[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 21 (Thursday, February 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2035-S2067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CONRAD:
  S. 332. A bill to provide means of limiting the exposure of children 
to violent programming on television, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


              THE CHILDREN'S MEDIA PROTECTION ACT OF 1995
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Children's 
Media Protection Act of 1995.
  Mr. President, last Tuesday, the President in his State of the Union 
Address, asked Americans to take responsibility for their lives, to 
keep families together, and to keep communities from falling apart. As 
part of that challenge, the President expressed his continuing concern 
over media violence and challenged the media industry by saying,

       You do have a responsibility to assess the impact of your 
     work and to understand the damage that comes from the 
     incessant, repetitive, mindless violence and irresponsible 
     conduct that permeates our media.

  Mr. President, I agree, and so do the experts. Let me quote the 
Guggenheim Foundation from the study of ``Violence in Society.'' They 
said, ``The scientific debate is over. A recent summary of 200 studies 
published through 1990 offers convincing evidence that the observation 
of violence as seen in standard, every day television entertainment, 
does affect the aggressive behavior of the viewer.''
  Mr. President, while the scientific debate is over, the public policy 
debate continues into its fifth decade.
  Let me just turn to a chart which shows that violence in our society 
is far above that of any other industrialized nation. This chart is 
titled ``Crime Across the Globe, Murders Per 100,000 in 1990.'' The 
United States, 9.4; Canada, 5.5; Denmark, 5.2; France, 4.6; Australia, 
4.5; Germany, 4.2; Belgium, 2.8, and on it goes down to Japan at 1.2.
  Mr. President, we have a problem in this country. No one is 
suggesting that violence in the media is the sole cause; certainly, it 
is not. But to deny that it plays a part is to deny what all of us 
instinctively understand. We learn by watching what others do, and many 
children in our society are spending 6 hours a day watching television. 
What do they see? One thing they see is endless acts of mindless, 
gratuitous violence. Mr. President, it has an affect and it is a bad 
affect. It teaches children that one way to deal with problems is to 
engage in acts of violence. And in many cases it teaches them that 
there are no consequences, there is no pain. People are blown away and 
it does not make a difference.
  We know better. We know it does make a difference, and we know this 
is not what we should be teaching our children. Because of a lack of 
action on this issue, I formed the Citizens Task Force on TV Violence, 
comprised of 28 national organizations representing medical 
professions, parents, educators, law enforcement, and churches. We 
formed that group in June 1993.
  In December of that year, the Attorney General, Janet Reno, asked us 
for a set of recommendations. We submitted seven recommendations to the 
Attorney General. Those recommendations called for the adoption of a 
tough entertainment-media violence code, support for technology that 
would permit parents to more effectively monitor children's viewing of 
television. We recommended strengthening the Children's Television Act 
of 1990, scheduling hearings by the FCC on television violence, 
convening a White House Conference on Violence, curbing viewing of 
violent television programming in prisons, and the continuation of 
television industry discussions as authorized under the Television 
Program Improvement Act of 1990.
  Shortly after these recommendations were submitted, the American 
Medical Association's house of delegates called for the adoption of a 
television violence code. They had a rating system for films, video, 
and audio entertainment. Following the outcry last year over the 
violent content of television and cable programming, the major TV 
networks and cable initiated voluntary assessments of violent content 
in their program. These assessments began with the 1994-95 television 
viewing season. Additionally, the major television networks agreed to 
display viewer warnings on some television programming containing 
violent content. They deserve credit for these steps.
  There is progress on other fronts, as well. Even the leaders of the 
entertainment industry have come to believe that violence in the media 
is a problem. In a survey of entertainment industry leaders in U.S. 
News & World Report on May 9, 1994, nearly 9 out of 10 media 
entertainment industry leaders said that violence in entertainment 
contributes to the level of violence plaguing the Nation.
  Mr. President, even though there has been a recognition, even though 
there has been a public discussion about media violence and the 
contribution it makes to violence in our society, nothing is happening. 
The media mayhem continues.
  I cite the alarming report of the Center for Media and Public Affairs 
that was done in August of last year. The center, working with the 
Guggenheim Foundation, reported that television is considerably more 
violent in 1994 than it was 2 years previous.
  Mr. President, I direct your attention to the chart that we have 
prepared that shows what has happened to the daily violence on 
television, a comparison between 1992 and 1994. This shows the 
incidents of violence per hour that are going out over the media.
  Networks in 1992 had 25 violent acts per hour on average. In 1994, 
that had increased to 43 acts of violence per hour. Cable was even more 
egregious. Cable had 55 acts of violence per hour in 1992. That 
escalated to 75 acts of violence per hour on average in 1994. Only 
Public Broadcasting had modest levels of violence and was stable in the 
acts of violence portrayed between the years of 1992 and 1994.
  Mr. President, although there has been a lot of talk about doing 
