[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 106 (Thursday, August 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DeCONCINI:
  S. 2359. A bill to modify the boundaries of Walnut Canyon National 
Monument in the State of Arizona; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


   walnut canyon national monument boundary modification act of 1994

 Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I introduce the Walnut Canyon 
National Monument Boundary Modification Act of 1994. Walnut Canyon is 
an exquisite, historically important archeological and natural 
treasure. This legislation would protect the unique resources in the 
area directly adjacent to the current park.
  First established in 1915, the Walnut Canyon National Monument 
contains over 400 archeological sites. While most of these sites, 
including cliff dwellings of the prehistoric Sinagua culture are 
located within the monument, two of these dwellings are not protected.
  This bill would modify the boundaries in order to help the National 
Park Service meet its original goals of protecting the Walnut Canyon 
area for future generations. Those goals include preserving the 
ethnologic, scientific, and educational value of these sites. 
Approximately 1,300 acres will be added to the monument by this 
legislation, including the two overlooked cliff dwellings. Only Federal 
land is involved in the proposed boundary change and the change will 
have no effect on any private or State lands.
  Congresswoman Karan English has introduced identical legislation on 
this matter in the House and I applaud her hard work and leadership in 
this area. This legislation will complete the job begun in 1915, to 
protect the unique, natural, archeological treasures in Walnut Canyon. 
Enactment of this legislation will ensure that future generations will 
be able to enjoy and learn from these remarkable historic lands.
  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. 2359

       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 ``Walnut Canyon National 
     Monument Boundary Modification Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) Walnut Canyon National Monument was established for the 
     preservation and interpretation of certain settlements and 
     land use patterns associated with the prehistoric Sinaguan 
     culture of northern Arizona.
       (2) Major cultural resources associated with the purposes 
     of Walnut Canyon National Monument are near the boundary and 
     are currently managed under multiple-use objectives of the 
     adjacent national forest. These concentrations of cultural 
     resources, often referred to as ``forts'', would be more 
     effectively managed as part of the National Park System.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to modify the 
     boundaries of the Walnut Canyon National Monument (hereafter 
     in this Act referred to as the ``national monument'') to 
     improve management of the national monument and associated 
     resources.

     SEC. 3. BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

       Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     boundaries of the national monument shall be modified as 
     depicted on map entitled ``Boundary Proposal--Walnut Canyon 
     National Monument, Coconino County, Arizona'' numbered 360/
     80,008, and dated June 1994. Such map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the offices of the 
     Director of the National Park Service, Department of the 
     Interior.

     SEC. 4 ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.

       The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire 
     lands and interest in lands within the national monument, by 
     donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or 
     exchange. Federal property within the boundaries of the 
     national monument (as modified by this Act) is hereby 
     transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of the Interior for management as part of the 
     national pursuant to the boundary modification under section 
     3 is hereby transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary of the Interior for management as part of the 
     national monument. Federal property excluded from the 
     monument pursuant to the boundary modification under section 
     3 is hereby transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary of Agriculture to be managed as a part of the 
     Coconino National Forest.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.

       The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director 
     of the National Park Service, shall manage the national 
     monument in accordance with this Act and the provisions of 
     law generally applicable to units of the National Park 
     Service, including ``An Act to establish a National Park 
     Service,'' approved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 
     1, 2-4), and for other purposes.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the purpose of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnston, Mr. 
        Gorton, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 2360. A bill to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act of 1976, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


  Magnuson Fishery Conservation and management act amendments of 1994

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today 
would amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 
order to restore public confidence and integrity in the system by which 
we manage our fish harvesting and processing industries and the 
valuable fishery resources on which they depend. This bill is intended 
to focus the debate in this current reauthorization cycle on the 
critical need to reform and modernize our national fishery policy to 
respond to the realities facing fishery management today. While there 
are other areas of fishery policy which may merit attention this year, 
I feel very strongly that until we bring our fisheries management 
system up to date with current demands, no other conservation or 
management initiatives are likely to be successful in achieving their 
objectives. To appreciate fully the purposes and significance of this 
effort, I think it is first important to consider the events which have 
led me to this position.
  In my years as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and 
Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, our attention was heavily 
focused on underutilized species, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, 
and the foreign dominance of already developed fisheries occurring 
within our then recently extended 200-mile jurisdiction. Our efforts 
were appropriately focused on research, development, and 
Americanization of these fisheries. In hindsight, we can now see that 
this was actually only the first phase of what was to become a far more 
complex and evolutionary process.
  The objectives of that first phase of U.S. fisheries were clear and 
the challenges now seem relatively simple. First, we needed to take 
immediate measures to prevent overfishing by foreign fishing operations 
that were using fishing techniques completely incompatible with our 
sustainable yield objectives. The second and closely related objective 
was to provide a mechanism that would attract the necessary investment 
capital for U.S. fishermen to develop the technology and capacity to 
harvest, process, and gradually achieve the full development of our 
underutilized resources and the phaseout of foreign fishing.
  Congress responded to these challenges with the adoption and 
aggressive pursuit of policies and programs that not only provided 
American fishermen and processors with priority access to our Nation's 
fishery resources, but also encouraged, if not required, foreign 
fishing nations to contribute to the development of the U.S. fishing 
industry. Our fish-and-chips policy was particularly important to the 
cooperative United States-Japan research and development of 
underutilized fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. The important point is 
that the phaseout of foreign fishing and fish-and-chips policies were 
wholly designed to address what was then a timely emphasis on fishery 
development by American fishermen and processors. An even more 
important point is that, while the Americanization phase is long over 
and our resources are now fully developed, the conservation and 
management system in place today has remained essentially the same.

  I recall that the Americanization and development phase of fisheries 
was largely a harmonious time for American fishermen and processors 
who, flush with the pioneering spirit, were widely galvanized by the 
single-minded objective of displacing the foreign presence and of 
discovering and fully developing new fisheris. I also recall that 
several of my colleagues in Congress today were among the most vocal 
advocates of placing the full force and effect of our new law and our 
new international political might behind the development of practically 
any and every U.S. fish harvesting and processing capability that would 
contribute to the development of new fisheries and the displacement of 
foreign fleets. We promoted catcher boats and over-the-side joint 
ventures, catcher/processors and mothership operations alike--anything 
that might be used to capture the fishery for the U.S. from the 
foreigners. Similarly, we entered into joint venture research and 
development projects in the Gulf of Mexico and established new programs 
such as MARFIN, all of which were entirely devoted to development. It 
was a time of national perspective with little emphasis placed on how 
we were going to effectively manage what were inevitably to become 
competing domestic interests in these newly developed and captured 
fisheries. Admittedly, my colleagues and I were quick to take 
responsibility for shepherding in the Americanization and development 
phase of our fisheries, and equally quick to accept plenty of the 
credit for the indisputable success once our fisheries were fully 
developed and our own fleets took over. It was indeed a very successful 
policy.
  But that was then and this is now. Just a few short years after fully 
developing and capturing our fisheries, things are not so harmonious; 
there are few signs of unanimity that I can identify. It is 
increasingly difficult to identify a national perspective among fishery 
policymakers, and this includes Congress, which has been forced to 
enter regional and domestic sector disputes over how to allocate fish 
harvesting and processing privileges among U.S. citizens.
  In many ways, we are beginning to realize that U.S. fishery 
management today has become the victim of the development-oriented 
policy successes of the 1980's. Today the debates in fishery policy are 
consumed by the very complex and divisive decisions concerning domestic 
allocation that have little, if anything to do with development and 
Americanization other than being a direct consequence of it. Yet our 
policies remain designed largely for that single outdated purpose.
  What is worse, our intensely aggressive research, development, and 
Americanization policies and programs created an unintended monster 
with the capacity to harvest and process many times over the available 
resources. Excess harvesting and processing capacity in the U.S. 
fisheries is not just a serious economic problem for our fishermen, it 
has created a management nightmare. Overcapitalization has greatly 
intensified the competition for limited resources and thereby 
unimaginably exacerbated the difficulties in preventing overfishing and 
allocating U.S. fishery that we faced in the Gulf of Mexico a long time 
ago when our offshore shrimpers were forced out of Mexico at the same 
time we were providing very attractive financing for vessel 
construction. Meanwhile, we continue to wrestle with the consequences 
of overcapitalization in the offshore shrimp industry, consequences of 
resources collapse, or of overzealous development.

