[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 134 (Thursday, September 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 2450. A bill to prohibit delinquent taxpayers from receiving 
Federal benefits or employment, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                 tax compliance enforcement act of 1994

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation, the Tax Compliance Enforcement Act of 1994, to improve 
compliance with Federal tax laws. The main purpose of the bill is to 
reduce the tax burden on the majority of honest Americans who comply 
with our tax laws, and who now must pay additional taxes because others 
are evading their responsibilities.
  The Tax Compliance Enforcement Act of 1994 would improve compliance 
with our tax laws by making such compliance a condition of eligibility 
for certain Federal benefits, including grants, contracts, loans, 
commercial licenses, and professional licenses. Similarly, the bill 
would prohibit the Federal Government from hiring any person who is not 
in compliance with the tax laws. In addition, the bill would 
substantially increase criminal penalties for tax evasion and related 
offenses.
  Mr. President, the level of noncompliance with our tax laws is a 
national scandal. About $100 billion of taxes owed is not collected 
each year. That is a huge figure--almost half of this year's budget 
deficit. Obviously, the existing system for enforcing our tax laws is 
not working as well as it should.
  Current law already provides for penalties against those who fail to 
file a return, or who underpay their taxes. However, the probability of 
being prosecuted and convicted of a tax violation is relatively low. 
Neither the IRS nor prosecutors have the resources to identify and 
prosecute most offenders. As a result, many tax cheats have concluded 
that they can easily get away with either underpaying, or evading taxes 
altogether. All too often, they are right.
  Mr. President, tax cheating may seem like a victimless crime to many 
Americans. But when people cheat on their taxes, they're not just 
cheating the government. They're cheating on their neighbors, their 
friends, and their family. They're cheating all American taxpayers. 
Because when one person fails to meet their responsibilities, it's left 
to everyone else to make up the difference. That's not fair. And the 
longer we let this unfairness continue, the worse the problem is likely 
to get.
  Mr. President, we need to consider some new and innovative approaches 
to increasing tax compliance.
  The premise of my legislation is simple: if you don't pay your 
Federal taxes, you will lose the opportunity for certain Federal 
benefits. Until you pay what is owed, you will not be hired as a new 
government employee. You will not win a government grant. You will not 
win a government contract. You will not get a government loan. Nor will 
you be awarded a commercial or professional license.
  Mr. President, I want to make it clear that the prohibition on 
Federal employment would apply to new applicants only. Current Federal 
employees would not be affected.
  Under my proposal, before any government agency provides any of these 
benefits, the agency would be required to ensure that the prospective 
beneficiary is in compliance with the tax laws. This information could 
be made available promptly by the Internal Revenue Service, so long as 
prospective beneficiaries authorize release of the information. This 
authorization could be provided as part of an application for a Federal 
benefit.
  Mr. President, I developed this approach after consulting with 
experts in tax compliance, who believe that withholding Federal 
benefits could be a very useful mechanism for enhancing compliance. 
Many State tax officials also are enthusiastic about this approach. As 
these experts point out, many government contracts are very valuable, 
and, if forced to do so, prospective contractors will pay taxes owed in 
order to compete for them. Similarly, many job hunters will have a 
strong incentive to pay all back taxes in order to qualify for a 
government job.
  Conditioning Federal benefits on tax compliance also makes sense as a 
matter of procurement and personnel policy. If a business or individual 
is unwilling to comply with our tax laws, there is every reason to fear 
that they lack the integrity necessary to be entrusted with important 
public responsibilities.
  Mr. President, beyond establishing tax compliance as a condition of 
eligibility for Federal benefits, the legislation also includes 
provisions that would increase maximum criminal fines for tax evasion 
and related offenses. These fines have not increased for several years, 
so their real value has been reduced significantly. This bill simply 
would restore the real value of the penalties to account for inflation 
since they were last set by law. For example, the maximum fine for a 
corporation that attempts to evade taxes would be increased from 
$500,000 to $750,000. The corresponding maximum fine for tax evasion by 
an individual would increase from $250,000 to $325,000.
  Mr. President, while the bill does not address tax-related civil 
penalties, I would support a corresponding increase in those penalties 
as well. Legislation to adjust a broad range of civil penalties, 
including tax penalties, already has been proposed by the 
Administration as part of its Reinventing Government package, and 
currently is under consideration in the Congress.
  Mr. President, I recognize that, given the lateness of the session, 
it may be difficult to move this legislation during the 103d Congress. 
However, I hope the Treasury Department and other interested parties 
will take a close look at the bill. The need to improve tax compliance 
is urgent, and I would like to see this legislation enacted as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2450

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

     SECTION l. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Tax Compliance Enforcement 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) The term ``person'' includes an individual, 
     partnership, corporation, association, or public or private 
     organization.
       (2) The term ``current in payment'' means a person either 
     has no outstanding Federal tax obligation owed to the United 
     States Treasury (including any associated interest and 
     penalties), or is in compliance with a payment schedule 
     established by the Internal Revenue Service with respect to 
     an outstanding Federal tax obligation.
       (3) The term ``current in filing'' means a person is in 
     compliance with all filing requirements under sections 6071, 
     6072, and 6075 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (4) The term ``delinquent taxpayer'' means any person who 
     is not current in payment or current in filing with respect 
     to any Federal tax obligation (including any associated 
     interest and penalties).
       (5) The term ``Federal benefit''--
       (A) means the issuance of any grant, contract, loan, 
     professional license, or commercial license provided by an 
     agency of the United States or as the result of appropriated 
     funds of the United States; and
       (B) does not include any retirement, welfare, social 
     security, health, disability, veterans, public housing, or 
     other similar benefit, or any other benefit for which 
     payments or services are required for eligibility.
       (6) The term ``Federal tax obligation'' means a tax 
     obligation arising from a tax imposed under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (6) The term ``Commissioner'' means the Commissioner of the 
     Internal Revenue Service.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT OR FEDERAL 
                   BENEFITS PROVIDED TO DELINQUENT TAXPAYERS.

       (a) In General.--No person shall receive any Federal 
     benefit, nor be hired as an officer or employee of the 
     Government of the United States, if that person is a 
     delinquent taxpayer.
       (b) Coverage.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall 
     apply to any department, agency, or office of the Government 
     of the United States, including--
       (1) the Legislative Branch of the United States, and
       (2) the Judicial Branch of the United States.
       (c) Subgrantees and Subcontractors Included.--The 
     prohibition in subsection (a) shall apply to any subgrantee 
     or subcontractor, subject to reasonable limitations to be 
     established by the Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration.
       (d) Exceptions.--The prohibition in subsection (a) may be 
     waived by the appropriate head of the entity described in 
     subsection (b), if the waiver is necessary to meet a critical 
     governmental need.
       (e) Regulations.--The Commissioner shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.
       (f) Effective Date.--This section shall be effective on and 
     after the date which is one year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 4. INCREASES IN TAX-RELATED CRIMINAL FINES.

       (a) Attempt To Evade or Defeat Tax.--Section 7201 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to attempt to evade 
     or defeat tax) is amended by striking ``$100,000 ($500,000 in 
     the case of a corporation)'' and inserting ``$325,000 
     ($750,000 in the case of a corporation)''.
       (b) Willful Failure To File Return, Supply Information, or 
     Pay Tax.--Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to willful failure to file return, supply 
     information, or pay tax) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a 
     corporation)'' in the first sentence and inserting ``$125,000 
     ($250,000 in the case of a corporation)'', and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end of the third 
     sentence ``and `$325,000 ($750,000 in the case of a 
     corporation)' for `$125,000 ($250,000 in the case of a 
     corporation)'''.
       (c) Fraud and False Statements.--Section 7206 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to fraud and false 
     statements) is amended by striking ``$100,000 ($500,000 in 
     the case of a corporation)'' and inserting ``$325,000 
     ($750,000 in the case of a corporation)''.
       (d) Fraudulent Returns, Statements, or Other Documents.--
     Section 7207 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to fraudulent returns statements, or other documents) is 
     amended by striking ``$10,000 ($50,000 in the case of a 
     corporation)'' both places it appears and inserting 
     ``$125,000 ($250,000 in the case of a corporation)''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to offenses committed after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Gramm):
  S. 2451. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to ensure 
that constitutionally protected private property rights are not 
infringed until adequate protection is afforded by reauthorization of 
such act, to protect against and compensate for economic losses from 
critical habitat designation, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.


                   endangered species act moratorium

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, generations of farmers and 
ranchers in Texas and throughout the United States have tilled the soil 
and cleared the rangeland to support their families and feed and clothe 
America. From the raw earth, they have created some of the most 
productive farms and ranches in history. This land is their wealth--
their property, which our government was formed to protect, just as it 
protects our homes from burglary and our money in banks from theft.
  Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of private property. They 
fought foreign rulers to protect the fruits of their labors. The 
Constitution, drafted after that struggle, says that private property 
shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.
  This protection has been ignored by Congress and Washington 
rulemakers for too long. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which 
enforces the Endangered Species Act, is preparing to designate up to 
800,000 acres from 33 Texas counties as critical habitat for the 
Golden-Cheeked Warbler. The Fish and Wildlife Service fought one family 
for over a year before they could build a home, costing the family 
almost $2,000, even though no warblers had ever been seen nearby.
  Property owners should not have to fight the Government to build a 
new home on their land, or hire lawyers to convince bureaucrats that 
their farming is in compliance with regulations. Farmers in my State or 
yours should not live in fear of being treated like the farmer in 
California who was arrested in a Government raid for allegedly harming 
a kangaroo rat while he was plowing his field--a rat that is an 
endangered species for one reason--its feet are a millimeter longer 
than other, similar species. Instead of seizing land and arresting 
farmers, we should encourage private landowners to protect species and 
habitat with tax incentives, and whenever possible relocate threatened 
species to park lands.
  Today Congressmen Lamar Smith, Bill Archer, Dick Armey, Joe Barton, 
Henry Bonilla, Larry Combest, Sam Johnson, Senator Gramm, and I are 
proposing legislation to stop this Government overreaching until we 
have the opportunity to revisit the Endangered Species Act. My bill 
puts a moratorium on the listing of new endangered and threatened 
species until reauthorization. It also puts a moratorium on the 
designation of critical habitat so that property owners will not lose 
control of their land.
  Right now the Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to list a 
species in the Panhandle of Texas--the Arkansas River shiner--that is 
used for fish bait. Water is scarce in the Panhandle; we cannot afford 
to give fish bait more protection than people. But once the shiner is 
designated, it will have more right to the water than the Panhandle 
farmers and ranchers and the people of Amarillo.
  My bill puts a moratorium on critical habitat designation to prevent 
land from being pushed into second class status. Designating critical 
habitat puts unjust limits on the use, market value, and 
transferability of property. The stigma of critical habitat should not 
be imposed by the Government that claims to protect property as a 
constitutional right. To prevent this theft from continuing, my bill 
requires compensation to landowners for the lost value of their land 
when it is designated critical habitat.
  Opponents of compensation for takings of property argue that the 
Government cannot afford it. That is an unconstitutional argument I 
cannot understand. If we want to protect the critical habitat of 
endangered species, we have to pay for it. James Madison, in ``The 
Federalist Papers,'' made it clear that the purpose of Government is to 
protect property. He said that ``Government is instituted no less for 
protection of property than of the persons of individuals.'' If 
opponents of compensation are truly opposed to this principle, they can 
propose an amendment to the Constitution. But until it is passed, 
anything short of full compensation is to ignore the Constitution, 
which we are sworn to uphold.
  The act currently requires all Federal agencies to consult with the 
Fish and Wildlife Service before taking actions, providing permits, or 
providing funding to insure that such actions do not jeopardize a 
species' existence. The Fish and Wildlife Service could use this 
authority to deny FHA or VA mortgages, farm erosion studies, or SBA 
loans. They have not done this yet; so far its only been used on large 
Government projects. But until this year they had not proposed to 
designate an area larger than some States as critical habitat. To 
prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from expanding their powers even 
further, my bill limits the consultation requirement to Government 
actions and funding in excess of a half million dollars.
  Mr. President, we need to make the real effect of the Endangered 
Species Act clear--not to farmers and ranchers in Texas, many of whom 
know too well what it means to them--but to rulemakers in Washington, 
most of whom have not set foot on a farm since their third-grade class 
field trip. It is no longer about protecting our treasured natural 
resources from harm; it is about Government and environmental programs 
taking control of our land. That is not only wrong; its 
unconstitutional We must put a stop to it until we have the opportunity 
to give the Fish and Wildlife Service a new direction.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Hatfield):
  S. 2452. A bill to increase access to, control the costs associated 
with, and improve the quality of health care in States through health 
insurance reform, State innovation, public health and medical research, 
and for other purposes; read the first time.


               health innovation partnership act of 1994

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is our purpose today to introduce the 
Health Innovation Partnership Act of 1994, and to offer these words of 
explanation in doing so.
  Over the past year, there has been strong and persistent public 
sentiment in support of the goals of health care reform. Specifically, 
support has been strong for expanding health care coverage and access, 
cost containment and improving the quality of health care. 
Unfortunately, Congress has been working tirelessly on national health 
care reform with the basic flawed premise that a consensus could be 
established on the means as well as the goals of health reform.
  As a result, Congress has become fixed on thinking about health care 
reform from a single, centralized, one-size-fits-all, national model. 
This approach has taken a number of forms: managed competition, single 
payer, employer or individual mandate, pay or play, the expansion of 
Medicare or market reform. As I stated on the Senate floor back in July 
and August, this path to reform has been trampled by detail and 
controversy over the means to achieve the goals. The effect has almost 
buried the broad agreement on the necessity of achieving expanded 
health insurance coverage, cost containment and healthier outcomes.
  In fact, the most recent health reform effort seems to have abandoned 
the goals of health reform in an attempt to find the unattainable 
middle-ground reform mechanism. According to a statement by Senator 
Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the September 14th Congressional Record, 
``The Mainstream Coalition proposal would be a step backward for New 
York and other progressive States that have already taken actions to 
expand coverage and contain costs.''

  In a nation as diverse as ours, one solution or means cannot be 
formulated for the wide range of health programs and needs in our 
country. Moreover, virtually all of these national health care reform 
proposal have as their centerpiece a variety of untested reform 
theories in American society.
  As Yale professors Ted Marmor and Jerry Marshaw said in an editorial 
printed in the New York Times on June 12, 1994:

       If Congress adopts an unproven and untested . . . plan and 
     it turns out to be the health care equivalent of a train 
     wreck, it would be sensible to not have the country on the 
     same train at the same time.
  There is, Mr. President, a second path--a path which to date has 
almost been ignored but is the cornerstone of the legislation I am 
introducing with Senator Hatfield today. That legislation, the Health 
Innovation Partnership Act, recognizes the primary and substantial 
experience of States in the organization, financing, and delivery of 
health services.
  The case for a decentralized health care system is compelling. Our 
Nation has a wide and diverse range of health care problems that will 
require sensitivity to local culture, geographic and institutional 
variation in the creation of solutions. Our legislation, based on the 
principles of federalism, recognizes that what may work for one State 
may not work for another.
  For example, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Rhode Island, and West 
Virginia have 50 percent more elderly per capita than do Alaska, Utah, 
Colorado, and Georgia. Addressing the long-term care needs and specific 
health care problems associated with aging would clearly be a greater 
point of emphasis in the former States than in the latter.
  As former Governors and as Senators from States that have enacted 
substantial health reform plans, Senator Hatfield and I believe the 
States have demonstrated creativity and ability to implement creative 
health care initiatives often in the face of stiff resistance from the 
Federal Government.
  Our legislation would attempt to encourage and unleash State 
innovation through the provision of $50 billion in grant funding to 
States over a 5-year period to devise innovative health reform projects 
that would move toward the goals on increased health insurance coverage 
and access, cost containment, and improved health care quality.
  As a result, our bill would attempt to change the Federal 
Government's role of being an impediment to State innovation to being a 
facilitator. At best, the Federal Government should provide technical 
assistance and enable States to be successful in achieving the goals of 
health reform. At the least, the Federal Government should remove some 
of the roadblocks to State reform and get out of the way.
  The worst possible scenario is a situation where the Federal 
Government fails to enact any health care reform but maintains the 
roadblocks against States moving forward. In fact, if waivers are not 
granted to remove some of these barriers to reform in individual 
States, the entire or a large portion of these States' health reform 
programs would be placed in jeopardy. Doing nothing, as some are 
suggesting, would undoubtedly have negative health consequences.
  Our legislation would authorize or reauthorize these waivers and 
remove other similar Federal obstacles for reforms in States such as 
Hawaii, New York, Maryland, Oregon, and Florida. For example, Florida 
needs Federal statutory changes that would enable the State to 
implement Governor Chiles's proposed Florida Health Security Act. The 
Florida initiative would allow 1.1 million previously uninsured lower-
income Floridians to purchase quality, private coverage at discounted 
rates. For the people in these States and many other States 
contemplating reform, doing nothing is unacceptable.
  In addition, the Graham-Hatfield bill would, at the end of the 5-year 
State innovation project period, require a report to Congress on the 
progress made by States with respect to expanding health insurance 
coverage and cost containment. This report would also include 
recommendations to Congress concerning any further action that should 
be taken regarding health care reform at either the Federal or State 
levels of government. Again, our emphasis is to focus on the goals of 
reform rather than the means.
  As University of Pennsylvania scholar Dr. William Kissick said in his 
recent book ``Medicine's Dilemmas,'' ``The states are suitable ground 
for attempting innovations * * * and for struggling with their 
implementation, learning from their experience, and transmitting the 
lessons for the whole society.'' He adds, ``The states represent 
manageable scale for health care reform, and each is at less risk for a 
major overreaction.''
  This Jeffersonian model or federalist approach has long been 
recognized as an important mechanism to create what some refer to as a 
wellspring of innovation. James Madison recognized this in ``Federalist 
56'' by anticipating how State laws might become models for Federal 
legislation.
  Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis echoed this important founding 
principle in 1932 when he said, ``It is one of the happy incidents of 
the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens 
choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic 
experiments without risk to the rest of the country.''
  As for the remaining sections of our bill, they also continue to 
focus on the goals of national health reform. These sections--insurance 
reform, public health improvement, and medical research--would 
collectively expand access to health care, control costs, and improve 
the quality of health care.
  To briefly highlight the section on public health, this title would 
seek to promote prevention, public health, cost effective treatment and 
improved overall health through four distinct approaches: First, 
strengthening the partnership with and capacity of local and State 
public health departments to carry out core public health functions; 
second, expanding access to preventive and primary care services for 
vulnerable and medically underserved communities; third, supporting 
applied research on prevention and effective public health 
interventions; and fourth, addressing public health work force needs 
and access problems.

  Dr. C. Everett Koop and other members of the Health Project 
Consortium published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine 
last year noting that 70 percent of all illness is preventable and that 
there are about one million deaths annually that are preventable. That 
amounts to in excess of $600 billion annually in costs. However, our 
Nation now invests less than 1 percent of our total health care costs 
on public health. This comes at a time when our Nation is witnessing a 
resurgence of tuberculosis and other infectious diseases. The waste of 
both lives and money is incomprehensible and should be addressed this 
year.
  Rather than investing wisely in prevention, our health care system is 
focused on sickness and acute medical care. The result has been a 
systematic shift of public and private spending toward acute and 
institutional medical care and away from the critical role of keeping 
communities safe and healthy.
  In fact, the debate in Washington has not been about or focused on 
the provision of health care. At no point in the debate have we 
discussed how to reduce infant mortality, how to address the AIDS 
epidemic, what to do about the resurgence of tuberculosis or what steps 
to take with respect to Alzheimer's. The debate has been about 
mechanisms, bureaucratic schemes, financing, providers, the health 
insurance industry, and the polls.
  I urge the Congress to think about this during the waning days of 
this legislative session and to allow the consideration of the 
incremental, yet potentially innovative, approach to health reform 
offered by Senator Hatfield and me.
  Before surrendering the floor to my friend and colleague, Senator 
Hatfield, I would like to thank him and his staff for the pleasant and 
productive collaboration we have had in putting this legislative 
proposal together. I would also like to acknowledge Congressman Peter 
DeFazio of Oregon for agreeing to be the lead House sponsor for the 
bill.
  I would also like to thank Congressman Jim Moran for all the hard 
work he has put into the public health sections of this bill. My 
prayers the prayers of our colleagues, and best wishes go out to him 
and his family as they struggle with a serious illness to his daughter.
  In addition, I would like to express my appreciation to Yale 
professors Ted Marmor and Jerry Mashaw for their insight and guidance, 
the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State 
Legislators, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the 
public health organizations and supporters of medical research that 
have all put in long hours helping get this bill together for 
introduction.
  Finally, I acknowledge the outstanding leadership, commitment and 
effort that the majority leader brought to the health care debate. He 
has committed a substantial amount of his distinguished senatorial 
service toward achieving health care reform for a health care system 
that would better serve all Americans. It is my hope that our mutual 
goal of universal coverage, cost control, and of a healthier America 
will soon be attained.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the bill summary and other related materials.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Graham/Hatfield Health Innovation Partnership Act

       Purpose: To proceed with health care reform that increases 
     access, controls costs and improves the quality of health 
     care in states through state innovation, public health, 
     medical research and insurance reform.
       States are making significant progress to reform their 
     health care delivery systems. In light of the inability of 
     Congress to enact comprehensive reform, this bill would 
     provide the states with the flexibility to continue their 
     reform efforts. It would also provide limited federal funding 
     to assist states in this effort.
       The bill includes the following provisions:


                    title i--health insurance reform

       Establishment of National Minimum Standards--Congress would 
     direct the National Association of Insurance Commissioners 
     (NAIC) to develop national minimum standards with respect to 
     renewability, portability, guaranteed issue, community 
     rating, solvency and stop-loss. The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services (HHS) would review the standards developed by 
     NAIC. Upon approval, these national minimum standards would 
     be established for the states, but they would be given 
     authority to enact and implement more progressive reforms 
     than those specified. This is modeled after the Baucus 
     Amendment to OBRA-90 relating to the development of Medicare 
     Supplemental Insurance Standards or Medigap.
       Medicare Select--The 1990 Medigap legislation created 10 
     standard Medicare supplemental benefit packages that could be 
     offered nationwide. Managed care networks could offer these 
     benefits to Medicare beneficiaries in 15 states. This 
     program, Medicare Select, provides supplemental coverage to 
     hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, but the 
     program would expire on December 31, 1994. This provision 
     would reauthorize the program.


                       title ii--state innovation

       State Innovative Health Reform Projects--States interested 
     in enacting health reform proposals that achieve the goals of 
     increased health coverage and access, control costs and 
     maintain or improve the quality of health care could submit 
     their projects to the Secretary for Medicaid, Maternal Child 
     Health Block Grant and Public Health Services Act waivers and 
     approval. An approved state innovative project that can 
     demonstrate the ability to meet the goals of health reform 
     would receive grant monies from the federal government to 
     encourage and help states fund the projects. $50 billion will 
     be made available to states over a five-year period.
       Limited State Health Care Waivers--States would also be 
     allowed to pursue more limited state health care waivers that 
     are likely to increase administrative efficiencies or provide 
     guidance for the development of improved health delivery 
     systems. The waiver application for both the comprehensive 
     and limited waiver projects would be placed on an expedited 
     approval process.
       Evaluation, Monitoring and Compliance--The Secretary and an 
     established State Health Reform Advisory Board would be 
     responsible for monitoring the waiver projects. Waiver 
     projects could be terminated by the Secretary for good cause 
     and states would not be allowed to supplant state funding 
     with grants received under this program.
       Lessons from the States/Report to Congress--At the end of 
     the five-year period, the Board would report to Congress on 
     the progress made by states with respect to expanding health 
     insurance coverage and cost containment. The Board would also 
     make recommendations to Congress concerning any further 
     action Congress should take concerning health care reform 
     from the information and experiences drawn from the states.
       Existing State Laws--Specific waivers would be granted to 
     remove federal obstacles to states for existing state laws, 
     such as in Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Florida and 
     Washington. Without these waivers, the entire or a large 
     portion of these states' health reform programs would be 
     placed in jeopardy.


   title iii--public health, rural and underserved access improvement

       Core Functions of Public Health--Core functions are those 
     activities and programs that emphasize population-based 
     health measures such as the investigation and control of 
     threats to the health of communities such as communicable 
     diseases (tuberculosis, HIV, measles, influenza), 
     environmental hazards (air pollution, radon, radiation, waste 
     and sewage disposal), toxic pollutants (lead-based paint, 
     contaminated drinking water) and emerging patterns of acute 
     and chronic disease and injury (food borne poisoning, cancer, 
     heart disease).
       Other Programs--Funding is also made available for 
     comprehensive evaluation of disease prevention and health 
     promotion programs, Schools of Public Health, Area Health 
     Education Centers, Health Education Training Centers, 
     Regional Poison Control Centers, school-related health 
     services, Community and Migrant Health Centers, the National 
     Health Service Corps, satellite primary care clinics and 
     community health advisors.
       Funding--This title is allocated $9 billion over a five-
     year period.,


                       title iv--medical research

       National Institute of Health (NIH) Funding--$6 billion are 
     allocated over a five-year period under this title to expand 
     our national commitment to health research. Monies are 
     allocated to the NIH Institutes and Centers on the same basis 
     as annual appropriations. Five percent of the monies will be 
     directed to extramural construction and renovation of 
     research facilities, the National Library of Medicine and the 
     Office of the Director.


                     title v--financing provisions

       Tobacco Tax--The bill will be financed through a $1 tax on 
     tobacco products. This tax is expected to raise $65 billion 
     over five years.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 16, 1994]

Some State Health Plans May Be Stalled If Congress Fails to Pass a Bill 
                               This Fall

                           (By George Anders)

       Some ambitious health-reform plans in Oregon, Minnesota and 
     Washington state may be stalled if Congress fails to pass 
     federal health legislation this fall.
       Oregon and Washington state legislatures already have 
     passed laws that will require employers to pay much of the 
     cost of health insurance for their workers. Minnesota, 
     meanwhile, has begun taxing hospitals and other health-care 
     providers to help finance coverage for the uninsured.
       Opponents contend, however, that such measures exceed what 
     states are allowed to do under existing federal laws.
       Specifically, states aren't allowed to regulate health-
     insurance benefits provided by self-insured companies under 
     the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known as 
     Erisa. Most big corporations choose to provide health 
     coverage through such self-insured plans.
       Until recently, state officials were confident that 
     Congress this year would pass some sort of major federal 
     health legislation to remove those obstacles. Now, though, 
     that optimism has waned. ``I'm not willing to give up 
     totally, but it's looking less and less likely,'' says Mary 
     Jo O'Brien, Minnesota's commissioner of health.
       If the Erisa issue isn't resolved, says Carl Volpe, 
     director of health policy legislation for the National 
     Governors' Association in Washington, D.C., ``it slows down 
     the ability of states to move ahead with any comprehensive 
     health-care reform.''
       Analysts say Washington state's initiatives are likely to 
     be affected most. A new state law would require all employers 
     of more than 500 workers to cover much of the costs of health 
     insurance for their workers, starting July 1. But if the 
     state can't make that provision apply to sell-insured 
     companies, it's likely to have little impact--especially if 
     employers who currently use outside insurers are free to 
     switch to self-insurance to avoid the state mandate.
       ``Without an Erisa exemption, we can't fully implement our 
     act,'' said Washington state's health services commissioner, 
     Bernadette Dochnal, in an interview earlier this summer.