something about violence in the media, there has been precious little 
action.
  I believe the American people do not want their children and families 
exposed to the extraordinary violence that is occurring in the 
entertainment media on a daily basis.
  Now, we here in the Senate do not watch a lot of television because 
we wind up being here most of our time or in our States going from town 
to town. And so opportunities for watching television are somewhat 
limited. I would just ask my colleagues to turn on the television, 
watch what is happening, and ask yourselves: Can it possibly be the 
case that we can have children watching 6 hours of television a day and 
seeing endless repetitive mindless acts of violence and it has no 
effect on them? It cannot be. It has to be having an effect on them. 
And virtually every study that has been done says it is having an 
effect on them.
  Mr. President, I recognize that the violence in our society is not 
just because of media violence. Certainly, that is not the case. There 
are many contributors. But the time has come for us to reduce the 
violence in the entertainment media. The trend to glamorize violence 
must stop.
  I am pleased by the voluntary efforts the media has undertaken. But 
let us face it. The job is not getting done. I do not believe that 
voluntary initiatives are sufficient to reduce media violence. 
[[Page S2036]] For that reason, I am introducing legislation today that 
incorporates the principal recommendations of the Citizens Task Force. 
The legislation includes means to empower parents to help them make 
choices. It provides for new television sets being required to contain 
a V-chip that would permit parents to block television programming with 
violent content. The cost of the V-chip is now down to about $5 per 
television set--$5 --to give the parents an ability, to empower parents 
to help make choices for their children. That makes sense.
  Second, the legislation contains a violent programming rating 
provision. This provision requires the FCC to prescribe, in 
consultation with the broadcasters and cable operators, private 
interest groups and concerned citizens rules for rating the level of 
violence in television programming. These ratings would apply to the V-
chip technology.
  Third, the legislation contains a children's safe harbor provision 
which requires the FCC to initiate a rule that prohibits commercial 
television, cable operators, and public telecommunications entities 
from broadcasting television programs that contain gratuitous violence 
between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. at night.
  Mr. President, if there is one thing we have heard all across this 
country it is that there ought to be a safe harbor, there ought to be a 
period within which kids are watching television that parents can have 
some assurance they are not being exposed to this mindless gratuitous 
violence.
  Finally, the bill contains the Children's TV Act compliance provision 
which requires the FCC, when granting or renewing TV licenses, to 
assure the applicant is in compliance with the Children's Television 
Act of 1990.
  These provisions are consistent with the FCC's current examination of 
television violence in children's television programs and the 
implementation of the Childrens' Television Act of 1990.
  Mr. President I have supported voluntary efforts in the past and I 
continue to support and commend these efforts. But it is absolutely 
clear--absolutely clear--that those efforts are not sufficient to 
achieve the result that I think the vast majority of Americans would 
like to see achieved.
  The President challenged us last Tuesday to understand the impact 
that this constant stream of mindless violence is having on our 
families and children. I applaud the President, and I hope he will 
continue to draw public attention to the corrosive effect that violence 
in the entertainment media is having on our families and on our 
children.
  Mr. President, I welcome cosponsors to my legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to carefully examine the issue of media violence as it 
relates to violence in our society.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill, the recommendations 
submitted to Attorney General Janet Reno by the Citizens Task Force on 
TV Violence, the names of the national organizations in the task force 
that endorse the recommendations, and the press release announcing the 
action by the American Medical Association's house of delegates, its 
article, entitled ``A Kinder, Gentler Hollywood,'' in the May 1994 
issue of the U.S. News & World Report, the findings of the study by the 
Center for Media and Public Affairs, along with the press release 
announcing the study, and the report of the study of the findings of 
200 studies of violence, along with the endorsements of task force 
members that supported this initiative, be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to specifically draw the attention 
of my colleagues to the letter of support for this legislation from the 
American Medical Association--I was pleased to have the president of 
the American Medical Association at the press conference this morning 
announcing this legislation--the support from the National Association 
of Secondary School Principals; the support of the National Coalition 
on Television Violence; the support of school principals who recognize 
that the epidemic of violence on the streets of America is spilling 
over into the schools of America and their belief that media violence 
is contributing to that violence; the support from the National 
Association for the Education of Young Children; the strong statement 
of support from the National PTA; the support of The Future Wave, which 
is made up of producers and writers themselves who recognize that 
television violence, media violence, is contributing to violence in our 
society; and the support of the National Alliance for Nonviolent 
Programming. All of these groups have specifically endorsed, now, the 
legislation that I am introducing today.
                              [Exhibit 1]