  It is certainly clear to me, and I trust to my colleagues as well, 
that what was right then is not right today--that the Americanization 
and development-oriented policies and programs of the past cannot meet 
the needs of an already developed and Americanized fishery. If there is 
any Americanization left to achieve, it may lie in our processing 
sector, and that is an issue worth considering. But, we need to accept 
the fact that the first phase of our fisheries policy development was 
completed several years ago, and that the current scenario focused on 
domestic fishery management represents a second and very distinct phase 
requiring an equally distinct approach. Logically, we should develop a 
policy which is designed specifically to address these realities of 
this current phase and provide our fishery managers with an effective 
and efficient system for achieving our national objectives. Perhaps we 
even need to reassess our national objectives. In any case, of one 
thing I am certain, I and my colleagues are seriously overdue in 
accepting responsibility for such badly needed policy reform, and I 
look forward to working with them to develop the necessary reforms.
  At the center of this difficult and complex situation are, of course, 
the Regional Fishery Management Councils which we established in order 
that U.S. fishermen have an opportunity to participate directly in the 
conservation and management of those resources on which their 
livelihoods depend. This has been a rare and, I trust, coveted 
opportunity for the U.S. fishing industry to be the stewards of their 
own futures.
  Unfortunately, now that the focus has become domestic management, it 
is apparent that we neither envisioned nor adequately equipped the 
Councils with the standards, rules and procedures that would be 
necessary to protect this system of management from the perceptions and 
very real problems concerning conflicts of interest and proper 
decisionmaking. Indeed, the Councils are not just stewards of their own 
futures--they are stewards of an extremely valuable and fragile public 
resource. They have a weighty responsibility to the American people and 
we need to better equip them to face these new challenges.
  To me, evidence of the inadequacy of our outdated 
Americanization policy and the need for Council system reform is 
compelling in all regions. The New England groundfisheries, which 
really provided much of the original impetus for the Magnuson Act, are 
no longer decimated by foreign fleets. Today, they, are, instead 
overfished by domestic fishermen to the point that the resource cannot 
sustain an industry and our fishery managers are reduced to 
administering assistance programs instead of a national resource 
management program.

  In the gulf, where I spent so much attention promoting the research 
and development of new and underutilized commercial fishing 
opportunities, the excitement of discovering and developing new 
economic opportunities appears long gone. Instead I see a commercial 
fishing industry largely disenfranchised from a management process 
that, from their prospective, has only served to limit progressively 
and inequitably their access to the very resources they first 
developed. The Councils in this region seem overwhelmed with the 
fundamental differences in State policies with respect to commercial 
and recreational utilization, and so even the most fundamental resource 
conservation and management problems, including gear use and how to 
deal with incidental catch, have become distorted by such underlying 
politics. Until this system is reformed, I don't see how we can expect 
to resolve some of the really difficult issues facing our area.
  And the north Pacific region, in which our Nation's most valuable 
fisheries occur, is operating under a system of management so complex 
and so confusing as to be nearly incomprehensible to the fishermen--a 
system that now requires a veritable army of lawyers and professional 
lobbyists just to sort through the daily maze of regulations. Perhaps 
because the north Pacific fisheries are so valuable, it is in this 
region where the problems have become most acute.
  Not surprisingly, many of us, and certainly much of the public, have 
lost confidence in the Council system of management. While there is a 
real reluctance to give up what should be viewed by the U.S. industry 
as an extraordinary privilege to self-manage in a manner that no other 
U.S. industry can, there is also a great temptation simply to wipe the 
slate clean and start over with a new approach which will ensure that 
the public's interests are served.
  Nevertheless, rather than abandon the Council system altogether, this 
legislation is intended to address directly many of these concerns--
real or perceived--and to provide the Councils with a fresh new start. 
It is a good government bill designed to establish stronger standards 
and to revamp procedures of operation for our fishery management 
program nationwide. It is intended to get to the root of the problems 
by eliminating conflicts of interest, requiring critical management 
decisions to be based more on factual evidence and science than on 
local and State politics or the financial interests of the Council 
members, and to provide a new level of transparency and accountability 
in the decision making process. It is intended to expand the national 
standards for our national fishery management decisions. Overall, these 
provisions are intended to strengthen the Council process, not to 
weaken or impede its ability to make good decisions. However, the bill 
will, I hope, make it more difficult for the Councils to make bad 
resource management and allocation decisions. Finally, title II of the 
bill also provides a mechanism to encourage the reduction in the 
capitalization of our fisheries. This will help make our fisheries more 
economically efficient and to reduce pressure on the Council management 
system to accommodate too many fishermen with too few fish.

  The bill represents a blending of many ideas and suggestions from a 
wide variety of sources within the industry and outside the industry, 
including many recommendations of the inspector general of the 
Department of Commerce, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the 
environmental community, and fishery interests. These suggestions were 
generated by an extensive series of hearings in the House and Senate 
over the past 18 months led by Chairman Kerry and Senator Stevens.
  At the root of the disparate problems in each region is the Council 
management system. It is the Council system which largely has the 
responsibility for managing the fisheries and many of the fundamental 
inadequacies of that system. Again, until we reform this system, I hold 
little hope for succeeding in any new initiatives much less resolve any 
of the old.
  Mr. President, the reality is that as more and more of our fisheries 
resources become overfished, and as the intensity of over 
capitalization and competition among our U.S. fishermen transcends the 
capabilities of the Council management system, it has become clear that 
we must take strong and definitive action to correct the course of 
fishery management today. I call on all sectors of the fishery 
community, and especially, my colleagues in Congress, to share with me 
today the responsibility for reforming the programs we started nearly 
two decades ago.
 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join with my 
colleagues in introducing needed amendments to the Magnuson Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act. I would like to recognize my colleague 
on the Commerce Committee, Senator Breaux, for his leadership in 
advancing this issue. His commitment is important because many of the 
problems that face the fisheries at this time are not just regional 
issues--they are national in scope and demand a Federal solution.
  Commercial and recreational fishing accounts for $50 billion in 
domestic economic activity. Thousands of jobs are dependent upon the 
health of this industry. Yet, too often, the decisions made to manage 
the fisheries have not been based upon sound conservation practices; 
the results have been disastrous in many areas of this country. It is 
time to institute reforms which will emphasize conservation and 
responsible management and use of the Federal fisheries resources. I 
believe the Breaux bill provides a very good start in trying to address 
these concerns.
  The Breaux bill includes several important conservation-oriented 
reforms including: it amends National Standard No. 5 to elevate and 
highlight the importance of reducing overcapacity in the industry and 
reducing the amount of bycatch; it requires the Scientific and 
Statistical Committees of the Council to set the allowable biological 
catch; it requires fishery plans to be based on a clear preponderance 
of the evidence in the Record; it requires a full range of options to 
be examined.
  The bill also should result in better management decisions by making 
the Councils and those who participate at Council meetings more 
accountable. The legislation would require: that the Councils comply 
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act which governs nearly every 
other governmental advisory committee; that the Council members be 
subjected to strict financial disclosure requirements; that Council 
members recuse themselves from voting on a matter when they have a 
financial conflict; and that people who testify before the Council be 
placed under oath and disclose their own financial ties with the 
industry.
  Finally, in an effort to be fair to everyone and to seek consensus on 
important Council decisions that would result in an economic allocation 
of catch and bycatch among fishery user groups, the bill would require 
a two-thirds majority for all such Council decisions.
  As I said when I opened my remarks, this bill is not a regional bill. 
Because I respect and want to work with my colleague, Senator Breaux, I 
am backing this measure even though it does not contain measures that 
deal specifically with an imbalance that exists in the representation 
of only one council--the North Pacific Council. Nor, does it contain 
what I believe is an important provision that a similar bill introduced 
by my Washington-State House colleagues, Representatives Unsoeld and 
Cantwell, included in their bill--two additional Council seats for all 
Councils that would be filled by nonindustry representatives. I hope 
this issue can be addressed as the committee works on this legislation.
  The reauthorization of the Magnuson Act is vitally important for 
Washington State. Washington has the largest commercial fishing fleet 
in the country harvesting over 50 percent of the domestic seafood catch 
in the United States. Thousands of Washington residents work in the 
offshore and onshore segments of the fishing industry. I am committed 
to trying to advance a bill that will help all Washingtonians--those in 
the industry and the millions of other residents who simply enjoy 
sitting down to a delicious Northwest seafood meal.
                                 ______

      By Mr. RIEGLE (for himself and Mr. Levin):
  S. 2361. A bill to reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationship of 
the Burt Lake Band as a distinct federally recognized Indian Tribe, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


 burt lake band of chippewa and ottawa indians federal recognition act 
                                of 1994

 Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation providing Federal recognition for the Burt Lake Band of 
Chippewa and Ottawa Indians. I am pleased to be joined by my friend and 
colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin.
  We in the Federal Government have failed to create the relationship 
of trust with Indian tribes. The history of our Government's 
relationship with native American people is full of broken promises. 
Today, over 200 years after the first interaction between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, many issues remain unresolved.
  It is inconceivable, yet true, that Indian tribes, which pre-date the 
founding of the United States of America and whose residents wish to 
remain distinguished from the larger populace, have not been formally 
recognized. In fact, tribes that have existed for centuries in one part 
of what is now the United States, have not been formally acknowledged 
by the Federal Government. This unfortunate situation merits our 
attention and demands our intervention.
  The Federal Government, over the last two centuries, has often 
attempted to formalize its relations with Indian tribes. The current 
Federal recognition process, administered by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, is the latest attempt to resolve long-standing issues related 
to Federal recognition. Unfortunately, like other efforts to define the 
Federal Government's relationship with Indian tribes, the Federal 
Acknowledgment Process, administered by the Bureau of Indian Affair's 
Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, is in need of fundamental 
reform. Many tribes have been waiting patiently for BIA action--action 
that appears unnecessarily delayed and prolonged.
  The Burt Lake Band of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians has assembled a 
great deal of documentation to support its claim for recognition, 
including a record that details its tribal history and its relationship 
with the Federal Government.
  The Burt Lake Band was a signatory tribe to the treaties of 1835 and 
1855, and is therefore federally recognized through these treaties. 
Since a tribe's relationship with the Federal Government can be 
terminated only through explicit congressional legislation, the Burt 
Lake Band should still be federally recognized.
  Our Federal Government failed to carry out the provisions of the 1836 
treaty which created a reservation for the band. The band members, 
accordingly, pooled their funds, purchased land and put it into trust 
with the State of Michigan during the 1840's. Unconscionably, these 
apportionments were ultimately lost through tax sales by the State 
government and the band was expelled from its village.
  The Burt Lake Band continues to meet and exist as a tribal entity. 
The Federal recognition granted to them through the 19th century 
treaties has never been revoked by Congress. It is necessary for the 
Burt Lake Band of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians to seek assistance from 
the U.S. Congress. Mr. President, the Burt Lake Band of Indians should 
be federally recognized. The historical record supporting recognition 
is well-developed and convincing. Reading and hearing the history of 
band helps us understand how the Federal Government has not met its 
obligation to America's native people.
  I believe that Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Chippewa 
and Ottawa Indians will help in a small way to create a new level of 
trust. It is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DURENBERGER (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 2362. A bill to provide a comprehensive program of support for 
victims of torture; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


          the comprehensive torture victims relief act of 1994

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Comprehensive Torture Victim Relief Act of 1994. I am pleased that 
Senator Harkin has joined me in this effort as lead cosponsor.
  Mr. President, the international community, and the United States as 
an international leader, have floundered in the area of human rights in 
recent years. There is no coordination on an international level. We 
impose embargoes or sanctions that do not work because somebody, often 
one of our allies, does not abide by the punishment. Human rights must 
have an international focus. The United States can not go it alone. 
There must be cooperation, and there must be followthrough.
  The bill we are introducing, Mr. President, is one area where the 
United States can make a significant contribution to an international 
crisis. The word ``torture'' evokes some pretty horrible images, and 
rightly so, for it is a horrible practice. The victims of torture bear 
the scars of this atrocity, physical and psychological.
  I strongly believe, Mr. President, that torture is the most serious 
human rights issue of our time. Governmental torture, torture practiced 
with the knowledge of the Government, occurs in at least 70 countries. 
And providing treatment for torture survivors is one of the best ways 
we can contribute to the promotion of human rights and democratic 
principles. The international community, and the United States, have 
been increasingly aware of the need to prevent human rights abuses and 
punish the perpetrators when abuses take place. But we have failed to 
address the needs of the victims. We pay little if any attention to the 
treatment of victims after their rights have been violated.
  Although we may decry torture simply on humanitarian ground, it must 
also be recognized that torture is the most destructive, long-term 
weapon against democracy.
  Repressive governments target strong personalities, which include 
opposition politicians, journalists, ethnic leaders, leaders of trade 
unions, and student groups. The aim, is not, as we might often think, 
to obtain information. The aim is to break and make it impossible for 
those who protest and fight for human rights and democracy to continue 
to function. As a result, entire societies are consumed by fear.
  The military in Haiti rule by fear or torture, rape, and death. The 
crisis in Bosnia has resulted in countless torture and rape victims. 
Providing rehabilitative services to those who have been tortured helps 
to strengthen the leadership of emerging democratic societies. It 
provides healing to the victims, allowing them to reclaim their lives 
and resume their roles in promoting a pluralistic society that respects 
human rights. It helps to create a society that can nurture victims and 
help them overcome the fear and isolation that torture engenders.
  Recently, Congress passed legislation implementing the Convention 
Against Torture, the aim of which is to eliminate torture. The 
legislation I am introducing attempts to support those for whom torture 
has been a reality.
  First of all, the Comprehensive Torture Victim Relief Act will 
provide special considerations for asylum or refugee applicants who are 
victims of torture.
  Second, the legislation mandates a study by the Centers for Disease 
Control [CDC] to identify the estimated number and geographic 
distribution of torture survivors now living in the United States, 
their needs for recovery, and availability of services. The CDC study 
will result in a report detailing the findings as well as any 
recommendation for increasing available services and any recommendation 
for additional legislation to address this matter.
  Finally, the act authorizes appropriations for grants to treatment 
programs here in the United States and it supports rehabilitative 
programs abroad, multilaterally through the U.S. contribution to the 
U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, and bilaterally through 
direct U.S. grants to treatment centers worldwide.
  While this bill deals primarily with one kind of asylum applicant who 
has suffered persecution in the past, we recognize that there are other 
applicants who have a reasonable fear of persecution who have not 
themselves suffered persecution in the past but nonetheless qualify as 
asylees or refugees.
  Mr. President, the Comprehensive Torture Victim Relief Act is 
strongly supported by torture treatment programs across the country, as 
well as many respected human rights organizations, including Amnesty 
International and Human Rights Watch. I ask unanimous consent that a 
number of letters of support for this legislation be included in the 
Record.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to express my deep 
appreciation and gratitude to Doug Johnson, the executive director of 
the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis, MN, as well as John 
Salzberg, the center's representative here in Washington. Doug and John 
have contributed in many ways to my understanding of this issue, as 
well as the general public's awareness of torture.
  I am very pleased that my friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, has 
joined me as the primary cosponsor of this legislation. I encourage my 
colleagues to review this legislation and join Senator Harkin and 
myself by cosponsoring this important human rights initiative.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of this legislation be 
printed in the Record.

                                S. 2362

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Torture 
     Victims Relief Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The American people abhor torture and the use of 
     atrocities by repressive governments. The existence of 
     torture creates a climate of fear and international 
     insecurity that affects all people.
       (2) Torture is the strategic use of pain to destroy both 
     individuals and society. The effects of torture are long 
     term. Those effects can last a lifetime for the survivors and 
     affect future generations.
       (3) By eliminating leadership of the opposition and 
     frightening the general public, repressive governments use 
     torture as a weapon against democracy.
       (4) Torture victims remain under physical and psychological 
     threats, especially in communities where the perpetrators are 
     not brought to justice. In many nations, even those who treat 
     torture victims are threatened with reprisals, including 
     torture, for carrying out their ethical duties to provide 
     care. Both the survivors of torture and their treatment 
     providers deserve, and often require, protection from further 
     repression.
       (5) A significant number of refugees and asylees entering 
     the United States have been victims of governmental torture. 
     Those claiming asylum deserve prompt consideration of the 
     applications for political asylum to minimize their 
     insecurity and sense of danger. Many torture survivors now 
     live in the United States. They should be provided with the 
     rehabilitation services which would enable them to become 
     productive members of our communities.
       (6) Building democratic cultures requires not only legal 
     and political institution-building, but also addressing the 
     physical, psychological, and spiritual damage of repression, 
     in order to foster a climate and opportunity of healing for 
     the victims and for society.
       (7) The development of a treatment movement for torture 
     survivors has created new opportunities for action by the 
     United States and other nations to oppose state-sponsored 
     acts of torture.
       (8) There is a need for a comprehensive strategy to protect 
     and support torture victims and their treatment providers as 
     part of the overall objective of eliminating torture.
       (9) By acting to heal the survivors of torture and protect 
     their families, the United States can move to defeat the 
     actions of torturers.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Asylee.--The term ``asylee'' is used within the meaning 
     of section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (2) Refugee.--The term ``refugee'' has the same meaning 
     given to the term in section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act.
       (3) Special Inquiry Officer.--The term ``special inquiry 
     officer'' is used within the meaning of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act.
       (4) Torture.--The term ``torture'' has the same meaning 
     given to the term in section 2340(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, and includes the use of rape by a person acting 
     under the color of law upon another person under his custody 
     or physical control.

     SEC. 4. IMMIGRATION PROCEDURES FOR TORTURE VICTIMS.