                         less urgent in oregon

       In Oregon, an employer mandate wouldn't start taking effect 
     until 1997, making the Erisa issue less urgent. Even so, ``We 
     realize that Erisa is the thing that's going to stop us from 
     moving forward,'' says Roger Auerbach, senior policy adviser 
     to Oregon Gov. Barbara Roberts.
       Minnesota's health initiatives don't require employers to 
     pay for workers' health insurance. But Minnesota's provider 
     tax has been challenged in court by opponents, who contend 
     the tax runs afoul of Erisa provisions. The state has won in 
     court, but the case is being appealed.
       If Congress doesn't give states more latitude to enact 
     health plans without worrying about Erisa conflicts, ``it 
     would make everything substantially more difficult,'' 
     Minnesota's Ms. O'Brien says. She adds: ``I hope we don't get 
     into a big battle between self-insured companies and the 
     states, because we all want to get to the same place.''
       Mr. Auerbach says Oregon plans to host a conference next 
     week in which health-reform strategists from 20 states will 
     discuss ways to deal with potential Erisa roadblocks.
       Some reform-minded states have begun negotiations with 
     business interests, seeing if they can agree on limited 
     federal legislation that gives states more room to enact 
     health plans without running afoul of Erisa. Some state 
     strategists are hoping that such a measure could be grafted 
     onto nonhealth legislation, or even passed on its own, if 
     Congress doesn't approve a broad health bill.
       Some big-business interests aren't especially eager to help 
     out. Larry Atkins, coordinator of the Corporate Health Care 
     Coalition, which represents 20 large companies, said: ``Our 
     first position is: We'd prefer that states do nothing.'' He 
     says large companies believe health initiatives ought be 
     federally coordinated.
       As a fall-back position, Mr. Atkins said, his group would 
     like a mechanism in which self-insured companies that operate 
     in many states needn't contend separately with each state's 
     health plan. There might be a way, he says, in which 
     multistate employers could win a single federal certification 
     as meeting national standards and be free from additional 
     state oversight.
       In a pro-state gesture this week, Sen. Daniel Patrick 
     Moynihan (D., N.Y.), in remarks inserted into the 
     Congressional Record, said: ``The failure to enact national 
     reform shouldn't be allowed to prevent states from moving 
     ahead with their own reforms. In fact, in the absence of 
     universal coverage you must allow state flexibility, fostered 
     by Erisa waivers.''
       Many health-policy analysts question, though, whether a 
     majority of Congress is likely to act on that sentiment 
     before legislators adjourn next month.
                                  ____


               [From the New York Times, Sept. 16, 1994]

           States Again Try Health Changes as Congress Fails

                            (By Robert Pear)

       Washington, Sept. 15.--Efforts by the states to provide 
     health care and health insurance for their residents have 
     taken on new importance now that the most ambitious Federal 
     plans to remake the nation's health care system have fizzled.
       The states have been a source of innovation in health 
     policy for nearly a decade. While their interest in the issue 
     never waned, some held back this year, waiting for Congress 
     to define a standard package of health benefits that would be 
     guaranteed to all Americans under Federal law.
       ``The failure of Federal health care reform will place new 
     pressures on states because the problems are not going 
     away,'' Ronald M. Hollander, executive vice president of the 
     Massachusetts Hospital Association, said last week. ``We 
     still have the problems of the uninsured and rising health 
     costs.''
       Indeed, many state officials suspected all along that they 
     could not count on Washington to solve their problems, and 
     moved ahead on their own with innovations that are just now 
     paying dividends.
       California, Florida and Texas, for instance, have enrolled 
     thousands of people in health insurance alliances that pool 
     the purchasing power of small businesses, enabling them to 
     get coverage at prices far lower than what they would 
     otherwise pay. President Clinton and Congress are still 
     bickering over the details and merits of such alliances, but 
     more than 20 states have begun experimenting with them.
       In addition, almost every state has passed a law tightening 
     the regulation of health insurance, requiring insurers to 
     sell coverage to small businesses and limiting the variation 
     in rates.
       The Clinton Administration said today that it would allow 
     Florida to conduct a Medicaid experiment aimed at providing 
     coverage for 1.1 million Floridians with no health insurance. 
     Gov. Lawton Chiles said he expected to save $3.2 billion in 
     Federal Medicaid money over five years by enrolling all 
     Medicaid recipients in some form of managed care. The money 
     would be used to subsidize private coverage for people who 
     are now uninsured and ineligible for Medicaid.
       Hawaii, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee and a handful of 
     other states have expanded their Medicaid programs--with 
     Federal permission--to provide subsidized health insurance to 
     people who would ordinarily be ineligible for Medicaid. 
     Typically, these states require patients to enroll in some 
     form of managed care, which limits their freedom to choose 
     doctors and hospitals.
       The Tennessee program, which went into effect last Jan. 1, 
     covers 803,800 people who were formerly on Medicaid and 
     335,300 who had no health insurance. Gov. Ned McWherter, a 
     Democrat, said that 94 percent of the state's residents were 
     now insured. He predicted, ``Tennessee will cover at least 95 
     percent of its citizens with health insurance by the end of 
     1994, seven years faster than the most aggressive goal set 
     for the nation under legislation being debated in Congress.''
       In Oregon, 91,000 poor people have been added to the 
     Medicaid program since February. That is 65 percent more than 
     the state had expected.
       ``We had assumed that most of the people coming in would be 
     singles and childless couples,'' said Jean I. Thorne, the 
     Medicaid director in Oregon. ``But two-thirds of the people 
     have a child in the family, and a majority of the families 
     are two-parent families.''
       At the same time, states are learning the limits of what 
     they can do. The biggest limit, by far, is a 1974 Federal law 
     that prevents states from regulating, taxing or interfering 
     with the health plans set up by companies that serve as their 
     own insurers, using their own assets to pay claims.
       Big multistate companies pioneered the use of such self-
     insurance arrangements, but many companies with fewer than 
     100 employees have followed suit. As a result, states are 
     unable to supervise or regulate the health benefits of huge 
     numbers of people who live and work within their borders.
       Companies like to serve as their own insurers because they 
     can avoid state insurance regulations and premium taxes, can 
     tailor benefits to meet their employees' needs and can get 
     discounts through direct negotiations with doctors, hospital 
     and others who provide health care.
       Under the 1974 law, the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act, known as Erisa, states cannot require self-insured 
     companies to provide any specific health benefits, to 
     contribute any particular amount of money or even to report 
     basic data on their spending for employee health benefits.
       Last year, for example, Washington State passed a law 
     requiring companies to offer health insurance and pay at 
     least half of the premiums for full-time workers and their 
     families. In Oregon, an employer mandate is supposed to take 
     effect in 1997 and 1998. Neither requirement can be enforced 
     unless Congress grants exemptions from Erisa.
       Gov. Mike Lowry of Washington, a Democrat, said, ``If 
     Congress would just remove the obstacles caused by Erisa, we 
     could reform the health care system.''
       In November, Californians will vote on a ballot measure to 
     establish a publicly financed program of health insurance for 
     legal residents of the state. The American Association of 
     Retired Persons, labor unions and consumer groups support the 
     proposal for a ``single payer'' health care system like the 
     one in Canada. Insurance companies, some hospitals, many 
     businesses and some taxpayer groups oppose it.
       The state might need an exemption from Erisa to operate the 
     program. Supporters of the proposal said they would have a 
     strong case in seeking such an exemption from Congress if 
     California voters approved the ballot measure.
       John C. Rother, chief lobbyist for the A.A.R.P., said: ``We 
     still need health care reform. If we can't get it at the 
     Federal level, we want it at the state level.''
       Even as some states plowed ahead with health care 
     legislation, others were waiting for the Federal Government 
     to act.
       Carol H. Malone, who monitors state activity for the 
     accounting firm Coopers & Lybrand, said: ``The pace of health 
     care reform at the state level slowed in the first six months 
     of 1994. The possibility of Federal health care reform put 
     the brakes on reform at the state level.
       ``Rather than adopting comprehensive legislation as they 
     did in 1992 and 1993, states for the most part opted to 
     restructure their health care delivery and financing systems 
     in incremental stages, through regulation of the health 
     insurance industry, particularly the small-group market, and 
     through introduction of purchasing cooperatives.''
       A survey by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association 
     concluded, ```Caution' is the byword in 1994, as states have 
     overwhelmingly chosen incremental over broad-based reforms.''
       Last year Florida created 11 regional purchasing alliances 
     for small businesses and self-employed people. Each alliance 
     offers 100 to 150 health plans. But when Governor Chiles, a 
     Democrat, tried to go further this year by proposing to 
     provide subsidized coverage for uninsured people with incomes 
     up to two and a half times the Federal poverty level, the 
     proposal died in the Florida Legislature amid partisan 
     conflict. Last year the Federal poverty level for a family of 
     four was $14,764, and for an individual, $7,357.
       Republicans denounced the proposal as welfare. Mr. Chiles, 
     who is running for re-election, said Republicans had blocked 
     the plan for political reasons. He will try again to win 
     approval from the Legislature now that he has permission from 
     the Federal Government.
       In Vermont, efforts to guarantee health insurance for its 
     residents collapsed earlier this year.
       ``We tried to do too much too quickly,'' said Sean P. 
     Campbell, a Democrat who is majority leader of the State 
     House of Representatives. ``It was too big. We couldn't 
     swallow it. We ended up spitting it out.''
       Massachusetts, like Vermont, was ahead of most states in 
     trying to revamp its health care. In 1988, under Gov. Michael 
     S. Dukakis, it passed a law requiring employers to insure 
     their workers or pay a tax to finance a state insurance 
     program.
       The requirement became unpalatable when the state's economy 
     foundered. It has repeatedly been delayed and is now 
     scheduled to take effect in January, but will probably be 
     changed or delayed again. Gov. William F. Weld, a Republican, 
     opposes the requirement. He has proposed tax credits and 
     subsidies to induce employers to provide health insurance.
       In some states, officials can barely keep up with changes 
     in the private health care market, where insurance companies, 
     hospitals, clinics and drug companies are merging and 
     devising all sorts of novel arrangements to control costs and 
     promote the use of managed care.
                                  ____


               [From the New York Times, Sept. 16, 1994]

                  The States' Approach to Health Care

       Unwilling to wait for Federal action, many states are 
     taking steps to expand health insurance coverage.


                               california

       In 1993, the state established a program to help businesses 
     with fewer than 50 employees obtain health coverage for their 
     employees through a voluntary purchasing pool. Employers who 
     join the pool must agree to pay at least half the cost of the 
     premium, and 70 percent of their employees must purchase 
     coverage through the plan. A proposition is on the November 
     ballot that would create a state-run health insurance system 
     to provide care for all state residents.


                                florida

       A 1993 law set up 11 health insurance purchasing alliances 
     open to employers with fewer than 50 employees. This year an 
     effort was made to expand coverage to one million uninsured 
     people with incomes less than 2.5 times the Federal poverty 
     level, but the proposal failed amid partisan wrangling in the 
     State Legislature.


                                 hawaii

       In 1974 the state enacted legislation requiring employers 
     to offer full-time employees health insurance and pay at 
     least 50 percent of an employee's premiums. In 1991 the State 
     Health Insurance Program was established to cover part-time 
     employees. Last year, the state set up a new program, Health 
     Quest, to provide coverage for Medicaid recipients and other 
     low-income people through a purchasing pool.


                               minnesota

       The state has set a goal of achieving universal coverage by 
     July 1, 1997. In 1992, the state passed legislation to 
     subsidize premiums for the uninsured and to let employers buy 
     coverage from a state pool. A 1993 law encouraged competition 
     by prodding doctors and hospitals to join together in 
     networks offering standard benefit packages. The deadline for 
     licensing the networks has been postponed until 1997, and 
     the state has not figured out how to pay for all the 
     changes.


                                new york

       As part of a 1992 law, the state limits variations in 
     health insurance premiums for individuals and small 
     businesses. People with the same coverage who live in the 
     same area are supposed to pay the same amounts without regard 
     to age, sex, health status or occupation. Experts disagree on 
     how well the law is working.


                                 oregon

       In February, the state began a five-year experiment to 
     expand eligibility for Medicaid to 120,000 low-income 
     uninsured people. The state will pay only for services 
     included on a list of 565 approved medical treatments and 
     procedures. The state has also passed a law to require 
     employers to provide basic health coverage to their workers 
     or pay into a state insurance pool, but the employer mandate 
     cannot be enforced unless Congress grants an exemption from 
     Federal law.


                               tennessee

       The state's experimental health plan, known as TennCare, 
     went into effect on Jan. 1. It covers former Medicaid 
     recipients, people without insurance and those whose chronic 
     illnesses make insurance unaffordable. Any Tennessean with 
     income below the Federal poverty level may join at no cost. 
     Other low-income people are expected to pay modest premiums 
     and deductibles.


                                vermont

       The state has been a leader in efforts to regulate health 
     insurance and health spending. But the State Legislature 
     deadlocked over proposals to guarantee coverage for all 
     Vermonters this year, in part because the legislators could 
     not agree on how to pay for new benefits.


                               washington

       Under a 1993 law, employers would be required to offer 
     health insurance and to pay at least half of the premiums for 
     full-time workers and their families. But the state needs 
     permission from Congress to enforce such an employer mandate.
                                  ____


                  [From the Oregonian, Aug. 28, 1994]

                   Free States To Enact Health Reform


If Congress fails to enact health reform, it should at least smooth the 
                       way for state experiments

       If Congress does nothing else to fix America's ailing 
     health care system this session--and it should do more--it 
     should at least clear the path so that states can experiment 
     with health care reform.
       That requires removing the barrier that the 1974 Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, poses to any 
     substantial state health reform.
       ERISA was intended primarily to impose federal oversight on 
     large private pension funds. But it also makes it impossible 
     for a state to require that companies help pay for their 
     employees' insurance or that all companies offer insurance 
     that meets at least a minimum level of benefits. Both 
     elements are important features in the health plans of many 
     states, including Oregon and Washington.
       Each state that wants to enact significant health reform 
     would need a special dispensation from Congress in order to 
     pre-empt ERISA's requirements. Imagine this summer's 
     contentious health care debate repeated five, six or seven 
     times as states seek to try their own reforms. It's an ugly 
     picture.
       In fact, although health reform has been percolating in the 
     states for years, only Hawaii, which has an employer mandate 
     has an ERISA waiver, party because its health plan was being 
     instituted at the same time Congress was originally passing 
     ERISA.
       ERISA also has made it difficult to oversee the growing 
     ranks of businesses that self-insure. By assuming risk 
     themselves instead of paying private companies to insure 
     risk, some companies are able to insure their employees more 
     cheaply and respond better to employees' benefits needs.
       But businesses also found themselves with a powerful 
     incentive to hire young and health people. And some companies 
     have used the ERISA shield to avoid paying health costs of 
     very sick employees or to discriminate against certain kinds 
     of illnesses.
       Ideally, Congress would pass a bill this session bringing 
     health coverage to all Americans. If Congress cannot achieve 
     that goal, then it should at least remove the barriers that 
     prevent Oregon and other states from fulfilling that promise 
     for their residents.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, July 7, 1994]

               Give the States a Crack at Devising Reform

              (By Theodore R. Marmor and Jerry L. Mashaw)

       We have reached a point in the congressional struggle over 
     health-care reform where there is enough opposition to defeat 
     the Clinton Administration's plan but nothing like a firm 
     majority for an alternative. With proposals emerging from the 
     House Ways and Means Committee, Senate Finance Committee and 
     three other committees, the press reports are confusing, the 
     policy issues are unintelligible to most Americans and the 
     chances of deadlock are considerable.
       Can a workable version of national reform be enacted when 
     no majority exists for any single plan? The answer is yes, 
     but you'd never know it from the compromise proposals now 
     making the rounds. The real challenge for reformers is to 
     find a strategy that reflects whatever agreement there is on 
     the goals of health reform and accommodate the disagreements 
     on means. Instead, in the search for a plan that can pass, 
     the compromisers focus on what seems doable politically 
     rather than what is substantively desirable.
       Three of these political compromises--which look appealing 
     on the surface but are badly thought through--currently crowd 
     the agenda:
       Amending the definition of ``universal coverage,'' Debates 
     on this issue mask a substantive disagreement about how great 
     a role public compulsion, of either individuals or 
     businesses, should play in ensuring coverage. A group in the 
     Senate Finance Committee including John Chafee (R-R.I.) and 
     John Breaux (D-La.) suggests giving up President Clinton's 
     nearly 100% goal and substituting a 95% coverage ``target'' 
     by the 2002. This approach is misguided because it fails to 
     confront either the large scale insecurity or the cost 
     escalation problems that have driven reform. Who will the 5% 
     left uncovered turn out to be? You? Me? The chronically ill? 
     The usually well? Only if we know the answers to these 
     questions would we know whether reform was likely to achieve 
     its major goals. The methods proposed to increase coverage if 
     it falls below the target percentage may also be misaimed--
     either ineffective (another study of the problem) or pointed 
     in the wrong direction (employer mandates, which would fizzle 
     if the uninsured were not workers).
       A continuing aversion to straight talk about paying for 
     reform. This was evident in President Clinton's original 
     proposal that employers pay for the health insurance of their 
     employees, reinforcing the delusion that because employers 
     write checks for health insurance, they bear the costs. Then 
     and now, it is we citizens who bear the costs, whether it's 
     through direct taxes, increased prices or forgone wages and 
     employment. The only relevant questions--then or now--concern 
     the fairness and sustainability of the distribution of the 
     costs. We will keep paying a steep price in confusion and 
     discord until this crucial matter is understood. Those who 
     want to avoid all mandates--individual or employer--have 
     given us a scheme that is truly illusory: Tax 40% of the 
     most expensive health-insurance plans to provide subsidies 
     for low- and moderate-income Americans. But people in 
     expensive plans may be there because they are ill, not 
     because they are rich. And the game-playing that will go 
     on by people trying to stay below the 60th percentile 
     ought to reemploy any insurance company personnel laid off 
     by other reforms.
       Forgetting about the cost-control problems that prompted 
     the reform movement in the first place. The continuing 
     escalation of health costs, which still threatens the 
     affordability of health insurance, has dropped out of the 
     vocabulary of compromise. Words like moderate or centrist 
     typically appear in descriptions of senators like Breaux, 
     Chafee, David Durenberger (R-Minn.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) 
     David Boren (D-Okla.) and others, but they don't fit the 
     reforms sponsored by them, because the contain no serious 
     approaches to cost control. Just as it does not make sense to 
     cross a chasm in two steps rather than a leap, it is 
     impossible to have workable health reform without slowing the 
     rate of expenditure increases.
       Is there a compromise that builds on agreed goals but 
     permits enough variation of means to assemble a majority for 
     reform? One possibility is state-led reform (in this, 
     California is a leader, with its modified single-payer 
     health-reform initiative on the November ballot). Congress 
     could pass legislation that provided federal assistance to 
     states that enacted universal coverage, insurance law reform 
     and reasonable controls on costs. This would leave states 
     free to choose which administrative and health-delivery 
     changes they wanted to implement. By mandating basic reform 
     principles without imposing their administration, state-led 
     reform builds on the reformers' consensus about goals while 
     allowing for wide differences in the means of achieving them.
       States already have a significant track record in health 
     reform, including Hawaii's near-universal coverage and 
     employer mandates. Given the diversity of states, their 
     varied experience with health care and intense local 
     preferences, why enact a single brand of national health 
     reform, especially if it's the poorly considered compromise 
     that we seem to be headed toward?
       By moving compromise in the direction of preserving goals 
     rather than defining means, we can allow states the further 
     thought and experimentation that are needed for effective 
     implementation.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, June 12, 1994]

                           50 Labs For Reform

              (By Jerry L. Mashaw and Theodore R. Marmor)