                                 S. 332
       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 ``Childrens' Media Protection 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On average, a child in the United States is exposed to 
     27 hours of television each week, and some children are 
     exposed to as much as 11 hours of television each day.
       (2) The average American child watches 8,000 murders and 
     100,000 acts of other violence on television by the time the 
     child completes elementary school.
       (3) By the age of 18 years, the average American teenager 
     has watched 200,000 acts of violence on television, including 
     40,000 murders.
       (4) The Times Mirror Center reports that a recent poll of 
     Americans indicates that 72 percent of the American people 
     believe that there is too much violence on television, and, 
     according to a survey by U.S. News and World Report dated May 
     1994, 91 percent of American voters believe that mayhem in 
     the media contributes to violence in real life.
       (5) On several occasions since 1975, The Journal of the 
     American Medical Association has alerted the medical 
     community to the adverse effects of televised violence on 
     child development, including an increase in the level of 
     aggressive behavior and violent behavior among children who 
     view it.
       (6) The National Commission on Children recommended in 1991 
     that producers of television programs exercise greater 
     restraint in the content of programming for children.
       (7) A report of the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, 
     dated May 1993, indicates that there is an irrefutable 
     connection between the amount of violence depicted in the 
     television programs watched by children and increased 
     aggressive behavior among children.
       (8) It is in the National interest that parents be 
     empowered with the technology to block the viewing of 
     television programs whose content is overly violent or 
     objectionable for other reasons.
       (9) Technology currently exists to permit the manufacture 
     of television receivers that are capable of permitting 
     parents to block television programs having violent or 
     otherwise objectionable content.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE RATING CODE.

       Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     303) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) Prescribe, in consultation with television 
     broadcasters, cable operators, appropriate public interest 
     groups, and interested individuals from the private sector, 
     rules for rating the level of violence in television 
     programming, including rules for the transmission by 
     television broadcast systems and cable systems of signals 
     containing specifications for blocking violent 
     programming.''.

     SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT FOR MANUFACTURE OF TELEVISIONS THAT BLOCK 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     303), as amended by section 3, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(w) Require, in the case of apparatus designed to receive 
     television signals that are manufactured in the United States 
     or imported for use in the United States and that have a 
     picture screen 13 inches or greater in size (measured 
     diagonally), that such apparatus--
       ``(1) be equipped with circuitry designed to enable viewers 
     to block the display of channels, programs, and time slots; 
     and
       ``(2) enable viewers to block display of all programs with 
     a common rating.''.