       (a) In General.--Any alien--
       (1) who presents a credible claim of having been subjected 
     to torture in his or her country of nationality, or, in the 
     case of an alien having no nationality, the country in which 
     the alien last habitually resided, and
       (2) who applies for--
       (A) refugee status under section 207 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act,
       (B) asylum under section 208 of that Act, or
       (C) withholding of deportation under section 243(h) of that 
     Act,

     shall be processed in accordance with this section.
       (b) Consideration of the Effects of Torture.--In 
     considering applications for refugee status, asylum, or 
     withholding of deportation made by aliens described in 
     subsection (a), the appropriate officials shall take into 
     account--
       (1) the manner in which the effects of torture can affect 
     the applicant's responses in the application and in the 
     interview process or other immigration proceedings, as the 
     case may be;
       (2) the difficulties torture victims often have in 
     recounting their suffering under torture; and
       (3) the fear victims have of returning to their country of 
     nationality where, even if torture is no longer practiced or 
     the incidence of torture is reduced, their torturers may have 
     gone unpunished and may remain in positions of authority.
       (c) Expedited Processing of Refugee Admissions.--For 
     purposes of section 207(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act, a refugee who presents a credible claim of having been 
     subjected to torture shall be considered to be a refugee of 
     special humanitarian concern to the United States and shall 
     be accorded priority in selection from the waiting list of 
     such refugees based on compelling humanitarian concerns.
       (d) Expedited Processing for Asylum and Withholding of 
     Deportation.--Upon the request of the alien, the alien's 
     counsel, or a health care professional treating the alien, an 
     asylum officer or special inquiry officer may expedite the 
     scheduling of an asylum interview or an exclusion or 
     deportation proceeding for an alien described in subsection 
     (a), if such officer determines that an undue delay in making 
     a determination regarding asylum or withholding of 
     deportation with respect to the alien would aggravate the 
     physical or psychological effects of torture upon the alien.
       (e) Parole In Lieu of Detention.--Any alien described in 
     subsection (a) who, upon inspection at a port of entry of the 
     United States, is found to suffer from the effects of 
     torture, such as depressive and anxiety disorders, shall, in 
     lieu of detention, be granted parole under section 212(d)(5) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (f) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Attorney General shall allocate resources sufficient to 
     maintain in the Resource Information Center of the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service information relating 
     to the use of torture in foreign countries.

     SEC. 5. SPECIALIZED TRAINING FOR CONSULAR, IMMIGRATION, AND 
                   ASYLUM PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall provide 
     training for immigration inspectors and examiners, 
     immigration officers, asylum officers, special inquiry 
     officers, and all other relevant officials of the Department 
     of Justice, and the Secretary of State shall provide training 
     for consular officers, with respect to--
       (1) the identification of the evidence of torture;
       (2) the identification of the surrounding circumstances in 
     which torture is practiced;
       (3) the long-term effects of torture upon the individual;
       (4) the identification of the physical, cognitive, and 
     emotional effects of torture, including depressive and 
     anxiety disorders, and the manner in which these effects can 
     affect the interview or hearing process; and
       (5) the manner of interviewing victims of torture so as not 
     to retraumatize them, eliciting the necessary information to 
     document the torture experience, and understanding the 
     difficulties victims often have in recounting their torture 
     experience.
       (b) Gender-Related Considerations.--In conducting training 
     under subsection (a)(4) or subsection (a)(5), gender specific 
     training shall be provided on the subject of interacting with 
     women and men who are victims of torture by rape or any other 
     form of sexual violence.

     SEC. 6. STUDY AND REPORT ON TORTURE VICTIMS IN THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       (a) Study.--The Center for Disease Control shall conduct a 
     study with respect to refugees and asylees admitted to the 
     United States since October 1, 1987, who were tortured 
     abroad, for the purpose of identifying--
       (1) the estimated number and geographic distribution of 
     such persons;
       (2) the needs of such persons for recovery services; and
       (3) the availability of such services.
       (b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1997, the Center 
     for Disease Control shall submit a report to the Judiciary 
     Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     setting forth the findings of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a), together with any recommendation for 
     increasing the services available to persons described in 
     subsection (a), including any recommendation for legislation, 
     if necessary.

     SEC. 7. DOMESTIC TREATMENT CENTERS.

       (a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
     Section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1522) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Assistance for Treatment of Torture Victims.--(1) The 
     Director is authorized to provide grants to eligible programs 
     to cover the cost of services described in paragraph (3) for 
     aliens who entered the United States since October 1, 1987.
       ``(2) Programs eligible for assistance under this 
     subsection are programs in the United States which are 
     carrying out services described in paragraph (3).
       ``(3) The services described in paragraph (1) are--
       ``(A) services for the rehabilitation of victims of 
     torture, including treatment of the physical and 
     psychological effects of torture;
       ``(B) social services for victims of torture; and
       ``(C) research and training for health care providers 
     outside of treatment centers for the purpose of enabling such 
     providers to provide the services described in subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `torture' 
     has the same meaning given to the term in section 3(4) of the 
     Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) Of amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 414 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1524) for fiscal 
     year 1995, there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $20,000,000 for that fiscal year to carry out section 412(g) 
     of that Act (relating to assistance for domestic centers for 
     the treatment of victims of torture).
       (2) Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1994.

     SEC. 8. FOREIGN TREATMENT CENTERS.

       (a) Amendments of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.--Part 
     I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding 
     at the end of chapter 1 the following new section:
       ``Sec. 129. Assistance for Victims of Torture.--(a) The 
     President is authorized to provide assistance for the 
     rehabilitation of victims of torture.
       ``(b) Such assistance shall be provided in the form of 
     grants to treatment centers in foreign countries which are 
     carrying out programs specifically designed to treat victims 
     of torture for the physical and psychological effect of the 
     torture.
       ``(c) Such assistance shall be available--
       ``(1) for direct services to victims of torture; and
       ``(2) to provide research and training to health care 
     providers outside of treatment centers for the purpose of 
     enabling such providers to provide the services described in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(d) For purposes of this section, the term `torture' has 
     the same meaning given to such term in section 3(4) of the 
     Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) Of the total 
     amount authorized to be appropriated to carry out chapter 1 
     of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for fiscal 
     year 1995, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     President $20,000,000 to carry out section 129 of that Act 
     for that fiscal year.
       (2) Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1994.

     SEC. 9. MULTILATERAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 301 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to international 
     organizations and programs), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims 
     of Torture (in this section referred to as the ``Fund'') the 
     following amounts for the following fiscal years:
       (1) For fiscal year 1995, $5,000,000.
       (2) For fiscal year 1996, $6,000,000.
       (3) For fiscal year 1997, $7,000,000.
       (4) For fiscal year 1998, $8,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant 
     to subsection (a) are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the President, acting through the United States 
     Permanent Representative to the United Nations, should--
       (1) request the Fund--
       (A) to find new ways to support and protect treatment 
     centers that are carrying out rehabilitative services for 
     victims of torture; and
       (B) to encourage the development of new such centers;
       (2) use the voice and vote of the United States to support 
     the work of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and the 
     Committee Against Torture established under the Convention 
     Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 
     Treatment or Punishment; and
       (3) use the voice and vote of the United States to 
     establish a country rapporteur or similar procedural 
     mechanism to investigate human rights violations in a country 
     if either the Special Rapporteur or the Committee Against 
     Torture indicates that a systematic practice of torture is 
     prevalent in that country.
                                  ____

                                                     American-Arab


                                Anti-Discrimination Committee,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1994.
     Hon. David Durenberger,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Durenberger: I wish to express our support for 
     the Comprehensive Torture victims Relief Act on behalf of the 
     American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), the 
     nation's largest grassroots Arab-American organization. Aside 
     from the very important humanitarian considerations put 
     forward by this legislation, the bill serves as a significant 
     indicator that the United States government intends to 
     provide tangible support for its commitment to bolstering 
     human rights.
       ADC will do its part by publicizing this legislation among 
     our constituents. This legislation deserves widespread 
     attention and bi-partisan support. We hope it is an important 
     first step, a starting point, for a broader renewed 
     commitment to human rights around the world.
       Similarly, we hope this legislation will provide real 
     benefits for torture victims while simultaneously encouraging 
     human rights activists. We must never lose sight of the real 
     goal, which is the elimination of torture and the bringing to 
     justice of the torturers. Until that happens, let us at least 
     set an example of conscience and moral courage by declaring 
     and acting to alleviate the victims' suffering.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                  Albert Mokhiber,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