       New Haven.--The debate over health care reform has reached 
     a critical juncture. There is significant opposition in 
     Congress to the Clinton plan without anything like consensus 
     on an alternative.
       How can a workable version of national reform be enacted 
     when there's no majority for any single plan? The challenge 
     for reformers is to find a strategy that reflects the 
     political agreement on the goals of health reform as well as 
     the disagreements on solutions.
       The reformers are split into factions favoring managed 
     competition, a single-payer system, expansion of Medicare and 
     various hybrids of these approaches. But these divisions 
     should not obscure the broad agreement among reformers on 
     fundamental principles: universal coverage, reliable cost 
     containment and radical reform of health insurance practices.
       If a legislative proposal can be developed that brings 
     together all those serious about health reform--no matter 
     what option they favor--a majority can be created to overcome 
     the resistance of reform's opponents. The trick, then, is to 
     pursue legislation that builds on the reformers' common goals 
     while recognizing their differences on how to achieve them 
     administratively. One solution is the federalist option.
       After all, the states have already achieved more on reform 
     than Congress has. There is no reason to stop their progress, 
     and every reason to encourage it. The federalist approach 
     would set national standards for health insurance--that it be 
     universal and portable (not based on residence or 
     employment), cover all medical necessities and have effective 
     cost-containment methods plus clear accountability for the 
     quality of the overall system.
       Having done that, the Government could promise to continue 
     its current financial contributions to health care so long as 
     the states met its conditions for acceptable plans. That 
     would free states to experiment with any of the options the 
     Administration has outlined--or any others, either existing 
     or under development around the country.
       In short, Mr. Clinton and Congress could acknowledge that 
     medical organization and practices vary substantially in 
     different geographical areas, as do demographics and 
     political beliefs. They could develop a plan that motivated 
     state experimentation, rather than mandating a single system 
     for the entire country.
       Mr. Clinton could insist that national legislation--
     Medicare, Medicaid, the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act and the Internal Revenue Code--not get in the way of 
     state innovation, but nonetheless impose sanctions on states 
     that did not conform to broad national standards.
       This approach recognizes that the nation does not yet know 
     what works or will work everywhere. It would help the nation 
     learn from successes and failures while avoiding the possible 
     total failure of a plan imposed from Washington.
       If Congress adopts an unproven and untested version of the 
     Clinton plan and it turns out to be the health care 
     equivalent of a train wreck, it would be sensible not to have 
     the whole country on the same train at the same time.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Florida [Mr. Graham] for his extraordinary effort that has helped bring 
about this moment when we can introduce what I think is a passable 
Health Care Reform Act.
  The Senator from Florida has already outlined the simple five-point 
program--five points. It compares, of course, to the 1,400 page 
document that we have been wrestling with as representing the 
administration's proposal for health care reform. All of us, in our 
deep hearts, realize that it is almost impossible to comprehend, to 
define and to analyze every point of that comprehensive program.
  I want to begin by commending the President, Mr. Clinton, and to Mrs. 
Clinton who, in this particular time of our history, have given the 
country a great deal to think about. They have elevated this issue to 
the highest level of public discussion and debate, which is fundamental 
for any important piece of legislation; that is, to have public 
understanding and public support.
  I hear from my constituents a single theme, and that is: ``We don't 
understand it.'' It is comprehensive. It is complex. They do not know 
how it is going to affect them personally and they do not know how it 
is going to play out in the long term.
  Some of us who are burdened with age and also, thereby, with history, 
recall when we started the Medicare program many years ago with the 
Kerr-Mills bill. That was to set forth the first major step. In the 
Kerr-Mills bill, the States were authorized to move out and to make an 
assessment of need. I am proud to say that as Governor of Oregon, we 
were the first State to undertake that effort in that period of time.
  But unlike the intent of the Kerr-Mills when it was first authorized 
and approved, there were those who could not wait for that data, for 
that State assessment to come in to the Federal institution of Congress 
in order to make and devise a comprehensive Medicare bill.
  What happened? King-Anderson was introduced and that set the 
formulas, that set the criteria, that set the benefits, and it overrode 
and superseded the process started under Kerr-Mills. It was predicted 
at that time in the first 25 years of Medicare it would not cost more 
than $10 billion. Instead, it cost $65 billion, notwithstanding the 
fact that the process undertaken under Kerr-Mills could have produced a 
more reliable base upon which to build a Medicare program.
  Let us understand then that this year has not been unproductive. It 
has been very productive in elevating the issue and debating 
comprehensive health reform. But what Senator Graham of Florida and I 
are attempting to do is to reach back in history and prove the fact 
again that the States, under this great Federal system, have pioneered, 
have taken the lead on the most progressive, some of the finest 
legislation in the history of this Nation.
  It was the States that expanded first the franchise in expanding the 
democracy of our country, where, in the first instance, it was the 
white male property owner 21 years or older under the franchise. The 
States moved ahead. I am proud to say that that whole area of civil 
rights was at the State level. Oregon was the second State to have a 
Fair Employment Practice Act. We were one of the first States to have 
civil rights legislation. We were one of the first States to have 
initiative referendum and recall, broadening the base of our democracy. 
We were the first State to have environmental legislation. We made all 
of our beaches public access in 1912. We are celebrating our 54th year 
anniversary of a comprehensive Forest Management Conservation Program. 
That is long before the idea of the Environmental Protection Agency 
arose on the Federal level.
  Anywhere you look, you will find the States pioneering these great 
efforts. Now we are saying let us set up a framework to push the States 
that have been reluctant or to encourage those States to move into 
health care reform and demonstrate a track record of what will work and 
what will not work. Oregon is only one of the first, joined by New 
York, Washington, Hawaii, Connecticut--on and on--Minnesota.
  Let us encourage other States and take off the inhibitions and the 
difficulties, the impediments the Federal Government now places on 
those States that want to move out into health care reform, and then 
come back after a period of time and say, ``Let us assess that record, 
let us evaluate that experience, and, more precisely, let us define the 
Federal role based on the experience at the State level.''
  That is all we are asking for. The Federal Government has not been 
able to act and I doubt very much if, in the remaining days of this 
Congress, we will act on comprehensive health care reform. But let us 
free up the States that they may fill the vacuum, that they may move 
ahead, as they are trying to do now.
  We fought for almost a year to get a HCFA waiver for the State of 
Oregon to implement the Oregon Health Plan. We are still faced with the 
ERISA question. And we have to deal with those impediments now in place 
in the Federal Government lexicon of laws and give the States that 
freedom to move out under goals established and agreed to with the 
Federal Government.
  So I believe that this is a major contribution to the debate. I think 
it is also a significant first step that can be incrementally then 
assessed at the end of 5 years; $1 on tobacco tax, $65 billion will 
produce in the next 5 years to provide those grants to the States, to 
assist those States to move out. And at the same time, we are not 
forgetting the cornerstone of cost containment: Medical research, 
medical research that brings about cure, that brings about better 
treatment for those who are suffering from disease.
  That is the long-term answer to cost containment of medical problems 
and medical care: Cure them. I do not think when you look back at the 
record so far that the administration even recognized initially in 
their proposals the role of medical research. It was not until the 
night before the Republican task force announced the Republican plan 
that we were able to get the Republican task force to understand the 
importance of medical research.
  We are only funding about one-out-of-five medical research proposals 
today, 80 percent of them going unfunded. And yet we are on the 
threshold of many breakthroughs. Breast cancer gene isolation, 
Alzheimer's progress, heart disease, cancer, AIDS--all of these 
diseases have been moving with great rapidity, and now we are at a 
level where we are going to have to cut back; we are going to have to 
restrict that effort and that progress of research. It is criminal that 
when we can move these research projects to completion, that we are now 
faced with the question of funding. That is why we have made this a 
part of our package, one of the five points.
  I take great pleasure in associating myself with the Senator from 
Florida, Senator Graham, who has, like myself, been a Governor of a 
State. We know what the States are capable of doing. We have the 
history of what the States have contributed. Social Security was first 
tried in the States. The income tax was first tried in the States, and 
unemployment comp, and I could go on and repeat those many areas of our 
life today which were, first of all, proven at the State level, and the 
Federal Government's role was better defined as a partnership to expand 
those great experiments at the State level.
  Let us repeat that kind of historic progress that we can cite, and I 
believe this is the way to move medical reform ahead more quickly, more 
sensibly, and certainly with far less costs than any of the bills that 
we are looking at today in the Congress. In our rush to ``federalize'' 
health care reform, we may well have overlooked the best opportunity we 
have--federalism.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2453. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act, and animal quarantine laws to provide for 
improved public health and food safety through the reduction of 
pathogens, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                       the pathogen reduction act

 Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, along with Chairman Leahy, 
I am introducing the Clinton administration's Pathogen Reduction Act of 
1994. This act proposes important, concrete steps designed to enable 
the meat inspection system to address the incidence of human pathogens 
in our meat supply--such as E. coli. 0157:H7 and salmonella. By 
creating the framework for a meat and poultry inspection system based 
upon sound science and technology, this legislation sets the stage for 
bringing our inspection program into the modern area.
  Before turning to the content of the act, I would like to commend 
Senator Leahy, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee for his 
longstanding leadership on food safety, which has been critical in 
bringing us to this point. The chairman's persistence on this issue has 
been responsible for keeping it at the top of the Agriculture 
Committee's agenda, and he will surely play a key role in securing the 
timely passage of this legislation.
  Secretary Espy and the officials at USDA who prepared this 
legislation also deserve great credit. With this proposal, Secretary 
Espy is making good on his promise to modernize and improve the 
Nation's food safety inspection system. The Clinton administration has 
done more to modernize meat and poultry inspection in the last 2 years 
than any previous administration has done since the creation of the 
inspection system. This legislation is a continuation of the efforts 
made during the last 2 years.
  The journey to this point began 1\1/2\ years ago with the outbreak of 
E. Coli 0157:H7 related illnesses in Washington State, Idaho, and 
California. That outbreak caused over 500 people to become ill and 48 
people to develop and potentially lethal hemolytic uremic syndrome. 
And, most tragically, it caused four young children to lose their 
lives. This painful catastrophe shocked the Nation and served as a 
warning that our meat and poultry inspection system contains dangerous 
flaws that we can no longer afford to ignore.
  Since that date, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee 
on Conservation, Research, Forestry, and General Legislation, I have 
made evaluation and reform of the inspection system a priority. Over 
the past year and a half, the subcommittee has held four hearings to 
gather the input necessary to correct the problems in the present 
system. In the legislation we are introducing today, we see the 
promising culmination of that long and frequently disturbing process.
  The Pathogen Reduction Act would give the Secretary the authority to 
trace food-borne illnesses to their source, to recall contaminated meat 
and poultry products, to impose civil penalties for those who do not 
follow proper procedures, to set acceptable pathogen standards for meat 
and poultry products, and to require that imported meat and poultry 
products live up to the same standards required of domestic products. 
It so doing, it delivers on Secretary Espy's pledge before my 
subcommittee in February 1993, 3 days after the E. coli. 0157:H7 
outbreak in the Pacific Northwest, to support creation of a farm-to-
table meat and poultry inspection system that reassures the public that 
the meat and poultry products they consume are safe.
  This proposal is good news for consumers. However, we should also not 
overlook the benefits it offers our Nation's livestock producers.
  I have often said that a faulty and lax food safety inspection system 
creates no winners, only losers. The most visible losers are the 
victims of foodborne illness. However, livestock producers lose as 
well.
  Outbreaks of foodborne pathogen related illness erode consumer 
confidence in meat and poultry products and encourage consumers to 
reduce their consumption of these wholesome and delicious products. 
Consequently, demand for meat and poultry products decreases, 
translating into lower prices at the marketplace and lower net farm 
income.
  This legislation will help protect farmers' markets by reassuring 
consumers that we have done everything possible to ensure the safety of 
meat and poultry products free of human pathogens.
  Now it is time for Congress to take this promising initiative, 
evaluate its details and craft a final package that can be sent to the 
President. If we do not move legislation this year, we are running the 
risk of continued outbreaks of foodborne disease caused by human 
pathogens such as E.coli 0157. I, for one, don't want to take that 
risk. And I don't think anyone else in this body or in the agricultural 
community does either.
  I am pleased to note that an identical piece of legislation has 
already been introduced in the House by Representative Charlie 
Stenholm, paving the way for rapid action by that body.
  In the Senate, I intend to help Chairman Leahy move this legislation 
quickly and hope we can complete our job before adjournment. The 
American people and the American farmer cannot afford further delays.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2453

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       Section 1. This Act may be cited as ``The Pathogen 
     Reduction Act of 1994''.

                                TITLE I


                          legislative findings

       Sec. 101. The Congress finds that:
       (a) Pathogens are a significant source of foodborne illness 
     associated with meat, meat food products, poultry, and 
     poultry products.
       (b) Proper handling of meat or products of cattle, sheep, 
     swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines, or poultry 
     products which may bear or contain human pathogens is 
     necessary to prevent foodborne illness.
       (c) Livestock and poultry producers, handlers, processors, 
     distributors, transporters, and retailers all share 
     responsibility in handling livestock, meat, meat food 
     products, poultry, and poultry products in such a way as to 
     protect the public health.
       (d) The distribution of meat, meat food products, poultry, 
     or poultry products which could be injurious to the public 
     health because they contain human pathogens, would impair the 
     effective regulation of wholesome meat, meat food products, 
     poultry, or poultry products in interstate and foreign 
     commerce and would destroy markets for wholesome products.
       (e) In order to reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses and 
     protect public health, a concerted effort is required on the 
     part of regulatory authorities and all parties involved in 
     the production and handling of meat, meat food products, 
     poultry, or poultry products to address the problem of 
     microbial contamination using the best available scientific 
     information and appropriate technology.
       (f) All articles and other animals which are subject to 
     this Act are either in interstate or foreign commerce or 
     substantially affect such commerce, and regulation by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and cooperation by the States as 
     contemplated by this Act are necessary to prevent or 
     eliminate burdens upon such commerce and to protect the 
     health and welfare of consumers.


             amendments to the federal meat inspection act

       Sec. 102. The Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601, 
     et seq.) is amended:
       (1) In section 1 (21 U.S.C. 601), by adding a definition of 
     ``official establishment'' to read as follows:
       ``(w) The term `official establishment' means any 
     establishment as determined by the Secretary at which 
     inspection of the slaughter of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, 
     mules, and other equines, or the processing of meat and meat 
     food products of such animals, is maintained under authority 
     of this Act.'';
       (2) In section 3(a) (21 U.S.C. 603(a)), by inserting ``on 
     the basis of the best available scientific and technologic 
     data, and evaluation of the risks posed to public health and 
     safety,'' after the words ``That hereafter,''.
       (3) In section 4 (21 U.S.C. 604), by inserting ``, on the 
     basis of the best available scientific and technologic data, 
     and evaluation of the risks posed to public health and 
     safety,'' after the words ``That for the purposes 
     hereinbefore set forth''.
       (4) In section 301(c)(1), (21 U.S.C. 661(c)(1)), by 
     inserting ``or by thirty days prior to the expiration of two 
     years after enactment of the Pathogen Reduction Act of 
     1994,'' after the words ``the Wholesome Meat Act,''.
       (5) In section 301(c), (21 U.S.C. 661(c)), by deleting 
     ``titles I and IV'', ``title I and title IV'', and ``title I 
     and IV'', wherever they appear and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``titles I, IV, and V''.
       (6) By adding at the end thereof a new title V to read as 
     follows:

                     ``TITLE V--PATHOGEN REDUCTION

       ``Sec. 501. (a) The Secretary is directed upon the basis of 
     the best available scientific and technologic data, as 
     determined by the Secretary, to prescribe by regulation such 
     actions as the Secretary deems necessary to--
       ``(1) limit the presence of human pathogens in cattle, 
     sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines at the 
     time they are presented for slaughter;
       ``(2) ensure that appropriate measures are taken to control 
     the presence and growth of human pathogens on carcasses and 
     parts thereof and on meat or meat food products derived from 
     such animals prepared in any official establishment;
       ``(3) ensure that all ready-to-eat meat or meat food 
     products prepared in any official establishment preparing any 
     such article for distribution in commerce are processed in 
     such a manner as to destroy any human pathogens likely to 
     cause foodborne illness; and
       ``(4) ensure that meat and meat food products other than 
     those included in subsection (a)(3) of this section prepared 
     any official establishment preparing any such article for 
     distribution in commerce are labeled with instructions for 
     handling and preparation for consumption which, when adhered 
     to, destroy any human pathogens likely to cause foodborne 
     illness.
       ``(b) Carcasses or parts thereof and meat or meat food 
     products prepared at any official establishment preparing any 
     such article for distribution in commerce which are found not 
     to be in compliance with the regulations promulgated under 
     subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of this section shall be 
     considered adulterated and condemned and shall, if no appeal 
     be taken from such determination of condemnation, be 
     destroyed for human food purposes under the supervision of an 
     inspector: Provided, That carcasses or parts thereof, and 
     meat and meat food products which are not in compliance with 
     subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of this section, but 
     which may by processing, labeling, or both, as applicable, in 
     accordance with subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of this 
     section be made not adulterated need not be condemned and 
     destroyed if so reprocessed, labeled, or both, as applicable 
     and as determined by the Secretary, under the supervision of 
     an inspector and thereafter inspected and found to be not 
     adulterated. If an appeal be taken from such determination of 
     condemnation, the carcasses or parts thereof, or meat and 
     meat food products shall be appropriately marked, segregated 
     and held by the official establishment pending completion of 
     an appeal inspection. If the determination of condemnation is 
     sustained, the carcasses or parts thereof, and meat and meat 
     food products if not so reprocessed, labeled, or both, as 
     applicable, as to be made not adulterated shall be destroyed 
     for human food purposes under the supervision of a duly 
     authorized representative of the Secretary.
       ``(c) The Secretary shall, within two years of the 
     enactment of this Act, issue regulations that--
       ``(1) require meat and meat food products prepared in any 
     official establishment to be tested, in such manner and with 
     such frequency as the Secretary deems necessary, to identify 
     human disease-causing pathogens or markers for these 
     pathogens in the meat and meat food products;
       ``(2) require that the results of any test conducted in 
     accordance with subsection (c)(1) of this section be reported 
     to the Secretary, in such manner and with such frequency as 
     the Secretary deems necessary;
       ``(3) establish, to the maximum extent scientifically 
     supportable, levels of human pathogens that, when found on 
     meat or meat food products prepared in official 
     establishments, constitute a threat to public health. When 
     making decisions regarding specific human pathogen levels, 
     the Secretary shall consider the risk to human health, 
     including the risk to infants, the elderly, persons whose 
     immune systems are compromised, and other population 
     subgroups, posed by consumption of the meat or meat food 
     products containing the human pathogen; and
       ``(4) prohibit or restrict the sale, transportation, offer 
     for sale or transportation, or receipt for transportation of 
     any meat or meat food products that--
       ``(A) are capable of use as human food, and
       ``(B) exceed the levels of human pathogens established in 
     accordance with subsection (c)(3) of this section.
       ``(d)(1) The Secretary shall, as the Secretary deems 
     necessary and feasible, conduct or support appropriate 
     research regarding the establishment of levels of human 
     pathogens that when found on meat and meat food products 
     prepared in official establishments constitute a threat to 
     public health and shall conduct studies to validate these 
     levels.
       ``(2) The Secretary is directed to review, on a regular 
     basis, all regulations, processes, procedures and methods 
     designed to limit and control human pathogens on carcasses 
     and parts thereof and on meat or meat food products. This on-
     gong review shall include, as necessary, epidemiologic and 
     other scientific studies to ascertain the efficiency and 
     efficacy of such regulations, processes, procedures and 
     methods.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall consult with the Public Health 
     Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 
     Food and Drug Administration, and any other State or Federal 
     public health agency the Secretary deems necessary in order 
     to carry out subsections (c)(1), (c)(3), (d)(1), and (d)(2) 
     of this section.


   ``NOTIFICATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND RECALL REGARDING NONCONFORMING 
                                ARTICLES

       ``Sec. 502. (a) Any person, firm, or corporation preparing 
     carcasses or parts thereof, meat or meat food products for 
     distribution in commerce which obtains knowledge providing a 
     reasonable basis for believing that any carcasses or parts 
     thereof or any meat or meat food products--
       ``(1) are adulterated, or not produced in compliance with 
     section 501(a) of this Act or the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder; or
       ``(2) are misbranded, shall immediately notify the 
     Secretary, in such manner and by such means as the Secretary 
     may by regulation prescribe, of the identity and location of 
     such articles.
       ``(b) If the Secretary finds, upon such notification or 
     otherwise, that any carcasses or parts thereof or any meat or 
     meat food products--
       ``(1) are adulterated or not produced in compliance with 
     section 501(a) of this Act or the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder and that there is a reasonable probability that 
     human consumption of such articles present a threat to the 
     public health, as determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(2) are misbranded, the Secretary shall provide the 
     appropriate person, firm, or corporation with an opportunity 
     to cease distribution of such articles; notify all persons, 
     firms, or corporations transporting or distributing such 
     articles or to which such articles were shipped or sold to 
     immediately cease distribution of such articles; and to 
     recall the articles. If the person, firm, or corporation 
     refuses to voluntarily cease distribution, make notification, 
     and recall the articles or does not voluntarily cease 
     distribution, make notification, and recall the articles 
     within the time or in the manner prescribed by the Secretary, 
     the Secretary shall immediately issue an order requiring the 
     person, firm, or corporation (including the official 
     establishment which prepared the articles), as the Secretary 
     deems necessary to: immediately cease distribution of such 
     articles; and immediately notify all persons, firms, or 
     corporations transporting or distributing such articles or to 
     which such articles were shipped or sold to immediately cease 
     distribution of such articles. The order shall provide any 
     person, firm, or corporation subject to the order with an 
     opportunity for an informal hearing, to be held not later 
     than 5 days after the date of the issuance of the order, on 
     the actions required by the order and on whether the order 
     should be amended to require recall of such articles. If, 
     after providing an opportunity for such a hearing, the 
     Secretary determines that inadequate grounds exist to support 
     the actions required by the order, the Secretary shall vacate 
     the order.
       ``(c) If, after providing an opportunity for an informal 
     hearing under subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary 
     determines that the articles that are the subject of an order 
     under subsection (b) of this section must be recalled, the 
     Secretary shall amend the order to require a recall. The 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(1) specify a timetable in which the recall will occur;
       ``(2) require periodic reports to the Secretary describing 
     the progress of the recall; and
       ``(3) provide for notice to consumers to whom such articles 
     were, or may have been distributed as to how they should 
     treat the article.


                         ``livestock traceback

       ``Sec. 503. (a) For the purpose of limiting the risk of 
     foodborne illness from carcasses and parts thereof and meat 
     and meat food products distributed in commerce, the Secretary 
     shall, as the Secretary deems necessary, prescribe by 
     regulation that cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, 
     and other equines presented for slaughter for human food 
     purposes be identified in the manner prescribed by the 
     Secretary to enable the Secretary to trace each animal to any 
     premises at which it has been held for such period prior to 
     slaughter that the Secretary deems necessary to effectuate 
     the purposes of this Act. The Secretary may prohibit or 
     restrict entry into any slaughtering establishment inspected 
     under this Act of any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, 
     mules, or other equines not identified as prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) The Secretary is authorized to require that all 
     persons, firms, and corporations required to identify 
     livestock pursuant to subsection (a) of this section maintain 
     accurate records, as prescribed by the Secretary, regarding 
     the purchase, sale, and identification such livestock; and 
     all persons, firms, and corporations subject to such 
     requirements shall, at all reasonable times, upon notice by a 
     duly authorized representative of the Secretary, afford such 
     representative access to their places of business and 
     opportunity to examine the records thereof, and to copy any 
     such records. Any such record required to be maintained by 
     this section shall be maintained for such period of time as 
     the Secretary prescribes.
       ``(c) No person, firm, or corporation shall falsify or 
     misrepresent to any other person, firm, or corporation, or to 
     the Secretary, any information as to any premises at which 
     any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other 
     equines, or carcasses thereof, were held.
       ``(d) No person, firm, or corporation shall, without 
     authorization from the Secretary, alter, detach, or destroy 
     any records or other means of identification prescribed by 
     the Secretary for use in determining the premises at which 
     were held any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or 
     other equines, or the carcasses thereof.
       ``(e)(1) If the Secretary finds any human pathogen or any 
     residue in any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or 
     other equines at the time they are presented for slaughter or 
     in any carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, or meat food 
     product prepared in an official establishment and the 
     Secretary finds that there is a reasonable probability that 
     human consumption of any meat or meat food product containing 
     the human pathogen or residue presents a threat to public 
     health, the Secretary may take such action as the Secretary 
     deems necessary to determine the source of the human pathogen 
     or residue.
       ``(2) If the Secretary identifies the source of any human 
     pathogen or residue described in subsection (e)(1) of this 
     section, the Secretary is authorized to prohibit or restrict 
     the movement of any animals, carcasses, parts of carcasses, 
     meat, meat food product, or any other article from any source 
     of the human pathogen or residue until the Secretary 
     determines that the human pathogen or residue at the source 
     no longer presents a threat to public health.
       ``(f)(1) The Secretary shall use any means of 
     identification and recordkeeping methods utilized by 
     producers or handlers of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, 
     mules, or other equines whenever the Secretary determines 
     that such means of identification and recordkeeping methods 
     will enable the Secretary to carry out the purposes of this 
     section.
       ``(2) The Secretary is authorized to cooperate with 
     producers or handlers of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, 
     mules, or other equines, in which any human pathogen or 
     residue described in subsection (e)(1) of this section is 
     found, to develop and implement methods to limit or eliminate 
     the human pathogen or residue at the source.