     SEC. 5. SHIPPING OR IMPORTING OF TELEVISIONS THAT BLOCK 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Regulations.--Section 330 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 330) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by adding after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (c):
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person 
     shall ship in interstate commerce, manufacture, assemble, or 
     import from any foreign country into the United States any 
     apparatus described in section 303(w) of this Act except in 
     accordance with rules prescribed by the Commission pursuant 
     to the authority granted by that section.
       ``(2) This subsection shall not apply to carriers 
     transporting apparatus referred to in paragraph (1) without 
     trading it.
     [[Page S2037]]   ``(3) The rules prescribed by the Commission 
     under this subsection shall provide performance standards for 
     blocking technology. Such rules shall require that all such 
     apparatus be able to receive the rating signals which have 
     been transmitted by way of line 21 of the vertical blanking 
     interval and which conform to the signal and blocking 
     specifications established by the Commission.
       ``(4) As new video technology is developed, the Commission 
     shall take such action as the Commission determines 
     appropriate to ensure that blocking service continues to be 
     available to consumers.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 330(d) of such Act, as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is amended by striking 
     ``section 303(s), and section 303(u)'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``and sections 303(s), 303(u), and 303(w)''.

     SEC. 6. ELIMINATION OF VIOLENT PROGRAMMING ON TELEVISION 
                   DURING CERTAIN HOURS.

       Title I of the Children's Television Act of 1990 (47 U.S.C. 
     303a et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:


                  ``prohibition on violent programming

       ``Sec. 105. (a) The Commission shall, within 30 days of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, initiate a rule-making 
     proceeding to prescribe a prohibition on the broadcast on 
     commercial television and by public telecommunications 
     entities, including the broadcast by cable operators, from 
     the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, of programming 
     that contains gratuitous violence.
       ``(b) As used in this section:
       ``(1) The term `cable operator' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 602 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 522).
       ``(2) The term `programming' includes advertisements but 
     does not include bona fide newscasts, bona fide news 
     interviews, bona fide news documentaries, and on-the-spot 
     coverage of bone fide news events.
       ``(3) The term `public telecommunications entity' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 397(12) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 397(12)).''.

     SEC. 7. BROADCAST ON TELEVISION AND CABLE OF EDUCATIONAL AND 
                   INFORMATIONAL PROGRAMMING FOR CHILDREN.

       (a) Broadcast Television.--Section 309 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Educational and Information Programming for 
     Children.--In granting an application for a license for a 
     television broadcasting station (including an application for 
     renewal of such a license), the Commission shall impose such 
     conditions upon the applicant as the Commission requires in 
     order to ensure that the applicant complies under the license 
     with the standards for children's television programming 
     established under section 102 of the Children's Television 
     Act of 1990 (47 U.S.C. 303a) and otherwise serves the 
     educational and informational needs of children through its 
     overall programming.''.
       (b) Cable Service.--Part III of title VI of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:


         ``educational and information programming for children

       ``Sec. 629. A franchise, including the renewal of a 
     franchise, may not be awarded under this part unless the 
     cable operator to be awarded the franchise agrees to comply 
     with the standards for children's television programming 
     established under section 102 of the Children's Television 
     Act of 1990 (47 U.S.C. 303a) and to otherwise serve the 
     educational and informational needs of children in the 
     provision of cable service under the franchise.''.
                                                                    ____

                   Citizens Task Force on TV Violence

       Americans For Responsible Television, Post Office Box 627, 
     Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48303.
       American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, 
     Washington, D.C. 20002.
       National Association For The Education of Young Children, 
     1509 16th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036.
       Future Wave, 105 Camino Teresa, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501.
       National Sheriffs Association, 1450 Duke Street, 
     Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
       American Medical Association, 1101 Vermont Avenue, NW, 
     Washington, D.C. 20005.
       American Medical Association Alliance, Inc., 515 North 
     State Street, Chicago, Illinois 60610.
       International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1110 North 
     Glebe Road, Suite 200, Arlington, Virginia 22201.
       National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1615 
     Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
       National School Boards Association, 1680 Duke Street, 
     Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
       American Psychiatric Association, 1400 K Street, NW, 
     Washington, D.C. 20005.
       National Council of Churches, 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 
     852, New York, New York 10015.
       National PTA, 2000 L Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, 
     D.C. 20036.
       Parent Action, 2 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 
     21201.
       National Foundation To Improve Television, 60 State Street, 
     Suite 3400, Boston, Massachusetts 02109.
       National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1904 
     Association Drive, Reston, Virginia 22091.
       American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 3615 
     Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20016.
       National Coalition on Television Violence, 33290 West 
     Fourteen Mile Road, Suite 489, West Bloomfield, Michigan 
     48322.
       American Academy of Pediatrics, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
     NW, Washington, D.C. 20004.
       National Association For Family & Community Education, P.O. 
     Box 6, 127 North Pepperell Road, Hollis, New Hampshire 03049-
     0006.
       National Child Care Association, 1029 Railroad Street, 
     Conyers, Georgia 30207.
       National Association of Social Workers, 750 First Street, 
     NE, Washington, D.C. 20002.
       Alliance Against Violence In Entertainment For Children, 17 
     Greenwood Street, Marlboro, Massachusetts 01752.
       American Nurses Association/American Academy of Nursing, 
     600 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20024.
       American Association of School Administrators, 1801 North 
     Moore Street, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209.
       National Council For Children's TV And Media, 32900 
     Heatherbrook, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331-2908.
       National Alliance for Non-violent Programming, 1846 Banking 
     Street, Greensboro, North Carolina 27408.
       National Association of School Psychologists, 8455 
     Colesville Road, Suite 1000, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
                                                                    ____

