--The term ``GATT'' means the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade.
                                 ______

      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 2269. A bill to protect native American cultures and to guarantee 
the free exercise of religion by native Americans; to the Committee on 
Indian Affairs.


 native american cultural protection and free exercise of religion act 
                                of 1994

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that is 
fundamental to the sovereignty of the Indian nations and which is in 
furtherance of the policy established in the ``Joint Resolution 
American Indian Religious Freedom'' enacted by Congress in 1978. For, 
Mr. President, what can be more fundamental to sovereignty than the 
freedom to practice one's culture, one's religion, and one's 
traditions?
  This measure is intended to protect native American cultures, and 
guarantees the free exercise of religion by native Americans that 
President Clinton spoke so eloquently of when he addressed the tribal 
leaders at the White House on April 29, 1994. This legislation will not 
only affirm but will give validity and credibility to the first 
principle that President Clinton stated must guide relationships 
between the United States and Indian nations--that first principle is 
one of respect for Indian values, Indian religions, Indian identity, 
and Indian sovereignty.
  As my esteemed colleagues may be aware, during President Clinton's 
remarks at that historic meeting with Indian tribal leaders, he 
acknowledged the unique government-to-government relationship the 
United States has enjoyed throughout our history with the Indian 
nations of this country. He pledged to fulfill the trust obligations of 
the Federal Government, and reaffirmed this Nation's commitment to 
self-determination for tribal governments. He vowed to honor and 
respect tribal sovereignty. And, he promised to continue his efforts to 
protect the rights of native Americans to practice their religions as 
they wished.
  The President also stated that the first principle in every 
relationship between the United States and the Indian nations of this 
country must be to respect the right of Indian people to remain who 
they are and to live the way that they want to live. Even more 
importantly, he acknowledged his understanding that for many native 
Americans, traditional religious and ceremonies are the essence of 
native American culture and existence.
  The President made it abundantly clear that no agenda for religious 
freedom will be complete until native American traditional religious 
practices have received the protection that they deserve. He also 
stated that legislation is needed to protect those native American 
religious practices that are threatened by Federal action. And, he 
acknowledged that a law which protects the rights of native Americans 
to fully exercise their religion in a manner they choose is long 
overdue.
  Mr. President, the measure I am introducing today will provide that 
long overdue protection of which President Clinton spoke so 
passionately.
  Mr. President, the meaning of ``religion'' for native Americans has a 
substantially different connotation than religions which are based on 
European concepts. This legislation recognizes the importance of 
traditional cultural practices and spiritual beliefs to native 
Americans, and embraces the concept that religion is deeply intertwined 
with the very fabric of native American cultural identity and ways of 
life. This legislation further recognizes that because native American 
traditional cultural practices are so intertwined with religious 
practices, and because the spiritual beliefs and traditional ceremonial 
practices of native Americans are such an integral part of life itself, 
culture and religion cannot be separated.

  The legislation also takes into account the inherent differences that 
exist among native American traditional cultures and respects the 
diverse customs, ceremonies, and traditions of native American 
religious practices and spiritual beliefs. The bill addresses native 
American cultural and religious practices in four areas: sacred sites, 
prisoner's rights, the sacramental use of peyote, and the use of eagle 
feathers and other animals and plants within the context of traditional 
cultural practices.
  First, the legislation provides protection of native American sacred 
sites and puts into place a mechanism for resolving disputes. Native 
Americans believe that certain locations are most sacred and believe 
that these sites should be protected. There are currently over 44 
sacred sites that are threatened by tourism, development, and resource 
exploitation.
  Second, the legislation extends protection to native Americans for 
the sacramental use of peyote. Currently, the religious use of peyote, 
which is central to the ceremonies of the native American church, is 
protected under the laws of 28 States. But in the remaining 22 States, 
the religious use of peyote is a crime punishable by law despite Drug 
Enforcement Agency exemptions for native American church members.
  Third, the legislation protects the rights of native American 
prisoners to the same extent as prisoners of other religious faiths. 
Many native American prisoners are denied access to spiritual leaders, 
and denied the opportunity to practice their religions, despite the 
fact that other prisoners are consistently provided access to priests, 
ministers, rabbis, and other religious leaders. There are also prison 
requirements that conflict with native American cultural and religious 
customs.
  Finally, the legislation facilitates native American access to and 
use of eagle feathers and plants for religious ceremonial purposes. 
While eagle feathers and parts of other sacred plants and animals are 
sometimes used in cultural and religious ceremonies, native Americans 
face criminal prosecution if they are in possession of eagle parts or 
feathers due to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. This 
legislation would permit the use of lawfully obtained eagle feathers.
  The bill also provides clear, legally enforceable authority for the 
protection of native American cultures and the free exercise of 
religion by native Americans.
  In addressing the many problems that face native American communities 
today, it is imperative that we should first address the issue of 
spirituality and cultural traditions--the very soul of most native 
American communities. It is essential for native American people across 
this country to be free to practice their cultural and religious 
ceremonies and to preserve their values and traditions for future 
generations.
  As you may recall, on May 25, 1993, I introduced legislation what 
would provide for the protection of native American religious freedom. 
Prior to the introduction of that bill, the Committee on Indian Affairs 
held six field hearings in various regions of the country on the draft 
bill. Following introduction of the bill, two additional hearings were 
held here in Washington, DC. In addition to the hearings, the committee 
has worked steadily with the American Indian Religious Freedom 
Coalition and the administration to review and refine the bill. 
Throughout the past year, numerous meetings were held with members of 
the coalition and administration representatives to identify issues and 
areas of concern, and to discuss provisions and proposals relating to 
the bill. I am greatly encouraged by the progress of the past year. It 
is this progress and the results from the meetings with the 
administration and coalition that has guided my decision to introduce a 
new bill which is a reflection of the progress made over the past year.

  Mr. President, it is clear that there must be a rebalancing of 
governmental interests to assure the protection of native American 
cultural and religious practices. The legislation I am introducing 
today would create this balance. The cultural and religious rights of 
native Americans have not been adequately protected or respected, and 
as the trustee of the native peoples of this land, I believe that it is 
incumbent upon the United States to correct this deficiency. I urge 
careful consideration and swift passage of this important measure in 
the 103d session of the Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2269

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Native 
     American Cultural Protection and Free Exercise of Religion 
     Act of 1994''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Policy.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

          Title I--Protection of Native American Sacred Sites

Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Federal Lands Access.
Sec. 103. Land management decisions; planning, identification, and 
              notice.
Sec. 104. Consultation.
Sec. 105. Administrative Proceeding.
Sec. 106. Tribal authority over Native American sacred sites on Indian 
              lands.
Sec. 107. Application of other laws.
Sec. 108. Confidentiality.
Sec. 109. Criminal sanctions.

                  Title II--Traditional Use of Peyote

Sec. 201. Findings.
Sec. 202. Traditional use of peyote.

                      Title III--Prisoners' Rights

Sec. 301. Rights.

 Title IV--Cultural and Religious Use of Eagles and Other Animals and 
                                 Plants

Sec. 401. Cultural and Religious use of eagles.
Sec. 402. Other animals and plants.

                   Title V--Jurisdiction and Remedies

Sec. 501. Jurisdiction and remedies

                        Title VI--Miscellaneous

Sec. 601. Savings clause.
Sec. 602. Severability.
Sec. 603. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 604. Regulations.
Sec. 605. Protections.
Sec. 606. Effective Date.

     SEC. 2. POLICY.

       ``It is the policy of the United States, in furtherance of 
     the policy established in the joint resolution entitled 
     ``Joint Resolution American Indian Religious Freedom'', 
     approved August 11, 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996), to protect and 
     preserve the inherent right of any Native American to 
     believe, express, exercise and practice his or her 
     traditional culture and religion, including, but not limited 
     to, access to any Native American sacred site, use and 
     possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship 
     through ceremonial and traditional rites.''

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this Act--
       ``(1) The term ``adverse impact'' means any action or any 
     potential action which has the effect or which will have the 
     effect of--
       ``(a) altering, disturbing, desecrating or destroying a 
     Native American sacred site;
       ``(b) inhibiting, infringing upon or interfering with 
     Native American traditional cultural practices; or
       ``(c) imposing a burden upon the free exercise of a Native 
     American religion.
       ``(2) The term ``aggrieved party'' means any Native 
     American, Indian tribe, Native Hawaiian organization, Native 
     American practitioner or Native American traditional leader 
     as defined by this Act, and to whom the provisions of this 
     Act apply.
       ``(3) The term ``consultation'' means, at a minimum, 
     agency-initiated outreach activities which will result in a 
     meaningful process for face-to-face deliberations and 
     conferral with all Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian 
     organizations and Native American traditional leaders that 
     should be consulted and which is conducted in a realistic 
     manner that is cognizant of the cultural values, 
     socioeconomic factors and administrative structures, if any, 
     of the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations with an 
     interest in the land in question.
       ``(4) The term ``covered federal activity'' means--
       ``(a) any new or reauthorized project, program or activity, 
     or any new phase of existing projects, programs and 
     activities, under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a 
     federal agency including but not limited to--
       ``(1) those carried out by or on behalf of the agency, on 
     federal or state lands, or involving navigable waters;
       ``(2) those activities on federal or state lands, or 
     involving navigable waters, requiring a federal permit, 
     license or approval;
       ``(3) those taking place on federal or state lands, or 
     involving navigable waters, subject to state regulations 
     pursuant to a delegation or approval by a federal agency;
       ``(4) those carried our with more than de minimis federal 
     financial assistance;
       ``(5) renewals, reauthorizations, relicensing, and similar 
     decisions;
       ``(6) regular and cyclical review of land management plans 
     by agencies;
       ``(7) programs funded by federal highway funds;
       ``(8) activities subject to licensing by the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
       ``(9) the siting of hazardous, low-level nuclear or 
     transuranic waste or toxic waste disposal, and disposal 
     facilities, and the disposal of such materials; or
       ``(10) those activities that would not be covered federal 
     activities by virtue of section 3(4)(b)(1), if an Indian 
     tribe affirmatively elects to have the provisions of this Act 
     apply to a particular covered federal activity on Indian 
     lands which are subject to the tribe's jurisdiction;
       ``(b) The term ``covered federal activity'' does not 
     include:
       ``(1) Regulations, projects, activities, or programs 
     operated, approved, or sponsored by Indian tribes, including, 
     but not limited to, those projects, activities, or programs 
     which are funded in whole or in part by federal funds 
     pursuant to contract, compact, grant or agreement, or which 
     require federal permits, licenses or approvals, unless the 
     Indian tribe invokes section 3(4)(a)(10);
       ``(2) ongoing and continuing activities underway prior to 
     enactment of this Act, or activities for which a final 
     commitment has been made prior to enactment of this Act and 
     for which substantial funds have been spent or implementation 
     is substantially underway;
       ``(3) routine activities that an agency determines through 
     negotiations with Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian 
     organizations to be unlikely to affect Native American sacred 
     sites or traditional cultural practices, and maintenance 
     activities involving structures or projects existing at the 
     time of enactment of this Act or later constructed in 
     compliance with this Act which do not change the size or 
     scale or the existing use of those projects or structures;
       ``(4) activity on state land with de minimis federal 
     funding and no other federal role;
       ``(5) any actions on private lands, other than those 
     enumerated in subsection (a), even though those actions are 
     subject to federal permit, license, or approval, or state 
     regulation of private lands under a federal delegation of 
     authority, or conducted with de minimis federal funding; or
       ``(6) direct federal loans and federal loan guarantees to 
     private entities.
       ``(5) The term ``federal agency'' means any agency, 
     department, or instrumentality of--
       ``(A) the United States; or
       ``(B) a State, in the case of a covered federal activity 
     described in paragraph (4)(a)(3).