                 ``refusal or withdrawal of inspection

       ``Sec. 504. (a) The Secretary may for such period, or 
     indefinitely, as the Secretary deems necessary to effectuate 
     the purposes of this Act, refuse to provide, or withdraw, 
     inspection service under title I of this Act with respect to 
     any official establishment if the Secretary determines, after 
     opportunity for a hearing is accorded to the applicant for, 
     or recipient of, such service, that the applicant or 
     recipient, or any person responsibly connected with the 
     applicant or recipient, has repeatedly failed to comply with 
     the requirements of this Act or the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder.
       ``(b) The Secretary may direct that, pending opportunity 
     for an expedited hearing with respect to any refusal or 
     withdrawal of inspection service and the final determination 
     and order under subsection (a) of this section and any 
     judicial review thereof, inspection service shall be denied 
     or suspended if the Secretary deems such action necessary in 
     the public interest in order to protect the health or welfare 
     of consumers or to assure the safe and effective performance 
     of official duties under this Act.
       ``(c) The determination and order of the Secretary with 
     respect to withdrawal or refusal of inspection service under 
     this section shall be final and conclusive unless the 
     affected applicant for, or recipient of, inspection service 
     files application for judicial review within 30 days after 
     the effective date of the order; and inspection service shall 
     be withdrawn or refused as of the effective date of the order 
     pending any judicial review of the order unless the Secretary 
     directs otherwise. Judicial review of any such order shall be 
     in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in 
     which the applicant for, or recipient of, inspection service 
     has its principal place of business or in the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and 
     shall be upon the record upon which the determination and 
     order are based. The provisions of section 204 of the Packers 
     and Stockyards Act, 1921 (42 Stat. 162, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 
     194), shall be applicable to appeals taken under this 
     section.
       ``(d) The provisions of this section shall be in addition 
     to and not derogate from any other provision of this Act for 
     refusal, withdrawal, or suspension of inspection service 
     under title I of this Act.


                           ``civil penalties

       ``Sec. 505. (a) Any person, firm, or corporation which 
     violates any provision of this Act, any regulation issued 
     under this Act, or any order issued under section 502(b) or 
     (c) of this Act may be assessed a civil penalty by the 
     Secretary of not more than $100,000 per day of violation. 
     Each offense shall be a separate violation. No penalty shall 
     be assessed unless such person, firm, or corporation is given 
     notice and opportunity for a hearing on the record before the 
     Secretary in accordance with sections 554 and 556 of title 5, 
     United States Code. The amount of such civil penalty shall be 
     assessed by the Secretary by written order, taking into 
     account the gravity of the violation, degree of culpability, 
     and history of prior offenses; and may be reviewed only as 
     provided in subsection (b) of this section.
       ``(b) Any person, firm, or corporation against whom such 
     violation is found and a civil penalty assessed by order of 
     the Secretary under subsection (a) of this section may obtain 
     review in the Court of Appeals of the United States for the 
     circuit in which such party resides or has a place of 
     business or in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit by filing a notice of appeal in 
     such Court within 30 days from the date of such order and by 
     simultaneously sending a copy of such notice by certified 
     mail to the Secretary. The Secretary shall promptly file in 
     such Court a certified copy of the record upon which such 
     violation was found and such penalty assessed. The findings 
     of the Secretary shall be set aside only if found to be 
     unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
       ``(c) If any person, firm, or corporation fails to pay an 
     assessment of a civil penalty after it has become a final and 
     unappealable order, or after the appropriate Court of Appeals 
     has entered final judgment in favor of the Secretary, the 
     Secretary shall refer the matter to the Attorney General, who 
     shall institute a civil action to recover the amount assessed 
     in any appropriate district court of the United States. In 
     such collection action, the validity and appropriateness of 
     the Secretary's order imposing the civil penalty shall not be 
     subject to review.
       ``(d) All penalties collected under authority of this 
     section shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States.
       ``(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring 
     the Secretary to report for criminal prosecution or for the 
     institution of libel or injunction proceedings, violations of 
     this Act, whenever the Secretary believes that the public 
     interest will be adequately served by assessment of civil 
     penalties. Furthermore, the Secretary may, in the Secretary's 
     discretion, compromise, modify, or remit, with or without 
     conditions, any civil penalty assessed under this section.''.


           AMENDMENTS TO THE POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT

       Sec. 103. The Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
     451 et seq.) is Amended:
       (1) In section 5(c) (21 U.S.C. 454(c)), by deleting ``and 
     12-22 of this Act'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``12-22, 
     and 30-34 of this Act''.
       (2) In section 5(c)(1) (21 U.S.C. 454(c)(1)), by inserting 
     ``or by thirty days prior to the expiration of two years 
     after enactment of the Pathogen Reduction Act of 1994,'' 
     after the words ``the Wholesome Poultry Products Act,''.
       (3) In section 6(a) (21 U.S.C. 455(a)), by inserting ``on 
     the basis of the best available scientific and technologic 
     data, and evaluation of the risks posed to public health and 
     safety,'' after the word ``necessary''.
       (4) In section 6(b) (21 U.S.C. 455(b)), by inserting ``on 
     the basis of the best available scientific and technologic 
     data, and evaluation of the risks posed to public health and 
     safety,'' after the words ``The Secretary,''.
       (5) By adding at the end thereof new sections 30 through 34 
     as follows:


                          ``PATHOGEN REDUCTION

       ``Sec. 30. (a) The Secretary is directed upon the basis of 
     the best available scientific and technologic data, as 
     determined by the Secretary, to prescribe by regulation such 
     actions as the Secretary deems necessary to--
       ``(1) limit the presence of human pathogens in poultry at 
     the time they are presented for slaughter;
       ``(2) ensure the appropriate means are taken to control the 
     presence and growth of human pathogens on poultry or poultry 
     products prepared in any official establishment;
       ``(3) ensure that all ready-to-eat poultry and poultry 
     products prepared in any official establishment preparing any 
     such article for distribution in commerce are processed in 
     such a manner as to destroy any human pathogens likely to 
     cause foodborne illness; and
       ``(4) ensure that poultry and poultry products other than 
     those included in subsection (a)(3) of this section prepared 
     at any official establishment preparing any such article for 
     distribution in commerce are labeled with instructions for 
     handling and preparation for consumption which, when adhered 
     to, destroy any human pathogens likely to cause foodborne 
     illness.
       ``(b) Poultry or poultry products prepared at any official 
     establishment preparing any such article for distribution in 
     commerce which are found not to be in compliance with the 
     regulations promulgated under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), or 
     (a)(4) of this section shall be considered adulterated and 
     condemned and shall, if no appeal be taken from such 
     determination of condemnation, be destroyed for human food 
     purposes under the supervision of an inspector: Provided, 
     That poultry and poultry products which are not in compliance 
     with subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of this section but 
     which may by reprocessing, labeling, or both, as applicable, 
     in accordance with subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4) of 
     this section be made not adulterated need not be condemned 
     and destroyed if so reprocessed, labeled, or both, as 
     applicable and as determined by the Secretary, under the 
     supervision of an inspector and thereafter inspected and 
     found to be not adulterated. If an appeal be taken from such 
     determination of condemnation, the poultry or poultry 
     products shall be appropriately marked, segregated, and held 
     by the official establishment pending completion of an appeal 
     inspection. If the determination of condemnation is 
     sustained, the poultry and poultry products if not so 
     reprocessed, labeled, or both, as applicable, as to be made 
     not adulterated shall be destroyed for human food purposes 
     under the supervision of a duly authorized representative of 
     the Secretary.
       ``(c) The Secretary shall, within two years of the 
     enactment of this Act, issue regulations that--
       ``(1) require poultry and poultry products prepared in any 
     official establishment to be tested, in such manner and with 
     such frequency as the Secretary deems necessary, to identify 
     human disease-causing pathogens or markers for these 
     pathogens in the poultry and poultry products;
       ``(2) require that the results of any test conducted in 
     accordance with subsection (c)(1) of this section be reported 
     to the Secretary, in such manner and with such frequency as 
     the Secretary deems necessary;
       ``(3) establish, to the maximum extent scientifically 
     supportable, levels of human pathogens that, when found on 
     poultry and poultry products prepared in official 
     establishments, constitute a threat to public health. When 
     making decisions regarding specific human pathogen levels, 
     the Secretary shall consider the risk to human health, 
     including the risk to infants, the elderly, persons whose 
     immune systems are compromised, and other population 
     subgroups, posed by consumption of the poultry or poultry 
     products containing the human pathogen; and
       ``(4) prohibit or restrict the sale, transportation, offer 
     for sale or transportation, or receipt for transportation of 
     any poultry or poultry products that--
       ``(A) are capable of use as human food, and
       ``(B) exceed the levels of human pathogens established in 
     accordance with subsection (c)(3) of this section.
       ``(d)(1) The Secretary shall, as the Secretary deems 
     necessary and feasible, conduct or support appropriate 
     research regarding the establishment of levels of human 
     pathogens that when found on poultry and poultry products 
     prepared in official establishments constitute a threat to 
     public health and shall conduct studies to validate these 
     levels.
       ``(2) The Secretary is directed to review, on a regular 
     basis, all regulations, processes, procedures and methods 
     designed to limit and control human pathogens on poultry and 
     poultry products. This ongoing review shall include, as 
     necessary, epidemiologic and other scientific studies to 
     ascertain the efficiency and efficacy of such regulations, 
     processes, procedures and methods.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall consult with the Public Health 
     Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 
     Food and Drug Administration, and any other State or Federal 
     public health agency the Secretary deems necessary in order 
     to carry out subsections (c)(1), (c)(3), (d)(1), and (d)(2) 
     of this section.


   ``notification, distribution, and recall regarding nonconforming 
                                articles

       ``Sec. 31. (a) Any person preparing poultry or poultry 
     products for distribution in commerce which obtains knowledge 
     providing a reasonable basis for believing that any poultry 
     or poultry products--
       ``(1) are adulterated or not produced in compliance with 
     section 30(a) of this Act or the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder; or
       ``(2) are misbranded, shall immediately notify the 
     Secretary, in such manner and by such means as the Secretary 
     may be regulation prescribe, of the identity and location of 
     such poultry or poultry products.
       ``(b) If the Secretary finds, upon such notification or 
     otherwise, that any poultry or poultry products--
       ``(1) are adulterated or not produced in compliance with 
     section 30(a) of this Act or the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder and that there is a reasonable probability that 
     human consumption of such articles present to threat to the 
     public health, as determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(2) are misbranded, the Secretary shall provide the 
     appropriate person with an opportunity to cease distribution 
     of such articles; notify all persons, firms, or corporations 
     transporting or distributing such articles or to which such 
     articles were shipped or sold to immediately cease 
     distribution of such articles; and to recall the articles. If 
     the person refuses to voluntarily cease distribution, make 
     notification, and recall the articles or does not voluntarily 
     cease distribution, make notification, and recall the 
     articles within the time or in the manner prescribed by the 
     Secretary, the Secretary shall immediately issue an order 
     requiring the person (including the official establishment 
     which prepared the articles), as the Secretary deems 
     necessary to: immediately cease distribution of such 
     articles; and immediately notify all persons, firms, or 
     corporations transporting or distributing such articles or to 
     which such articles were shipped or sold to immediately cease 
     distribution of such articles. The order shall provide any 
     person subject to the order with an opportunity for an 
     informal hearing, to be held not later than 5 days after the 
     date of the issuance of the order, on the actions required by 
     the order and on whether the order should be amended to 
     require recall of such articles. If, after providing an 
     opportunity for such a hearing, the Secretary determines that 
     inadequate grounds exist to support the actions required by 
     the order, the Secretary shall vacate the order.
       ``(c) If, after providing an opportunity for an informal 
     hearing under subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary 
     determines that the articles that are the subject of an order 
     under subsection (b) of this section must be recalled, the 
     Secretary shall amend the order to require a recall. The 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(1) specify a timetable in which the recall will occur;
       ``(2) require periodic reports to the Secretary describing 
     the progress of the recall; and
       ``(3) provide for notice to consumers to whom such articles 
     were, or may have been, distributed as to how they should 
     treat the article.


                          ``poultry traceback

       ``Sec. 32. (a) For the purpose of limiting the risk of 
     foodborne illness from poultry and poultry products 
     distributed in commerce, the Secretary shall, as the 
     Secretary deems necessary, prescribe by regulation that 
     poultry presented for slaughter for human food purposes be 
     identified in the manner prescribed by the Secretary to 
     enable the Secretary to trace each bird to any premises at 
     which it has been held for such period prior to slaughter 
     that the Secretary deems necessary to effectuate the purposes 
     of this Act. The Secretary may prohibit or restrict entry 
     into any slaughtering establishment inspected under this Act 
     of any poultry not identified as prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(b) The Secretary is authorized to require that all 
     persons required to identify poultry pursuant to subsection 
     (a) of this section, maintain accurate records, as prescribed 
     by the Secretary, regarding the purchase, sale, and 
     identification of such poultry; and all persons subject to 
     such requirements shall, at all reasonable times, upon notice 
     by a duly authorized representative of the Secretary, afford 
     such representative access to their places of business and 
     opportunity to examine the records thereof, and to copy any 
     such records. Any such record required to be maintained by 
     this section shall be maintained for such period of time as 
     the Secretary prescribes.
       ``(c) No person shall falsify or misrepresent to any other 
     person or to the Secretary, any information as to any 
     premises at which any poultry, or the carcasses thereof, were 
     held.
       ``(d) No person shall, without authorization from the 
     Secretary, alter, detach, or destroy any records or other 
     means of identification prescribed by the Secretary for use 
     in determining the premises at which were held any poultry or 
     carcasses thereof.
       ``(e)(1) If the Secretary finds any human pathogen or any 
     residue in any poultry at the time they are presented for 
     slaughter or in any poultry carcasses, parts of poultry 
     carcasses, or poultry products prepared in an official 
     establishment and the Secretary finds that there is a 
     reasonable probability that human consumption of any poultry 
     or poultry product containing the human pathogen or residue 
     presents a threat to public health, the Secretary may take 
     such action as the Secretary deems necessary to determine the 
     source of the human pathogen or residue.
       ``(2) If the Secretary identifies the source of any human 
     pathogen or residue described in subsection (e)(1) of this 
     section, the Secretary is authorized to prohibit or restrict 
     the movement of any poultry, poultry carcasses, parts of 
     poultry carcasses, poultry product, or any other article from 
     any source of the human pathogen or residue until the 
     Secretary determines that the human pathogen or residue at 
     the source no longer presents a threat to public health.
       ``(f)(1) The Secretary shall use any means of 
     identification and record keeping methods utilized by 
     producers or handlers of poultry whenever such means of 
     identification and record keeping methods will enable the 
     Secretary to carry out the purposes of this section.
       ``(2) The Secretary is authorized to cooperate with 
     producers or handlers of poultry, in which any human pathogen 
     or residue described in subsection (e)(1) of this section is 
     found, to develop and implement methods to limit or eliminate 
     the human pathogen or residue at the source.


                 ``Refusal or withdrawal of inspection

       ``Sec. 33. (a) The Secretary may for such period, or 
     indefinitely, as the Secretary deems necessary to effectuate 
     the purposes of this Act, refuse to provide, or withdraw, 
     inspection service under this Act with respect to any 
     official establishment if the Secretary determines, after 
     opportunity for a hearing is accorded to the applicant for, 
     or recipient of, such service, that the applicant or 
     recipient, or any person responsibly connected with the 
     applicant or recipient, has repeatedly failed to comply with 
     the requirements of this Act or the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder.
       ``(b) The Secretary may direct that, pending opportunity 
     for an expedited hearing with respect to any refusal or 
     withdrawal of inspection service and the final determination 
     and order under subsection (a) of this section and any 
     judicial review thereof, inspection service shall be denied 
     or suspended if the Secretary deems such action necessary in 
     the public interest in order to protect the health or welfare 
     of consumers or to assure the safe and effective performance 
     of official duties under this Act.
       ``(c) The determination and order of the Secretary with 
     respect to withdrawal or refusal of inspection service under 
     this section shall be final and conclusive unless the 
     affected applicant for, or recipient of, inspection service 
     files application for judicial review within 30 days after 
     the effective date of the order; and inspection service shall 
     be withdrawn or refused as of the effective date of the order 
     pending any judicial review of the order unless the Secretary 
     directs otherwise. Judicial review of any such order shall be 
     in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in 
     which the applicant for, or recipient of, inspection service 
     has its principal place of business or in the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and 
     shall be upon the record upon which the determination and 
     order are based. The provisions of section 204 of the Packers 
     and Stockyards Act, 1921 (42 Stat. 162, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 
     194), shall be applicable to appeals taken under this 
     section.
       ``(d) The provisions of this section shall be in addition 
     to and not derogate from any other provision of this Act for 
     refusal, withdrawal, or suspension of inspection service 
     under this Act.


                           ``CIVIL PENALTIES

       ``Sec. 34. (a) Any person which violates any provision of 
     this Act, any regulation issued under this Act, or any order 
     issued under section 31(b) or (c) of this Act may be assessed 
     a civil penalty by the Secretary of not more than $100,000 
     per day of violation. Each offense shall be a separate 
     violation. No penalty shall be assessed unless such person is 
     given notice and opportunity for a hearing on the record 
     before the Secretary in accordance with sections 554 and 556 
     of title 5, United States Code. The amount of such civil 
     penalty shall be assessed by the Secretary by written order, 
     taking into account the gravity of the violation, degree of 
     culpability, and history of prior offenses; and may be 
     reviewed only as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
       ``(b) Any person against whom such violation is found and a 
     civil penalty assessed by order of the Secretary under 
     subsection (a) of this section may obtain review in the Court 
     of Appeals of the United States for the circuit in which such 
     party resides or has a place of business or in the United 
     States Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit 
     by filing a notice of appeal in such Court within 30 days 
     from the date of such order and by simultaneously sending a 
     copy of such notice by certified mail to the Secretary. The 
     Secretary shall promptly file in such Court a certified copy 
     of the record upon which such violation was found and such 
     penalty assessed. The findings of the Secretary shall be set 
     aside only if found to be unsupported by substantial evidence 
     on the record as a whole.
       ``(c) If any person fails to pay an assessment of a civil 
     penalty after if has become a final and unappealable order, 
     or after the appropriate Court of Appeals has entered final 
     judgment in favor of the Secretary, the Secretary shall refer 
     the matter to the Attorney General, who shall institute a 
     civil action to recover the amount assessed in any 
     appropriate district court of the United States. In such 
     collection action, the validity and appropriateness of the 
     Secretary's order imposing the civil penalty shall not be 
     subject to review.
       ``(d) All penalties collected under authority of this 
     section shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States.
       ``(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring 
     the Secretary to report for criminal prosecution or for the 
     institution of libel or injunction proceedings, violations of 
     this Act, whenever the Secretary believes that the public 
     interest will be adequately served by assessment of civil 
     penalties. Furthermore, the Secretary may, in the Secretary's 
     discretion, compromise, modify, or remit, with or without 
     conditions, any civil penalty assessed under this section.