[From the Center for Media and Public Affairs, Washington, DC, Aug. 8, 
                                 1994]

                     TV Violence--1992 Versus 1994

       Television violence increased by 41% over the last two 
     years, according to a new study by the Center for Media and 
     Public Affairs. The study counted 2,605 violent scenes in a 
     single day across 10 broadcast and cable channels in 1994, up 
     from 1,846 violent scenes in 1992. But violence shown in toy 
     commercials dropped by 85% from 1992 to 1994.
       These results come from a unique study of ``a day-in-the-
     life of television.'' Researchers tabulated all scenes of 
     violence during 18 continuous hours of programming on each of 
     10 broadcast and cable channels during the first Thursday in 
     April of both 1992 and 1994. The researchers monitored the 
     following channels from 6 a.m. to midnight: the ABC, CBS, 
     NBC, and FOX broadcast networks, PBS, and Paramount-owned 
     independent station WDCA; and cable channels HBO, MTV, WTBS, 
     and USA.


                             Major findings

       The number of violent scenes increased from 1,846 in 1992 
     to 2,605 in 1994, a rise of 41%. The average hourly rate 
     increased from 10 to almost 15 scenes of violence per 
     channel.
       Life threatening violence (such as assaults with deadly 
     weapons) increased even more rapidly than overall violence, 
     rising 67% from 751 to 1,252 scenes. Incidents involving gun 
     play rose 45%, from 362 to 526.
       The greatest sources of violence on television is not any 
     one type of programming, but the ``promos'' for upcoming 
     shows and movies--695 violent scenes, up 69% from 1992.
       Unlike TV programs and promos, violence in toy commercials 
     dropped sharply. In about the same amount of children's 
     programming, toy ads showed only 28 violent scenes in 1994, 
     down from 188 in 1992--a drop of 85%.
       Because the study covers a single day, the results cannot 
     necessarily be generalized across the entire television 
     season. But the increase in violence is too pervasive to 
     attribute it to any unusual aspect of this particular day's 
     programming. Violence was up on the broadcast and cable 
     channels alike in fiction and non-fiction formats, adult and 
     children's fare, and in promos as well as programs.
                                                                    ____

[From the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, New York, NY, May 3, 1993]

   H.F. Guggenheim Foundation Urges Vigilance Against Media Violence


  calls for monitoring of tv networks' compliance with guidelines to 
                   limit violent content of programs