         American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
           Directorate for Science and Policy Programs,
                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1994.
     Hon. David Durenberger,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durenberger: I am writing to express support 
     for the proposed bill you are introducing entitled the 
     Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act. The extensive work 
     relating to the prevention of torture and the treatment of 
     torture victims of the American Association for the 
     Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Human Rights 
     Program underscores the importance of the issue your bill is 
     addressing. The AAAS Science and Human Rights Program has 
     published studies documenting the complicity of the medical 
     profession in torture, as well as efforts by medical 
     communities to prevent torture in such countries as South 
     Africa, Chile, the Philippines, and Uruguay. Recently the 
     Program has raised concerns regarding the practice of the 
     government of Israel to require medical professionals to 
     certify on written forms that prisoners are physically able 
     to withstand mild forms of torture during interrogation. We 
     also have protested the use of medically supervised physical 
     punishments against convicted criminals by the governments of 
     Singapore and Malaysia, the beating to death of a prisoner in 
     Argentina, and the use of violence to oppress civilian 
     populations on a mass scale in Iraq and Mexico. Our position 
     is that the involvement of medical personnel or the use of 
     scientific technologies in practices such as these are 
     incompatible with professional and ethical standards of 
     conduct, and inconsistent with international human rights 
     standards.
       The Program has also organized symposia on the 
     rehabilitation and treatment of survivors of torture. In 
     addition we have produced a video and a manual reviewing 
     treatment approaches for torture survivors.
       As recent experiences involving the conflicts in former 
     Yugoslavia indicate, it often is difficult to prevent 
     instances of torture from taking place, or to punish the 
     perpetrators through criminal prosecutions. Your proposed 
     bill will add some important new approaches and remedies to 
     help victims and the international human rights community 
     deal with torture cases, and, hopefully, to discourage this 
     conduct from taking place.
           Sincerely yours,
                                          Audrey R. Chapman, Ph.D.
                       Program Director, Science and Human Rights.
                                  ____



                                          Bread for the World,

                                 Silver Spring, MD, July 29, 1994.
     Senator Dave Durenburger,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durenburger: Bread for the World endorses the 
     ``Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act'' which you and 
     Senator Harkin intend to introduce next week.
       This bill is an important contribution to U.S. efforts to 
     promote human rights and democracy. We commend you for the 
     bill's proposal to provide training for U.S. officials, 
     improve immigration procedures, and authorize funds for 
     treatment services for victims of torture. We also commend 
     the efforts of John Salzberg with the Center for Victims of 
     Torture in promoting this legislative initiative.
       We who work to eliminate hunger and poverty in the world 
     know that human suffering also results from the deliberate 
     abuse of human rights by despots, including the horrific 
     practice of torture. It is only right that we support 
     services to protect and heal torture victims while we also 
     work to prevent such abuses in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                   David Beckmann,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

         Center for Human Rights Legal Action, Centro Para La 
           Accion Legal en Derechos Humanos,
                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 1994.
     Mr. Carl Lundblad,
     Office of Senator Dave Durenberger,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Lundblad: I am writing to let you know that I am 
     in support of the Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act 
     being introduced by Senators Durenberger and Harkin. I 
     believe a bill such as this one is needed to make sure that 
     human rights abuses and torture are not ignored. It is my 
     sincerest hope that this bill is passed quickly and that it 
     will assist in the deterrence of human rights abuses 
     worldwide.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Anna Gallagher,
                                               Attorney/Cofounder.
                                  ____

                                           Guatemala Human Rights,


                                               Commission/USA,

                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 1994.
     Senator Dave Durenberger,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durenberger: As the Guatemala Human Rights 
     Commission/USA, we endorse the Comprehensive Torture Victims 
     Relief Act bill that you will introduce to Congress.
       Our human rights work has made us aware of the hundreds of 
     thousands of people who have been tortured in Guatemala. (Our 
     records show that there are more than forty victims of 
     torture since January 1 of this year). Often these people are 
     not granted treatment due to the lack of funds, either in 
     their own country or in the United States. The bill that you 
     are introducing should begin to provide the treatment 
     necessary for these victims.
       Of course, the ideal is that there would be no need for the 
     Torture Victims Relief bill. Every effort must be made by our 
     government to deny support to governments that allow the 
     torturing of their own citizens. The practice of torture MUST 
     STOP and can stop if enough pressure is applied to put an end 
     to it.
       Thank you for your support of this critically important 
     legislation. If we can be of any help to further this cause 
     that can save and help restore the lives of those tortured, 
     please let us know.
           Sincerely.
     Sister Alice Zachmann, SSND,
                                                         Director.
     Sister Dianna Ortiz, OSU,
                                 Survivor of Torture in Guatemala.
                                  ____

                                               Minnesota Advocates


                                             For Human Rights,

                                  Minneapolis, MN, August 2, 1994.
     Senator David Durenberger,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durenberger: Minnesota Advocates for Human 
     Rights is pleased to add its name in support of the 
     Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act you are sponsoring 
     with Senator Harkin.
       Like genocide, torture is a blight upon the human race and 
     we as a nation should take the lead in opposing its use and 
     in prosecuting those who practice it. This legislation not 
     only takes some important steps to ensure treatment and 
     protection for survivors of torture who reside in the U.S., 
     but it stands as a principled statement against the use of 
     torture in any circumstance.
       Thank you for your initiative in sponsoring this bill.
           Yours truly,
                                                  Barbara A. Frey,
                                                Executive Director
                                  ____

         Physicians for Human Rights, An Organization of Health 
           Professionals,
                                       Boston, MA, August 1, 1994.
     Senator Dave Durenberger,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durenberger: Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) 
     is pleased to endorse the ``Comprehensive Torture Victims 
     Relief Act.''
       Since its founding in 1986, individual PHR members and 
     medical teams have examined hundreds of survivors of torture 
     from around the world. As health professionals, they have 
     seen firsthand the devastating physical and psychological 
     effects of torture on the victims, their families, and 
     communities. PHR welcomes the efforts of the Congress of the 
     United States to provide a comprehensive program of support 
     for victims of torture, and urges all members of Congress to 
     join the campaign to stop the practice of torture worldwide.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Eric Stover,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I join Senators Durenberger and 
Harkin in introducing the Comprehensive Torture Victims Relief Act of 
1994. I want to thank them for their leadership on this issue. Treating 
torture survivors must be a much more central focus of our efforts to 
promote human rights worldwide.
  I also want to thank the distinguished human rights leaders who 
helped craft this bill, which provides for a comprehensive, longterm 
strategy to address the needs of torture victims here and abroad. 
Without their energy and skill as advocates for tough U.S. laws which 
promote respect for internationally recognized human rights worldwide, 
the cause of human rights here in the United States would be seriously 
diminished.
  This bill outlines a comprehensive strategy for providing critical 
assistance to refugees who are torture survivors in the United States 
and abroad, by providing funding for torture rehabilitation programs 
that have long been woefully underfunded. I hope that its introduction 
will be a watershed in the movement to garner support for these torture 
rehabilitation programs.
  The bill would provide $20 million to refugee assistance programs 
here in the United States, and another $20 million to fund bilateral 
torture treatment assistance programs worldwide. It would also give a 
priority to torture survivors under our immigration laws, provide for 
specialized training for U.S. consular personnel who deal with torture 
survivors, and require a comprehensive study by the Centers on Disease 
Control of the numbers and geographical distribution of refugees who 
are torture survivors now in the United States. That study should help 
us to refine and target needed rehabilitation assistance.
  Finally, it would expand the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Voluntary 
Fund for Torture Victims, which provides funding and support to 
rehabilitation programs worldwide. I have consistently worked with 
Senator Durenberger and others to increase the U.S. contribution to the 
fund, because I believe it is a concrete way to demonstrate U.S. 
commitment to human rights, and I will continue this important work 
until these programs are adequately funded.
  By transferring modest amounts of money from low-priority programs, 
including the space station, sending U.S. military assistance to 
foreign governments who torture their own people, and wasteful and 
unnecessary defense spending, we could send a powerful signal of our 
support for the victims of torture worldwide. There would be a certain 
symmetry to cutting U.S. military aid to countries who practice 
torture, or who allow it to be practiced with impunity on their soil, 
and using those funds for this noble purpose. And that would not 
require new Federal expenditures, or increase the Federal deficit one 
iota. It would simply shift funding from these low-priority programs to 
high-priority assistance for torture survivors.
  This bill is an important blueprint for an overall approach to the 
horrific problem of torture. It provides a focus and a framework for a 
newly re-energized debate about where torture survivors, and our 
response to the practice of torture by other countries, fit within our 
foreign policy priorities. I hope that Congress will enact this 
important measures into law, and I pledge to fight for its passage in 
this Congress and, if necessary, in the 104th Congress.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 2363. A bill to establish registration and tracking procedures and 
community notification with respect to released sexually violent 
predators; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   the sexually violent predators act