                                TITLE II

       Sec. 201. Section 1 of the Act of July 2, 1962 (21 U.S.C. 
     134), is amended by adding a new subsection (e) to read:
       ``(e) The term `disease' means any disease of livestock or 
     poultry, both infectious and non-infectious, and any other 
     health-related condition that may be transmitted by livestock 
     or poultry or their products to other animals or humans.''.
       Sec. 202. Section 2(a) of the Act of July 2, 1962 (21 
     U.S.C. 134a(a)), is amended to read:
       ``(a) Whenever the Secretary deems it necessary in order to 
     prevent the introduction or dissemination of a disease, the 
     Secretary may seize, quarantine, and dispose of, in a 
     reasonable manner taking into consideration the nature of the 
     disease and the necessity of such action to protect the 
     livestock or poultry of the United States, or the health of 
     the people of the United States because the disease may be 
     transmitted by livestock or poultry or their products: (1) 
     any animals which the Secretary finds are moving or are being 
     handled or have moved or have been handled in interstate or 
     foreign commerce contrary to any law or regulation 
     administered by the Secretary for the prevention of the 
     introduction or dissemination of any disease; (2) any animals 
     which the Secretary finds are moving into the United States, 
     or interstate, and are affected with or have been exposed to 
     any disease; and (3) any animals which the Secretary finds 
     have moved into the United States, or interstate, and, at the 
     time of such movement, were affected with or exposed to any 
     disease.''.
       Sec. 203. Section 2(e) of the Act of July 2, 1962 (21 
     U.S.C. 134a(e)), is amended to read:
       ``(e) No such payment shall be made by the Secretary for 
     any animal, carcass, product, or article which has been moved 
     or handled by the owner thereof or the owner's agent in 
     violation of a law or regulation administered by the 
     Secretary for the prevention of the interstate dissemination 
     of disease, for which the animal, carcass, product, or 
     article was destroyed or a law or regulation for the 
     enforcement of which the Secretary enters or has entered into 
     a cooperative agreement for the control and eradication of 
     disease, or for any animal which has moved into the United 
     States contrary to such law or regulation administered by the 
     Secretary for the prevention of the introduction of a 
     disease.''.
       Sec. 204. Section 3 of the Act of July 2, 1962 (21 U.S.C. 
     134b), is amended to read: ``The Secretary, in order to 
     protect the health of the livestock or poultry of the United 
     States, and the health of the people of the United States 
     because the disease may be transmitted by livestock or 
     poultry or their products, may promulgate regulations 
     requiring that railway cars; vessels; airplanes; trucks; and 
     other means of conveyance; stockyards; feed, water, and rest 
     stations; and other facilities, used in connection with the 
     movement of animals into or from the United States, or 
     interstate, be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, 
     including requirements for inspection, cleaning, and 
     disinfection.''.
       Sec. 205. Section 4 of the Act of July 2, 1962 (21 U.S.C. 
     134c), is amended to read: ``The Secretary is authorized to 
     promulgate regulations prohibiting or regulating the movement 
     into the United States of any animals which are or have been 
     affected with or exposed to any disease, or which have been 
     vaccinated or otherwise treated for any disease, or which the 
     Secretary finds would otherwise be likely to introduce or 
     disseminate any disease, when the Secretary determines that 
     such action is necessary to protect the livestock or poultry 
     of the United States, or to protect the health of the people 
     of the United States because the disease may be transmitted 
     by livestock or poultry or their products.''.
       Sec. 206. Section 5 of the Act of July 2, 1962 (21 U.S.C. 
     134d), is amended to read: ``Employees of the Department of 
     Agriculture designated by the Secretary for the purpose, when 
     properly identified, shall have authority: (1) to stop and 
     inspect, without a warrant, any person or means of 
     conveyance, moving into the United States from a foreign 
     country, to determine whether such person or means of 
     conveyance is carrying any animal, carcass, product, are 
     article regulated or subject to disposal under any law or 
     regulation administered by the Secretary for prevention of 
     the introduction or dissemination of any disease; (2) to stop 
     and inspect, without a warrant, any means of conveyance 
     moving interstate upon probable cause to believe the means of 
     conveyance is carrying any animal, carcass, product, or 
     article regulated or subject to disposal under any law or 
     regulation administered by the Secretary for the prevention 
     of the introduction or dissemination of any disease; and (3) 
     to enter upon, with a warrant, any premises for the purpose 
     of making inspections and seizures necessary under any laws 
     or regulation administered by the Secretary for the 
     prevention of the introduction or dissemination of any 
     disease. Any Federal judge, or any judge of a court of record 
     in the United States, or any United States Commissioner, may, 
     within such Commissioner's jurisdiction, upon proper oath or 
     affirmation indicating probable cause to believe that there 
     is on certain premises any animal, carcass, product, or 
     article regulated or subject to disposal under any law or 
     regulation administered by the Secretary for the prevention 
     of the introduction or dissemination of any disease, issue 
     warrants for the entry upon such premises and for inspections 
     and seizures necessary under such laws and regulations. 
     Warrants may be executed by any authorized employee of the 
     Department of Agriculture.''.
       Sec. 207. Section 6 of the Act of August 30, 1890, as 
     amended (21 U.S.C. 104), is amended to read:
       ``(a) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 
     prohibit or restrict the importation of animals which are 
     affected with disease or which have been exposed to disease 
     prior to their importation into the United States.
       ``(b) Any person who knowingly violates any provision of 
     this section or sections 7 through 10 of this Act or any 
     regulation prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     any such section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, 
     on conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000, by 
     imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. Any person who 
     violates any such provision or any such regulation may be 
     assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of Agriculture not 
     exceeding $1,000. The Secretary of Agriculture may issue an 
     order assessing such civil penalty only after notice and an 
     opportunity for an agency hearing on the record. The order 
     shall be treated as a final order reviewable under chapter 
     158 of Title 28. The validity of the order may not be 
     reviewed in an action to collect the civil penalty.
       ``(c) For the purposes of this Act the word `disease' means 
     any disease of livestock or poultry, both infectious and non-
     infectious, and any other health-related condition that may 
     be transmitted by livestock or poultry or their products to 
     other animals or humans.''.
       Sec. 208. Section 8 of the Act of August 30, 1890 (21 
     U.S.C. 103), is amended to read:
       ``(a) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to require 
     animals to be imported into ports in the United States 
     designated by the Secretary of Agriculture, with the approval 
     of the Secretary of the Treasury, as quarantine stations. If 
     any animals required by the Secretary of Agriculture to be 
     imported into ports designated as quarantine stations are 
     brought to any port of the United States where no quarantine 
     station is established, the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     require the animals to be moved to the nearest quarantine 
     station at the expense of owner of the animals under such 
     conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture determines 
     necessary to prevent the spread of disease.
       ``(b) The Secretary of Agriculture may destroy animals 
     which the Secretary of Agriculture finds to be affected with 
     or exposed to a disease dangerous to other animals, or to the 
     health of the people of the United States because the disease 
     may be transmitted by livestock or poultry or their products.
       ``(c) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture shall compensate the owner of 
     animals destroyed in accordance with subsection (b) of this 
     section which are exposed to disease, but not affected with 
     disease. Such compensation shall be based upon the fair 
     market value of the animal at the time of destruction as 
     determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Compensation paid 
     any owner under this subsection shall not include anticipated 
     profits and shall not exceed the difference between any 
     compensation received by the owner of the animals from any 
     other source and the fair market value of the animal at the 
     time of destruction. Funds in the Treasury available for 
     carrying out animal disease control activities of the 
     Department of Agriculture shall be used to compensate owners 
     of animals destroyed in accordance with subsection (b) of 
     this section.
       ``(d) No payment shall be made by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture for animals destroyed in accordance with 
     subsection (b) of this section if the animal has been 
     imported in violation of any law or regulation administered 
     by the Secretary of Agriculture for the prevention of the 
     introduction or dissemination of any disease.''.
       Sec. 209. Section 1 of the Act of February 2, 1903, as 
     amended (21 U.S.C. 121), is amended to read:
       ``(a) Whenever the Secretary of Agriculture issues a 
     certificate showing that the Secretary of Agriculture had 
     inspected any livestock and/or live poultry which were about 
     to be exported from the United States or moved interstate, 
     and had found them free of any disease, such animals, so 
     inspected and certified, may transported into and through any 
     State, or they may be exported from the United States without 
     further inspection or the exaction of fees of any kind, 
     except such as may at anytime be ordered or exacted by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture; and all such animals shall at all 
     times be under control and supervision of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture for the purposes of such inspection.
       ``(b) For the purposes of this Act, the word `disease' 
     means any disease of livestock or poultry, both infectious 
     and non-infectious, and any other health-related condition 
     that may be transmitted by livestock or poultry or their 
     products to other animals or humans.
       ``(c) for the purposes of this Act, the word `State' means 
     any of the several States of the United States, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.''.
       Sec. 210. Section 2 of the Act of February 2, 1903, as 
     amended (21 U.S.C. 111), is amended to read:
       ``(a) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to make 
     such regulations and take such measures as the Secretary of 
     Agriculture deems necessary to prevent the introduction or 
     dissemination of any disease from a foreign country into the 
     United States or from one State to another.
       ``(b) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to seize, 
     quarantine, and dispose of any hay, straw, forage, or similar 
     material, or any meats, hides, or other animal products 
     coming from a foreign country in which disease exists to the 
     United States, or from one State in which disease exists to 
     another State, whenever in the Secretary of Agriculture's 
     judgment such action is advisable in order to prevent the 
     introduction or spread of disease.''.
       Sec. 211. Section 3 of the Act of May 29, 1884, as amended 
     (21 U.S.C. 114), is amended to read:
       ``(a) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prepare 
     regulations for the speedy and effectual suppression and 
     eradication of diseases, and to certify such regulations to 
     the executive authority of each State, and invite these 
     executive authorities to cooperate in the execution and 
     enforcement of this Act and section 2 of the Act of February 
     2, 1903. Whenever the plans and methods of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall be accepted by any State in which a disease 
     is declared to exist, or any State shall have adopted plans 
     and methods for the suppression and eradication of diseases, 
     and the State plans and methods are accepted by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, and whenever the Governor of a State or other 
     properly constituted authorities signify their readiness to 
     cooperate for the suppression or eradication of any disease 
     in conformity with this Act and section 2 of the Act of 
     February 2, 1903, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized 
     to expend so much of the money appropriated for carrying out 
     this Act and section 2 of the Act of February 2, 1903, as may 
     be necessary in such investigations, and in such disinfection 
     and quarantine measures as may be necessary to prevent the 
     spread of the disease from one state into another.
       ``(b) For the purposes of this Act, the word `disease' 
     means any disease of livestock or poultry, both infectious 
     and non-infectious, and any other health-related condition 
     that may be transmitted by livestock or poultry or their 
     products to other animals or humans.''
       ``(c) For the purposes of this section, the word `State' 
     means any of the several States of the United States, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.''.
       Sec. 212. Section 4 of the Act of May 29, 1884, as amended 
     (21 U.S.C. 112), is amended to read: ``In order to promote 
     the exportation of livestock and/or live poultry from the 
     United States, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 
     investigate the existence of any disease, along the dividing 
     lines between the United States and foreign countries, and 
     along the lines of transportation from all parts of the 
     United States to ports from which livestock and/or live 
     poultry are exported, and may establish regulations 
     concerning the exportation and transportation of livestock 
     and/or live poultry as the results of the investigations may 
     require.''.
       Sec. 213. Section 5 of the Act of May 29, 1884, as amended 
     (21 U.S.C. 113), is amended to read: ``In order to prevent 
     the exportation from the United States to any foreign country 
     of livestock and/or live poultry affected with disease or 
     exposed to disease, the Secretary of Agriculture is 
     authorized to take such steps and adopt such measures, as the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may deem necessary.''.
       Sec. 214. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of May 29, 1884, as 
     amended (21 U.S.C. 120), are amended to read:
       ``(a) In order to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     effectually suppress and eradicate diseases, and to prevent 
     the spread of diseases, the Secretary of Agriculture is 
     authorized to establish such regulations concerning the 
     exportation and transportation of livestock and/or live 
     poultry from any place within the United States where the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may have reason to believe diseases 
     may exist into and through any state and to foreign countries 
     as the Secretary of Agriculture may deem necessary.
       ``(b) For the purposes of these sections, the word 
     ``State'' means any of the several States of the United 
     States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.''.
       Sec. 215. Section 6 of the Act of May 29, 1884, as amended 
     (21 U.S.C. 115), is amended to read:
       ``(a) No person, company, or corporation shall transport, 
     receive for transportation, deliver for transportation, move, 
     or cause to be moved from one State to another any livestock 
     and/or live poultry affected with any disease except in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to protect the livestock and poultry of the 
     United States and the health of the people of the United 
     States.
       ``(b) For the purposes of this section, the word `State' 
     means any of the several States of the United States, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.''.
       Sec.  216. Section 11 of the Act of May 29, 1884, as 
     amended (21 U.S.C. 114a), is amended to read:
       (a) The Secretary of Agriculture, either independently or 
     in cooperation with States or political subdivisions of 
     States, farmers' associations and similar organizations, and 
     individuals, is authorized to: (1) control and eradicate any 
     diseases which in the opinion of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     constitute an emergency and threaten the livestock industry 
     or poultry industry of the United States, or the health of 
     the people of the United States because the disease may be 
     transmitted by livestock or poultry or their products; and 
     (2) pay claims growing out of destruction of animals 
     (including poultry), and of materials, affected by or exposed 
     to any communicable disease, in accordance with such 
     regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe.
       ``(b) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 
     prescribe and collect fees to recover the costs of carrying 
     out this section which relate to veterinary diagnostics.
       ``(c) For the purposes of this section, the word `State' 
     means any of the several States of the United States, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.''.
       Sec. 217. Section 1 of the Act of March 3, 1905, as amended 
     (21 U.S.C. 123), is amended to read:
       ``(a) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 
     quarantine by regulation any State, or any portion of any 
     State, when the Secretary of Agriculture shall determine the 
     fact that any animals or live poultry in such State are 
     affected with any disease or that the contagion of any 
     disease exists or that vectors which may disseminate any 
     disease exist in such State.
       ``(b) For the purposes of this Act, the word `disease' 
     means any disease of livestock or poultry, both infectious 
     and non-infectious, and any other health-related condition 
     that may be transmitted by livestock or poultry or their 
     products to other animals or humans.
       ``(c) For the purposes of this section, the word `State' 
     means any of the several States of the United States, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.''.
       Sec. 218. Section 1 of the Act of May 6, 1970, (21 U.S.C. 
     135), is amended by designating the current section as 
     subsection ``(a)''; by deleting the words ``livestock or 
     poultry disease or pests'' and by inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``diseases or livestock or poultry pests''; by deleting 
     ``livestock or poultry diseases or pests'' and by inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``diseases or livestock or poultry pests''; 
     and by adding a new subsection (b) to read:
       ``(b) For the purposes of this Act, the word ``diseases'' 
     means any diseases of livestock or poultry, both infectious 
     and non-infectious, and any other health-related condition 
     that may be transmitted by livestock or poultry or their 
     products to other animals or humans.''.
       Sec. 219. Section 12 of the Act of March 4, 1907, as 
     amended (21 U.S.C. 612), is amended to read:
       ``(a) The Secretary is authorized to inspect all cattle, 
     sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, and other equines 
     intended and offered for export to foreign countries at such 
     times and places, and in such manner as the Secretary may 
     deem proper, to ascertain whether such cattle, sheep, swine, 
     goats, horses, mules, and other equines are free from 
     disease.
       ``(b) For the purpose of this section, the word `disease' 
     means any disease of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horse, 
     mules, and other equines, both infectious and non-infectious, 
     and any other health-related condition that may be 
     transmitted by cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, 
     and other equines or their products to other animals or 
     humans.''
       Sec. 220. The Act of September 28, 1962 (7 U.S.C. 450), is 
     amended to read:
       ``(a) In order to avoid duplication of functions, 
     facilities, and personnel, and to attain closer coordination 
     and greater effectiveness and economy in administration of 
     Federal and State laws and regulations relating to the 
     production and marketing of agricultural products and to the 
     control or eradication of plant diseases, plant pests, animal 
     diseases, and animal pests, the Secretary of Agriculture is 
     authorized, in the administration and enforcement of such 
     Federal laws within the Secretary of Agriculture's area of 
     responsibility, whenever the Secretary of Agriculture deems 
     it feasible and in the public interest, to enter into 
     cooperative arrangements with State departments of 
     agriculture and other State agencies charged with the 
     administration and enforcement of such State laws and 
     regulations and to provide that any such State agency which 
     has adequate facilities, personnel, and procedures, as 
     determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, may assist the 
     Secretary of Agriculture in the administration and 
     enforcement of such Federal laws and regulations to the 
     extent and in the manner the Secretary of Agriculture deems 
     appropriate in the public interest.
       ``(b) The Secretary is authorized to coordinate the 
     administration of such Federal laws and regulations with such 
     State laws and regulations wherever feasible. However, 
     nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture under any Federal law, or any 
     authority to cooperate with State agencies or other agencies 
     or persons under existing provisions of law, or affect any 
     restrictions of law upon such cooperation.
       ``(c) For the purposes of this Act the term `animal 
     diseases' means any diseases of animals, both infectious and 
     non-infectious, and any other health-related condition that 
     may be transmitted by animals or their products to other 
     animals or humans.''.
       Sec. 221. Section 101(d) of the Act of September 21, 1944 
     (7 U.S.C. 430), is amended to read:
       ``(a) The Secretary of Agriculture may purchase in the open 
     market from applicable appropriations samples of all 
     tuberculin, serums, antitoxins, or other products, of foreign 
     or domestic manufacture, which are sold in the United States, 
     for the detection, prevention, treatment, or cure of diseases 
     of domestic animals, test the same, and disseminate the 
     results of the tests in such manner as the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may deem best.''.
       ``(b) For the purposes of this section, the word 
     `diseases'; means any diseases of domestic animals, both 
     infectious and non-infectious, and any other health-related 
     condition that may be transmitted by domestic animals or 
     their products to other animals or humans.''.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. MURRAY:
  S. 2454. A bill to make technical corrections to an act preempting 
State economic regulation of motor carriers; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


   intrastate motor carrier transportation technical corrections act

 Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce 
legislation today to clarify that it is not Congress' intent to preempt 
State or local regulations dealing with the operation of garbage 
collection, curbside recycling, or tow trucks. Last month Congress 
passed H.R. 2739, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act 
of 1994, which included a provision in section 601 to preempt State and 
local regulations of intrastate trucking pertaining to prices, routes, 
and services.
  I have been apprised by cities and organizations in Washington State 
that H.R. 2739 could impair curbside residential recycling programs and 
tow truck services. Recycling is taken very seriously in Washington 
State, which has some of the most successful programs in the country. 
My bill only clarifies that Congress did not intend to stop these type 
of activities when it enacted section 601.
  The bill I am introducing today is almost identical to a bill 
introduced by Representatives Cantwell and Rahall in the House of 
Representatives. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both 
Chambers to support this or other legislation that will resolve the 
possible problems with preemption that I just mentioned.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed 
into the Record as if read, immediately following this statement.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2454

       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 ``Intrastate Motor Carrier 
     Transportation Technical Corrections Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       Section 11501(h)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (2) by striking out the the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (B) and insert in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) does not apply to the transportation of garbage and 
     refuse;
       ``(D) does not apply to the transportation of recyclable 
     materials, as defined under section 10733(b), pursuant to 
     programs conducted under the auspices of any unit of 
     government; and
       ``(E) does not apply to motor carriers providing tow or 
     wrecker services.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2455. A bill to establish a system of licensing, reporting, and 
regulation for vessels of the United States fishing on the high seas; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                   HIGH SEAS FISHERIES LICENSING ACT

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on a number of occasions in recent 
weeks, I have expressed by concerns regarding fisheries crises that 
seem to be arising with increasing frequency in many parts of the 
globe. Today, I am introducing the High Seas Fisheries Licensing Act of 
1994--legislation to reinforce the U.S. commitment to international 
efforts to conserve and manage world fisheries.
  The bill implements an international agreement adopted by consensus 
in Rome by the Conference of the United Nations Food and Agriculture 
Organization [FAO] on November 24, 1993, entitled ``The Agreement to 
Promote Compliance with International Convention and Management 
Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas'' [Agreement]. This 
Agreement establishes international requirements for the licensing, 
reporting, and regulation of fishing vessels that operate on the high 
seas. Earlier today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ordered the 
Agreement reported to the full Senate for its approval. Prompt 
enactment of the High Seas Fisheries Licensing Act is essential for the 
United States to complete ratification of the Agreement, and 
demonstrate U.S. leadership in promoting global fisheries conservation.
  The oceans' supplies of fish were once thought to be inexhaustible. 
World harvests of fish and seafood have risen steadily over the past 
five decades, peaking in 1989 at a record 100 million metric tons. 
Since then, however, landings have begun to decline and FAO recently 
estimated that 13 of 17 major ocean fisheries may be in trouble. The 
problem of too many boats chasing too few fish has become familiar in 
far too many locations around the world.
  Responding to this growing problem, the United States has pressed for 
international efforts to bring high sea fisheries under greater 
control. In September 1992, at an FAO technical conference on high seas 
fishing, the U.S. delegation proposed that a treaty be prepared under 
FAO auspices to address one problem plaguing efforts to manage 
fisheries on the high seas. The concern was that vessels belonging to a 
member nation of a regional fisheries organization would reflag to a 
nonmember nation, for the purpose of continuing to fish in the 
management area unconstrained by rules set by the organization and its 
members. For example, the effectiveness of the International Commission 
for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas [ICCAT] has been undermined by 
vessels registered in and possibly reflagged in nations that are not 
ICCAT members. Flying ``flags of convenience,'' these vessels then fish 
for tuna in the North Atlantic in defiance of ICCAT rules.
  The FAO technical conference recommended that a reflagging agreement 
be developed as quickly as possible, as part of an International Code 
of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. In February 1993, a group of 
experts was convened to help prepare the first draft, and, after 
several negotiating sessions, the FAO conference adopted the final text 
of the treaty in November, 1993. On April 15, 1994, the President 
transmitted the Agreement to the Senate for advice and consent.
  Although the FAO Agreement has been popularly referred to as the 
``flagging agreement,'' it does not deal directly with the flagging of 
fishing vessels, in part because FAO negotiators did not wish to deter 
legitimate transfers of vessels and flags. The primary tenet of the FAO 
Agreement is the obligation of a nation to require specific 
authorization for vessels carrying its flag in order to fish on the 
high seas. In addition, the nation is responsible for ensuring that its 
authorized vessels do not undermine conservation and management 
measures that have been adopted by global or regional fishery 
management organizations.
  The United States has vessels fishing on the high seas in many parts 
of the world, but has no general law governing such fishing. The High 
Seas Fisheries Licensing Act of 1994 would provide that statutory 
authority, establishing a system of licensing, reporting, and 
regulation for American vessels fishing on the high seas.
  Provisions of the High Seas Fisheries Licensing Act would: First, 
require publication of a list of international conservation and 
management measures recognized by the United States and with which U.S. 
high seas fishing vessels are required to comply; second, require all 
U.S. fishing vessels operating on the high seas to have on board a 
valid license issued by the Secretary of Commerce, and prevent vessels 
from obtaining a U.S. license to avoid punishment for violation of 
international measures; third, require the Secretary to maintain a 
register of vessels licensed under the statute and to report to the FAO 
information on those vessels and their activities; and fourth, 
establish enforcement procedures, civil and criminal penalties, 
forfeitures, and license sanctions consistent with the Magnuson Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act.
  There is widespread support for the Agreement and the legislation, 
both in the United States and internationally, from environmental 
organizations and the fishing industry. This is a pragmatic first step 
toward improving the conservation and management of international 
fisheries and I encourage my colleagues to join with me to ensure 
prompt action by the Senate. 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. 2455

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``High Seas Fisheries 
     Licensing Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act--
       (1) to implement the Agreement to Promote Compliance with 
     International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing 
     Vessels on the High Seas, adopted by the Conference of the 
     Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on 
     November 24, 1993; and
       (2) to establish a system of licensing, reporting, and 
     regulation for vessels of the United States fishing on the 
     high seas.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) The term ``Agreement'' means the Agreement to promote 
     Compliance with International Conservation and Management 
     Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, adopted by the 
     Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
     United Nations on November 24, 1993.
       (2) The term ``FAO'' means the Food and Agriculture 
     Organization of the United Nations.
       (3) The term ``high seas'' means the waters beyond the 
     territorial sea or exclusive economic zone (or the 
     equivalent) of any nation, to the extent that such 
     territorial sea or exclusive economic zone (or the 
     equivalent) is recognized by the United States.
       (4) The term ``high seas fishing vessel'' means any vessel 
     of the United States used or intended for use--
       (A) on the high seas;
       (B) for the purpose of the commercial exploitation of 
     living marine resources; and
       (C) as a harvesting vessel, as a mother ship, or as any 
     other support vessel directly engaged in a fishing operation.
       (5) The term ``International conservation and management 
     measures'' means measures to conserve or manage one or more 
     species of living marine resources that are adopted and 
     applied in accordance with the relevant rules of 
     international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations 
     Convention on the Law of the Sea and recognized by the United 
     States. Such measures may be adopted by global, regional, or 
     sub-regional fisheries organizations, subject to the rights 
     and obligations of their members, or by treaties or other 
     international agreements.
       (6) The term ``length'' means--
       (A) for any high seas fishing vessel built after July 18, 
     1982, 96 percent of the total length on a waterline at 85 
     percent of the least molded depth measured from the top of 
     the keel, or the length from the foreside of the stem to the 
     axis of the rudder stock on that waterline, if that is 
     greater. In ships designed with a rake of keel the waterline 
     on which this length is measured shall be parallel to the 
     designed waterline;
       (B) for any high seas fishing vessel built before July 18, 
     1982, registered length as entered on the vessel's 
     documentation.
       (7) The term ``person'' means any individual (whether or 
     not a citizen of or national of the United States), any 
     corporation, partnership, association, or other entity 
     (whether or not organized or existing under the laws of any 
     State), and any Federal, State, local, or foreign government 
     or any entity of any such government.
       (8) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce 
     or a designee.
       (9) The term ``vessel of the United States'' means--
       (A) a vessel documented under chapter 121 of title 46 or 
     numbered in accordance with chapter 123 of title 46;
       (B) a vessel owned in whole or part by--
       (i) the United States or a territory, commonwealth, or 
     possession of the United States;
       (ii) a State or political subdivision thereof;
       (iii) a citizen or national of the United States; or
       (iv) a corporation created under the laws of the United 
     States or any State, the District of Columbia, or any 
     territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States; 
     unless the vessel has been granted the nationality of a 
     foreign nation in accordance with article 92 of the 1982 
     United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and a claim 
     of nationality or registry for the vessel is made by the 
     master or individual in charge at the time of the enforcement 
     action by an officer or employee of the United States 
     authorized to enforce applicable provisions of the United 
     States law; and
       (C) a vessel that was once documented under the laws of the 
     United States and, in violation of the laws of the United 
     States, was either sold to a person not a citizen of the 
     United States or placed under foreign registry or a foreign 
     flag, whether or not the vessel has been granted the 
     nationality of a foreign nation.
       (10) The terms ``vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States'' and ``vessel without nationality'' have the 
     same meaning as in 46 U.S.C. App. 1903(c).

     SEC. 4. LICENSING.