     The term ``governmental agency'' does not include an agency, 
     department, or instrumentality of an Indian tribe.
       ``(7) The term ``Indian'' means an individual who is a 
     member of an Indian tribe; an Alaska Native, or an individual 
     who meets the definition in section 809(b) of the Indian 
     Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1679(b)), except that 
     an Indian community need not be served by a local program of 
     the Indian Health Service in order to qualify as an Indian 
     community for purposes of this definition.
       ``(8) The term ``Indian lands'' means all lands within the 
     limits of any Indian reservation notwithstanding the issuance 
     of any patent; public domain Indian allotments; all other 
     lands title to which is either held in trust by the United 
     States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual or 
     held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction 
     by the United States against alienation; all dependent Indian 
     communities; and all fee lands owned by an Indian tribe.
       ``(9) The term ``Indian tribe'' means any tribe, band, 
     nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community of 
     Indians, including any Alaska Native village (as defined in, 
     or established pursuant to, the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1601 et seq.)), which is 
     recognized as eligible for the special programs and services 
     provided by the United States to Indians because of their 
     status as Indians.
       ``(10) The term ``land'' or ``lands'' mean surface and 
     subsurface land within the jurisdiction of the United States 
     or the respective States, including submerged land of any 
     kind of interest therein, and all water and waterways 
     occupying, adjacent to, or running through the land.
       ``(11) With respect to the cultural protections provided 
     under this Act, the term ``Native American'' means any Indian 
     or Native Hawaiian.
       ``(12) With respect to the cultural protections provided 
     under this Act, the term ``Native American practitioner'' 
     means any Native American who practices a Native American 
     religion as part of a Native American traditional culture.
       ``(13) With respect to the cultural protections provided 
     under this Act, the term ``Native American religion'' means 
     any traditional religion which is practiced by Native 
     Americans, the origin and interpretation of which is deeply 
     embedded or rooted in a Native American traditional culture.
       ``(14) With respect to the cultural protections provided 
     under this Act, the term ``Native American Sacred Site'' 
     means any geophysical or geographical area or feature which 
     is sacred by virtue of its traditional cultural or religious 
     significance or ceremonial use, or by virtue of a ceremonial 
     or cultural requirement, including a religious requirement, 
     that a natural substance or product for use in Native 
     American traditional ceremonies be gathered from that 
     particular location.
       ``(15) The term ``Native American traditional culture'' 
     means the traditional practices, customs, belief systems, 
     lifeways, ceremonies, and rituals, including religious 
     practices and beliefs, that are integral to and unique 
     aspects of Native American cultural traditions and heritage.
       ``(16) With respect to the cultural protections provided 
     under this Act, the term Native American traditional leader'' 
     means any Native American practitioner who is recognized by 
     an Indian tribe or traditional tribal community or Native 
     Hawaiian community as being responsible for performing duties 
     relating to the cultural traditions, including religious 
     traditions of the tribe or traditional tribal community or 
     Native Hawaiian community or as having a leadership role in 
     an Indian tribe or traditional tribal community or Native 
     Hawaiian community based upon its traditional cultural or 
     ceremonial practices, including religious practices.
       ``(17) With respect to the cultural protections provided 
     under this Act, the term ``Native Hawaiian'' means any 
     individual who is a descendant of the aboriginal Polynesian 
     people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty 
     and self-determination in the area that now comprises the 
     State of Hawaii, and who is recognized as eligible for the 
     special programs and services provided by the United States 
     to Native Hawaiians because of their status as Native 
     Hawaiian or Native Americans.
       ``(18) With respect to the cultural protections provided 
     under this Act, the term ``Native Hawaiian organization'' 
     means any organization which is composed primarily of Native 
     Hawaiians, and serves and represents the traditional cultural 
     interests of Native Hawaiians and whose members--
       (A) practice a Native American culture, including a Native 
     American religion, or conduct traditional ceremonial rituals, 
     or
       (B) utilize, preserve and protect Native American sacred 
     sites.
       ``(19) The term ``public land'' means any land as defined 
     in section 3(10) of this Act which is owned by the United 
     States, or the respective States, or political subdivisions 
     thereof, but shall not include Indian lands as defined in 
     section 3(8).
       ``(20) The term ``State'' means any State of the United 
     States and any and all political subdivisions thereof, and 
     the District of Columbia.

          TITLE I--PROTECTION OF NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED SITES

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) the traditional cultural practices, including 
     religious practices, of Native Americans are integral and 
     inseparable parts of their cultures, traditions and heritages 
     which greatly enhance the vitality of Native American 
     communities and tribes and the well-being of Native Americans 
     in general;
       ``(2) the European concept that religion is an activity or 
     belief that is separate from all other aspects of daily life, 
     or that religion is separable from culture, is a concept that 
     has no application in the traditional cultures of Native 
     Americans;
       ``(3) throughout American history, the manifestation of 
     Native American traditional cultures, including the free 
     exercise of Native American religions, has been infringed 
     upon, interfered with, and even prohibited by the Federal 
     Government and the devastating impact of these governmental 
     actions continues to the present day;
       ``(4) the United States has a unique, government-to-
     government relationship with Indian tribes and a special 
     historic trust relationship which permits the United States 
     to take measures to protect against interference with the 
     continuing cultural cohesiveness and integrity of Indian 
     tribes and Native American traditional cultures;
       ``(5) as part of the historic federal-Indian trust 
     relationship it is the intent of the United States to pursue 
     enforceable Federal policies which will protect the Native 
     American community and tribal vitality and cultural 
     integrity, and which will not inhibit, interfere with or 
     infringe upon Native American traditional cultural practices 
     or impose a burden on the free exercise of Native American 
     religions;
       ``(6) many Native American traditional cultures, including 
     Native American religions, hold certain lands or natural 
     formations in the United States to be sacred, and in order 
     for those sites to be in a condition appropriate for cultural 
     use, including religious or ceremonial use, the physical 
     environment, water, plants and animals associated with those 
     sites must be protected;
       ``(7) such Native American sacred sites are an integral and 
     vital part of, and inextricably intertwined with, many Native 
     American traditional cultures, including Native American 
     religions, and the practices associated with such traditional 
     cultures;
       ``(8) the traditional use and gathering, harvesting, or 
     maintaining of natural substances or natural products for 
     cultural purposes, including religious and ceremonial 
     purposes, are an integral and vital part of, and are 
     inextricably intertwined with, many Native American 
     traditional cultures, including Native American religions;
       ``(9) many of these Native American sacred sites are found 
     on lands which were part of the aboriginal territory of 
     Indians or Native Hawaiians, but which now are held by the 
     United States, or are the subject of federal activities;
       ``(10) governmental land use decisions have the potential 
     to have an adverse impact on Native American traditional 
     cultural practices, including Native American religions;
       ``(11) many Native American traditional cultural practices, 
     including religious and ceremonial practices, require a 
     measure of privacy and isolation; and certain traditional 
     cultural ceremonies and activities cannot be performed if 
     non-participants can observe the practices or ceremonies or 
     activities, even from a distance, and in some situations the 
     lack of privacy or isolation inhibits, infringes upon, 
     interferes with, or precludes certain Native American 
     traditional cultural practices, including traditional 
     religious practices;
       ``(12) some Indian tribes, such as the Pueblos of New 
     Mexico, as well as some aspects of Native Hawaiian culture, 
     have traditional cultural and religious tenets which prohibit 
     disclosure of information concerning their sacred sites and 
     their traditional beliefs and practices, mandate secrecy and 
     impose internal sanctions to enforce those prohibitions, 
     making it impossible for them to identify the manner in which 
     any particular governmental activity would have an adverse 
     impact on their traditional cultures or impose a burden on 
     the free exercise of their religions;
       ``(13) lack of sensitivity to, or understanding of, Native 
     American traditional cultures, including Native American 
     religions has resulted in the absence of a coherent policy 
     for the protection of Native American sacred sites and the 
     failure to consider the impacts of federal activities upon 
     Native American sacred sites;
       ``(14) the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case 
     of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 
     485 U.S. 439 (1988) ruled that the free exercise clause of 
     the First Amendment does not restrict the Government's 
     management of its lands, even if certain governmental actions 
     would infringe upon or destroy the ability to practice 
     religion, so long as the Government's action does not compel 
     individuals to act in a manner which is contrary to their 
     religious beliefs;
       ``(15) the Supreme Court's holding in the case of Lyng v. 
     Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association creates a 
     chilling and discriminatory effect on Native American 
     traditional cultures and on the free exercise of Native 
     American religions;
       ``(16) the Congress has enacted numerous laws which 
     regulate and restrict the discretion of federal agencies for 
     the sake of environmental, historical, economic, and cultural 
     concerns, but has never enacted a judicially-enforceable law 
     comparably restricting agency discretion for the sake of the 
     site-protective requirements specifically associated with the 
     protection of Native American traditional cultural 
     practices, including the free exercise of Native American 
     religions;
       ``(17) the lack of a judicially-enforceable federal law and 
     of a coherent federal policy to accommodate the uniqueness of 
     Native American traditional cultures, including Native 
     American religions, results in unique and adverse impacts on 
     Native American traditional cultures, burdens the free 
     exercise of Native American religions, and impairs the 
     vitality of Indian tribes, traditional tribal communities, 
     and Native Hawaiian communities; and
       ``(18) the Congress has the authority to enact laws to 
     assure the protection and preservation of Native American 
     traditional cultures, including the free exercise of Native 
     American religions, based upon the special trust 
     relationship, and pursuant to section 8, Article I of the 
     United States Constitution and the First, Fifth, and 
     Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

     ``SEC. 102. ACCESS TO FEDERAL LANDS.

       ``(a) In General.--Native American practitioners shall be 
     permitted access to federal lands at all times for Native 
     American traditional cultural, ceremonial or religious 
     purposes, including access to gather, harvest, or maintain 
     natural substances or natural products for Native American 
     traditional cultural purposes.
       ``(b) Federal agencies may take reasonable and narrowly 
     tailored measures to assure that access and use of lands 
     under this Act do not--
       ``(1) have a direct, significant and negative impact upon 
     specific national security interests or the implementation of 
     the Endangered Species Act; or
       ``(2) present an immediate threat of serious bodily harm to 
     any person or immediate and serious harm to the environment.

     Where other feasible means are available for avoiding adverse 
     impacts on Native American sacred sites, Native American 
     traditional cultural practices, and the free exercise of 
     Native American religions, those means shall be utilized 
     before access is restricted.
       ``(c) Terms of access may be included in a memorandum of 
     agreement pursuant to section 104(a)(3)(B).
       ``(d) Limitations Against Vehicles.--Paragraph (a) does not 
     authorize the use of motorized vehicles or other forms of 
     mechanized transport in roadless areas where such use is 
     prohibited by law.
       ``(e) Temporary Protective Measures.--Upon the request of 
     an Indian tribe, a Native Hawaiian organization or a Native 
     American traditional leader, the Secretary of the department 
     whose land is involved, or a local land manager where such 
     authority has been delegated, may from time to time 
     temporarily close to the general public use of one or more 
     specific portions of Federal land and may take such other 
     reasonable and temporary measures as necessary in order to 
     protect the privacy of traditional cultural, ceremonial or 
     religious activities in such areas by Native Americans. Any 
     such measures shall be taken so as to affect the smallest 
     practicable area for the minimum period necessary for such 
     purposes.

     ``SEC. 103. FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT, IDENTIFICATION OF LANDS, 
                   PLANNING AND NOTICE