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the term ``crime prevention'' has been 
defined as including everything from tougher law enforcement to putting 
swimming pools in high-crime areas.
  After holding two crime summits in my State and speaking to hundreds 
of concerned law enforcement officers, families, and concerned 
community leaders, I am convinced that giving law-abiding citizens the 
information they need to mobilize and organize against violent crime is 
the essence to true and effective crime prevention. Today I am 
introducing with the distinguished junior Senator from New Jersey a 
bill that prevents the most heinous of crimes by notifying communities 
of the presence of dangerous sex offenders.
  That, Mr. President, is honest and straightforward crime prevention.
  This measure, the Sexually Violent Predators Act, is modelled after 
Washington State's successful community notification law enacted in 
1990. It encourages States to establish registration and tracking 
systems of violent sex offenders and, most importantly, establishes a 
means by which law enforcement authorities can communicate with law-
abiding citizens about the presence of dangerous sex offenders. It is 
nearly identical to my amendment to the crime bill which was accepted 
by this Senate by unanimous consent last November.
  The amendment had grassroots support from the Polly Klaas Foundation 
and the Families and Friends of Violent Crime Victims. It empowers 
families and individuals with the knowledge they need to take extra 
precautions and avoid becoming victims of dangerous sexual predators. 
In addition to unanimous support in the Senate, and strong grassroots 
support, the House of Representatives recently instructed its conferees 
to accept the Gorton amendment by an overwhelming vote of 407-13.
  Despite this support for a common-sense approach to crime prevention, 
members of the conference committee watered down my amendment and 
eliminated the community notification provision. Instead, the 
conference report apparently only provides information on sexual 
offenders to law enforcement for investigative purposes, and would 
notify only the victims.
  To be quite frank, more often than not, the victims are no longer 
alive to be notified.
  Mr. President, the conferees just do not get it. That kind of 
notification is meaningless. It would not have helped Megan Kanka, the 
7-year-old from New Jersey who was brutally murdered last week by her 
neighbor, a repeat violent sex offender. It would not have helped Polly 
Klaas from Petaluma, CA, who was brutally killed last year by another 
repeat convicted sex offender.
  The families in these communities and these innocent victims had a 
right to know that dangerous sexual predators were in their midst. My 
amendment to the crime bill would have provided exactly that kind of 
notification. The crime conference report will not, and that is the 
primary reason why this Senator is opposing the crime bill.
  Mr. President, this legislation can literally save lives and prevent 
horrible crimes. Can we say that about the so-called crime prevention 
provisions in the conference report?
  The 1994 newspaper headlines have been filled with examples of crime 
creeping closer and closer to home. The time has come to give law 
enforcement officials the tools they need to protect the public from 
the most violent of criminals. For far too long, our justice system has 
put the rights of the criminals above the rights of the victims.
  A crime bill for 1994 should recognize the need to balance the 
inherent constitutional protections of criminals with the desperate 
need to protect innocent potential victims of sexually violent 
predators. Regrettably, the conference report leaves law-abiding and 
vulnerable families in the dark.
  I hope my colleague will recognize the difference between pretend 
crime prevention and measures that actually empower people to take the 
necessary steps to protect themselves from violent crime. A make-work 
program, a new swimming pool, or midnight basketball won't keep a 
sexually violent predator from striking again, and again, and again.


                      community notification will

  I offer this bipartisan bill today in the memory of Megan Kanka, 
Polly Klaas, and the thousands of innocent victims of brutal rapists, 
molesters, and murderers, that deserve to know when sexually violent 
predators were released into their community.
  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. 2363

       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 ``Sexually Violent Predators 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) there exists a small but extremely dangerous group of 
     sexually violent persons who do not have a mental disease or 
     defect;
       (2) persons who are sexually violent predators generally 
     have antisocial personality features that--
       (A) are not amenable to mental illness treatment modalities 
     in existence on the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (B) render the persons likely to engage in sexually violent 
     behavior;
       (3) the likelihood that sexually violent predators will 
     repeat acts of predatory sexual violence is high; and
       (4) the prognosis for curing sexually violent predators is 
     poor and the treatment needs of the population of the 
     predators are very long-term.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Mental abnormality.--The term ``mental abnormality'' 
     means a congenital or acquired condition of a person that 
     affects the emotional or volitional capacity of the person in 
     a manner that predisposes the person to the commission of 
     criminal sexual acts to a degree that makes the person a 
     menace to the health and safety of other persons.
       (2) Predatory.--The term ``predatory'', with respect to an 
     act, means an act directed towards a stranger, or a person 
     with whom a relationship has been established or promoted, 
     for the primary purpose of victimization.
       (3) Sexually violent offense.--The term ``sexually violent 
     offense'' means an act that is a violation of title 18, 
     United States Code or State criminal code that--
       (A) involves the use or attempted or threatened use of 
     physical force against the person or property of another 
     person; and
       (B) is determined beyond a reasonable doubt to be sexually 
     motivated.
       (4) Sexually violent predator.--The term ``sexually violent 
     predator'' means a person who has been convicted of a 
     sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental 
     abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person 
     likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) State guidelines.--In accordance with this section, the 
     Attorney General shall establish guidelines for State 
     programs to require a sexually violent predator to register a 
     current address with a designated State law enforcement 
     agency upon release from prison, being placed on parole, or 
     being placed on supervised release. The Attorney General 
     shall approve each State program that complies with the 
     guidelines.
       (2) State compliance.--
       (A) Implementation date.--A State that does not implement a 
     program described in paragraph (1) by the date that is 3 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act, and maintain 
     the implementation thereafter, shall be ineligible for funds 
     in accordance with subparagraph (B).
       (B) Ineligibility for funds.--
       (i) In general.--A State that does not implement the 
     program as described in subparagraph (A) shall not receive 10 
     percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to the 
     State under section 506 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3756).
       (ii) Reallocation of funds.--Funds made available under 
     clause (i) shall be reallocated, in accordance with such 
     section, to such States as implement the program as described 
     in subparagraph (A).
       (b) Registration Requirement Upon Release, Parole, or 
     Supervised Release.--
       (1) In general.--An approved State program established in 
     accordance with this section shall contain the requirements 
     described in this section.
       (2) Determination.--The determination that a person is a 
     ``sexually violent predator'' and the determination that a 
     person is no longer a ``sexually violent predator'' shall be 
     made by the sentencing court after receiving a report by a 
     board of experts on sexual offenses. Each State shall 
     establish a board composed of experts in the field of the 
     behavior and treatment of sexual offenders.
       (3) Notification.--If a person who is required to register 
     under this section is anticipated to be released from prison, 
     paroled, or placed on supervised release, a State prison 
     officer shall, not later than 90 days before the anticipated 
     date of the release or commencement of the parole--
       (A) inform the person of the duty to register;
       (B) inform the person that if the person changes residence 
     address, the person shall give the new address to a 
     designated State law enforcement agency in writing not later 
     than 10 days after the change of address;
       (C) obtain the name of the person, identifying factors, 
     anticipated future residence, offense history, and 
     documentation of any treatment received for the mental 
     abnormality or personality disorder of the person; and
       (D) require the person to read and sign a form stating that 
     the duty of the person to register under this section has 
     been explained.
       (4) Transfer of information to state and the fbi.--Not 
     later than 3 days after the receipt of the information 
     described in paragraph (3)(C), the officer shall forward the 
     information to a designated State law enforcement agency. As 
     soon as practicable after the receipt of the information by 
     the State law enforcement agency, the agency shall--
       (A) enter the information into the appropriate State law 
     enforcement record system and notify the appropriate law 
     enforcement agency that has jurisdiction over the area in 
     which the person expects to reside; and
       (B) transmit the information to the Identification Division 
     of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (5) Quarterly verification.--
       (A) Mailing to person.--Not less than every 90 days after 
     the date of the release or commencement of parole of a person 
     required to register under this section, the designated State 
     law enforcement agency shall mail a nonforwardable 
     verification form to the last reported address of the person.
       (B) Return of verification form.--
       (i) In general.--The person shall return, by mail, the 
     verification form to the agency not later than 10 days after 
     the receipt of the form. The verification form shall be 
     signed by the person, and shall state that the person 
     continues to reside at the address last reported to the 
     designated State law enforcement agency.
       (ii) Failure to return.--If the person fails to mail the 
     verification form to the designated State law enforcement 
     agency by the date that is 10 days after the receipt of the 
     form by the person, the person shall be in violation of this 
     section unless the person proves that the person has not 
     changed the residence address of the person.
       (6) Notification of local law enforcement agencies of 
     changes in addresses.--Any change of address by a person 
     required to register under this section that is reported to 
     the designated State law enforcement agency shall as soon as 
     practicable be reported to the appropriate law enforcement 
     agency that has jurisdiction over the area in which the 
     person is residing.
       (7) Penalty.--A person required to register under a State 
     program established pursuant to this section who knowingly 
     fails to register and keep the registration current shall be 
     subject to criminal penalties in the State. It is the sense 
     of Congress that the penalties should include imprisonment 
     for not less than 180 days.
       (8) Termination of obligation to register.--The obligation 
     of a person to register under this section shall terminate on 
     a determination made in accordance with the provision of 
     paragraph (2) of this section that the person no longer 
     suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder 
     that would make the person likely to engage in a predatory 
     sexually violent offense.
       (c) Community Notification.--The designated State law 
     enforcement agency shall release relevant information that is 
     necessary to protect the public concerning a specific 
     sexually violent predator required to register under this 
     section.
       (d) Immunity for Good Faith Conduct.--Law enforcement 
     agencies, employees of law enforcement agencies, and State 
     officials shall be immune from liability for any good faith 
     conduct under this section.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 2364. A bill to provide for schoolbus safety, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                        the schoolbus safety act