       (a) In General.--No high seas fishing vessel shall engage 
     in harvesting operations on the high seas unless the vessel 
     has on board a valid license issued under this section.
       (b) Eligibility.--
       (1) Any vessel of the United States is eligible to receive 
     a license under this section, unless the vessel was 
     previously authorized to be used for fishing on the high seas 
     by a foreign nation, and
       (A) the foreign nation suspended such authorization because 
     the vessel undermined the effectiveness of international 
     conservation and management measures, and the suspension has 
     not expired; or
       (B) the foreign nation, within the last three years 
     preceding application for a license under this section, 
     withdrew such authorization because the vessel undermined the 
     effectiveness of international conservation and management 
     measures.
       (2) The restriction in paragraph (1) does not apply where 
     ownership of the vessel has changed since the vessel 
     undermined the effectiveness of international conservation 
     and management measures, and the new owner has provided 
     sufficient evidence to the Secretary demonstrating that the 
     previous owner or operator has no further legal, beneficial 
     or financial interest in, or control of, the vessel.
       (3) The restriction in paragraph (1) does not apply where 
     the Secretary makes a determination that issuing a license 
     would not subvert the purposes of the Agreement.
       (4) The Secretary may not issue a license to a vessel 
     unless he or she is satisfied that the United States will be 
     able to exercise effectively its responsibilities under the 
     Agreement with respect to that vessel.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) The owner or operator of a high seas fishing vessel may 
     apply for a license under this section by completing an 
     application form prescribed by the Secretary.
       (2) The application form shall contain--
       (A) the vessel's name, previous names (if known), official 
     numbers, and port of record;
       (B) previous flag (if any);
       (C) International Radio Call Sign (if any);
       (D) names and addresses of owners and operators;
       (E) where and when built;
       (F) type of vessel;
       (G) length; and
       (H) any other information the Secretary requires.
       (d) Conditions.--The Secretary shall establish such 
     conditions and restrictions on each license issued under this 
     section as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the 
     obligations of the United States under the Agreement, 
     including but not limited to the following:
       (1) The vessel shall be marked in accordance with the FAO 
     Standard Specifications for the Marking and Identification of 
     Fishing Vessels, or with regulations issued under section 305 
     of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1855);
       (2) The license holder shall report such information as the 
     Secretary by regulation requires, including area of fishing 
     operations and catch statistics. The Secretary shall 
     promulgate regulations concerning conditions under which 
     information submitted under this subsection may be 
     released.
       (e) Fees.--
       (1) The Secretary may by regulation establish the level of 
     fees to be charged for licenses issued under this section. 
     The level of fees charged under this paragraph shall not 
     exceed the administrative costs incurred in issuing such 
     licenses. The licensing fee shall be in addition to any fee 
     required under any regional licensing regime applicable to 
     high seas fishing vessels.
       (2) The fees authorized by paragraph (1) shall be collected 
     and credited to the Operations, Research and Facilities 
     account of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration. Any fees collected shall be available until 
     expended for the purpose of implementing this Act, to the 
     extent and in the amounts provided in advance in 
     appropriations acts.
       (f) Duration.--A license issued under this section is valid 
     for the period specified in regulations issued under section 
     5(d). A license issued under this section is void in the 
     event the vessel is no longer eligible for U.S. 
     documentation, such documentation is revoked or denied, or 
     the vessel is deleted from such documentation.

     SEC. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       (a) Record.--The Secretary shall maintain an automated file 
     or record of high seas fishing vessels issued licenses under 
     section 4, including all information submitted under section 
     4(c)(2).
       (b) Information to FAO.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
     the Secretaries of State and Transportation, shall--
       (1) make available to FAO information contained in the 
     record maintained under subsection (a);
       (b) promptly notify FAO of changes in such information;
       (3) promptly notify FAO of additions to or deletions from 
     the record, and the reason for any deletions;
       (4) convey to FAO information relating to any license 
     granted under section 4(b)(3), including the vessel's 
     identify, owner or operator, and factors relevant to the 
     Secretary's determination to issue the license;
       (5) report promptly to FAO all relevant information 
     regarding any activities of high seas fishing vessels that 
     undermine the effectiveness of international conservation 
     and management measures, including the identity of the 
     vessels and sanctions imposed; and
       (6) provide the FAO a summary of evidence regarding any 
     activities of foreign vessels that undermine the 
     effectiveness of international conservation and management 
     measures.
       (c) Information to Flag States.--The Secretary, in 
     cooperation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     Transportation, shall, where he or she has reasonable grounds 
     to believe that a foreign high seas fishing vessel has 
     engaged in activities undermining the effectiveness of 
     international conservation and management measures--
       (1) provide to the flag State information, including 
     appropriate evidentiary material, relating to those 
     activities; and
       (2) when such foreign high seas fishing vessel is 
     voluntarily in a United States port, the Secretary shall 
     promptly notify the flag State. If requested by the flag 
     State, the Secretary shall make arrangements to undertake 
     such lawful investigatory measures as may be considered 
     necessary to establish whether the high seas fishing vessel 
     has been used contrary to the provisions of the Agreement.
       (d) Regulations.--The Secretary, after consultation with 
     the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Transportation, 
     may promulgate such regulations, in accordance with section 
     553 of title 5, United States Code, as may be necessary to 
     carry out the purposes of the Agreement and this Act. The 
     Secretary shall coordinate such regulations with any other 
     entities regulating high seas fishing vessels, to minimize 
     duplication of license application and reporting 
     requirements. To the extent practicable, such regulations 
     shall also be consistent with regulations implementing 
     fishery management plans under the Magnuson Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
       (e) Notice of International Conservation and Management 
     Measures.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of State, shall publish in the Federal Register, from time to 
     time, a notice listing international conservation and 
     management measures recognized by the United States.

     SEC. 6. UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES.

       It is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction 
     of the United States--
       (1) to use a high seas fishing vessel on the high seas in 
     contravention of international conservation and management 
     measures described in section 5(e);
       (2) to use a high seas fishing vessel on the high seas, 
     unless the vessel has on board a valid license issued under 
     section 4;
       (3) to use a high seas fishing vessel in violation of the 
     conditions or restrictions of a license issued under section 
     4;
       (4) to falsify any information required to be reported, 
     communicated, or recorded pursuant to this Act or any 
     regulation issued under this Act, or to fail to submit in a 
     timely fashion any required information, or to fail to report 
     to the Secretary immediately any change in circumstances that 
     has the effect of rendering any such information false, 
     incomplete, or misleading;
       (5) to refuse to permit an authorized officer to board a 
     high seas fishing vessel subject to such person's control for 
     purposes of conducting any search or inspection in connection 
     with the enforcement of this Act or any regulation issued 
     under this Act;
       (6) to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, 
     intimidate, or interfere with an authorized officer in the 
     conduct of any search or inspection described in paragraph 
     (5);
       (7) to resist a lawful arrest or detention for any act 
     prohibited by this section;
       (8) to interfere with, delay, or prevent, by any means, the 
     apprehension, arrest, or detection of another person, knowing 
     that such person has committed any act prohibited by this 
     section;
       (9) to ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, purchase, 
     import, export, or have custody, control, or possession of, 
     any living marine resource taken or retained in violation of 
     this Act or any regulation or license issued under this Act; 
     or
       (10) to violate any provision of this Act or any regulation 
     or license issued under this Act.

     SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.

       (a) Duties of Secretaries of Commerce and Transportation.--
     This Act shall be enforced by the Secretary of Commerce and 
     the Secretary of Transportation. Such Secretaries may by 
     agreement utilize, on a reimbursable basis or otherwise, the 
     personnel, services, equipment (including aircraft and 
     vessels), and facilities of any other Federal agency, or of 
     any State agency, in the performance of such duties. Such 
     Secretaries shall, and the head of any Federal or State 
     agency that has entered into an agreement with either such 
     Secretary under this section may (if the agreement so 
     provides), authorize officers to enforce the provisions of 
     this Act or any regulation or license issued under this Act.
       (b) District Court Jurisdiction.--The district courts of 
     the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any 
     case or controversy arising under the provisions of this Act. 
     In the case of Guam, and any Common-wealth, territory, or 
     possession of the United States in the Pacific Ocean, the 
     appropriate court is the United States District Court for the 
     District of Guam, except that in the case of American Samoa, 
     the appropriate court is the United States District Court for 
     the District of Hawaii.
       (c) Powers of Enforcement Officers.--
       (1) Any officer who is authorized (by the Secretary, the 
     Secretary of Transportation, or the head of any Federal or 
     State agency that has entered into an agreement with such 
     Secretaries under subsection (a)) to enforce the provisions 
     of this Act may--
       (A) with or without a warrant or other process--
       (i) arrest any person, if the officer has reasonable cause 
     to believe that such person has committed an act prohibited 
     by section 9(a);
       (ii) board, and search or inspect, any high seas fishing 
     vessel;
       (iii) seize any high seas fishing vessel (together with its 
     fishing gear, furniture, appurtenances, stores, and cargo) 
     used or employed in, or with repect to which it reasonably 
     appears that such vessel was used or employed in, the 
     violation of any provision of this Act or any regulation or 
     license issued under this Act;
       (iv) seize any living marine resource (wherever found) 
     taken or retained, in any manner, in connection with or as a 
     result of the commission of any act prohibited by section 6;
       (v) seize any other evidence related to any violation of 
     any provision of this Act or any regulation or license issued 
     under this Act;
       (B) execute any warrant or other process issued by any 
     court of competent jurisdiction; and
       (C) exercise any other lawful authority.
       (2) Subject to the direction of the Secretary, a person 
     charged with law enforcement responsbilities by the Secretary 
     who is performing a duty related to enforcement of a law 
     regarding fisheries or other marine resources may make an 
     arrest without a warrant for an offense against the United 
     States committed in his presence, or for a felony cognizable 
     under the laws of the United States, if he has reasonable 
     grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has 
     committed or is committing a felony.
       (d) Issuance of Citations.--If any authorized officer finds 
     that a high seas fishing vessel is operating or has been 
     operated in violation of any provision of this Act, such 
     officer may issue a citation to the owner or operator of such 
     vessel in lieu of proceeding under subsection (c). If a 
     permit has been issued pursuant to this Act for such vessel, 
     such officer shall note the issuance of any citation under 
     this subsection, including the date thereof and the reason 
     therefore, on the permit. The Secretary shall maintain a 
     record of all citations issued pursuant to this subsection.

     SEC. 8. CIVIL PENALTIES AND LICENSE SANCTIONS.

       (a) Civil Penalties.--
       (1) Any person who is found by the Secretary, after notice 
     and opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 
     of title 5, United States Code, to have committed an act 
     prohibited by section 6 shall be liable to the United States 
     for a civil penalty. The amount of the civil penalty shall 
     not exceed $100,000 for each violation. Each day of a 
     continuing violation shall constitute a separate offense. The 
     amount of such civil penalty shall be assessed by the 
     Secretary by written notice. In determining the amount of 
     such penalty, the Secretary shall take into account the 
     nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the prohibited 
     acts committed and, with respect to the violation, the degree 
     of culpability, any history of prior offenses, and such other 
     matters as justice may require.
       (2) The Secretary may compromise, modify, or remit, with or 
     without conditions, any civil penalty that is subject to 
     imposition or that has been imposed under this section.
       (b) License Sanctions.--
       (1) In any case in which--
       (A) a vessel of the United States have been used in the 
     commission of an act prohibited under section 6;
       (B) the owner or operator of a vessel or any other person 
     who has been issued or has applied for a license under 
     section 4 has acted in violation of section 6; or
       (C) any amount in settlement of a civil forfeiture imposed 
     on a vessel or other property, or any civil penalty or 
     criminal fine imposed on a vessel or owner or operator of a 
     vessel of the United States or any other person who has been 
     issued or has applied for a license under any fishery 
     resource statute enforced by the Secretary, has not been paid 
     and is overdue, the Secretary may--
       (i) revoke any license issued with respect to such vessel 
     or person, with or without prejudice to the issuance of 
     subsequent licenses;
       (ii) suspend such license for a period of time considered 
     by the Secretary to be appropriate;
       (iii) deny such license; or
       (iv) impose additional conditions and restrictions on any 
     license issued to or applied for by such vessel or person 
     under this Act.
       (2) In imposing a sanction under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall take into account--
       (A) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the 
     prohibited acts for which the sanction is imposed; and
       (B) with respect to the violator, the degree of 
     culpability, any history of prior offenses, and such other 
     matters as justice may require.
       (3) Transfer of ownership of a vessel, by sale or 
     otherwise, shall not extinguish any license sanction that is 
     in effect or is pending at the time of transfer of ownership. 
     Before executing the transfer of ownership of a vessel, by 
     sale or otherwise, the owner shall disclose in writing to the 
     prospective transferee the existence of any license sanction 
     that will be in effect or pending with respect to the vessel 
     at the time of the transfer. The Secretary may waive or 
     compromise a sanction in the case of a transfer pursuant to 
     court order.
       (4) In the case of any license that is suspended under this 
     subsection for nonpayment of a civil penalty or criminal 
     fine, the Secretary shall reinstate the license upon payment 
     of the penalty or fine and interest thereon at the prevailing 
     rate.
       (5) No sanctions shall be imposed under this subsection 
     unless there has been prior opportunity for a hearing on the 
     facts underlying the violation for which the sanction is 
     imposed, either in conjunction with a civil penalty 
     proceeding under this section or otherwise.
       (c) Hearing.--For the purposes of conducting any hearing 
     under this section, the Secretary may issue subpoenas for the 
     attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of 
     relevant papers, books, and documents, any may administer 
     oaths. Witnesses summoned shall be paid the same fees and 
     mileage that are paid to witnesses in the courts of the 
     United States. In cases of contempt or refusal to obey a 
     subpoena served upon any person pursuant to this subsection, 
     the district court of the United States for any district in 
     which such person is found, resides, or transacts business, 
     upon application by the United States and after notice to 
     such person, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order 
     requiring such person to appear and give testimony before the 
     Secretary or to appear and produce documents before the 
     Secretary, or both, and any failure to obey such order of the 
     court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof.
       (d) Judicial Review.--Any person against whom a civil 
     penalty is assessed under subsection (a) or against whose 
     vessel a license sanction is imposed under subsection (b) 
     (other than a license suspension for nonpayment of penalty or 
     fine) may obtain review thereof in the United States district 
     court for the appropriate district by filing a complaint 
     against the Secretary in such court within 30 days from 
     the date of such penalty or sanction. The Secretary shall 
     promptly file in such court a certified copy of the record 
     upon which such penalty or sanction was imposed, as 
     provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. 
     The findings and order of the Secretary shall be set aside 
     by such court if they are not found to be supported by 
     substantial evidence, as provided in section 706(2) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (e) Collection.--
       (1) If any person fails to pay an assessment of a civil 
     penalty after it has become a final and unappealable order, 
     or after the appropriate court has entered final judgment in 
     favor of the Secretary, the matter shall be referred to the 
     Attorney General, who shall recover the amount assessed in 
     any appropriate district court of the United States. In such 
     action, the validity and appropriateness of the final order 
     imposing the civil penalty shall not be subject to review.
       (2) A high seas fishing vessel (including its fishing gear, 
     furniture, appurtenances, stores, and cargo) used in the 
     commission of an act prohibited by section 6 shall be liable 
     in rem for any civil penalty assessed for such violation 
     under subsection (a) and may be proceeded against in any 
     district court of the United States having jurisdiction 
     thereof. Such penalty shall constitute a maritime lien on 
     such vessel that may be recovered in an action in rem in the 
     district court of the United States having jurisdiction over 
     the vessel.

     SEC. 9. CRIMINAL OFFENSES.

       (a) Offenses.--A person is guilty of an offense if the 
     person commits any act prohibited by section 6(6), (7), (8), 
     or (9).
       (b) Punishment.--Any offense described in subsection (a) is 
     a class A misdemeanor punishable by a fine under title 18, 
     United States Code, or imprisonment for not more than one 
     year, or both; except that if in the commission of any 
     offense the person uses a dangerous weapon, engages in 
     conduct that causes bodily injury to any authorized officer, 
     or places any such officer in fear of imminent bodily injury, 
     the offense is a felony punishable by a fine under title 18, 
     United States Code, or imprisonment for not more than 10 
     years, or both.

     SEC. 10. FORFEITURES.

       (a) In General.--Any high seas fishing vessel (including 
     its fishing gear, furniture, appurtenances, stores, and 
     cargo), used, and any living marine resources (or a fair 
     market value thereof) taken or retained, in any manner, in 
     connection with or as a result of the commission of any act 
     prohibited by section 6 shall be subject to forfeiture to the 
     United States. All or part of such vessel may, and all such 
     living marine resources shall, be forfeited to the United 
     States pursuant to a civil proceeding under this section.
       (b) Jurisdiction of District Courts.--Any district court of 
     the United States shall have jurisdiction, upon application 
     of the Attorney General on behalf of the United States, to 
     order any forfeiture authorized under subsection (a) and any 
     action provided for under subsection (d).
       (b) Judgment.--If a judgment is entered for the United 
     States in a civil forfeiture proceeding under this section, 
     the Attorney General may seize any property or other interest 
     declared forfeited to the United States, which has not 
     previously been seized pursuant to this Act or for which 
     security has not previously been obtained. The provisions of 
     the customs laws relating to--
       (1) the seizure, forfeiture, and condemnation of property 
     for violation of the customs law;
       (2) the disposition of such property or the proceeds from 
     the sale thereof; and
       (3) the remission or mitigation of any such forfeiture; 
     shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged 
     to have been incurred, under the provisions of this Act, 
     unless such provisions are inconsistent with the purposes, 
     policy, and provisions of this Act.
       (d) Procedure.--
       (1) Any officer authorized to serve any process in rem that 
     is issued by a court under section 7(b) shall--
       (A) stay the execution of such process; or
       (B) discharge any living marine resources seized pursuant 
     to such process;

     upon receipt of a satisfactory bond or other security from 
     any person claiming such property. Such bond or other 
     security shall be conditioned upon such person delivering 
     such property to the appropriate court upon order thereof, 
     without any impairment of its value, or paying the monetary 
     value of such property pursuant to an order of such court. 
     Judgment shall be recoverable on such bond or other security 
     against both the principal and any sureties in the event that 
     any condition thereof is breached, as determined by such 
     court.
       (2) Any living marine resources seized pursuant to this Act 
     may be sold, subject to the approval of the appropriate 
     court, for not less than the fair market value thereof. The 
     proceeds of any such sale shall be deposited with such court 
     pending the disposition of the matter involved.
       (e) Rebuttable Presumption.--For purposes of this section, 
     all living marine resources found on board a high seas 
     fishing vessel and which are seized in connection with an act 
     prohibited by section 6 are presumed to have been taken or 
     retained in violation of this Act, but the presumption can be 
     rebutted by an appropriate showing of evidence to the 
     contrary.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect 6 months after the entry into 
     force of the Agreement, or 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 2456. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out 
activities on certain federally owned lands to address the adverse 
effects of 1994 wildfires in the Western portion of the United States, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                       forest health act of 1994

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this summer forest fires have burned 
nearly 3 million acres of land in the Western United States--double the 
amount which burned last year. In Washington State alone, hundreds of 
thousands of acres have burned. These fires have created an emergency 
situation in my State, and States across the West.
  Let me reiterate, this is an emergency situation--one which deserves 
an emergency response. You only have to talk to the people who live in 
the areas in my State destroyed by these fires to understand why the 
Federal Government must immediately begin to restore the health of our 
forests.
  Let me give you an example of how important this issue is to people 
in my State. I received a letter from the Okanogan County 
Commissioners, and it reads in part:

       The recent forest and range fires that burned thousands of 
     acres in North Central and Central Washington have had a 
     devastating effect on local economies. The Okanogan County 
     Board of Commissioners urge a quick response to save the 
     economic value of these fire damaged timber stands. 
     Deterioration of these damaged areas begins immediately, 
     so timing is very important. . . . We request fire damaged 
     timber be harvested on a select cut basis and restoration 
     begin as soon as reasonable.

  Mr. President, these are the words of the Okanogan County 
Commissioners--it is hard to miss the urgency of their message. And it 
is this message of urgency which I heard from community leaders across 
the fire-ravaged areas of my State. The message to the Federal 
Government is clear--get in quickly, get up the fuel load, conduct the 
salvage operations, and restore the health of our forests.
  Administration officials, after touring burned areas in my State, 
publicly stated that the Forest Service must begin to address forest 
health issues--specifically thinning, salvaging, and prescribed 
burning. Jim Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural 
Resources and Environment, is quoted as saying in an August 13, 1994 
Seattle Post-Intelligence article:

       Forest management, rather than being the evil as some would 
     portray, can be used to improve forest health.

  Lyons went on to state that ``He is also pushing for increased 
thinning and salvaging of downed timber.'' Forest Chief, Jack Ward 
Thomas, has echoed the statements made by Mr. Lyons.
  Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which will give these 
administration officials the ability to give more than lipservice to 
this issue. The bill I introduce today will allow the administration to 
follow through on its promise to restore the health of our forests 
burned by summer wildfires.
  My legislation--the Forest Health Car of 1994--was developed after 
listening to the concerns of communities in eastern Washington which 
have been devastated by wildfires. Community leaders, commissioners, 
landowners, and the people who live and work in eastern Washington have 
made clear to me that the administration must follow through on their 
promises and begin to conduct salvaging operations.
  Yesterday, during the House-Senate conference on the 1995 Interior 
appropriations bill, I offered my Forest Health Act of 1994 as an 
amendment to the conference report. Prior to conference, I shared this 
language with the Washington congressional delegation and I had hoped 
to have their support in conference. When the time came for me to offer 
my language, however, I was told that they would not support my efforts 
to protect the administration's activities to conduct salvaging 
operations from frivolous lawsuits.
  I was deeply disappointed that even this modest effort in response to 
an extreme emergency in my State was so easily dismissed.
  Yesterday, in written response to a request from Speaker Foley, 
Assistant Secretary Lyons again spelled out the administration's strong 
commitment to conducting salvaging and thinning operations to restore 
forest health.
  I fully support the efforts of the Forest Service and Mr. Lyons. 
Unfortunately, even a strongly worded commitment from the 
administration will not fend off frivolous lawsuits. The minute the 
Forest Service initiates salvage operations, the frivolous and 
obstructionist lawsuits will be filed, effectively stopping any true 
salvage efforts for years. Simply put, a letter from the administration 
will not stand up in a court of law.
  Mr. President, I sincerely hope that the administration is able to 
follow through on its promise to conduct salvage operations in the 
areas hit hard by forest fires in my State without excessive appeals 
and endless delays. I remain doubtful, however, and believe that my 
legislation would avoid the frivolous lawsuits and endless appeals and 
enable us to restore the health of our forests far more quickly.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Forest Health Act of 1994 
and a letter from the Department of Agriculture be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2456

       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 ``Forest Health Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2 ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF 
                   WILDFIRES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, immediately after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the 
     Forest Service and in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Interior, shall carry out the following activities on 
     Federally owned lands that were adversely affected by the 
     1994 wildfires in the western portion of the United States:
       (1) Thinning and salvaging dead, dying, bug infested, and 
     burnt timber to remove existing fuel loads and improve the 
     health of forests.
       (2) Seeding with grass seeds, conducting tree planting 
     operations, and carrying out other forms of revegetation for 
     the purposes of flood prevention and the prevention of 
     landslides.
       (b) Employment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall employ dislocated timber workers to carry 
     out the activities specified in subsection (a).
                                  ____