       ``(a) In General.--Each Federal agency shall manage any 
     lands under its jurisdiction in a manner that complies with 
     the provisions of this Act.
       ``(b) Identification of Lands by Secretary.--
       ``(1) In general.--(A) For the purpose of assuring that a 
     governmental agency properly determines whether a proposed 
     covered federal activity will have an adverse impact on a 
     Native American sacred site and which affected parties should 
     be provided notice of a proposed activity, the head of each 
     land managing agency, in conjunction with the Secretary of 
     the Interior and tribal governments and Native Hawaiian 
     organizations, shall identify land areas with which a tribe 
     or Native Hawaiians have aboriginal, historic, cultural or 
     religious ties.
       ``(B) For purposes of this section, within 90 days 
     following the date of enactment of this Act, Native Hawaiian 
     organizations shall notify the Secretary of their desire to 
     receive notice of proposed covered federal activities.
       ``(2) As part of its obligations pursuant to this section, 
     within 90 days following the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of the Interior shall contact all Indian 
     tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to request a broad 
     geographic description of the lands as to which each Indian 
     tribe or Native Hawaiian organization desires notice of 
     covered Federal activity and, upon receipt of responses from 
     Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, shall 
     provide such land descriptions to all federal agencies.
       ``(3) Within 18 months following the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall establish a list of all Indian 
     tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations who have responded 
     and the lands they have identified. Such lists shall not be 
     published but shall be made available to agencies for the 
     purpose of identifying Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian 
     organizations and areas for which notice of covered 
     federal activities shall be provided.
       ``(4) While the list is being developed, each federal land 
     managing agency shall also research its own sources, 
     including agency contacts with Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian 
     organizations, or Native American traditional leaders and 
     written sources, to collect information as to Native American 
     traditional cultures and religions potentially affected by 
     activities on land which it manages and shall make a good 
     faith effort to identify and notify Indian tribes, Native 
     Hawaiian organizations, and Native American traditional 
     leaders who have an interest in proposed covered federal 
     activities.
       ``(5) Ongoing identification.--Nothing in this section 
     shall preclude an agency or a tribal government or a Native 
     Hawaiian organization from continuing to conduct an ongoing 
     identification process, which may supplement the process 
     required by this subsection.
       ``(c) Planning Process.--Each federal agency managing lands 
     under its jurisdiction including, but not limited to, 
     activities pursuant to the National Forest Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), shall as part of its 
     planning process--
       ``(1) consult, during the earliest possible part of the 
     planning process, with Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian 
     organizations and Native American traditional leaders who 
     have notified the agency of their interest in the land in 
     question pursuant to subsection (b);
       ``(2) in addition to the notices required in regard to 
     covered federal activity required by subsection (d), provide 
     for notice of all covered federal activity with the potential 
     to have an adverse impact on land areas specified by an 
     Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, in writing, as 
     land areas that are of direct interest to the Indian tribe or 
     Native Hawaiians, whether or not the agency believes that 
     such activity will or may have an adverse impact on a Native 
     American sacred site;
       ``(3) ensure that its land management plans are consistent 
     with the provisions and policies of this Act; and
       ``(4) maintain the confidentiality of specific details of a 
     Native American traditional culture or religion or the 
     significance of a Native American sacred site to that culture 
     or religion in accordance with the procedures specified in 
     sections 107 and 108 of this Act.
       ``(d) Notice and Documentation--Duty of Agencies.
       ``(1) Notice to Tribes or Native Hawaiian Organizations.--
     Before a governmental agency proceeds on lands identified 
     pursuant to subsection (b) with any covered federal activity 
     that may have an adverse impact on a Native American sacred 
     site, the governmental agency shall consult with potentially-
     affected Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations and 
     Native American traditional leaders, and after the 
     consultation has occurred and the agency has taken into 
     account the information obtained through that process, 
     formally provide a written notice containing a geographical 
     description of the lands affected by the activity (including 
     information on metes and bounds of the lands in question, 
     where available), a map illustrating the lands affected and a 
     description of the proposed action to each Indian tribe, 
     Native Hawaiian organization, or Native American traditional 
     leader which has been identified pursuant to this section as 
     having an interest in the land affected by the proposed 
     covered federal activity and any other Indian tribe, Native 
     Hawaiian organization or Native American traditional leader 
     known by the agency that may have an interest in the land 
     affected by the proposed covered federal activity.
       ``(2) The governmental agency shall fully document the 
     efforts made to provide the information to Indian tribes, 
     Native Hawaiian organizations, and Native American 
     traditional leaders as required by this section or any 
     applicable regulations, guidelines, or policies.
       ``(e) Response to Notice.--
       ``(1) In general.--Within 90 days of receiving the notice 
     provided under subsection (d), or within the time limit of 
     any comment period permitted or required by any federal law 
     applicable to the covered federal activity, whichever is 
     later, an Indian tribe, Native Hawaiian organization, or 
     Native American traditional leader invoking the protection of 
     this title may provide notice in writing to the government 
     agency that the proposed covered federal activity may have an 
     adverse impact on a Native American sacred site.
       ``(2) Modification of time.--Such time period may be 
     extended by the agency at its discretion, including at the 
     request of a noticed party, or may be extended or shortened 
     by an agreement negotiated pursuant to section 104(a)(3)(B).
       ``(3) No duty to respond.--Paragraph (1) does not impose a 
     duty upon any Indian tribe, Native Hawaiian organization, or 
     Native American traditional leader to respond to any notice 
     under this section.
       ``(4) Additional Information.--The Indian tribe or Native 
     Hawaiian organization or its designee acting pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) may also provide the agency with information as 
     to any Native American traditional leaders or practitioners 
     who should be included in the notice and consultation 
     requirements of this section and section 104.
       ``(f) Response Period and Limitation on Activity Following 
     Notice.--
       ``(1) In order to allow a full investigation of a proposed 
     covered federal activity no action to approve, commence, or 
     complete an activity that is subject to this section shall be 
     taken by a governmental agency for a period of 90 days 
     following the date on which notice is provided under 
     subsection (d) to Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian 
     organizations or Native American traditional leaders unless 
     or until--
       ``(A) the period of consultation required under section 104 
     has been completed;
       ``(B) a sacred sites protection agreement pursuant to 
     section 104(a)(3)(B) has been entered into by the affected 
     Indian tribe or tribes or Native Hawaiian organization and 
     the governmental agency; or
       ``(C) all parties entitled to such notice consent to a 
     shorter time period.
       ``(2) During the notice and consultation periods under 
     section 103 and section 104, the governmental agencies 
     responsible for the covered federal activity may continue to 
     engage in planning, studies, or other preparatory matters 
     provided that such activities do not constitute a commitment 
     to proceed with the proposed activity or project.
       ``(3) During the 90 day period following formal notice to 
     Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations and Native 
     American traditional leaders, the governmental agency shall 
     have the continuing duty to seek to consult with Indian 
     tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations and Native American 
     traditional leaders potentially affected by the proposed 
     covered federal activity.

     ``SEC. 104. CONSULTATION.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Effect of notice.--In order to allow a full 
     investigation of the consequences of a proposed covered 
     federal activity, if an Indian tribe, Native Hawaiian 
     organization or Native American traditional leader responds 
     in writing within 90 days of receiving notice as provided in 
     section 103(e), or within the time limit of any comment 
     period permitted or required by any federal law which is 
     applicable to the covered federal activity, whichever is 
     later, the governmental agency shall immediately discontinue 
     such activity until the agency performs the duties described 
     in paragraphs (3) and (4).
       ``(2) After Action Discovery.--If after a covered federal 
     activity is underway--
       ``(A) the governmental agency becomes aware that the 
     activity may have an adverse impact on a Native American 
     sacred site, the agency engaged in the activity shall 
     immediately discontinue such activity until the agency 
     performs the duties set forth in paragraphs (3) and (4); or
       ``(B) an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that 
     did not receive notice and did not know of the covered 
     federal activity, becomes aware that the activity may have an 
     adverse impact on a Native American sacred site and notifies 
     the governmental agency, the agency engaged in the activity 
     shall immediately discontinue such activity until the agency 
     performs the duties set forth in paragraphs (3) and (4).
       ``(3)(A) Consultation.--The governmental agency shall 
     consult with any interested party with a direct interest in 
     the Native American traditional culture or religion in 
     question concerning the nature of the adverse impact, and 
     consult about alternatives which can be identified that would 
     minimize or prevent the adverse impact, including any 
     alternatives identified by an Indian tribe, Native Hawaiian 
     organization or Native American traditional leader that has 
     filed a written objection under this subsection.
       ``(B) Negotiated agreements.--(i) Upon the request of an 
     Indian tribe or tribes or Native Hawaiian organization, each 
     federal agency or agencies involved in covered federal 
     activities shall enter into negotiations to identify 
     appropriate land management procedures for addressing that 
     tribe's or that Native Hawaiian organization's interest in 
     the protection and preservation of its sacred sites and to 
     avoid any adverse impact on such sites as may be located on 
     public lands within the jurisdiction of such agencies. 
     Consistent with the public mission of such agencies and the 
     responsibility of the United States to support Indian tribes 
     and tribal members and Native Hawaiians in the preservation 
     of their sacred sites, each federal agency is authorized to 
     enter into sacred sites protection agreements with Indian 
     tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations for the purpose of 
     memorializing the land management procedures that result from 
     consultations and negotiations. Such agreements may supersede 
     the planning provisions of section 103(c), the notice 
     provisions of section 103(d), the consultation provisions of 
     section 103(d)(1) and section 104, and the access provisions 
     of section 102 of this Act as they relate to Indian tribes or 
     Native Hawaiian organizations that are parties to such an 
     agreement if the agreement specifically and explicitly 
     includes a provision overriding those sections of the Act, or 
     any parts thereof. The agreements may also include provision 
     for the delegation by federal agency officials of land 
     management responsibilities to the Indian tribe(s) or Native 
     Hawaiian organization(s) for designated public lands 
     described in the agreement.
       ``(ii) In the case of Indian tribes, where such a 
     delegation of management functions is included in such 
     agreements, the federal agency and the tribe may also agree 
     to use the procedures and regulations employed under the 
     Indian Self-Determination Act, Public Law 93-638. The 
     agreement may also address the application of all or part of 
     title I of this Act to Indian lands within the tribe's 
     jurisdiction.
       ``(4) Response to Comments.--If there is no resolution of 
     the claims asserted by an aggrieved party pursuant to 
     subsection (3), the governmental agency shall prepare and 
     make available to an Indian tribe, a Native Hawaiian 
     organization or a Native American traditional leader who has 
     been involved in the consultation process, a document 
     responding to the comments received. The document shall--
       (i) set forth the adverse impact which has been asserted by 
     the aggrieved party,
       (ii) assess whether the interest of the government in 
     proceeding with the action is compelling; and
       (iii) assess whether, based on an analysis of the 
     alternatives to the proposed action, including any 
     alternatives offered by an Indian tribe, Native Hawaiian 
     organization or Native American traditional leader that the 
     proposed activity is the least restrictive means of 
     furthering that compelling interest.

     Where an agency determines to commence a covered federal 
     activity, notwithstanding notice from an aggrieved party 
     pursuant to section 104(a), it shall issue a written opinion 
     providing the basis for its decision. The issuance of this 
     decision shall constitute final agency action for purposes of 
     judicial review pursuant to section 501, unless the agency 
     establishes additional administrative review procedures under 
     section 105.
       ``(5) Additional Information.--In any case where the 
     governmental agency is also required to prepare a document 
     analyzing the impact of a covered federal activity or a 
     decision pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) or any other applicable law, such 
     agency may incorporate the analysis required by this section 
     into the contents of the document.
       ``(b) Cases Where Secrecy is Required.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of those Indian tribes or 
     Native Hawaiians whose traditional cultural or religious 
     tenets prohibit disclosure of information concerning their 
     Native American sacred sites or cultural or religious beliefs 
     or practices, and mandate secrecy and internal sanctions to 
     enforce those prohibitions, and where the tribal government 
     of the affected Indian tribe or a Native Hawaiian 
     organization so certifies and invokes this subsection--
       ``(A) the tribal government or Native Hawaiian organization 
     shall not be required to reveal the location of the Native 
     American sacred site or in what manner the covered federal 
     activity would have an adverse impact on the site or any 
     information concerning their cultural or religious beliefs or 
     practices;
       ``(B) the tribal government or Native Hawaiian organization 
     shall not be required to explain in what manner any proposed 
     alternative is or is not less intrusive upon the Native 
     American cultural or religious practice or sacred sites which 
     may be adversely impacted than the original proposed covered 
     federal activity; and
       ``(C) in engaging in consultation and preparing any 
     document required by this Act, the governmental agency shall 
     not be required to include an analysis of adverse impacts 
     upon the sacred site or the use thereof or the Indian tribe's 
     or Native Hawaiian organization's cultural or religious 
     beliefs and practices.
       ``(2) After consultation.--If after consultation--
       ``(A) the governmental agency agrees to pursue a less 
     intrusive alternative proposed by the Indian tribe or Native 
     Hawaiian organization or some other alternative to which the 
     Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization agrees; or
       ``(B) if no reasonable alternative acceptable to the tribe 
     or Native Hawaiian organization is identified, the 
     governmental agency shall be deemed to have met its 
     obligation under sections 104 and 105 to consider and pursue 
     the least intrusive alternative under this Act in regard to 
     the objection raised to the covered federal activity by the 
     Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization invoking this 
     subsection.
       ``(C) Response to comments.--If there is no resolution of 
     the claims asserted by a tribe or Native Hawaiian 
     organization pursuant to this subsection, the governmental 
     agency shall prepare and make available to the tribe or 
     Native Hawaiian organization a document responding to the 
     comments received. The document shall--
       (i) set forth the adverse impact which is asserted by the 
     Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization;
       (ii) assess whether the interest of the government in 
     proceeding with the activity is compelling;
       (iii) assess whether based on an analysis of the 
     alternatives the activity is a reasonable means of furthering 
     that compelling interest; and
       (iv) assess whether the alternatives identified in 
     104(b)(2) are reasonable.