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I have introduced 
legislation designed to make schoolbus travel safer.
  During the past 10 years, 300 school-age pedestrians, those less than 
19 years old, have died in schoolbus-related crashes. Two-thirds were 
killed by their own schoolbus. Half of all school-age pedestrians 
killed by schoolbuses in the past 10 years were 5- and 6-year-olds. On 
average, 21 school-age pedestrians are killed by schoolbuses each year, 
and 9 are killed by other vehicles involved in schoolbus-related 
crashes.
  In addition to those killed, approximately 10,000 schoolbus 
passengers are injured every year. Most injuries occur during side and 
rollover collisions. In this type of collision the compartmentalized 
seat does not protect children, who fall about 8 feet to strike the 
roof, windows, other seats, and other children.
  My bill would address this problem by requiring all new schoolbuses 
to be equipped with safety belts. It also requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to develop a program to promote and encourage the use of 
seatbelts in schoolbuses.
  National supporters of schoolbus safety belts include the American 
Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American 
College of Preventive Medicine, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 
and the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.
  In 1989 the New Jersey State Legislature directed the New Jersey 
Office of Highway Traffic Safety to conduct a study on the safety of 
lap seatbelts in large school vehicles. The New Jersey study concluded 
that installation of seatbelts in all schoolbuses will improve the 
vehicle's overall safety performance. The study recommended that 
schoolbuses be required to be equipped with seatbelts in the State of 
New Jersey.
  It is nearly impossible for a bus without belts to roll over without 
causing injuries or death. Unfortunately, the Federal Government does 
not study crashes where there are no injuries. The National 
Transportation Safety Board only investigates bus crashes where there 
are severe injuries or fatalities, which rule out belted buses.
  A bus with safety belts costs an average of $2,000 more than a bus 
without belts. With an estimated schoolbus life of 15 years, it will 
cost approximately $66 per bus per year.
  Children are already required to wear seatbelts in cars. Installation 
of seatbelts on the standard size schoolbuses reinforces the importance 
of wearing seatbelts, reduces injuries to our children, costs little to 
install and maintain, and overall, makes schoolbus transportation safer 
for our children.
  ``Inattention'' and ``failure to yield'' were the factors most often 
reported by police for schoolbus drivers striking a school-age 
pedestrian. For drivers of other vehicles killing a pedestrian in a 
school bus related crash, the factors most often cited were ``failure 
to obey signs, safety zones, or warning signs on vehicles,'' ``passing 
where prohibited,'' and ``driving too fast.''

  The School Bus Safety Act would address this issue in four different 
ways. First, the bill would assist States in conducting traffic 
engineering activities where students get on and off school buses in 
order to improve the safe operation of school buses in these ``danger 
zones.'' Second, the Secretary of Transportation will be required to 
advance the use and reduce the cost of hazard warning systems or 
sensors that alert school bus drivers of pedestrians or vehicles in, or 
approaching, the path of the school bus. Third, the Secretary will be 
required to improve training materials on school bus safety and improve 
the distribution and availability of such materials to schools for use 
by the student safety patrols.
  Fourth, the Secretary of Transportation will be required to prescribe 
proficiency standards for school bus drivers who are already required 
to possess a commercial driver's license. Some States already prescribe 
proficiency and my bill would not interfere with how these States 
administer their programs.
  The current commercial drivers license regulations require school bus 
drivers--that operate a vehicle designed to seat more than 15 persons, 
including the driver--to obtain a CDL with a special endorsement 
specifically for the transport of passengers. Both the knowledge and 
skills test must be passed to receive this special endorsement. The 
minimum test requirements set by the Federal Highway Administration 
[FHWA] for this special endorsement is generically written for 
operators of motor carriers of passengers--buses, in general--and is 
not designed specifically for school bus drivers.
  Not only does Government have a responsibility to insure that the bus 
driver is properly trained, but we also have a responsibility to ensure 
that school bus drivers are decent individuals who will not harm their 
passengers.
  The fact is that sexual deviants are attracted to driving a school 
bus because it gives them easy access to children who are the focus of 
their sexual desire.
  Children who ride on school buses, particularly those in their 
elementary years, are extremely vulnerable to physical abuse. They are 
too young to comprehend what is being done to them and are too small to 
physically defend themselves from an attack. Therefore, it is the 
responsibility of society to offer as much protection as possible to 
this vulnerable population.
  My bill recognizes that responsibility by requiring all states to do 
a Federal background check on potential school bus drivers before they 
are allowed to be alone with our children.
  School bus drivers are unique. They are alone with students off 
school property, often for extended periods of time. I believe, as I 
hope do many of my colleagues, that parents deserve to know who is 
alone with their children.
  At present 18 States--Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New 
York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and 
Louisiana--already conduct State and Federal background checks on their 
drivers. My amendment would not affect how these States administer 
their programs.
  There are 14 States--Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, 
Texas, West Virginia, Nebraska, Illinois, and Wisconsin--which 
currently only do State background checks. My bill would require those 
States to redirect the resources they are putting into these background 
checks toward a Federal program. While the intent of these State 
programs is good, it is flawed. A convicted sexual deviant can easily 
move to one of these States, receive a clean background check, and 
begin driving his prey to and from school.
  Then there are the 18 States--Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North 
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and 
Wyoming--which have no background checks for their school bus drivers. 
There is no rational reason for the lack of responsibility these States 
are demonstrating in this area.
  During the 2 months after California instituted Federal criminal 
background checks in 1990, it screened out 150 convicted sex offenders, 
child molesters and violent criminals who tried to get permits to drive 
school buses. This is shocking and my bill will address this problem.
  This legislation also requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
begin a rulemaking process to determine the feasibility and 
practicability of: First, decreasing the flammability of materials used 
in the construction of the interiors of school buses, second, informing 
purchasers of school buses on the secondary market that those buses may 
not meet current NHTSA standards, and third, establishing construction 
and design standards for wheelchairs used in the transportation of 
students in school buses.
  The bill also requires the Secretary to do a variety of studies 
designed to provide an accurate data base of school bus safety 
information.
  The School Bus Safety Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation 
that I believe will dramatically reduce deaths and injuries of children 
associated with school bus accidents. I would encourage my colleagues 
to cosponsor this bill and to work with me toward its successful 
passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill and a 
section-by-section analysis be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2364

       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 ``School Bus Safety Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) The term ``bus'' means a motor vehicle with motive 
     power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 
     persons.
       (2) The term ``school bus'' means a bus that is used for 
     purposes that include carrying pupils to and from public or 
     private school or school-related events on a regular basis, 
     but does not include a transit bus or a school-chartered bus.
       (3) The term ``school-chartered bus'' means a bus that is 
     operated under a short-term contract with State or school 
     authorities who have acquired exclusive use of the bus at a 
     fixed charge in order to provide transportation for a group 
     of pupils to a special school-related event.
       (4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Transportation.

     SEC. 3. PROFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prescribe 
     proficiency standards for school bus drivers who are required 
     to possess a commercial driver's license to operate a school 
     bus.
       (b) Exemption for Certain States.--In prescribing 
     proficiency standards under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall provide that a State may, in lieu of utilizing such 
     proficiency standards, utilize proficiency standards 
     established by the State before the date of the prescription 
     of efficiency standards under subsection (a) if the Secretary 
     determines that the standards of the State establish 
     proficiency requirements as rigorous as the proficiency 
     requirements established under the standards prescribed under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Demonstration of Proficiency.--Upon the prescription of 
     standards under subsection (a), each school bus driver 
     referred to in subsection (a) shall demonstrate (at such 
     interval as the Secretary shall prescribe) to the employer of 
     the driver, the school district, the State licensing agency, 
     or other person or agency responsible for regulating school 
     bus drivers the proficiency of such driver in operating a 
     school bus in accordance with the proficiency standards 
     prescribed under subsection (a) or the proficiency standards 
     established by the State concerned, as the case may be.