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Longworth 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Thank you for expressing your concern 
     about the current condition of our western national forests. 
     I share your concern and sense of urgency about the situation 
     in the West. The wildfires affecting eastern Washington and 
     other western States are symptomatic of the excessive fuels 
     and poor condition of many forested areas in the region. I 
     want to reassure you that I am taking aggressive actions to 
     deal with the situation.
       On July 23, 1994, I directed Chief Jack Ward Thomas to 
     develop a proposal for a forest health initiative for the 
     national forests in the West. This initiative will (1) 
     determine the nature and extent of forest health problems on 
     the western national forests, and (2) recommend measures for 
     improving the health of these forest ecosystems through the 
     appropriate use of salvage logging, thinning, prescribed 
     burning, and other silvicultural tools. The term will also 
     identify administrative barriers to achieving our overall 
     forest health goals, in a manner that is consistent with 
     existing statutory requirements and legal authorities.
       The team that will develop this initiative is comprised of 
     a select group of individuals with diverse knowledge and 
     expertise and extensive field experience. They are based here 
     in Washington, D.C., enabling them to have direct 
     communications with the Department and appropriate Capital 
     Hill offices. The team will submit their final report to 
     Chief Thomas by September 30, 1994.
       The report will identify the specific actions and resources 
     needed in support of these activities to promote forest 
     health on National Forest System lands in the West in the 
     context of our overall ecosystem management goals. I am 
     confident that the forest health initiative will enable us to 
     intensify efforts to deal effectively with these serious 
     forest health problems by reducing heavy fuels, capturing 
     mortality, thinning overly dense stands, and other measures 
     recommended by this team. I intend to move expeditiously to 
     implement the team recommendations as appropriate.
       I should also note that this initiative is likely to 
     identify opportunities for employing local residents to aid 
     in conducting those silvicultural activities deemed 
     appropriate for restoring ecosystem health. Where possible, I 
     would hope that local residents would be given the 
     opportunity to engage in these activities so that they might 
     benefit from any employment opportunities that result.
       I appreciate your interest and the assistance you have 
     provided in helping us address this issue. We must move 
     aggressively to reduce the risk of this situation in the 
     future.
       If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate 
     to contact me.
       Best personal regards.
           Sincerely,

                                               James R. Lyons,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                Natural Resources and Environment.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Shelby, 
        Mr. Grassley, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Brown, Mr. Roth, Mr. Kempthorne, 
        Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Burns, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Exon):
  S. 2458. A bill to reform the concept of baseline budgeting, set 
forth strengthened procedures for the consideration of rescissions, 
provide a mechanism for dedicating savings from spending cuts to 
deficit reduction, and to ensure that only one emergency is included in 
any bill containing an emergency designation; to the Committee on the 
Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to 
the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee 
reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be 
discharged.


               the common cents budget reform act of 1994

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today, I and my colleague, Ben Nighthorse 
Campbell of Colorado, introduce a package of budget reform measures 
that we hope the Budget Committee will begin to look at as early as 
October 5, when the chairman of that committee had agreed to hold 
hearings on the budget reform process here in the U.S. Senate and the 
Congress as a whole.
  Yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting with three of our 
colleagues from the House, Congressman Charles Stenholm, of Texas; 
Congressman John Kasich; and Congressman Tim Penny.
  At that time, they presented to me a letter that they had sent to our 
leader, Senator Mitchell, including three provisions that the House has 
passed by overwhelming numbers in the course of the last several 
months:
  Expedited rescission, where the Congress would require a vote 
promptly by a majority on a proposal that would be rescinded by the 
President in budget matters brought before him. That passed on July 14 
in the House by 342 votes.
  A provision maintaining the integrity of emergency appropriations 
where they do not get wrapped into other appropriations but are dealt 
with separately and timely as relates to emergencies that occur in this 
country and need the Congress and their Government to respond to them.
  And the simple matter of baseline budgeting.
  Madam President, that is an issue that has been around for a long 
time; that we do not constantly roll into our budget's inflation and 
natural growth and then cut a portion of that and say our budgets have 
been cut, but actually look at rock-solid baseline budgeting and talk 
about if we want to increase it over last year. We think that is 
responsible.
  Those three items are a part of a package that Senator Campbell and I 
are introducing.
  We have also introduced another measure guaranteeing that a cut is a 
cut. Amendments to cut appropriation bills would apply savings directly 
to deficit reduction rather than to be spun off into other spending as 
it oftentimes the case.
  I think the American people have recognized that something is clearly 
wrong here with the Congress of the United States that cannot deal with 
its budgets.
  Since the Budget Impoundment Act of now well over two decades ago, 
when we said to the American people we were going to bring to the 
budget process strong and decisive action that would control our 
budgets and control our deficits, well, two decades later and trillions 
of dollars added to our national debt, the American people no longer 
believe us.
  Clearly, if we are to get our budget under control, it is us here in 
the Senate and in the U.S. House of Representatives that are going to 
have to deal with it. We cannot ask for magic and we cannot wish it 
away. We are going to have to make the tough decisions and the 
provisions that we have brought about in what we are calling the Common 
Cents Budget Reform Act of 1994, puts before the Congress a process 
that, if implemented in law, both for the House and the Senate would 
bring these kinds of tough tests and measures to the budget process.
  And I think the American people could observe us in our actions and 
say, ``Yes, cuts are cuts. There is not any funny inflationary business 
inside budgets.'' Every year, we consciously decide that a budget is 
going to be increased or decreased, that we would also provide for the 
integrity of emergency appropriations, and that we would have a line-
item veto in a modified rescission form in it. Those are the 
combination of real reform that I think most Americans expect and want 
to deal with and that will be found in our Common Cents Budget Reform 
Act that we introduce today.
  I would encourage all of my colleagues, in the ``Dear Colleague'' 
letter that both Senator Campbell and I sent out this week, to look at 
it and to join with us. Because the Budget Committee will on the 5th 
hold hearings and we know that this is an issue whose time is coming.
  Next year we will be back before the Budget Committee dealing with a 
very responsible process of budget reform measures. I have talked with 
the ranking Republican, Pete Domenici, who has time and time again 
brought to this floor with his colleagues responsible reform measures. 
It is now time we get it done.
  We are going to be back next year debating one of the issues that I 
have championed now for over a decade here in the Congress and that is 
a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. If we pass that--and I 
think we will--next year, we are also going to have to follow it up 
with a process that brings the budget down to balance within a 4- to 5-
year period.

  So it is going to take provisions of the kind that I am introducing 
today, along with my colleague from Colorado, in this Common Cents 
Budget Reform Act.
  We can no longer hide, Madam President. The American people are 
demanding that we get the budget under control, that we deal with 
deficits and that we be responsible with bringing our debt under 
control, and the bill that we introduce today that we will hopefully be 
able to have heard before the Budget Committee on the 5th and will 
reintroduce it again next year; a bill that three of the four 
provisions have already passed the House by almost unanimous votes, is 
the kind of issue that is a bipartisan balance to a very difficult 
process.
  I hope my colleagues will join in cosponsoring this legislation to 
build the bipartisan momentum that we will need to push it into law.
  Mr. President, the 103d Congress, the ``Reform Congress'' came in 
like a lion and is about to go out like a lamb.
  Even out of the few surviving proposals of the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress, we may see no more than congressional 
coverage considered in the Senate--if that.
  The most important reforms that Congress could enact would be budget 
reforms.
  In the two decades since the Budget and Impoundment Control Act was 
enacted, Congress progressively has lost control of Federal spending. 
This repeated failure to manage the taxpayers' money has become a 
threat not only to our Nation's economic future and our children's 
standard of living, but also to the credibility of Congress. We must 
act to help restore a sense of order, discipline, and accountability to 
the process by which spending decisions are made.
  Yet, earlier this year, both Houses of Congress failed by narrow 
margins to pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. In 
both bodies, reforms have remained buried in committee.
  Finally, some of our House colleagues have broken through the logjam 
in that body and created the opportunity for the Senate, as well, to 
pass meaningful budget reforms.
  In May of this year, Representatives Stenholm, Penny, and Kasich 
introduced the Common Cents Budget Reform Act, H.R. 4434, which 
included budget reforms in four major areas. These are:
  Baseline budgeting reform: Presidential and congressional budgets and 
CBO cost estimates would compare proposed spending to current actual 
spending, not an inflated baseline.
  Guaranteeing a cut is a cut: Amendments to cut appropriations bills 
could apply savings directly to deficit reduction, rather than to other 
spending; discretionary spending caps would be adjusted to reflect the 
savings in spending-cut amendments. This would be carried out by 
creation of a deficit reduction account, or lockbox, in each 
appropriations bill.
  Modified line-item veto expedited rescissions: Congress would be 
required to vote promptly on Presidential proposals to rescind 
appropriations or strike narrowly targeted tax benefits.
  Maintaining the integrity of emergency appropriations: Action on 
genuine emergencies would be expedited by barring the addition of 
nonemergency items.
  In recent weeks, under growing pressure from deficit hawks, the House 
leadership allowed three bills to come to the floor: H.R. 4600, dealing 
with expedited rescissions; H.R. 4907, concerning budget baselines; and 
H.R. 4906, concerning the emergency appropriations process.
  In all three cases, the House passed the stronger of the proposals 
before it, by large, bipartisan majorities.
  On final passage, the House voted by a margin of 342 to 69 to pass 
the stronger expedited rescission language, by voice vote to create a 
static spending baseline, and by 406 to 6 to keep extraneous matters 
out of appropriations bills.
  Today, along with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse 
Campbell, and a number of other Senators, I am introducing the Senate 
companion to the Common Cents Budget Reform Act. Our bill includes 
technical revisions that were made when three-fourths of these 
provisions passed the other body.
  While the introduction of this latest version of these reforms comes 
late in the current session, I want to stress that all of these ideas 
have been around for a long time.
  For example, the mechanics of the modified line-item veto/expedited 
rescission title of the common cents bill is very similar to the bill 
S. 690, that Senators Kempthorne, Cohen, and I introduced last year. 
That bill, in turn, the result of conversations we had with then-
Representative Tom Carper and other House colleagues who successfully 
pushed a different version through the other body in 1992.
  Five times during the 103d Congress, the Senate took votes on 
versions of a line-item veto. Three times these proposals received the 
support of a majority of Senators. Twice, large, bipartisan majorities 
in the Senate passed sense-of-the-Senate amendments in favor of some 
version of a line-item veto or expedited rescission process. Three 
times in 3 years, the House has passed the actual statutory reforms. 
Now is the time for the Senate to act.
  Similarly, changes in computing and presenting a budget baseline and 
in the process for passing emergency appropriations bill have been 
debated for about as long as baselines and emergency appropriations 
themselves have existed. More than a year ago, I testified in favor of 
baseline reforms before the Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress.
  Finally the need for a cut-is-a-cut rule, also called a deficit-
reduction lockbox, has become evident from our experience under the 
discretionary spending caps created under the 1990 budget agreement.
  Many times, we have seen Members in both bodies offer spending cuts 
in specific programs, invoking the worthy goal of deficit reduction. 
Whether we agreed or disagreed with any particular cut, most of us were 
frustrated by the fact that any such cut could not be required to apply 
to deficit reduction unless we overcame a 60-vote point of order in the 
Budget Act.
  I opposed the 1990 budget agreement. I agree that the domestic 
spending caps are about the only part of that agreement that has 
worked. I cannot imagine that anyone who was involved in the 1990 
budget agreement for the purpose of reducing the deficit could have 
intended that a 60-vote point of order should be available to thwart 
additional deficit reduction.
  Therefore, last year, Senator Shelby and I introduced the Deficit 
Reduction Assurance Act, which would lower the caps on outyear spending 
when Congress makes a current cut in an appropriations bill. Senator 
Kempthorne and Representative Crapo introduced similar lockbox bills at 
about the same time. The common cents bill includes a refined version 
of these proposals.
  All of this I point out to stress that our bill does not raise new 
issues. It merely contains the newest refined, bipartisan solutions to 
familiar problems.
  Yesterday, a letter was hand-delivered to the Senate majority leader 
from no less than 114 Members of the House, 57 Democrats and 57 
Republicans, asking him to allow the Senate to vote on the three House-
passed common cents reforms, without procedural obstacles.
  I rise today to make that same request on the Senate floor, on behalf 
of the many Senators who support these reforms and support having a 
fair vote on them before the Congress goes home this year.
  These are not radical reforms. The issues are familiar. It is not 
precipitous or premature to request that we be allowed up-or-down votes 
on them this year. It would not be a rush to judgement to pass them and 
see them signed into law this year. It would be reform to do so, real 
reform.
  Between 342 and 435 Members of the other body have final come to the 
realization that these are the types of reforms the American people 
want. Now is the time for the Senate to wake up to the same reality.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may include additional materials in 
the Record, including a summary of the Craig-Campbell common cents 
bill, the text of the bill, and a copy of the letter of the majority 
leader from 114 House Members.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2458

       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 ``Common Cents Budget Reform 
     Act of 1994''.
                 TITLE I--REFORM OF BASELINE BUDGETING

     SEC. 100. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Baseline Budgeting Reform 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 101. THE BASELINE.

       Except for purposes of adjusting the discretionary spending 
     limits set forth in section 601(a)(2) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, section 257(c) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``sequentially and cumulatively'' and by striking ``for 
     inflation as specified in paragraph (5),''; and
       (2) and by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5).

     SEC. 102. THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.

       (a) Paragraph (5) of section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, 
     estimated expenditures and appropriations for the current 
     year and estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations 
     the President decides are necessary to support the Government 
     in the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted and the 
     4 fiscal years following that year;''.
       (b) Section 1105(a)(6) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``current fiscal year and the'' before 
     ``fiscal year''.
       (c) Section 1105(a)(12) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), 
     by striking the period and inserting ``; and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (B), and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) the estimated amount for the same activity (if any) 
     in the current fiscal year.''.
       (d) Section 1105(a)(18) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``new budget authority and'' before 
     ``budget outlays''.
       (e) Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(30) a comparison of levels of estimated expenditures and 
     proposed appropriations for each function and subfunction in 
     the current fiscal year and the fiscal year for which the 
     budget is submitted, along with the proposed increase or 
     decrease of spending in percentage terms for each function 
     and subfunction.''.
       (f) Section 1109(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the first sentence the following new 
     sentence: ``These estimates shall not include an adjustment 
     for inflation for programs and activities subject to 
     discretionary appropriations.''.

     SEC. 103. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET.

       Section 301(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by--
       (1) inserting after the second sentence the following: 
     ``The starting point for any deliberations in the Committee 
     on the Budget of each House on the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget for the next fiscal year shall be the estimated 
     level of outlays for the current year in each function and 
     subfunction. Any increases or decreases in the Congressional 
     budget for the next fiscal year shall be from such estimated 
     levels.''; and
       (2) striking paragraph (8) and redesignating paragraphs (9) 
     and (10) as paragraphs (10) and (11), respectively, and by 
     inserting after paragraph (7) the following new paragraphs:
       ``(8) a comparison of levels for the current fiscal year 
     with proposed spending and revenue levels for the subsequent 
     fiscal years along with the proposed increase or decrease of 
     spending in percentage terms for each function and 
     subfunction; and
       ``(9) information, data, and comparisons indicating the 
     manner in which and the basis on which, the committee 
     determined each of the matters set forth in the concurrent 
     resolution, including information on outlays for the current 
     fiscal year and the decisions reached to set funding for the 
     subsequent fiscal years;''.

     SEC. 104. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REPORT TO COMMITTEES.

       (a) The first sentence of section 202(f)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as 
     follows: ``On or before February 15 of each year, the 
     Director shall submit to the Committees on the Budget of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate a report for the 
     fiscal year commencing on October 1 of that year with respect 
     to fiscal policy, including (A) alternative levels of total 
     revenues, total new budget authority, and total outlays 
     (including related surpluses and deficits) compared to 
     comparable levels for the current year and (B) the levels of 
     tax expenditures under existing law, taking into account 
     projected economic factors and any changes in such levels 
     based on proposals in the budget submitted by the President 
     for such fiscal year.''.
       (b) Section 202(f)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by inserting after the first sentence the 
     following new sentence: ``That report shall also include a 
     table on sources of spending growth under current law in 
     total mandatory spending for the budget year and the ensuing 
     4 fiscal years, which shall include changes in outlays 
     attributable to the following: cost-of-living adjustments; 
     changes in the number of program recipients; increases in 
     medical care prices, utilization and intensity of medical 
     care; and residual factors.''.
       (c) Section 202(f)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by striking ``and'' before ``(B)'' and 
     inserting a comma, and by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, and (C) all programs and activities 
     with permanent or indefinite spending authority or that fall 
     within section 401(c)(2)(C)''.
       (d) Section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, and shall include 
     a comparison of those levels to comparable levels for the 
     current fiscal year'' before ``if timely submitted''; and
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C), by 
     striking the period and inserting ``; and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (D), and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E) comparing the levels in existing programs in such 
     measure to the estimated levels for the current fiscal 
     year.''.
           TITLE II--CHANGES IN DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS

     SEC. 200. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Guaranteed Spending Cut 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 201. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENTS OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING 
                   LIMITS.

       (a) Downward Adjustments.--The discretionary spending limit 
     for new budget authority for any fiscal year set forth in 
     section 601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     adjusted in strict conformance with section 251 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     shall be reduced by the amount in the Deficit Reduction 
     Account set forth in each appropriation bill (or changed in 
     the case of a rescission bill pursuant to section 1012 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974), as calculated by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The adjusted 
     discretionary spending limit for outlays for that fiscal year 
     and each outyear as set forth in such section 601(a)(2) shall 
     be reduced as a result of the reduction of such budget 
     authority, as calculated by the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget based upon programmatic and other 
     assumptions set forth in the joint explanatory statement of 
     managers accompanying the conference report on that bill. 
     Reductions (if any) shall occur on the day that each such 
     appropriation bill is enacted into law. For purposes of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, amounts in Deficit 
     Reduction Accounts shall only be used to make the adjustments 
     specified in this subsection.
       (b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations.

     SEC. 202. DEFICIT REDUCTION ACCOUNTS IN APPROPRIATION 
                   MEASURES AND IN RESCISSION BILLS.

       (a) Deficit Reduction Accounts.--Title III of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:


  ``deficit reduction accounts in appropriation bills and rescission 
                                 bills

       ``Sec. 314. (a) Any appropriation bill or rescission bill 
     that is being marked up by the Committee on Appropriations 
     (or a subcommittee thereof) of either House shall contain a 
     line item entitled `Deficit Reduction Account'.
       ``(b) Whenever the Committee on Appropriations of either 
     House reports an appropriation bill, that bill shall contain 
     a line item entitled `Deficit Reduction Account' comprised of 
     the following:
       ``(1) Only in the case of any general appropriation bill 
     containing the appropriations for Treasury and Postal Service 
     (or resolution making continuing appropriations (if 
     applicable)), an amount equal to the amounts by which the 
     discretionary spending limit for new budget authority and 
     outlays set forth in the most recent OMB sequestration 
     preview report pursuant to section 601(a)(2) exceed the 
     section 602(a) allocation for the fiscal year covered by that 
     bill.
       ``(2) Only in the case of any general appropriation bill 
     (or resolution making continuing appropriations (if 
     applicable)), an amount not to exceed the amount by which the 
     appropriate section 602(b) allocation of new budget authority 
     exceeds the amount of new budget authority provided by that 
     bill (as reported by that committee).
       ``(3) Only in the case of any bill making supplemental 
     appropriations following enactment of all general 
     appropriation bills for the same fiscal year, an amount not 
     to exceed the amount by which the section 602(a) allocation 
     of new budget authority exceeds the sum of all new budget 
     authority provided by appropriation bills enacted for that 
     fiscal year plus that supplemental appropriation bill (as 
     reported by that committee).
       ``(c)(1) Any amendment which is offered to reduce budget 
     authority to an appropriation bill during its consideration 
     by the Committee on Appropriations (or any subcommittee 
     thereof) of either House of Congress or by either House may 
     increase the amount placed in the Deficit Reduction Account 
     by an amount which does not exceed the reduction in budget 
     authority contained in the amendment. Any amendment to 
     rescind budget authority during consideration of any bill by 
     the Committee on Appropriations (or any subcommittee thereof) 
     of either House of Congress or by either House may increase 
     the amount placed in the Deficit Reduction Account by an 
     amount which does not exceed the increase in the rescission 
     contained in the amendment.
       ``(2) Whenever any amendment referred to in paragraph (1) 
     is agreed to increasing the amount contained in the Deficit 
     Reduction Account, then the line item entitled `Deficit 
     Reduction Account' shall be increased by that amount.
       ``(3) Any amendment referred to in paragraph (1) shall 
     identify the program, project, or account which is to be 
     reduced in order to increase the Deficit Reduction Account by 
     the amount set forth in that amendment.
       ``(d)(1) Any amendment pursuant to subsection (c)(1) shall 
     be in order even if amending portions of the bill not yet 
     read for amendment with respect to the Deficit Reduction 
     Account and shall not be subject to a demand for a division 
     of the question in the House of Representatives (or in the 
     Committee of the Whole) or in the Senate. It shall be in 
     order to further amend the amount placed in the Deficit 
     Reduction Account after that amount has been changed by 
     amendment. It shall not be in order to reduce the amount 
     placed in the Deficit Reduction Account unless it is pursuant 
     to a motion to strike any proposed rescission under section 
     1012(c)(1)(C) or section 1012(c)(3)(B). It shall not be in 
     order to offer an amendment increasing a Deficit Reduction 
     Account unless the amendment increases rescissions or reduces 
     appropriations by an equivalent amount.
       ``(2) During consideration of such an amendment to an 
     appropriation bill in the House of Representatives, if the 
     original motion offered by the floor manager proposed to 
     place an amount in the Deficit Reduction Account that is less 
     than the lower of the level in the House or Senate bill, then 
     pending such original motion and before debate thereon, a 
     motion to insist on disagreement to the amendment proposed by 
     the Senate shall be preferential to any other motion to 
     dispose of that amendment. Such a preferential motion shall 
     be separately debatable for one hour equally divided between 
     its opponents and the proponents of the original motion. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on such a 
     preferential motion to its adoption without an intervening 
     motion.
       ``(3) The committee report accompanying any appropriation 
     bill or rescission bill in the House of Representatives or 
     Senate and the joint statement of the managers accompanying 
     the conference report on that bill shall set forth--
       ``(A) for any general appropriation bill, the amount of new 
     budget authority and outlays derived from the difference 
     between the section 602(b) allocations and the appropriation 
     bills;
       ``(B) for any appropriation bill (except a general 
     appropriation bill) but only if all 13 general appropriation 
     bills have been enacted for that fiscal year, the amount of 
     new budget authority and outlays to be derived from the 
     difference between the section 602(a) allocations and the sum 
     of appropriation bills for the current year and that bill; 
     and
       ``(C) for any amendment described in subsection (c)(1) 
     changing the amount in a Deficit Reduction Account, the 
     program, project, or account assumptions;

     for amounts in the Deficit Reduction Account.
       ``(e) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `appropriation bill' means any general or 
     special appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution 
     making supplemental, deficiency, or continuing 
     appropriations; and
       ``(2) the term `rescission bill' means any bill which 
     rescinds budget authority, including a bill referred to by 
     section 1012.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 314. Deficit reduction accounts in appropriation bills and 
              rescission bills.''.
       TITLE III--EXPEDITED RESCISSIONS AND TARGETED TAX BENEFITS

     SEC. 300. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Modified Line Item Veto/
     Expedited Rescission Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 301. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED 
                   RESCISSIONS AND TARGETED TAX BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1012 of the Congressional Budget 
     and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 683) is amended 
     to read as follows:


       ``expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions

       ``Sec. 1012. (a) Proposed Rescission of Budget Authority or 
     Repeal of Targeted Tax Benefits.--The President may propose, 
     at the time and in the manner provided in subsection (b), the 
     rescission of any budget authority provided in an 
     appropriation Act or repeal of any targeted tax benefit 
     provided in any revenue Act. Funds made available for 
     obligation under this procedure may not be proposed for 
     rescission again under this section.
       ``(b) Transmittal of Special Message.--
       ``(1) The President may transmit to Congress a special 
     message proposing to rescind amounts of budget authority or 
     to repeal any targeted tax benefit and include with that 
     special message a draft bill that, if enacted, would only 
     rescind that budget authority or repeal that targeted tax 
     benefit. That bill shall clearly identify the amount of 
     budget authority that is proposed to be rescinded for each 
     program, project, or activity to which that budget authority 
     relates or the targeted tax benefit proposed to be repealed, 
     as the case may be. It shall include a Deficit Reduction 
     Account. The President may place in the Deficit Reduction 
     Account an amount not to exceed the total rescissions in that 
     bill. A targeted tax benefit may only be proposed to be 
     repealed under this section during the 20-legislative-day 
     period (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) 
     commencing on the day after the date of enactment of the 
     provision proposed to be repealed.
       ``(2) In the case of an appropriation Act that includes 
     accounts within the jurisdiction of more than one 
     subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
     President in proposing to rescind budget authority under this 
     section shall send a separate special message and 
     accompanying draft bill for accounts within the jurisdiction 
     of each such subcommittee.
       ``(3) Each special message shall specify, with respect to 
     the budget authority proposed to be rescinded, the 
     following--
       ``(A) the amount of budget authority which he proposes to 
     be rescinded;
       ``(B) any account, department, or establishment of the 
     Government to which such budget authority is available for 
     obligation, and the specific project or governmental 
     functions involved;
       ``(C) the reasons why the budget authority should be 
     rescinded;
       ``(D) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated 
     fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect (including the effect 
     on outlays and receipts in each fiscal year) of the proposed 
     rescission; and
       ``(E) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating 
     to or bearing upon the proposed rescission and the decision 
     to effect the proposed rescission, and to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed rescission 
     upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget 
     authority is provided.