     Where an agency determines to commence a covered federal 
     activity, notwithstanding notice from an aggrieved party 
     pursuant to 104(a) and (b) it shall issue a written opinion 
     providing the basis for its decision. The issuance of this 
     decision shall constitute final agency action for purposes of 
     judicial review pursuant to section 501, unless the agency 
     establishes additional administrative review procedures under 
     section 105.
       ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Where the provisions of 
     subsection (b) have been invoked, those requirements shall 
     control in all circumstances and shall supersede any 
     conflicting provisions in this Act or any other provision of 
     law.
       ``(d) Disclosure Required.--Within 30 days of receipt of 
     any written objection under subsection (a) or (b), the 
     governmental agency proposing the covered federal activity 
     which gave rise to that notice shall make available to the 
     aggrieved party, all plats, maps, plans, specifications, 
     socioeconomic, environmental, scientific, archaeological or 
     historical studies, and comments and information in that 
     agency's possession directly relating to said activity. The 
     agency may withhold--
       (i) attorney work product prepared in anticipation of 
     litigation; and
       (ii) information the release of which would jeopardize the 
     litigating position of the United States on behalf of another 
     tribe.
       ``(e) Special Rule for Pueblos.--In the case of a proposed 
     covered federal activity affecting the management, use, or 
     preservation of public land, or any other activity or 
     violation under this Act involving potential adverse impacts 
     on any of the Indian pueblos of New Mexico or any of their 
     sacred sites, the only party who may file an objection or 
     participate in consultation under this section, or file an 
     action under section 105 or 501, shall be the governor of the 
     affected pueblo or the governor's designee.
       ``(f) Emergency Provision.--The process required by 
     sections 103 and 104 shall not apply if the governmental 
     agency determines that adherence to the process will--
       ``(1) have a direct, significant and negative impact upon 
     specific national security interests or the implementation of 
     the Endangered Species Act; or
       ``(2) present an immediate threat of serious bodily harm to 
     any person or immediate and serious harm to the environment.

     ``SEC. 105. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.

       ``(a) In General.--A governmental agency, shall, by 
     regulation, establish an administrative procedure to 
     implement the requirements of this title.
       ``(b) Exhaustion Requirement.--An aggrieved party must use 
     a procedure established under paragraph (a) before filing an 
     action in a federal district court pursuant to section 501 of 
     this Act.
       ``(c) Burden on Agency.--
       ``(1) In the case of any administrative proceeding in which 
     an aggrieved Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization 
     objects to the covered federal activity or an action by a 
     state on the grounds that it is or will have an adverse 
     impact on a Native American sacred site, the governmental 
     agency shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of 
     the evidence that a covered federal activity does not or will 
     not have an adverse impact on a Native American sacred site.
       ``(2) The governmental agency's determination that a 
     covered federal activity does not pose or will not have an 
     adverse impact on a Native American sacred site, shall 
     constitute a final agency action for purposes of judicial 
     review under section 501 of this Act.
       ``(3)(A) If a governmental agency determines that a covered 
     federal activity does pose or will have an adverse impact on 
     a Native American sacred site, the governmental agency shall 
     have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence 
     that the covered federal activity--
       (i) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental 
     interest;
       (ii) is a reasonable means of furthering that compelling 
     governmental interest; and
       (iii) in circumstances set forth in section 104(b)(1), the 
     alternatives identified under section 104(b)(2) are not 
     reasonable.
       ``(B) The agency determination under this paragraph shall 
     constitute final agency action for purposes of judicial 
     review under section 501 of this Act.
       ``(d) Failure of Agency to Meet Burden.--
       ``(1) The governmental agency shall retain its burden of 
     proof at all stages of any proceeding or decision-making 
     process pursuant to this Title.
       ``(2) If a governmental agency does not meet its burden of 
     proof under this section, it shall not proceed with the 
     proposed covered federal activity.
       ``(3) For purposes of this section the phrase `burden of 
     proof' means the burden of production and the burden of 
     persuasion.
       ``(e) For Purposes of This Section.--
       ``(1) a finding of an adverse impact does not require that 
     an aggrieved party be coerced to act contrary to religious 
     beliefs or traditional cultural practices, and may include 
     consideration of disturbing the integrity of a sacred site;
       ``(2) land management activities, undertakings and actions 
     which have the potential to have an adverse impact on a 
     Native American sacred site, or which make a Native American 
     traditional cultural practice or exercise of a Native 
     American religion more difficult shall be deemed to 
     constitute an adverse impact; and
       ``(3) government ownership of land, by itself, does not 
     establish a compelling government interest.
       ``(f) Special Rule for Native American Practitioners.--For 
     purposes of any administrative proceeding conducted under 
     this section, Native American practitioners may elect to 
     provide testimony about their beliefs in camera or in some 
     other protective procedure.

     ``SEC. 106. NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED SITES ON INDIAN LANDS.

       ``(a) Jurisdiction of Tribes.--Indian tribes may regulate 
     and protect Native American sacred sites located on Indian 
     lands within their jurisdiction. Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to alter, increase or decrease the existence or 
     scope of tribal jurisdiction or the application of tribal law 
     regarding protection of or access to Native American sacred 
     sites on Indian lands. Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     to grant authority to one Indian tribe to regulate Native 
     American sacred sites which are within the jurisdiction of 
     another Indian tribe.
       ``(b) Tribal Option.--None of the provisions of title I of 
     this Act shall apply on Indian lands unless the tribe with 
     jurisdiction over those lands affirmatively elects to have 
     those provisions apply to all or any part of the lands 
     affected or potentially affected. Where an Indian tribe 
     elects to have the provisions of title I apply to all or any 
     part of its lands, the Indian tribe shall notify the 
     Secretary of the Interior regarding the lands to be subject 
     to the provisions of title I and the Secretary shall publish 
     the information in the Federal Register.
       ``(c) Duty to Notify.--This section does not relieve a 
     governmental agency of any duty pursuant to section 103 to 
     notify an Indian tribe of a covered federal activity on 
     Indian lands which may result in changes in the character or 
     use of a Native American sacred site.
       ``(d) National Security.--The provisions of this section 
     shall not apply if the President determines that national 
     security concerns are directly affected by a covered federal 
     activity.
       ``(e) Disputes Between Two or More Tribes.--(1) When a 
     governmental agency proposes a covered federal activity on 
     Indian lands of one Indian tribe which may result in changes 
     in the character or use of a Native American sacred site of 
     another Indian tribe, and the Indian tribe whose sacred site 
     is affected and the Indian tribe on whose land the site is 
     located agree and so request, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall convene a committee of tribal representatives for the 
     purpose of entering into negotiations concerning the nature 
     of any adverse impact on the character or use of a Native 
     American sacred site and alternatives that would minimize 
     or prevent such an adverse impact.
       ``(2) The committee shall consist of tribal representatives 
     of the affected Indian tribe or tribes and tribal 
     representatives of the Indian tribe upon whose lands the 
     sacred site is located, and committee members shall be 
     selected by the respective Indian tribes.
       ``(3) The committee shall be convened for the duration of 
     the consultation and negotiation period and shall meet at the 
     call of the Secretary upon the request of the affected Indian 
     tribe or tribes and the Indian tribe upon whose lands the 
     sacred site is located.

     ``SEC. 107. APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS.

       ``(a) In General.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
     to deprive any person or entity of any other rights which 
     might be provided under the laws, regulations, guidelines, or 
     policies of the Federal, State, and tribal governments, 
     including but not limited to the National Historic 
     Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), to receive notice 
     of, comment upon, or otherwise participate in the decision-
     making process regarding a covered federal activity.
       ``(b) Existing Procedures.--To the maximum extent possible, 
     the procedures required by this Act shall be incorporated 
     into existing procedures applicable to the management of 
     federal lands and decision making processes of federal 
     agencies engaged in covered federal activities.

     ``SEC. 108. CONFIDENTIALITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, whenever information has been obtained as a result of or 
     in connection with a proceeding pursuant to sections 105 or 
     501 or consultation pursuant to sections 103 and 104, all 
     references pertaining to specific details of a Native 
     American traditional cultural practice or religion, or the 
     significance of a Native American sacred site, or the 
     location of that sacred site, shall not be released by a 
     governmental agency or court to any party or the general 
     public pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 
     552) or any other applicable law.
       ``(b) Supplementation of Record.--The governmental agency 
     or court shall supplement the record described in subsection 
     (a) to include the general results and conclusions of the 
     administrative proceeding pursuant to section 105 or judicial 
     review process pursuant to section 501 to the extent 
     necessary to provide other interested parties with sufficient 
     information to understand the nature of, and basis for, a 
     decision by the governmental agency or court.
       ``(c) Exception.--This section shall not apply where all 
     parties to a proceeding (excluding the United States 
     government) waive its application, and in the case of a 
     Native Hawaiian sacred site, where the information is sought 
     by a Native Hawaiian organization for the purpose of 
     protecting such site.
       ``(d) Other Law.--Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian 
     organizations seeking to maintain the confidentiality of 
     information relating to Native American sacred sites may also 
     seek redress through existing laws requiring that certain 
     information be withheld from the public, including, but not 
     limited to the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
     470w-3) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470hh).

     ``SEC. 109. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.

       ``(a) Damaging Sacred Sites.--
       ``(1) Initial violation.--Any person who intentionally 
     damages, defaces, desecrates or destroys a Native American 
     sacred site located on land as defined in section 3(10) of 
     this Act with knowledge that it is a sacred site, except as 
     part of an approved covered federal activity authorized by a 
     governmental agency with the authority to approve such 
     activity, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than 
     $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(2) Subsequent violations.--In the case of a second or 
     subsequent violation, a person shall be fined not more than 
     $100,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(b) Release of Information.--
       ``(1) Initial violation.--Any person who intentionally 
     releases any information knowing that it is required to be 
     held confidential pursuant to this title shall, upon 
     conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not 
     more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(2) Subsequent violations.--In the case of a second or 
     subsequent violation, be fined not more than $100,000, or 
     imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

                  TITLE II--TRADITIONAL USE OF PEYOTE

     ``SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) some Indian people, such as members of the Native 
     American Church, have used the peyote cactus in religious 
     ceremonies for sacramental and healing purposes for many 
     generations, and such uses have been significant in 
     perpetuating Indian tribes and cultures by promoting and 
     strengthening the unique cultural cohesiveness of Indian 
     tribes;
       ``(2) since 1965, this religious ceremonial use of peyote 
     by Indians in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native 
     American Church has been protected by Federal regulation, 
     which exempts such use from Federal laws governing controlled 
     substances, and the Drug Enforcement Administration has 
     manifested its continuing support of this Federal regulatory 
     system;
       ``(3) the State of Texas encompasses virtually the sole 
     area in the United States in which peyote grows, and for many 
     years has administered an effective regulatory system which 
     limits the distribution of peyote to Indians for ceremonial 
     purposes;
       ``(4) while 28 States have enacted laws which protect the 
     ceremonial use of peyote by Indians, 22 others have not; as a 
     result of the diverse state laws, Indians from different 
     tribes located in different states, as well as from different 
     tribes within the same state, are treated differently 
     regarding the religious use of peyote. Legislation is 
     therefore needed to assure comprehensive, equal and uniform 
     protection of the religious use of peyote by Indians 
     throughout the United States, without regard to state or 
     reservation of residence, or tribal affiliation;
       ``(5) the traditional ceremonial use by Indians of the 
     peyote cactus is integral to a way of life, and the use of 
     peyote plays a significant role in combating the scourge of 
     alcohol and drug abuse among some Indian people;
       ``(6) the United States has a unique, government-to-
     government relationship with Indian tribes and a special 
     historic federal-Indian trust relationship, which permits the 
     United States to take measures to protect against 
     interference with the continuing cultural cohesiveness and 
     integrity of Indian tribes and cultures; and as part of this 
     relationship it is the intent of the Federal government to 
     pursue enforceable Federal policies which will protect Indian 
     community and tribal vitality and cultural integrity, and 
     which will not inhibit or interfere with the free exercise of 
     Native American religions;
       ``(7) general prohibitions against the abusive use of 
     peyote, without an exception for the bona fide religious use 
     of peyote by Indians, lead to discrimination against Indians 
     by reason of their religious beliefs and practices;
       ``(8) the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case 
     of Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), held 
     that the First Amendment does not protect Indian 
     practitioners who use peyote in Indian religious ceremonies, 
     and raised uncertainty as to whether this religious practice 
     would be protected under the compelling State interest 
     standard; and
       ``(9) the lack of adequate and clear legal protection for 
     the religious use of peyote by Indians may serve to 
     stigmatize and marginalize Indian tribes and cultures and 
     increase the risk that they will be exposed to discriminatory 
     treatment.