     SEC. 4. CRIMINAL HISTORY INVESTIGATIONS OF SCHOOL BUS 
                   DRIVERS.

       (a) Requirement for Investigations.--(1) Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, a local educational agency may 
     not employ a person as a driver of a school bus of or on 
     behalf of the agency until the agency conducts a background 
     check under procedures that meet the guidelines set forth in 
     section 3(b) of the National Child Protection Act of 1993 
     (Public Law 103-209; 107 Stat. 2491; 42 U.S.C. 5119a(b)).
       (2) Subject to paragraph (3), the prohibition set forth in 
     paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Interim Requirement.--Prior to the establishment of the 
     procedures referred to in subsection (a)(1), or a State's 
     participation in the procedures referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1), local educational agencies shall request the Criminal 
     Justice Information Services Division of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation to conduct a fingerprint based check through 
     its criminal history files, and the Division shall comply 
     with such a request.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``local 
     educational agency'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 1471(12) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2891(12)).

     SEC. 5. DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLIGENT VEHICLE-HIGHWAY SYSTEMS 
                   FOR SCHOOL BUS SAFETY.

       Section 6055(d) of the Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems 
     Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 307 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) ensure that one or more operational tests advance the 
     use and reduce the cost of intelligent vehicle-highway system 
     technologies (including hazard warning systems or sensors) 
     that alert school bus drivers of pedestrians or vehicles in, 
     or approaching, the path of the school bus.''.

     SEC. 6. SEAT BELTS IN SCHOOL BUSES.

       (a) Requirement for Installation.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall prescribe regulations that require that driver seat 
     belts and passenger seat belts (including lap safety belts or 
     other child safety devices meeting applicable Federal safety 
     standards) be installed for each seating position in any 
     newly manufactured school bus.
       (b) Promotion of Seat Belt Usage.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     appropriate safety organizations and parent-teacher 
     organizations, shall conduct a program to promote and 
     encourage the use of seat belts in school buses.
       (2) Elements of program.--In conducting the program 
     required under this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       (A) encourage State and local governments to enact and 
     implement laws requiring mandatory usage of seat belts in 
     school buses;
       (B) develop and disseminate educational materials on the 
     importance of using seat belts to passengers and drivers of 
     school buses; and
       (C) recognize in an appropriate manner school districts 
     that achieve a high level of seat belt usage by passengers 
     and drivers of school buses.

     SEC. 7. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE SCHOOL BUS 
                   SAFETY.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     shall ensure that each State receiving aid to conduct highway 
     safety programs under section 402(c) of title 23, United 
     States Code, shall utilize a portion (as determined by the 
     Secretary) of such aid for the purpose of conducting traffic 
     engineering activities in order to improve the safe operation 
     of school buses. The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, ensure that the total amount utilized by such 
     States for such purpose in any fiscal year shall not be less 
     than $1,000,000.

     SEC. 8. DETERMINATION OF PRACTICABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF 
                   CERTAIN SAFETY AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   SCHOOL BUSES.

       (a) Commencement of Rulemaking Process.--Not later than 6 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall begin a rulemaking process to determine the 
     feasibility and practicability of the following:
       (1) A requirement for a decrease in the flammability of the 
     materials used in the construction of the interiors of school 
     buses.
       (2) A requirement that individuals, school districts, or 
     companies that sell in the secondary market school buses that 
     may be used in interstate commerce inform purchasers of such 
     buses that such buses may not meet current National Highway 
     Transportation Safety Administration standards or Federal 
     Highway Administration standards with respect to such buses.
       (3) The establishment of construction and design standards 
     for wheelchairs used in the transportation of students in 
     school buses.
       (b) Final Rule.--Not later than 2 years after such date, 
     the Secretary shall promulgate a final rule providing for any 
     requirement or standard referred to in paragraph (1), (2), or 
     (3) of subsection (a) that the Secretary determines to be 
     feasible and practicable.

     SEC. 9. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON SCHOOL BUS SAFETY.

       (a) Dissemination of Information.--In carrying out research 
     on highway safety under section 403 of title 23, United 
     States Code, the Secretary, in consultation with the American 
     Automobile Association, State educational agencies, and 
     highway safety organizations, shall--
       (1) improve the training materials on school bus safety; 
     and
       (2) improve the distribution and availability of such 
     materials to schools for use by the student safety patrols of 
     such schools and to appropriate law enforcement agencies.
       (b) Funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the funds available to the Secretary for research on highway 
     safety and traffic conditions under such section 403 in each 
     of fiscal years 1995 through 2000, $100,000 shall be 
     available in each such fiscal year for the purposes of 
     carrying out this section.

     SEC. 10. STUDY AND REPORT ON SCHOOL BUS SAFETY.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a study to 
     determine the following:
       (A) The extent to which public transit vehicles are engaged 
     in school bus operations.
       (B) The point at which a public transit vehicle is 
     sufficiently engaged in such operations as to be considered a 
     school bus for purposes of regulation under Federal law.
       (C) The differences between school bus operations carried 
     out directly by schools or school districts and school bus 
     operations carried out by schools or school districts by 
     contract.
       (2) Areas.--The study shall address the differences between 
     the services and operations referred to in paragraph (1)(C) 
     in terms of--
       (A) crash injury data;
       (B) driver and carrier requirements;
       (C) passenger transportation requirements;
       (D) bus construction and design standards;
       (E) Federal and State operating assistance (per passenger/
     per mile/per hour);
       (F) total operating costs;
       (G) Federal and State capital assistance (per passenger/per 
     mile/per hour);
       (H) total capital costs; and
       (I) such other factors as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (b) Report.--(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     committees referred to in paragraph (2) a report on the 
     results of the study carried out under subsection (a).
       (2) The committees referred to in paragraph (1) are the 
     following:
       (A) The Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate.
       (B) The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate.
       (C) The Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
       (D) The Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (E) The Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (F) The Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 11. ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM REPORTING CRITERIA FOR 
                   HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM ON TRAFFIC-RELATED 
                   DEATHS AND INJURIES.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall--
       (1) not later than December 31, 1994, issue a notice of 
     proposed rulemaking with respect to the minimum reporting 
     criteria required under the tenth sentence of section 402(a) 
     of title 23, United States Code; and
       (2) not later than December 31, 1995, and after an 
     opportunity for public comment, issue a final rule 
     establishing such criteria.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                  ____


         School Bus Safety Act--Section-by-Section Description

       Sec. 1: Title.
       Sec. 2: Definitions.
       Sec. 3: Directs the Secretary to prescribe proficiency 
     standards for school bus drivers.
       Sec. 4: Require all states to do federal background checks 
     with fingerprints of prospective school bus drivers.
       Sec. 5: Directs Secretary to do one or more operation tests 
     to advance the use and reduce the cost of hazard warning 
     systems to alert school bus drivers of pedestrians or 
     vehicles in, or approaching, the path of the school bus.
       Sec. 6: Requires driver seat belts and passenger seat belts 
     to be installed in any newly manufactured school bus. Also 
     requires the Secretary to develop a program to promote and 
     encourage the use of seat belts in school buses.
       Sec. 7: Provides aid for the purpose of conducting traffic 
     engineering activities in order to improve the safe operation 
     of school buses in the ``danger zone.''
       Sec. 8: Requires the Secretary to begin a rulemaking 
     process to determine the feasibility and practicability of 
     the following;
       A requirement for a decrease in the flammability of the 
     materials used in the construction of the interiors of school 
     buses;
       A requirement that sellers of school buses in the secondary 
     market inform purchasers that such buses may not meet current 
     National Highway Transportation Safety Administration or 
     Federal Highway Administration standards;
       Establishing construction and design standards for 
     wheelchairs used in the transportation of students in school 
     buses.
       Sec. 9: Require the Secretary of Transportation to improve 
     training materials on school bus safety and improve the 
     distribution and availability of such materials.
       Sec. 10: Require the Secretary of Transportation to carry 
     out a study to determine the following;
       The extent to which public transit vehicles are engaged in 
     school bus operations;
       The point at which a public transit vehicle is sufficiently 
     engaged in such operations as to be considered a school bus 
     for purposes of regulation under Federal law;
       The differences between school bus operations carried out 
     directly by schools or school districts and school bus 
     operations carried out by schools or school districts by 
     contract.
       Sec. 11: Require the Secretary of Transportation to issue a 
     notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to establishing 
     minimum reporting criteria for the highway safety program to 
     include criteria on traffic-related deaths and injuries 
     resulting from, among other things, school bus accidents.
       Sec. 12: Authorization of Appropriations.

                          ____________________