       New York.--The nation's only private foundation devoted 
     exclusively to the study of violence and aggression called 
     today for new vigilance against violence in television 
     programs and motion pictures. In issuing a report entitled 
     ``The Problem of Media Violence and Children's Behavior,'' 
     the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation urged parents, 
     children's advocates, Congress, and the entertainment 
     industry itself to monitor the industry's compliance with new 
     self-imposed guidelines designed to limit violent content in 
     television programs.
       ``A substantial body of scientific research now documents 
     the damaging effects of exposure to violent media content. 
     Many leading scientists are convinced that media violence 
     promotes real violence,'' said foundation president James M. 
     Hester. ``The entertainment industry plays an important role 
     in the epidemic of youth violence sweeping the nation. 
     Parents, children's advocacy groups, and Congress should hold 
     the networks to their promise to curb violence on 
     television.''
       The foundation called on the entertainment industry to 
     adhere to a 15-point set of standards issued by the three 
     major television networks in December 1992. ABC, CBS, and NBC 
     developed the guidelines in response to a law passed by 
     Congress that protected the networks from prosecution on 
     [[Page S2038]] antitrust grounds if they coordinated efforts 
     to regulate the amount of violence in their programming. The 
     exemption expires at the end of this year.
       ``The public is anxious about the problem of media 
     violence, but they don't know what's being done to address 
     it,'' Hester said. ``This report supplies up-to-date 
     information, including an important statement by Professor 
     Leonard Eron of the University of Michigan. We hope it will 
     encourage vigilance in monitoring how well the TV networks 
     live up to their own guidelines. They have made a social 
     contract with the public, and they should be held accountable 
     to it.''
       The foundation report also points out that the motion-
     picture industry and cable television networks have yet to 
     issue similar standards limiting violence.
       ``The initiative of the television networks is a step in 
     the right direction, but the remainder of the industry has 
     yet to respond to the warnings of scientists and the protests 
     of concerned citizens,'' Hester said. ``Media violence 
     obviously remains a very serious national problem.''
       The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation supports research in 
     a broad range of disciplines in order to illuminate the 
     causes and consequences of human violence. The foundation's 
     goal is to reduce violence and improve relations among people 
     by increasing society's understanding of violence and 
     aggression.
                                                                    ____

                                         The National Alliance for


                                      Non-Violent Programming,

                                 Greensboro, NC, February 1, 1995.
     To: Senator Kent Conrad, Hart Senate Office Building.
     From: Whitney Vanderwerff, Executive Director, The National 
         Alliance for Non-violent Programming.
       Thank you very much for your endeavors with regards to the 
     incidence and effects of media violence.
       The National Alliance for Non-violent Programming, a 
     network of national and international women's organizations 
     created to address the issue of media violence non-
     censorially, endorses the intent of two of the provisions of 
     the Children's Media Protection Act of 1995, to be introduced 
     by Senator Kent Conrad in the United States Senate on 
     February 2, 1995:
       Implementation of blocking technologies can empower parents 
     and caregivers to analyze violent content and the ratings 
     thereof and to take action to reduce the incidence and 
     effects of media violence.
       Television broadcasting stations applying for licenses and 
     license renewals should comply fully with the standards of 
     the Children's Television Act of 1990.
       Senator Conrad's bill must be implemented in conjunction 
     with community education and involvement. These provisions of 
     the bill can educate and involve citizens at the grassroots, 
     and therefore the National Alliance for Non-violent 
     Programming lends its endorsement of the intent of these two 
     provisions. Thank you.
                                                                    ____

                                       Working for Alternatives to


                                    Violence in Entertainment,

                                   Santa Fe, NM, January 30, 1995.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Attn: Robert Foust, Task Force On TV Violence
       Dear Senator Conrad: We were pleased to read your new bill, 
     and to join in your press release with the following 
     statement.
       As writers and producers, we realize that this bill is not 
     Congress censoring us. This is Congress doing our market 
     research for us. We join with other forward thinking people 
     in the Hollywood creative community in welcoming this 
     challenge to generate more creative product, freed from 
     marketplace demands for violence.
       Future WAVE is an organization of writers and producers 
     Working for Alternatives to Violence through Entertainment. 
     With Board members such as Edward James Olmos, Martin Sheen, 
     Dennis Weaver, and with producer Robert Watts (Indiana Jones 
     movies, Alive, etc.) we are working within the Hollywood 
     creative community to answer MPA Chairman Jack Valenti's 
     call: ``How can we in the film/TV industry . . . be so 
     creatively resourceful that we are able to attract and excite 
     audiences and at the same time try to pacify those scenes 
     which lay claim to gratuitous violence?''
       We are pleased to see that Congress is going beyond giving 
     a standing ovation to reducing TV violence and actually 
     beginning to do something about it--without censorship.
       We believe it is very important that the rules for rating 
     the level of violence not be simply a bean count of violent 
     acts. For under such standards a movie like Gandhi or a drama 
     on the life of Martin Luther King might be listed as very 
     violent. [Similarly, each of the films in the attached RAVE 
     award proposal contain acts of violence but have a powerful 
     nonviolent message].
       What parents need is the power to control programming which 
     glamorizes or trivializes violence. We need more shows which 
     depict nonviolent heroes facing down violence with more 
     creative means than counter-violence.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Arthur Kanegis,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                 [From the National PTA, Feb. 2, 1995]