     ``SEC. 202. TRADITIONAL USE OF PEYOTE.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an 
     Indian for bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in 
     connection with the practice of a Native American religion is 
     lawful and shall not be prohibited by the Federal Government 
     or any State. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated 
     against on the basis of such use, possession or 
     transportation, including, but not limited to, denial of 
     otherwise applicable benefits under public assistance 
     programs.
       ``(b) Regulation Authorized.--This section does not 
     prohibit--
       ``(1) such reasonable regulation and registration by the 
     Drug Enforcement Administration of those persons who import, 
     cultivate, harvest or distribute peyote, as may be consistent 
     with the purpose of this title;
       ``(2) military commanders restricting the use or ingestion 
     of peyote by active duty personnel within a reasonable 
     period, but not to exceed 48 hours, prior to the performance 
     of official duties in circumstances where safety or military 
     readiness may be adversely affected by such use or ingestion;
       ``(3) regulations by the Secretary of Transportation 
     restricting the use or ingestion of peyote by transportation 
     workers in safety sensitive positions, as defined by the 
     Secretary within a reasonable period, but not to exceed 48 
     hours, prior to the performance of official duties, in 
     circumstances where public safety may be adversely affected 
     by such use or ingestion; or
       ``(4) regulations by law enforcement administrators 
     restricting the use or ingestion of peyote by sworn law 
     enforcement personnel within a reasonable period, but not to 
     exceed 48 hours, prior to the performance of official duties 
     in circumstances where public safety may be adversely 
     affected by such use or ingestion.
       ``(c) Texas Law.--This section does not prohibit 
     application of the provisions of section 481.111(a) of 
     Vernon's Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated, in effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, insofar as those 
     provisions pertain to the cultivation, harvest or 
     distribution of peyote.
       ``(d) This section shall not be construed as requiring 
     prison authorities to permit, nor shall it be construed to 
     prohibit prison authorities from permitting access to peyote 
     by Indians while incarcerated within federal or state prison 
     facilities.
       ``(e) For purposes of this title, the term ``Indian'' means 
     a member of an Indian tribe as defined in section 3(9).

                      TITLE III--PRISONERS' RIGHTS

     ``SEC. 301. RIGHTS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Access.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     Native American prisoners who practice a Native American 
     culture or religion shall have, on a regular basis comparable 
     to that access afforded prisoners who practice Judeo-
     Christian religions or any other religions, access to--
       ``(A) Native American traditional leaders who shall be 
     afforded the same status, rights and privileges as religious 
     leaders of Judeo-Christian religions or any other religions;
       ``(B) subject to paragraph (6), items and materials 
     utilized in cultural or religious ceremonies; and
       ``(C) Native American cultural or religious facilities.
       ``(2) Materials.--Prison authorities shall treat items and 
     materials utilized in cultural or religious ceremonies, 
     including traditional foods for cultural or religious diets, 
     identified by a Native American traditional leader, in the 
     same manner as the religious items and materials utilized in 
     ceremonies of the Judeo-Christian religions or any other 
     religions.
       ``(3) Hair.--
       ``(A) Right of prisoner.--Except in those circumstances 
     where subparagraph (B) applies, Native American prisoners who 
     desire to wear their hair according to the customs of a 
     Native American culture or religion may do so provided that 
     the prisoner demonstrates that--
       ``(i) the practice is rooted in Native American cultural or 
     religious beliefs; and
       ``(ii) these beliefs are sincerely held by the Native 
     American prisoner.
       ``(B) Denial of request.--If a Native American prisoner 
     satisfies the criteria in paragraph (3)(A), the prison 
     authorities may deny such request only where they can satisfy 
     the criteria of section 3 of the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act (P.L. 103-141).
       ``(4) Definition of `cultural or religious facilities.'--
     The term `cultural or religious facilities' includes sweat 
     lodges, tepees, and access to other secure, out-of-doors 
     locations within prison grounds if such facilities are 
     identified by a Native American traditional leader to 
     facilitate a cultural or religious ceremony.
       ``(5) Discrimination prohibited.--No Native American 
     prisoner shall be penalized or discriminated against on the 
     basis of Native American cultural or religious practices, and 
     all prison and parole benefits or privileges extended to 
     prisoners for engaging in cultural or religious activities 
     shall be afforded to Native American prisoners who 
     participate in Native American cultural or religious 
     practices.
       ``(6) Scope of title.--This Title shall not be construed as 
     (i) requiring prison authorities to permit nor shall it be 
     construed to prohibit prison authorities from permitting 
     access to peyote or Native American sacred sites; or (ii) 
     altering applicable requirements for exhaustion of 
     administrative remedies.
       ``(b) Attorney General Investigation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall investigate, 
     in consultation with Native American traditional leaders and 
     ex-offenders with corrections experience as may be 
     recommended by Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian 
     organizations, and federal and State prison administrators, 
     the conditions of Native American prisoners in the federal 
     and State prison systems with respect to their ability to 
     engage in traditional cultural ceremonies and practices, 
     including the free exercise of Native American religions.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 36 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     the Congress a report containing--
       ``(A) an assessment of the recognition, protection, and 
     enforcement of the rights of Native American prisoners to 
     practice their cultures or religions under this Act in 
     federal and state prisons where Native Americans are 
     incarcerated; and
       ``(B) specific recommendations for the promulgation of 
     regulations to implement this Act.

 TITLE IV--CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS USE OF EAGLES AND OTHER ANIMALS AND 
                                 PLANTS

     ``SEC. 401. CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS USE OF EAGLES.

       ``(a) In General.--Within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service (hereafter in this section referred to 
     as the ``Director'') shall, in consultation with Indian 
     tribes and Native American traditional leaders, develop a 
     plan to--
       ``(1) ensure the prompt disbursement from Federal 
     repositories of available bald or golden eagles, or their 
     parts, nests, or eggs for the traditional cultural or 
     religious use of Indians upon receipt of an application from 
     an Indian practitioner;
       ``(2) provide that sufficient numbers of bald or golden 
     eagles are allocated to Indian practitioners to meet the 
     demonstrated need where they are available by reason of 
     accidental deaths, natural deaths, or takings permitted by 
     Federal law;
       ``(3) simplify and shorten the process by which permits are 
     authorized for the taking, possession, and transportation of 
     bald or golden eagles, or their parts, nests, or eggs for the 
     traditional cultural or religious use of Indians;
       ``(4) establish a mechanism for tribal disbursement of dead 
     eagles discovered within the exterior boundaries of their own 
     reservation to Native American traditional cultural or 
     religious practitioners; and
       ``(5) establish a mechanism for tribal contacts with 
     regional and national offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
     Service on fish and wildlife resource issues.

     ``SEC. 402. OTHER ANIMALS AND PLANTS.

       ``Within two years after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce and Treasury, 
     and the Administrator of the General Services Administration 
     shall, in consultation with Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian 
     organizations and Native American traditional leaders, 
     establish a joint uniform set of administrative procedures to 
     govern the disposition of surplus wildlife and plants or 
     parts thereof which have been confiscated, gathered or are 
     otherwise under the jurisdiction and control of their 
     respective agencies. To the fullest extent allowed under 
     existing statutory authority, the uniform procedures shall be 
     designed to increase the availability of natural products to 
     Native American traditional cultural and religious 
     practitioners.''

                   TITLE V--JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES

     ``SEC. 501. JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) An aggrieved part shall have the right to file suit 
     against the United States or a State in the appropriate 
     district court to enforce the provisions of this Act.
       ``(2) Any appropriate United States district court shall 
     have original jurisdiction over a civil action for--
       ``(A) equitable relief; or
       ``(B) damages arising from any violations of this Act.
       ``(3) Nothing herein shall be construed to deprive Indian 
     tribes of jurisdiction they would otherwise have under 
     section 106 of this Act or any other Federal law.
       ``(b) Factual Findings.--
       ``(1) If an action is filed in a United States district 
     court after exhaustion of administrative remedies under 
     section 105, the court shall not defer to agency factual 
     findings except where such findings are based on a formal 
     hearing on the record.
       ``(2) The court shall review de novo agency legal 
     determinations concerning the extent of any adverse impact, 
     whether the government's interest is compelling and whether a 
     particular alternative is the least restrictive.
       ``(c) For purposes of an action alleging a violation of the 
     rights protected under title I of this Act and consistent 
     with section 106 of this Act--
       ``(1) Burden on aggrieved party.--Except as provided in 
     subsection 501(d), the aggrieved party shall have the burden 
     of establishing that the covered Federal activity or an 
     action by a State having an impact upon the management, use 
     or preservation of public land, is or will have an adverse 
     impact on a Native American sacred site.
       ``(2) Burden on agency.--If the aggrieved party meets its 
     burden of proof under paragraph (1), the agency may proceed 
     with the action only if it is determined by clear and 
     convincing evidence that the covered Federal activity--
       ``(A) is in furtherance of a compelling government 
     interest; and
       ``(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that 
     compelling interest.
       ``(3) For purposes of decisions pursuant to title I--
       ``(A) a finding of adverse impact does not require that an 
     aggrieved party be coerced to act contrary to religious 
     beliefs or traditional cultural practices, and may include 
     consideration of disturbing the integrity of a sacred site;
       ``(B) land management activities, undertakings and actions 
     which have the potential to have an adverse impact on a 
     Native American sacred site, or which make a Native American 
     traditional cultural practice or the exercise of a Native 
     American religion more difficult shall be deemed to 
     constitute an adverse impact; and
       ``(C) government ownership of land, by itself, does not 
     establish a compelling government interest.
       ``(d) Cases Where Secrecy Is Required.--In the case of any 
     proceeding in which an aggrieved Indian tribe or Native 
     Hawaiian organization relies on section 104(b), if an Indian 
     tribe or Native Hawaiian organization objects to the covered 
     federal activity or an action by a State on the grounds that 
     it is or will have an adverse impact on a Native American 
     sacred site, the governmental agency shall have the burden of 
     proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the covered 
     federal activity--
       ``(1) is in furtherance of a compelling government 
     interest;
       ``(2) is a reasonable means of furthering that compelling 
     interest; and
       ``(3) the alternatives identified under section 104(b)(2) 
     are not reasonable.
       ``(e) Failure of Agency To Meet Burden.--
       ``(1) The governmental agency shall retain its burden of 
     proof at all stages of any proceeding or decision-making 
     process pursuant to title I of this Act.
       ``(2) If a governmental agency does not meet its burden of 
     proof under this section, it shall not proceed with the 
     proposed activity.
       ``(3) For purposes of this section the phrase ``burden of 
     proof'' means the burden of production and the burden of 
     persuasion.
       ``(f) Special Rule for Native American Practitioners.--
     Native American practitioners may elect to provide testimony 
     about their beliefs in camera or in some other protective 
     procedure.
       ``(g) Sovereign Immunity.--Neither the sovereign immunity 
     of the United States nor of any State, including immunity 
     derived from the Eleventh Amendment to the United States 
     Constitution, shall be a bar or defense to any civil action 
     brought pursuant to this section to enforce the provisions of 
     this Act, including any grant of attorney's fees pursuant to 
     subsection (h) of this section, and such immunities are 
     hereby waived.
       ``(h) Attorney's Fees.--An aggrieved party who is a 
     prevailing party in any administrative or judicial proceeding 
     brought pursuant to this Act shall be entitled to attorney's 
     fees, expert witness fees, and costs under the provisions of 
     section 504 of title 5, United States Code, and section 2412 
     of title 28, United States Code.

                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

     ``SEC. 601. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       ``(a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as abrogating, 
     diminishing, or otherwise affecting--
       ``(1) the intent rights of any Indian tribe;
       ``(2) the rights, express or implicit, of any Indian tribe 
     which exist under treaties, Executive Orders and laws of the 
     United States;
       ``(3) the inherent right of Native Americans to maintain 
     their cultural integrity and religions;
       ``(4) the trust responsibility of the United States or any 
     legal obligation or remedy resulting therefrom;
       ``(5) the right and ability of any Indian tribe upon whose 
     Indian lands a Native American sacred site is located to 
     determine, exclusively pursuant to its own tribal law, 
     whether any other Indian tribe or Native American 
     practitioner shall have a property right in that site or have 
     the authority to limit or prohibit covered federal activities 
     affecting that site;
       ``(6) any traditional cultural or free exercise of religion 
     claim of any person that does not fall within the scope of 
     this Act;
       ``(7) the right of Native Americans to obtain protection 
     for the practice of their traditional cultures or religions 
     under any other federal, state or tribal law or constitution; 
     or the authority and responsibility of any governmental 
     agency to provide protection for Native American sacred sites 
     and the practice of Native American traditional cultures and 
     religions under other laws or constitutions, such as the 
     National Historic Preservation Act; and
       ``(8) the authority of federal land and program managers to 
     provide for notice to and consultation with other religious 
     and cultural groups not encompassed by this Act for the 
     purpose of protection of cultural, religious, environmental 
     and historical sites and resources under other authority.
       ``(b) This Act is supplemental to the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act of 1993, and is not intended to be limited by 
     that Act, or to limit in any way, rights available under that 
     Act, including the application of that Act to activities 
     which may have an adverse impact upon a Native American 
     sacred site, whether or not said activities are explicitly 
     covered by this Act.

     ``SEC. 602. SEVERABILITY.