     Each special message shall specify, with respect to the 
     proposed repeal of targeted tax benefits, the information 
     required by subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), as it relates to 
     the proposed repeal.
       ``(c) Procedures for Expedited Consideration.--
       ``(1)(A) Before the close of the second legislative day of 
     the House of Representatives after the date of receipt of a 
     special message transmitted to Congress under subsection (b), 
     the majority leader or minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives shall introduce (by request) the draft bill 
     accompanying that special message. If the bill is not 
     introduced as provided in the preceding sentence, then, on 
     the third legislative day of the House of Representatives 
     after the date of receipt of that special message, any Member 
     of that House may introduce the bill.
       ``(B) The bill shall be referred to the Committee on 
     Appropriations or the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives, as applicable. The committee shall 
     report the bill without substantive revision and with or 
     without recommendation. The bill shall be reported not later 
     than the seventh legislative day of that House after the date 
     of receipt of that special message. If that committee fails 
     to report the bill within that period, that committee shall 
     be automatically discharged from consideration of the bill, 
     and the bill shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
       ``(C)(i) During consideration under this paragraph, any 
     Member of the House of Representatives may move to strike any 
     proposed rescission or rescissions of budget authority or any 
     proposed repeal of a targeted tax benefit, as applicable, if 
     supported by 49 other Members.
       ``(ii) It shall not be in order for a Member of the House 
     of Representatives to move to strike any proposed rescission 
     under clause (i) unless the amendment reduces the appropriate 
     Deficit Reduction Account if the program, project, or account 
     to which the proposed rescission applies was identified in 
     the Deficit Reduction Account in the special message under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(D) A vote on final passage of the bill shall be taken in 
     the House of Representatives on or before the close of the 
     10th legislative day of that House after the date of the 
     introduction of the bill in that House. If the bill is 
     passed, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall cause 
     the bill to be engrossed, certified, and transmitted to the 
     Senate within one calendar day of the day on which the bill 
     is passed.
       ``(2)(A) A motion in the House of Representatives to 
     proceed to the consideration of a bill under this section 
     shall be highly privileged and not debatable. An amendment to 
     the motion shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order to 
     move to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to 
     or disagreed to.
       ``(B) Debate in the House of Representatives on a bill 
     under this section shall not exceed 4 hours, which shall be 
     divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the 
     bill. A motion further to limit debate shall not be 
     debatable. It shall not be in order to move to recommit a 
     bill under this section or to move to reconsider the vote by 
     which the bill is agreed to or disagreed to.
       ``(C) Appeals from decisions of the Chair relating to the 
     application of the Rules of the House of Representatives to 
     the procedure relating to a bill under this section shall be 
     decided without debate.
       ``(D) Except to the extent specifically provided in the 
     preceding provisions of this subsection, consideration of a 
     bill under this section shall be governed by the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives. It shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives to consider any rescission bill 
     introduced pursuant to the provisions of this section under a 
     suspension of the rules or under a special rule.
       ``(3)(A) A bill transmitted to the Senate pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(D) shall be referred to its Committee on 
     Appropriations or Committee on Finance, as applicable. That 
     committee shall report the bill without substantive revision 
     and with or without recommendation. The bill shall be 
     reported not later than the seventh legislative day of the 
     Senate after it receives the bill. A committee failing to 
     report the bill within such period shall be automatically 
     discharged from consideration of the bill, and the bill shall 
     be placed upon the appropriate calendar.
       ``(B)(i) During consideration under this paragraph, any 
     Member of the Senate may move to strike any proposed 
     rescission or rescissions of budget authority or any proposed 
     repeal of a targeted tax benefit, as applicable, if supported 
     by 14 other Members.
       ``(ii) It shall not be in order for a Member of the House 
     of Senate to move to strike any proposed rescission under 
     clause (i) unless the amendment reduces the appropriate 
     Deficit Reduction Account if the program, project, or account 
     to which the proposed rescission applies was identified in 
     the Deficit Reduction Account in the special message under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(4)(A) A motion in the Senate to proceed to the 
     consideration of a bill under this section shall be 
     privileged and not debatable. An amendment to the motion 
     shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order to move to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or 
     disagreed to.
       ``(B) Debate in the Senate on a bill under this section, 
     and all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith 
     (including debate pursuant to subparagraph (C)), shall not 
     exceed 10 hours. The time shall be equally divided between, 
     and controlled by, the majority leader and the minority 
     leader or their designees.
       ``(C) Debate in the Senate on any debatable motion or 
     appeal in connection with a bill under this section shall be 
     limited to not more than 1 hour, to be equally divided 
     between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager of the 
     bill, except that in the event the manager of the bill is in 
     favor of any such motion or appeal, the time in opposition 
     thereto, shall be controlled by the minority leader or his 
     designee. Such leaders, or either of them, may, from time 
     under their control on the passage of a bill, allot 
     additional time to any Senator during the consideration of 
     any debatable motion or appeal.
       ``(D) A motion in the Senate to further limit debate on a 
     bill under this section is not debatable. A motion to 
     recommit a bill under this section is not in order.
       ``(d) Amendments and Divisions Prohibited.--Except as 
     otherwise provided by this section, no amendment to a bill 
     considered under this section shall be in order in either the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate. It shall not be in 
     order to demand a division of the question in the House of 
     Representatives (or in a Committee of the Whole) or in the 
     Senate. No motion to suspend the application of this 
     subsection shall be in order in either House, nor shall it be 
     in order in either House to suspend the application of this 
     subsection by unanimous consent.
       ``(e) Requirement To Make Available for Obligation.--(1) 
     Any amount of budget authority proposed to be rescinded in a 
     special message transmitted to Congress under subsection (b) 
     shall be made available for obligation on the day after the 
     date on which either House rejects the bill transmitted with 
     that special message.
       ``(2) Any targeted tax benefit proposed to be repealed 
     under this section as set forth in a special message 
     transmitted to Congress under subsection (b) shall be deemed 
     repealed, unless either House rejects the bill transmitted 
     with that special message.
       ``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `appropriation Act' means any general or 
     special appropriation Act, and any Act or joint resolution 
     making supplemental, deficiency, or continuing 
     appropriations;
       ``(2) the term `legislative day' means, with respect to 
     either House of Congress, any day of session; and
       ``(3) The term ``targeted tax benefit'' means any provision 
     which has the practical effect of providing a benefit in the 
     form of a differential treatment to a particular taxpayer or 
     a limited class of taxpayers, whether or not such provision 
     is limited by its terms to a particular taxpayer or a class 
     of taxpayers. Such term does not include any benefit provided 
     to a class of taxpayers distinguished on the basis of general 
     demographic conditions such as income, number of dependents, 
     or marital status.''.
       (b) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--Section 904 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and 1017'' and 
     inserting ``1012, and 1017''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``section 1017'' and 
     inserting ``sections 1012 and 1017''; and
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1011 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 682(5)) is amended by repealing paragraphs (3) and (5) 
     and by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
       (2) Section 1014 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 685) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``or the 
     reservation''; and
       (B) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``or a reservation'' 
     and by striking ``or each such reservation''.
       (3) Section 1015(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 686) is amended 
     by striking ``is to establish a reserve or'', by striking 
     ``the establishment of such a reserve or'', and by striking 
     ``reserve or'' each other place it appears.
       (4) Section 1017 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 687) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``rescission bill 
     introduced with respect to a special message or'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``rescission bill 
     or'', by striking ``bill or'' the second place it appears, by 
     striking ``rescission bill with respect to the same special 
     message or'', and by striking ``, and the case may be,'';
       (C) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``bill or'' each 
     place it appears;
       (D) in subsection (c), by striking ``rescission'' each 
     place it appears and by striking ``bill or'' each place it 
     appears;
       (E) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``rescission bill 
     or'' and by striking ``, and all amendments thereto (in the 
     case of a rescission bill)'';
       (F) in subsection (d)(2)--
       (i) by striking the first sentence;
       (ii) by amending the second sentence to read as follows: 
     ``Debate on any debatable motion or appeal in connection with 
     an impoundment resolution shall be limited to 1 hour, to be 
     equally divided between, and controlled by, the mover and the 
     manager of the resolution, except that in the event that the 
     manager of the resolution is in favor of any such motion or 
     appeal, the time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by 
     the minority leader or his designee.'';
       (iii) by striking the third sentence; and
       (iv) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``rescission bill 
     or'' and by striking ``amendment, debatable motion,'' and by 
     inserting ``debatable motion'';
       (G) in paragraph (d)(3), by striking the second and third 
     sentences; and
       (H) by striking paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) of 
     paragraph (d).
       (d) Clerical Amendments.--The item relating to section 1012 
     in the table of sections for subpart B of title X of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is 
     amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 1012. Expedited consideration of certain proposed 
              rescissions.''.
               TITLE IV--TREATMENT OF EMERGENCY SPENDING

     SEC. 400. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Emergency Appropriations 
     Integrity Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 401. TREATMENT OF EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       (a) Emergency Appropriations.--Section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``However, OMB shall not adjust any discretionary spending 
     limit under this clause for any statute that designates 
     appropriations as emergency requirements if that statute 
     contains an appropriation for any other matter, event, or 
     occurrence, but that statute may contain rescissions of 
     budget authority.''.
       (b) Emergency Legislation.--Section 252(e) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``However, 
     OMB shall not designate any such amounts of new budget 
     authority, outlays, or receipts as emergency requirements in 
     the report required under subsection (d) if that statute 
     contains any other provisions that are not so designated, but 
     that statute may contain provisions that reduce direct 
     spending.''.
       (c) New Point of Order.--Title IV of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


                 ``point of order regarding emergencies

       ``Sec. 408. It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, containing an emergency designation for purposes of 
     section 251(b)(2)(D) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 if it also provides an 
     appropriation or direct spending for any other item or 
     contains any other matter, but that bill or joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report may contain rescissions of 
     budget authority or reductions of direct spending, or that 
     amendment may reduce amounts for that emergency.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 408. Point of order regarding emergencies.''.
                                  ____


          The Common Cents Budget Reform Act of 1994--Summary

       The existing federal budget process suffers from a growing 
     crisis of confidence among the American people. Families that 
     pay their bills and live within their means cannot understand 
     the reports that come out of Washington, DC, about ``spending 
     cut'' bills that result in more spending, program 
     terminations that do not reduce spending or the budget 
     deficit, and narrow-interest ``pork'' that withstands all 
     efforts to isolate and strip it out of huge, omnibus spending 
     and tax bills.
       The Common Cents Budget Reform Act is a bipartisan effort 
     to reverse the bias in the existing budget process toward 
     higher spending and abusive, ``special interest'' favors. The 
     Act would do so by making the process more honest, 
     understandable, disciplined, and accountable. It contains 
     four basic reforms:


 title i. baseline budgeting reform act--comparing spending increases/
                     cuts to actual spending levels

       When a government program funded at $25 million this year 
     says it needs $29 million next year and receives $27 million, 
     Congress takes credit for a $2 million ``spending cut.'' This 
     is because current law requires budget proposals to be 
     measured against a ``baseline''--which includes automatic 
     adjustments for inflation, legislated changes scheduled to 
     take effect, and projected caseload increases.
       While such adjustments may provide useful information to 
     policy makers who want to know how much it would cost to 
     maintain current services and benefits, they also result in 
     programs growing in size and cost after supposedly being 
     ``cut.'' At best, ordinary Americans have come to believe 
     that the government is overrun with budget wonks using 
     surreal arithmetic. At worst, they believe their government 
     is lying to them.
       The decision of whether a government program should grow or 
     shrink, whether due to economic, demographic, or policy 
     reasons, is one that should be faced squarely by elected 
     officials and reported to the public in clear, 
     straightforward terms. To this end, the Common Cents Budget 
     Reform Act would:
       Require both the President and Congress to compare their 
     budget proposals to amounts actually spent in the prior year, 
     rather than against an inflated baseline.
       Stipulate that Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost 
     estimates of pending legislation must include a comparison 
     with the prior year's actual spending level.
       Amend the legal definition of the official baseline so that 
     it no longer assumes automatic growth in discretionary 
     spending.
       Instruct CBO to enumerate all the programs funded on an 
     automatic, open-ended basis rather than subject to annual 
     Congressional review (i.e., entitlement programs) and 
     identify the reasons behind their projected growth.


  title ii. guaranteed spending cut act--ensuring that a cut is a cut

       Members of the Senate and House, as well as their 
     constituents, have become all to familiar with the 
     frustration that results when Members adopt an amendment to 
     cut specific spending items out of appropriations bills, only 
     to see that money re-routed to other spending programs, 
     instead of deficit reduction. This practice both leads to 
     spending-cut amendments being taken less seriously and gives 
     opponents of a given cut the argument that the money will 
     still be spent, anyway. To ensure that spending-cut 
     amendments have their intended effect, the Common Cents 
     Budget Reform Act would:
       Allow Members of Congress to designate that all or some of 
     the savings from any floor amendment to an appropriations 
     bill be directed to deficit reduction.
       Ensure that the proceedings from spending cuts actually go 
     to deficit-reduction by automatically adjusting the overall 
     discretionary spending caps by the amount of the savings.
       Reduce the cap on discretionary spending if the budget 
     resolution establishes a lower limit on such spending than 
     that allowed under the cap.
       Preserve the Appropriations Committees' prerogative to 
     maintain reserve funds for future needs.


title iii. modified line item veto/expedited rescission act--compelling 
            action on spending cuts and targeted tax breaks

       Under current law, Congress is free to ignore any 
     rescission of spending proposed by the President. Some have 
     argued that this fact can allow a president to appear 
     fiscally responsible while proposing rescissions he/she knows 
     will never be accepted. On the other hand, a President 
     unwilling to shut down vital government functions by vetoing 
     an entire appropriations bill has no effective means of 
     singling out objectionable items that never would stand 
     scrutiny on their own, individual merits. As common as this 
     complaint has become about spending bills, increasing 
     attention also has been called to similar ``pork'' in tax 
     bills, in the form of special breaks narrowly targeted to one 
     or a few beneficiaries. To increase accountability, the 
     Common Cents Reform Act would:
       Enable the President to strike excessive or low-priority 
     spending items without vetoing an entire appropriations bill; 
     rescissions may be submitted at any time.
       Enable the President to strike special-interest, narrowly-
     targeted, tax benefits in a similar fashion, within 10 days 
     of enactment of the bill containing the provisions.
       Allow the President to earmark savings for deficit 
     reduction.
       Require Congress to consider the spending rescission or 
     targeted tax benefit items submitted by the President on an 
     expedited basis.
       Allow Congress to vote on individual items within the 
     President's package.
       Preserve the Appropriations Committees' prerogative to move 
     their own rescission bills.


title iv. emergency appropriations integrity act--keeping non-emergency 
                 items out of emergency spending bills

       Items that would not pass on their own merits often are 
     added to bills that were introduced to provide appropriations 
     in response to emergencies. This approach has become more 
     popular under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which 
     exempts emergencies from the caps on discretionary spending. 
     For example, in February, the President's request for $6.2 
     billion in Budget Authority for the victims of the California 
     earthquake grew to more than $11 billion, with add-ons for 
     everything from the design of a new Amtrak station to copies 
     of White House electronic mail. To halt this practice, the 
     Common Cents Budget Reform Act would:
       Bar non-emergency items from being added to emergency 
     appropriations bills.
       Expedite Congressional action on genuine emergencies by 
     preventing emergency bills from being made controversial by 
     the addition of non-emergency items.
       Prevent using ``emergency'' spending bills as the vehicles 
     that carry additional spending on ``pork,'' pet projects, or 
     items that should be addressed through the regular 
     legislative process.
       Prohibit conferees from dropping cuts included in both 
     House and Senate bills.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 1994.
     Hon. George Mitchell,
     Senate Majority Leader, Russell SOB.
       Dear Senator Mitchell: As you know, the House of 
     Representatives has approved several budget process reform 
     bills over the last few weeks. We are writing to strongly 
     encourage you to work with the committees of jurisdiction to 
     bring these bills to the Senate floor for an up or down vote 
     as soon as possible.
       The legislation passed by the House would make three 
     reasonable reforms to restore honesty and accountability in 
     the budget process:
       Expedited Rescissions (H.R. 4600).--Congress would be 
     required to vote promptly by majority vote on Presidential 
     proposals to rescind spending or strike narrowly targeted tax 
     benefits. H.R. 4600 was passed on July 14 by a vote of 342-
     69.
       Maintaining the Integrity of Emergency Appropriations (H.R. 
     4906).--The integrity of the emergency spending process would 
     be protected by preventing extraneous, non-emergency items 
     from being added to emergency spending legislation. The 
     Emergency Spending Control Act of 1994 was approved by a vote 
     of 406-6 on August 17.
       Baseline Budgeting Reform (H.R. 4907).--The President's 
     budget, the budget resolution, and the Congressional Budget 
     Office would be required to compare spending levels to the 
     previous year's spending instead of an inflated baseline. The 
     Full Budget Disclosure Act was passed by a voice vote on 
     August 12.
       Given the strong, bi-partisan support for these bills in 
     the House, they deserve serious consideration by the Senate. 
     Legislation incorporating provisions identical to the bills 
     passed by the House has been introduced in the Senate. We are 
     concerned about press reports that the Senate will allow 
     these bills to die through inaction. Therefore, we 
     respectfully urge you to allow the Senate to vote on the 
     merits of these proposals without procedural hurdles before 
     the end of the 103rd Congress.
       We look forward to working with you in enacting these 
     common sense reforms of the budget process. Thank you for 
     your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Charles Stenholm,
     John R. Kasich,
     Tim Penny.
                                  ____


  Democrats Signing Budget Process Reforms Letter to Senator Mitchell

       Robert Andrews, Peter Barca, Tom Barrett, Bill Brewster, 
     Glen Browder, Leslie Byrne, Maria Cantwell, Ben Cardin, Bob 
     Clement, Gary Condit.
       Jim Cooper, Sam Coopersmith, Pat Danner, Nathan Deal, Peter 
     DeFazio, Kika de la Garza, Calvin Dooley, Karan English, Eric 
     Fingerhut, Elizabeth Furse.
       Pete Geren, Dan Glickman, Ralph Hall, Lee Hamilton, Jane 
     Harman, Jimmy Hayes, Tim Holden, Earl Hutto, Andy Jacobs.
       Tim Johnson, Herb Klein, Greg Laughlin, Larry LaRocco, 
     Marilyn Lloyd, David Mann, Marty Meehan, David Minge, Bill 
     Orton, Mike Parker.
       L.F. Payne, Tim Penny, Collin Peterson, Owen Pickett, Glenn 
     Poshard, Tim Roemer, J. Roy Rowland, Lynn Schenk, Karen 
     Shepherd, Norm Sisisky.
       John Spratt, Charlie Stenholm, Dick Swett, Billy Tauzin, 
     Gene Taylor, Karen Thurman, Tim Valentine, Harold Volkmer.

 Republicans Signing Budget Process Reforms Letter to Senator Mitchell

       Dick Armey, Wayne Allard, Herbert Batemen, John Boehner, 
     Dan Burton, Sonny Callahan, Charles Canady, Mike Castle, 
     Larry Combest, Chris Cox.
       Michael Crapo, David Dreier, Jennifer Dunn, Bill Emerson, 
     Harris Fawell, Bob Franks, Elton Gallegly, Jim Greenwood, 
     Wally Herger.
       David Hobson, Martin Hoke, Bob Inglis, Nancy Johnson, John 
     Kasich, Scott Klug, Jim Kolbe, Rick Lazio, Jim Leach, Al 
     McCandless.
       Bill McCollum, Jim McCrery, John McHugh, Alex McMillan, Jan 
     Meyers, Dan Miller, Susan Molinari, Jim Nussle, John Porter, 
     Rob Portman.
       Deborah Pryce, Jack Quinn, Jim Ramstad, Ralph Regula, Rick 
     Santorum, Chris Shays, Lamar Smith, Nick Smith, Olympia 
     Snowe, Gerald Solomon.
       Floyd Spence, Charles Taylor, Craig Thomas, Fred Upton, Bob 
     Walker, Don Young, Bill Zeliff, Dick Zimmer.

 Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I am proud to join Senator Craig 
and others today in introducing a package of budget process reform 
measures that are critical to help curb Federal spending. Federal 
spending has grown dramatically over the past several years, and this 
package contains four essential reform measures that Congress should 
pass before its adjournment this fall.
  I am particularly enthusiastic about two reform measures that would 
guarantee that a vote for a spending cut would actually cut spending 
overall, and not allow that pot of money to be spend on other 
discretionary programs. The first reform would require that any 
successful amendment to reduce spending in an appropriations bill could 
not be spend for other programs. The enforcement mechanism would 
require that the overall discretionary spending cap would be adjusted 
downward to reflect the savings in a spending cut amendment.
  For example, earlier this summer, I along with Senator Smith of New 
Hampshire proposed an amendment to the fiscal year 1995 Commerce, 
State, Justice appropriations bill to scale back all noncrime fighting 
funding for fiscal year 1995 to the current, or enacted level for this 
fiscal year 1994. This amendment would have saved over $2.5 billion 
over the next year. However, even if the Senate adopted our amendment, 
this $2.5 billion could have still be spent on other discretionary 
programs. This loophole must be closed to ensure that a vote to cut 
spending actually translates into a vote to directly reduce the 
deficit.

  The second reform would restore the integrity of the emergency 
designation reserved for emergency appropriations that address true 
natural disasters. In recent years Americans have faced devastating 
floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Yes, I believe that Federal 
government does have a legitimate role in assisting affected 
communities. But, it has become commonplace to attach nonemergency 
funds to an emergency appropriations bill that is exempt from the 
overall discretionary cap spending limits. This practice must be 
stopped. This reform would also prohibit conferees from dropping 
spending cuts included in both House and Senate bills.
  The third reform would require Presidential and congressional budgets 
and CBO cost estimates to be compared to current actual spending, not 
an inflated baseline that automatically increases spending year after 
year. This reform would also instruct the Congressional Budget Office 
to enumerate all Federal programs funded on an automatic basis rather 
than subject to congressional review and identify the reasons behind 
their projected growth.
  The final budget process reform would require Congress to consider 
all Presidentially proposed spending rescissions or targeted tax 
benefit items on an expedited schedule. The reform would also enable 
the President to strike excessive or low-priority spending items 
without vetoing an entire appropriations bill. This modified line item 
veto-expedited rescission measure is critical to reduce Federal 
expenditures.
  As you know, Mr. President, the House has already approved on a 
bipartisan basis, three of the four reform proposals contained in this 
bill. There is still time for the Senate to take action on this 
package, and I therefore urge that it be considered before our fall 
adjournment.
  Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill to 
reform four critical flaws in our current budget process. The Common 
cents Budget Reform Act of 1994 is a good first step to curb Federal 
expenditures. Budget process reform, however, will not take the place 
of the hard choices that face Senators when casting votes to reduce 
Federal expenditures, but, in my opinion they are necessary reforms 
that are long overdue.

                          ____________________