National PTA Supports Passage of the Children's Media Protection Act of 
                                  1995

 (By Catherine A. Belter, National PTA Vice-President for Legislative 
                               Activity)

       Washington, DC.--The National PTA joins the many other 
     education, civic, health, child development and child 
     advocacy organizations to speak in favor of the passage of 
     the Children's Media Protection Act of 1995. I am here today 
     as one of a procession of many National PTA representatives 
     who as far back as the 1970's have petitioned Congress and 
     the regulatory agencies about the need to provide more 
     quality television programming for children and youth.
       I am also here today, not as a legal expert, medical 
     practitioner or law enforcement officer, but as a parent and 
     a long standing child advocate who shares with other parents 
     and citizens the frustration of years of attempting to 
     influence children's television programming while not wishing 
     to cross the fine lines of our First Amendment freedoms.
       The National PTA has testified in the past that this kind 
     of TV violence legislation would be a last resort if 
     voluntary self-regulation and the TV Violence Act produced 
     little results. We know that Senator Conrad and many in the 
     Congress have taken the same stance. In my comments before 
     the FCC last June, I reported an abysmally low compliance 
     rate of the broadcasters with the Children's Television Act, 
     and an almost total failure by the industry to take advantage 
     of the anti-trust exemption provided by the Children's 
     Television Violence Act to produce industry-wide standards 
     and guidelines in an effort to reduce violent TV programming.
       At the same time that the industry is ignoring the 
     Children's Television Act, many parents do make an effort to 
     monitor their children's television viewing. The National PTA 
     certainly recognizes that responsibility for children's 
     viewing also falls on the shoulders of the adult family 
     members. To that end, the National PTA has recently launched 
     the Family and Community Critical Viewing Project in 
     association with the National Cable Television Association 
     (NCTA) and Cable in the Classroom. This cooperative effort is 
     designed to provide parents and teachers throughout the 
     country with information and skills
      to help families make better choices in the television 
     programs they watch, and to improve the way they watch 
     these programs. The workshops are based on a model created 
     in association with the Harvard media expert Dr. Renee 
     Hobbs. The National PTA is offering media literacy 
     workshops to PTAs around the country. In addition, the 
     National PTA has also been in the forefront in supporting 
     such non-commercial and educational programs as Arts and 
     Entertainment, Cable in the Classroom, Discovery and CNN 
     Classroom News.
       But for some children TV acts as the remote babysitter and 
     as a surrogate parent, and these children may not be 
     fortunate enough to have parents who closely monitor their TV 
     watching. With television in 96 percent of all American 
     households, this medium does affect the attitudes, the 
     informal education and the behavior of our children. The 
     networks and many other cable producers have resisted 
     voluntary self-regulation to improve programs for children 
     and have not gotten the message that parents are concerned 
     and want a reduction in violent television and an increase in 
     quality, educational and entertaining family programs.
       According to a 1993 UCLA study by its Department of 
     Communications, TV stations provided an average of 3.4 hours 
     per week (less than one-half hour per day) of regularly 
     scheduled standard length programming for children. That 
     figure is little more than what was broadcast for children in 
     the late 70's. In addition, an assessment by one of our local 
     units, the South Florida Preschool PTA, revealed that less 
     than 1 percent of the broadcast hours on the four local 
     network stations were devoted to educational and 
     informational children's programming. Yet, in a 1990 study, 
     the Annenberg School of Communication found that non-
     educational programming targeted at children increased. 
     Programming such as the current fare of Saturday morning 
     cartoons, X-Men, the Simpsons and Beavis and Butthead is far 
     from educational and contains some form of violence.
       The statistics related to a child's exposure to TV violence 
     are indeed alarming. For instance, a November 1991 study by 
     the Annenberg School of Communication showed that the average 
     number of violent acts in one hour of children's television 
     broadcasting was more than 30. This is even more than on 
     prime-time TV which had only 4 acts of violence per hour. A 
     1993 American Psychological Association study showed that the 
     typical child will watch 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 
     acts of violence before finishing elementary school. By the 
     age of 18, the same teenager will have witnessed 200,000 acts 
     of violence, including 40,000 murders.
       After 20 years of asking the broadcasters and the industry 
     to respond to parents and children through self-regulation 
     and reduce violence, we believe that it is time for the
      next step: the passage of the Children's Media Protection 
     Act of 1995 which contains many of the provisions 
     advocated by the National PTA in testimony before the 
     Senate Commerce Committee on October 28, 1993. The bill 
     provides a multi-faceted and comprehensive approach to 
     curbing television violence including the following:
       1. The requirement that television sets are equipped so 
     that parents have the opportunity to block programming with 
     violent content;
       [[Page S2039]] 2. In the future, the opportunity for 
     parents to block any television program that they find 
     objectionable for any reason:
       3. The development of violence rating standards which 
     reflect the input of a broad based group of citizens, 
     including parents;
       4. Creation of a ``safe harbor'' during the course of each 
     day that prohibits programming containing gratuitous violence 
     during the times that children are most likely to watch 
     television. This is a provision that Attorney General Janet 
     Reno has opined as constitutional;
       5. Assurance that the FCC will carry out its 
     responsibilities pursuant to the Children's Television Act. 
     Parents want safe schools and safe communities. In fact, 
     working toward violence-free schools and communities is a 
     major program priority for the national PTA. The National PTA 
     certainly recognizes that there are a number of causes 
     related to violence in our society besides violent TV 
     programming. However, the fact still remains that television 
     is more violent than ever before and offers fewer 
     opportunities for education and family viewing. The 
     television industry must assume its share of the 
     responsibility for the violent behavior of children. The 
     Children's Media Protection Act is a health issue, an 
     educational issue and a family values issue. Reduction of TV 
     violence is one of the issues that received a strong 
     bipartisan reaction from both U.S. Senators and U.S. 
     Representatives during President Clinton's State of the Union 
     Address. The National PTA applauds Senator Kent Conrad for 
     introducing this legislation, and requests the immediate 
     passage of this legislation.
                                                                    ____