       ``If any title or section of this Act, or any provision or 
     portion thereof, is declared to be unconstitutional, invalid, 
     or inoperative in whole or in part, by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction, such title, section, provision or portion 
     thereof shall, to the extent it is not unconstitutional, 
     invalid, or inoperative, be enforced and effectuated, and no 
     such determination shall be deemed to invalidate or make 
     ineffectual the remaining provisions of the title, section, 
     or provision.

     ``SEC. 603. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums 
     as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, 
     including such sums as may be necessary for expenses of 
     Native Americans for consultations with the Attorney General 
     provided in section 301(b)(1).

     ``SEC. 604. REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) The head of each land managing agency, in 
     consultation with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian 
     organizations, shall promulgate regulations relating to--
       ``(1) Federal planning processes pertaining to the 
     management, use or preservation of land; and
       ``(2) notice to and consultation with Indian tribes, Native 
     Hawaiian organizations, and Native American traditional 
     leaders as required by sections 103 and 104 of this Act.
       ``(b) The head of each land managing agency shall consult 
     with the Secretary of the Interior to assure maximum possible 
     consistency in regulations promulgated pursuant to this Act.
       ``(c) The regulations shall be sufficiently flexible to 
     enable consultation to address the unique needs of Indian 
     tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, Native American 
     traditional leaders and Native American practitioners. 
     Notices and procedures provided for in sections 103 and 104 
     shall not await completion of regulations.

     ``SEC. 605. PROTECTIONS.

       ``(a) The protections of this Act shall be afforded only to 
     bona fide persons who are defined in subsections (7), (11), 
     (12), (16) and (17) of section 3 of this Act, and to members 
     of Indian tribes as defined in section 3(9) of this Act.
       ``(b) For purposes of determining the bona fide nature of 
     any of the persons defined in section 3, or the bona fide 
     nature of any Native American traditional cultural practice 
     or Native American religion, the Secretary is authorized to 
     consult with Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, 
     Native American practitioners and native American traditional 
     leaders.

     ``SEC. 606. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       ``(a) This Act takes effect on the date of its enactment. 
     Application and enforcement of this Act does not depend upon 
     the promulgation of regulations by any governmental agency. 
     However, with respect to notice and review provisions under 
     sections 103 and 104, agencies shall have a period of six 
     months from enactment to establish applicable procedures.
       ``(b) Except as provided in section 104(a)(2) and section 
     3(4)(b)(2), this Act does not require any federal agency to 
     reconsider any final action or decision that it made prior to 
     enactment of this Act or that it made in compliance with the 
     provisions of this Act, although this shall not bar 
     application of the Act to new phases of existing 
     projects.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 2270. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
transfer 40 acres of land on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, 
MT, to Lame Deer High School District No. 6, Rosebud County, MT, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


                   northern cheyenne high school act

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation which 
is a big step forward for high school students and their families on 
the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. The passage of this bill gives 
congressional approval for a land transfer between the Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe and a recently approved high school district on their 
reservation in Lame Deer, MT.
  Frankly, I cannot think of any school that is more richly deserving. 
Since the mid-1980's members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe have 
actively worked to have a State high school for their reservation. Of 
seven Indian reservations in Montana, they are the only one that does 
not have its own high school.
  Most of us enjoy the luxury of sending our children to a school in 
our own neighborhood. But Northern Cheyenne students travel from 45 to 
125 miles per day to attend high school. A high school on the 
reservation will not only decrease the distance students travel to 
school, but it will increase community and parental involvement and it 
will help reduce the student dropout rate.
  Moreover, the creation of this high school will strengthen the spirit 
of the community. And it will help sustain the cultural integrity of 
the Northern Cheyenne Tribe.
  Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the Northern Cheyenne 
Tribe's efforts to build their own high school. And I urge the Senate 
to pass this legislation quickly in order that construction may 
proceed. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2270

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

     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) School district.--The term ``School District'' means 
     the Lame Deer High School District No. 6., Rosebud County, 
     Montana.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Northern Cheyenne 
     Tribe.

     SEC. 2. NORTHERN CHEYENNE LAND TRANSFER.

       (a) Conveyance of Lands.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary shall convey by patent to the 
     School District all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States and the Tribe in the lands described in subsection (b) 
     for use by the School District only for the purposes of 
     constructing and operating on the lands a public high school 
     and related facilities.
       (b) Description of Lands.--
       (1) General legal description.--The lands described in this 
     paragraph are within the Northern Cheyenne Indian 
     Reservation, as follows: The W\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ and the E\1/2\ 
     of SW\1/4\ of section 10, township 3 south, range 41 east, 
     M.P.M.
       (2) Narrative description.--Such lands may be described as 
     follows: Beginning at the south \1/4\ corner of such section 
     10, thence south 89 degrees 56 minutes west 393.31 feet, on 
     and along the south line of such section 10 to the true point 
     of beginning, thence south 89 degrees 56 minutes west 500 
     feet, on and along such section line, thence north 00 degrees 
     00 minutes east, 575.0 feet, thence north 54 degrees 9 
     minutes 22 seconds east, 2,382.26 feet, thence south 23 
     degrees 44 minutes 21 seconds east, 622.56 feet, thence 
     south 51 degrees 14 minutes 40 seconds west, 2,177.19 
     feet, to the true point of beginning containing in all 
     40.0 acres, more or less.

     SEC. 3. PATENT.

       The patent issued by the Secretary under this Act shall be 
     issued subject to the following conditions:
       (1) Title to all coal and other minerals, including oil, 
     gas, and other natural deposits, within the lands described 
     in section 2(b) shall remain with the Secretary to be held in 
     trust for the Tribe, as provided in Public Law 90-424 (82 
     Stat. 424).
       (2) The lands described in section 2(b) conveyed to the 
     School district may be used only by the School District and 
     only for the purposes of constructing and operating on the 
     lands a public high school related facilities.
       (3) If, on the termination of the 8-year period beginning 
     on the date of issuance of the patent, classes have not 
     commenced in a permanent public high school facility 
     established on the lands described in section 2(b) conveyed 
     to the School District, or if such classes commence at the 
     facility during such period, but the facility subsequently 
     permanently ceases operating as a public high school--
       (A) all right, title, and interest to the lands described 
     in section 2(b) conveyed to the School District, free and 
     clear of all liens and encumbrances, shall automatically 
     revert to the Secretary to be held in trust for the Tribe; 
     and
       (B) the Secretary shall void the patent and the patent 
     shall have no further force or effect.
       (4)(A) At any time after the conclusion of any litigation 
     pending as of the date of enactment of this Act (including 
     any trial and, if any, appellate proceedings) that challenges 
     the decision made by the Superintendent of Public Instruction 
     for the State of Montana on November 9, 1993, granting the 
     petition to create the School District, and with the prior 
     approval of the Superintendent of Public Instruction--
       (i) the Tribe shall have the right to request the Secretary 
     to void the patent in accordance with subparagraph (C); and
       (ii) if the Tribe makes such request and meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (C), the Tribe may enter into a 
     lease with the School District pursuant to the Act of 
     August 9, 1995 (69 Stat. 539, chapter 615; (25 
     U.S.C. 415(a))--
       (I) covering the lands described in section 2(b);
       (II) of a term of 25 years, with a right to renew for an 
     additional 25-year period; and
       (III) under which the lands described in section 2(b) shall 
     be leased rent free to the School District for the exclusive 
     purpose of constructing and operating a public high school 
     and related facilities on such lands.
       (B) Any lease entered into pursuant to subparagraph (A) 
     shall, notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(II), terminate upon 
     the termination of the period specified in paragraph (3) if, 
     by such date, classes have not commenced in a permanent 
     public high school facility established on the lands 
     described in section 2(b) conveyed to the School District, or 
     if, during such period, such classes commence at the 
     facility, but the facility subsequently permanently ceases 
     operating as a public high school.
       (C) If the Tribe seeks and obtains approval of the 
     Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Montana, 
     the Tribe may enter into a lease, if the lease is signed by 
     the Tribe and approved by the Secretary. Such lease shall 
     comply with the requirements of this paragraph. At such time 
     as the Tribe enters into a lease under this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall void the patent, and, subject to the 
     leasehold interest offered to the School District, title to 
     the lands described in section 2(b), free and clear of all 
     liens and encumbrances, shall automatically revert to the 
     Secretary in trust for the Tribe.
       (C) The Tribe may at any time irrevocably relinquish the 
     right of the Tribe to enter into a lease under this paragraph 
     by resolution of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council that 
     explicitly provides for the relinquishment of the right.

     SEC. 4. EFFECT OF ACCEPTANCE OF PATENT.

       Upon the acceptance by the School District of a patent 
     issued by the Secretary under this Act, the School District, 
     and any party who may subsequently acquire any right, title, 
     or interest in the lands described in section 2(b) by or 
     through the School District, shall be subject to the terms 
     and conditions set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4) of 
     section 3.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DeCONCINI (for himself and Mr. Biden):
  S. 2272. A bill to amend chapter 28 of title 35, United States Code, 
to provide a defense to patent infringement based on prior use by 
certain persons, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                  patent prior user rights act of 1994

 Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I introduce the Patent Prior 
User Rights Act of 1994. This bill is the product of many hours of hard 
work and represents a compromise that I believe is acceptable to all 
interested parties. The purpose of the bill is to clarify the rights of 
prior users, vis-a-vis patent holders. Prior users are persons who 
commercially use or are making serious preparations to use commercially 
a process that becomes the subject of a patent filed later by another. 
Currently, the law is unclear about their ability to continue to use 
the first person's process if another receives the patent on the 
process.
  Mr. President, the problem this bill seeks to address occurs when a 
legitimate inventor decides for any number of reasons not to secure a 
patent on a process he or she is using in his or her business. Maybe 
the inventor decides to hold the process as a trade secret. Maybe the 
invention involves an adjustment to an existing process. Maybe the 
inventor can't afford the costs of obtaining a patent, including the 
associated legal fees. Maybe the inventor did not believe the invention 
was patentable, or maybe the inventor could not get a patent on the 
process for some reason. Well, a second inventor can come along and 
independently invent the process or reverse engineer the product and 
discover the process. This second inventor can then apply for a patent. 
Since the first inventor did not publicly disclose the process, in some 
circumstances, the second inventor can receive a patent on the process. 
This can result in the inequitable situation where the patent holder 
can prevent the first inventor from using a process critical to his or 
her business.
  Clearly, a legitimate inventor-patentee should be able to enjoy the 
rewards for disclosing his or her invention to the public. At the same 
time, someone who legitimately has been using the invention before the 
patentee filed his patent application should be allowed to continue its 
use.
  The bill I am introducing today resolves the inequities that might 
otherwise result from the patenting of technology already in use by 
others. It will promote sound public policy by clearly defining the 
rights of prior users as well as patent holders. Prior users will have 
a legal defense to a patent holder's claim of infringement and will be 
allowed to continue using the process.
  The needs of the patentees, and their right to profit from their 
efforts, have been considered and accommodated in this bill. 
Accordingly, before prior user rights may be successfully asserted 
certain requirements must be met. First, the prior user must, in good 
faith, have commercially used the process or product in the United 
States, or made effective and serious preparation to do so. Second, 
such use must have occurred before the filing date or priority date of 
the competing patent application, whichever comes first. Third, no 
prior user right may be based on information obtained, directly or 
indirectly, from the patentee or the patentee's agents. Fourth, the use 
of the process must not have been abandoned.
  In addition, the scope of the prior user right is significantly 
limited. Only that subject matter claimed in the patent that has been 
commercially used or for which there has been effective and serious 
preparation for its use in the United States before the critical date 
is protected. Prior user rights may only be assigned in connection with 
the transfer of an entire business enterprise. However, the right to 
make or use variations or improvements, including variations in the 
quantity or volume of such use, are allowed as long as such variations 
or improvements do not infringe additional claims of the patent.

  This bill will create incentives for manufacturers to develop and 
produce superior processes more efficiently. No longer will 
manufacturers feel they may be put out of business in the future by 
developing a process or product and failing to obtain a patent. Prior 
users will be assured of protection from such challenges and can 
proceed without fear of later reprisals.
  This bill is based on principles widely recognized throughout the 
world community. It provides U.S. inventors with a right already 
provided in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the vast majority of 
industrialized nations. These countries have long recognized the need 
for prior user rights, and we would be wise now to do the same.
  During consideration of legislation I introduced last Congress on the 
need to harmonize our patent laws, the issue of prior user rights was 
raised. The research-based university community objected to the idea of 
prior user rights. Their concern was that such rights could interfere 
with their ability to license their patents. I believe these concerns 
have been addressed. By recognizing the needs of prior users and 
patentees alike, the prior user rights bill clarifies the rights of 
both parties and seeks to be fair.
  I conclude today by urging Senate approval of the Patent Prior User 
Rights Act. Considerations of fairness, public policy, and the needs of 
the international economy all strongly support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that all concerns about this legislation 
have been resolved and that this bill can become enacted this year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2272

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Patent Prior User Rights Act 
     of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. DEFENSE TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT BASED ON PRIOR USE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 28 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 273. Rights based on prior use; defense to 
       infringement

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term--
       ``(1) `commercially used' means the use interstate or 
     intrastate commerce, including the use of processes, 
     equipment, tooling, and intermediate materials in the design, 
     testing or production of commercial product whether or not 
     such processes, equipment, tooling, and intermediate 
     materials are normally accessible, available, or otherwise 
     known to the public;
       ``(2) `effective and serious preparation' means that a 
     person, in the United States, has--
       ``(A) reduced to practice the subject matter for which 
     rights based on prior use are claimed; and
       ``(B) made serious plans, and a substantial investment or 
     much of the investment necessary for the subject matter to be 
     commercially used; and
       ``(3) `critical date' means the filing date or the priority 
     date, whichever occurs first, of the application for patent.
       ``(b) In General.--A person shall not be liable as an 
     infringer under a patent granted to another with respect to 
     any subject matter claimed in the patent that such person 
     had, acting in good faith, commercially used in the United 
     States or made effective and serious preparation therefor in 
     the United States, before the critical date.
       ``(c) Limitation of Defense.--Subject to subsection (d), 
     rights based on prior use under this section extend only to 
     the claimed invention that the person claiming rights based 
     on prior use was in possession of prior to the critical date.
       ``(d) Certain Variations and Improvements Not an 
     Infringement.--The rights based on prior use under this 
     section shall include the right to make and use variations or 
     improvements, including variations in the quantity or volume 
     of such use. Such variations or improvements may not infringe 
     additional claims of the patent.
       ``(e) Qualifications.--(1) The rights based on prior use 
     under this section are personal and shall not be licensed or 
     assigned or transferred to another except in connection with 
     the assignment or transfer of the entire business or 
     enterprise to which the rights relate.
       ``(2) A person may not claim rights based on prior use 
     under this section if the activity under which such person 
     claims the rights was--
       ``(A) based on information obtained or derived from the 
     patentee or those in privity with the patentee; or
       ``(B) abandoned on or after the critical date, except that 
     for abandonment which occurs after the critical date, rights 
     based on prior use may be used as a defense to infringement 
     for that period of activity which occurred prior to 
     abandonment if such activity would otherwise, in the absence 
     of abandonment, have been allowed under this section.
       ``(3) The rights based on prior use under this section are 
     not a general license under all claims of the patent, but are 
     restricted in scope to cover only that subject matter claimed 
     in the patent that has been commercially used, or for which 
     there has been effective and serious preparation, in the 
     United States, before the critical date.
       ``(f) Burden of Proof.--In any action in which a person 
     claims a defense to infringement under this section the 
     burden of proof for establishing the defense shall be on the 
     person claiming rights based on prior use.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 28 of title 35, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

``273. Rights based on prior use, defense to infringement.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SARBANES:
  S. 2274. A bill to provide for the application of a 6-year statute of 
limitations to certain claims filed by Federal employees under the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.); to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.


                   fairness for federal employees act

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to 
reverse a very destructive ruling by the General Accounting Office 
[GAO] to apply a retroactive change in the statute of limitations from 
6 years to 2 years for Federal employees to file back pay claims under 
the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA].
  GAO's recent action goes against longstanding Federal policy and 
GAO's own interpretation of the appropriate statute of limitations for 
overtime pay claims under the FLSA. In fact, beginning with the 
Transportation Systems Center ruling in 1978, GAO has consistently held 
that the statute of limitations for Federal employees to file claims 
under the FLSA is 6 years.
  In accordance with this policy, the Office of Personnel Management 
and other Federal agencies have notified employees through regulations 
and bulletins, that they must file their FLSA claims within 6 years 
from the date they accrue. In fact, many agencies continue to advise 
employees that they have 6 years from the date of injury to file their 
claims.
  The underlying question regarding the appropriate length of the 
statute of limitation for FLSA claims is one of continuing debate. 
However, under no circumstances should GAO apply the proposed change 
retroactively. This action is manifestly unjust to the thousands of 
employees who have claims pending and who have based their actions on 
the explicit directions and procedure set forth in official Government 
documents and publications.
  I ask my colleagues, what message do we send to these individuals and 
I submit to the entire Federal service, if the institutions of the 
Government they serve, so capriciously and arbitrarily strip them of 
the rights and due process which they have been previously guaranteed? 
I would submit it is a very negative and damaging message that may have 
a serious impact on employee morale and, consequently, recruitment and 
retention.
  Furthermore, as a policy matter, I would assert that this is no way 
to conduct our Nation's business. For GAO to adopt and retroactively 
apply this change in the statute of limitation goes against all well 
established principles of statutory interpretation, administrative law, 
and due process of law.
  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today requires the 
Comptroller General of the United States to continue to apply a 6-year 
statute of limitation to any FLSA pay claims that have been filed 
before or have arisen before the date of enactment of this legislation. 
This will preserve the current policy and 20-year history of applying a 
6-year statute to back pay claims made by Federal employees.
  This legislation is endorsed by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association which represents, among others, special agents and 
investigators at the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
the U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms, and the U.S. Secret Service. The bill is also endorsed by all 
of the major employee organizations including the National Treasury 
Employees Union, the American Federation of Government Employees, and 
the Public Employees Department of the AFL-CIO.
  Mr. President, there is no credible defense or rationale for GAO to 
make retroactive changes, without notification, to longstanding 
Government policy and procedure. If implemented, GAO's decision would 
not only deprive literally thousands of employees of the due process 
they have been previously guaranteed but it also threatens to set a 
dangerous precedent that any Government policy, irrespective of merit, 
may be subject to such sudden and arbitrary reversal.
  I submit that we cannot afford to proceed down such a potentially 
damaging path. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
                                 ______

      By Mr. EXON (for himself and Mr. Packwood):
  S. 2275. A bill to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, 
relating to interstate commerce; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.


                   the trucking regulatory reform act

 Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I introduce the Trucking Regulatory 
Reform Act of 1994. This legislation pursues a comprehensive trucking 
regulatory reform agenda which is designed to meet the legitimate 
concerns about the expense of trucking regulation expressed by both 
Houses of Congress.
  This legislation was crafted after close consultations with the 
bipartisan membership of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It will 
improve surface transportation efficiency, save taxpayer dollars, 
protect the public interest, and preserve transportation safety.
  On the same day--June 16, 1994--the two Houses of Congress through 
separate votes outlined policies on surface transportation which if 
taken together could wreak havoc on transportation safety, efficiency 
and availability. Almost simultaneously, the Senate voted to preempt 
State trucking regulations in favor of uniform Federal regulation and 
the House voted to eliminate funding for the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, the agency which administers Federal trucking regulation.
  These two policies are now on a collision course. If the Senate 
favors intrastate trucking deregulation, it cannot allow the Interstate 
Commerce Commission to die.
  The legislation I introduce today is a compromise proposal designed 
to draw the Congress back from the brink of rash and unreasonable 
action. It is an effort to pursue needed reform in Federal trucking 
regulation and at the Interstate Commerce Commission while at the same 
time preserving the much needed safety, dispute resolution and 
independent functions of the Commission.
  This compromise represents fundamental reform in trucking regulation. 
It also offers the Congress an opportunity to save real money, rather 
than just shuffle expense from one agency to another.
  There are five basic elements of this reform package. Under this 
proposal:
  First, the filed rate obligation would be eliminated for individual 
truck companies;
  Second, entry review would be streamlined and limited to insurance 
and safety matters;
  Third, the ICC would be given exemption authority over any trucking 
matter under its jurisdiction after a proper showing;
  Fourth, the Secretary of Transportation would be required to report 
to the Congress on the feasibility and efficiency of merging the ICC 
with the Federal Maritime Commission or other independent regulatory 
agency; and
  Fifth, the Secretary of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce 
Commission would be required to review the operations of the Commission 
and report to the Congress whether further efficiencies can be 
achieved.
  This reform proposal builds on the success of the negotiated rates 
act which this Congress enacted last year ending the nightmare of the 
undercharge claims from bankrupt trucking companies. The effective 
administration of that landmark legislation depends on the continued 
existance of an independent Interstate Commerce Commission.
  I am also asking the Senate Appropriations Committee to consider this 
reform agenda when it takes up the transportation appropriations bill. 
It is my preliminary estimate that if this reform agenda were adopted, 
$50 million over 5 years could be saved.
  As chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, an 
authorizing committee, I do not generally favor legislation on an 
appropriations bill. However, the harsh, rash, and what could prove to 
be expensive action of the House of Representatives to defund the ICC 
without dealing with any Commission functions makes this approach 
necessary.
  I submit that few in this body have a stronger record on deficit 
reduction. The bill I introduce today will produce meaningful budget 
savings because it will lead to the elimination ICC functions.
  The Congress should not legislate by sniper fire. Bits and pieces of 
transportation regulation are being shot off with little thought about 
the overall context or how any one action affects overall 
transportation policy.
  Reason must be restored to the debate on U.S. transportation policy, 
especially the future role of the ICC. At risk is the world's most 
efficient, productive and competitive transportation networks. People, 
goods, and commodities move across our great land with an ease which is 
the envy of all the nations of the world. Our Nation's transportation 
system is built on the notion that competition will produce quality 
service at affordable prices. But that competition is tempered with 
concern for fairness, the public interest, and the public safety.
  I urge my colleagues to build on the success of the negotiated rates 
act, not be fooled by budgetary sleight of hand and carefully review 
this compromise proposal.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Trucking Regulatory 
Reform Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2275

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Trucking Industry Regulatory 
     Reform Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to enhance competition, safety, 
     and efficiency in the motor carrier industry and to enhance 
     efficiency in government.

     SEC. 4. TRANSPORTATION POLICY.

       Section 10101(a)(2) (relating to transportation policy) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (I) as 
     subparagraphs (C) through (K), respectively, and
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (C) (as so 
     redesignated) the following: ``(A) encourage fair 
     competition, and reasonable rates for transportation by motor 
     carriers of property; (B) promote Federal regulatory 
     efficiency in the motor carrier transportation system and to 
     require fair and expeditious regulatory decisions when 
     regulation is required;''.

     SEC. 5. EXEMPTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 10505 (relating to authority to 
     exempt rail carrier transportation) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, or a motor carrier providing 
     transportation of property other than household goods,'' 
     after ``rail carrier providing transportation'' in subsection 
     (a),
       (2) by inserting ``section 10101 or'' before ``section 
     10101a'' in subsection (a)(1) and subsection (d), and
       (3) by inserting ``, or a motor carrier providing 
     transportation of property other than household goods,'' 
     after ``rail carrier'' in subsection (f).
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The caption of section 10505 is amended by inserting 
     ``and motor carrier'' after ``rail carrier''.
       (2) The chapter analysis for chapter 105 is amended by 
     inserting ``and motor carrier'' after ``rail carrier'' in the 
     item relating to section 10505.

     SEC. 6. TARIFF FILING.

       (a) Authority to Establish Rates.--Section 10702(b) 
     (relating to authority for carriers to establish rates, 
     classifications, rules, and practices) is amended by 
     inserting ``, except a motor contract of property other than 
     household goods,'' after ``A contract carrier''.
       (b) Prohibition of Transportation Without Tariff.--Section 
     10761(a) (relating to transportation prohibited without 
     tariff) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(except a motor common carrier providing 
     transportation of property other than household goods)'' 
     after ``chapter 105 of this title'', and
       (2) by striking out ``That carrier'' in the second sentence 
     and inserting ``A carrier subject to this subsection''.
       (c) General Tariff Requirement.--Section 10762(a)(1) 
     (relating to general tariff requirement) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(except a motor common carrier providing 
     transportation of property other than household goods)'' 
     after ``A motor common carrier'' in the second sentence,
       (2) by inserting ``(except a motor common carrier providing 
     transportation of property other than household goods) after 
     ``carriers'' in the third sentence, and
       (3) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``A motor contract carrier of property is not 
     required to publish or file actual or minimum rates under 
     this subtitle.''.
       (d) Proposed Rate Changes.--Section 10762(c)(2) (relating 
     to rate changes) is amended by inserting ``(except a motor 
     contract carrier of property)'' after ``contract carrier''.
       (e) Effect on Negotiated Rates Act.--Section 10762 
     (relating to general tariff requirements) is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Nothing in this section shall affect the application 
     of the provisions of the negotiated Rates Act of 1993 (or the 
     amendments made by that Act) to undercharge claims for 
     transportation provided prior to the date of enactment of the 
     `Trucking Industry Regulatory Reform Act of 1994'.''.

     SEC. 7. MOTOR COMMON CARRIER LICENSING.

       (a) In General.--Section 10922 (relating to certification 
     of motor and water carriers) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) through (l) as through 
     (m), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (a) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in this section, the Commission 
     shall issue a certificate to a person authorizing that person 
     to provide transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission under subchapter II of chapter 105 of this title 
     as a motor common carrier of property if the Commission finds 
     that the person is able to comply with--
       ``(A) this subtitle, the regulations of the Commission, and 
     any safety requirements imposed by the Commission,
       ``(B) the safety fitness requirements established by the 
     Secretary of Transportation in consultation with the 
     Commission pursuant to section 215 of the Motor Carrier 
     Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. App. 2512), and
       ``(C) the minimum financial responsibility requirements 
     established by the Commission pursuant to section 10927 of 
     this title.
       ``(2) In making a finding under paragraph (1), the 
     Commission shall consider and, to the extent applicable, make 
     findings on, any evidence demonstrating that the applicant is 
     unable to comply with the requirements of subparagraph (A), 
     (B), or (C) of that paragraph.
       ``(3) The Commission, pursuant to section 215 of the Motor 
     Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. App. 2512), shall find 
     any applicant for authority to operate as a motor carrier 
     under this section to be unfit if the applicant does not meet 
     the safety fitness requirements under paragraph (1)(B) of 
     this subsection and shall deny the application.
       ``(4) A person may protest an application under this 
     subsection to provide transportation only on the ground that 
     the applicant fails or will fail to comply with this 
     subtitle, the regulations of the Commission, the safety 
     requirements of the Commission, or the safety fitness or 
     minimum financial responsibility requirements of paragraph 
     (1) of this subsection.''.
       (b) Public Convenience and Necessity.--Section 10922(c) 
     (relating to public convenience and necessity) as 
     redesignated by subsection (a), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``carrier of property'' in paragraph (1) 
     and inserting ``carrier of household goods'',
       (2) by striking paragraphs (4) and (6) and redesignating 
     paragraphs (5), (7), (8), and (9) as (4), (5), (6), and (7), 
     respectively,
       (3) by striking ``carrier holding authority under paragraph 
     (4)(D) of this subsection'' in paragraph (4) (as 
     redesignated) and inserting ``motor carrier providing 
     transportation of shipments weighing 100 pounds or less 
     transported in a motor vehicle in which no one package 
     exceeds 100 pounds'',
       (4) by inserting ``of household goods'' after ``No motor 
     common carrier'' in paragraph (5) (as redesignated),
       (5) by inserting ``of household goods'' after ``No motor 
     common carrier'' in paragraph (6) (as redesignated), and
       (6) by striking ``Notwithstanding the provisions of 
     paragraph (4) of this subsection, the provisions'' in 
     paragraph (7) (as redesigned) and inserting ``The 
     provisions''.
       (c) Certificate Specifications.--Section 10922(f)(1) 
     (relating to specifications for certificate), as redesignated 
     by subsection (a) of this section, is amended by inserting 
     ``of household goods or passengers'' after ``motor common 
     carrier''.
       (d) Public Convenience and Necessity.--Section 10922(h)(1) 
     (relating to public convenience and necessity), as 
     redesignated by subsection (a) of this section, is amended by 
     inserting ``of household goods or passengers'' after ``motor 
     common carrier''.

     SEC. 8. MOTOR CONTRACT CARRIER LICENSING.

       (a) Authority To Issue Permits.--Section 10923(a) (relating 
     to authority to issue permits) is amended by inserting ``of 
     household goods or passengers'' after ``motor contract 
     carrier''.
       (b) Household Goods Permits.--Section 10923 (relating to 
     permits of motor and water contract carriers and household 
     goods freight forwarders) is amended by redesignating 
     subsections (b) through (e) as (c) through (f), respectively, 
     and by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in this section and section 
     10923 of this title, the Commission shall issue a permit to a 
     person authorizing the person to provide transportation 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under 
     subchapter II of chapter 105 of this title as a motor 
     contract carrier of property other than household goods if 
     the Commission finds that the person is able to comply 
     with--
       ``(A) this subtitle, the regulations of the Commission, and 
     any safety requirements imposed by the Commission,
       ``(B) the safety fitness requirements established by the 
     Secretary of Transportation in consultation with the 
     Commission pursuant to section 215 of the Motor Carrier 
     Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. App. 2512), and
       ``(C) the minimum financial responsibility requirements 
     established by the Commission pursuant to section 10927 of 
     this title.
       ``(2) In deciding whether to approve the application of a 
     person for a permit as a motor contract carrier of property 
     other than household goods the Commission shall consider any 
     evidence demonstrating that the applicant is unable to comply 
     with this subtitle, the regulations of the Commission, safety 
     requirements of the Commission, or the safety fitness and 
     minimum financial responsibility requirements of subsection 
     (b)(1).
       ``(3) The Commission, pursuant to section 215 of the Motor 
     Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. App. 2512), shall find 
     any applicant for authority to operate as a motor carrier of 
     property other than household goods under this subsection to 
     be unfit if the applicant does not meet the safety fitness 
     requirements of paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection and shall 
     deny the application.
       ``(4) A person may protest an application under this 
     subsection to provide transportation only on the ground that 
     the applicant fails or will fail to comply with this 
     subtitle, the regulations of the Commission, safety 
     requirements of the Commission, or the safety fitness or 
     minimum financial responsibility requirements of paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (c) Application Filing Requirements.--Section 10923(c) 
     (relating to application filing requirements), as 
     redesignated by subsection (b) of this section, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``motor contract carrier of property'' in 
     paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting ``motor contract carrier 
     of household goods'',
       (2) by striking paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (6) and (7) as (5) and (6), respectively, and
       (3) by striking ``motor carriers of property'' in paragraph 
     (5) (as redesignated) and inserting ``motor carriers of 
     household goods''.
       (d) Conditions of Transportation or Service.--Section 
     10923(e) (relating to conditions of transportation or 
     service), as redesignated by subsection (b) of this section, 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``of passengers or household goods'' after 
     ``contract carrier'' in paragraph (1), and
       (2) by striking ``each person or class of persons (and, in 
     the case of a motor contract carrier of passengers, the 
     number of persons)'' in paragraph (2) and inserting ``in the 
     case of a motor contract carrier of passengers, the number of 
     persons,''.

     SEC. 9. REVOCATION OF MOTOR CARRIER AUTHORITY.

       Section 10925(d)(1) (relating to effective periods of 
     certificates, permits, and licenses) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``if a motor carrier or broker'' in 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting ``if a motor carrier of 
     passengers, motor common carrier of household goods, or 
     broker'',
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
       (3) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as (D) and inserting 
     after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(B) if a motor contract carrier of property, for failure 
     to comply with section 10701, 10924(e), or 10927(b) or (d) of 
     this subtitle;
       ``(C) if a motor common carrier of property other than 
     household goods, for failure to comply with section 10701, 
     10702, 10924(e), or 10927(b) or (d) of this subtitle; and''.

     SEC. 10. STUDY OF MERGER OF FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION AND 
                   INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall study the feasibility 
     of a merger of the operations and responsibilities of the 
     Federal Maritime Commission and the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission with respect to the cost savings that might be 
     achieved by such a merger, the efficient allocation of 
     resources, the elimination of unnecessary functions, and 
     responsibility for regulatory functions. The Secretary shall 
     report his findings to the Congress within 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 11. STUDY OF ADDITIONAL REFORMS.

       The Interstate Commerce Commission, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Transportation, shall prepare and submit to 
     the Congress with six months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act a report identifying and analyzing all regulatory 
     responsibilities of the Commission. The Commission shall make 
     recommendations to the Congress on the basis of the study 
     concerning specific statutory functions of the Commission 
     that could be changed to enhance competition, safety, and 
     efficiency in the motor carrier industry and to enhance 
     efficiency in government.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GLENN:
  S.J. Res. 207. A joint resolution designating January 16, 1995, as 
``National Good Teen Day''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                         national good teen day

 Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I introduce a joint resolution 
designating January 16, 1995, as ``National Good Teen Day.'' This day 
will commemorate those positive contributions that our Nation's youth 
make every day to our society.
  The original concept of ``Good Teen Day'' was created by Mr. Robert 
Viencek, an English teacher at Salem City Schools in Salem, OH. The 
Salem City Schools first commemorated this day on January 16, 1992. The 
first national observance of this day occurred on January 16, 1993.
  Despite many negative stereotypes of American teens, the majority of 
our teenagers aspire to be integral and productive members of our 
society and will successfully reach that goal. Each of us was once a 
teenager. Teenagers represent the future of our great Nation and should 
be recognized for their contributions. Mr. Traficant has introduced 
similar legislation in the House. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate 
designate January 16, 1995, as ``National Good Teen Day.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:
       Whereas the Salem City Schools in Salem, Ohio, have 
     proclaimed January 16, 1992, as ``Good Teen Day'';
       Whereas both the Congress and the President have proclaimed 
     January 16, 1993, and January 16, 1994, as ``National Good 
     Teen Day'';
       Whereas there are more than 24,000,000 teenagers in the 
     United States according, to the 1990 census;
       Whereas our Nation's teenagers represent an important part 
     of our society, and the many physical and emotional changes 
     and character-building experiences which teenagers go through 
     are an important concern to society;
       Whereas it is easy to stereotype teenagers as either those 
     who have problems or those who excel;
       Whereas teenagers should not simply be recognized for their 
     intelligence, abilities, skills, and talents, but also for 
     the good which is inherent in all human beings;
       Whereas teenagers are unique individuals, and should be 
     encouraged to develop the good as well as the potential for 
     growth and future success that is within each of them;
       Whereas a day should be set aside to focus on the positive 
     qualities of America's youth; and
       Whereas teenagers are the future of this great country: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That January 
     16, 1995, is designated ``National Good Teen Day'', and the 
     President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation 
     calling on the people of the United States to observe that 
     day by recognizing the teenagers of the United States and by 
     participating in appropriate ceremonies and 
     activities.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WOFFORD (for himself and Mr. Bond):
  S.J. Res. 208. A joint resolution designating the week of November 6, 
1994, through November 12, 1994, ``National Health Information 
Management Week''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              national health information management week

 Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, today I am offering a Senate joint 
resolution with Senator Bond designating the week of November 6-12, 
1994 as ``National Health Information Management Week.'' The purpose of 
this joint resolution is to recognize the importance that high quality 
health information plays in keeping America's health care system the 
best in the world.
  Collection and dissemination of health information will be an 
important component of whatever health reform legislation this Congress 
passes. Establishing an electronic data network to manage this 
information will be essential: To reduce administrative costs by 
eliminating the paperwork burden and standardizing how information is 
exchanged, to improve the quality of care by making accurate and timely 
clinical data available online and at the point of service delivery, 
and to provide consumers with better information for choosing health 
plans and doctors.
  Another important aspect of managing health information is protecting 
the privacy of personally identifiable health information. The rapid 
changes expected in information technology over the next few years make 
it imperative that health reform legislation safeguard the 
confidentiality of patient medical records.
  Because of my commitment to these two aspects of health reform--
proper management of health information and protecting personal 
privacy--I introduced an amendment with Senator Dodd that was accepted 
in the final health reform legislation approved by the Senate Labor and 
Human Resources Committee. That amendment would establish a private/
public sector framework for developing a health care data network to 
manage health information. The framework for this information 
infrastructure was based on S. 1494, introduced by Senators Bond and 
Riegle, both of whom I commend for their leadership in the areas of 
health information management and the simplification of health 
administration. The amendment I offered to the Labor Committee bill 
would also establish strong privacy protections to safeguard personal 
health information that are effective immediately upon enactment of 
health reform. These protections are drawn from S. 2129, introduced by 
Senator Leahy, who I commend for his personal commitment to the privacy 
issue.
  It is my commitment to the proper management of health information 
that leads me to offer this joint resolution today. Leaders in the 
field of health information management have demonstrated a commitment 
to and expertise in managing the growing need for better health care 
data while at the same time protecting patient confidentiality. The 
achievements and innovations made by professionals in this field are 
largely responsible for this country being a world leader in health 
information technology.
  I ask my colleagues to join me and my colleague Senator Bond in 
cosponsoring this Senate Joint Resolution to designate the week of 
November 6-12, 1994 as ``National Health Information Management Week.'' 
This joint resolution will allow us to pay proper recognition to the 
important role of health information in America's health delivery 
system and those who manage and safeguard this information.

                          ____________________