          [From the NAEYC News, Washington, DC, Feb. 6, 1995]

Children's Media Protection Act: A responsible Step to support Families 
           and Decrease Children's Exposure to Media Violence

       The National Association for the Education of Young 
     Children (NAEYC) strongly supports Senator Kent Conrad's 
     introduction to the Children's Media Protection Act of 1995. 
     This measure takes several critical steps to reduce 
     children's exposure to media violence and its negative impact 
     on children's development and aggressive behavior. The 
     measure also empowers parents to take advantage of technology 
     that gives them greater control over the television 
     programming available to their children.
       Of all of the sources and manifestations of violence in 
     children's lives, media violence is perhaps the most easily 
     corrected. This legislation takes steps--long overdue--to 
     decrease the amount and severity of violent acts observed by 
     children through television and to give parents additional 
     control in selecting the programs available to their 
     children.
       NAEYC believes that each component of the legislation is 
     equally important. The requirement that television sets be 
     equipped with technology that allows parents to block 
     objectionable programming, along with the violence rating 
     code, will provide valuable tools that allow parents greater 
     power in controlling the nature of television programs to 
     which their children are exposed. The children's hour 
     provision to prohibit gratuitous violence on commercial and 
     public television between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 
     p.m. also takes an important step in decreasing children's 
     viewing of media violence. Finally, stronger enforcement of 
     the Children's Television Act should promote additional 
     choices of television viewing appropriate to children's 
     development and interests.
       The National Association for the Education of Young 
     Children (NAEYC) is the nation's oldest and largest 
     organization of early childhood professionals and others 
     working to improve the quality of early childhood education 
     services available to young children, birth through age 8, 
     and their families. Based in Washington, D.C., NAEYC has a 
     membership exceeding 90,000 and a network of more than 450 
     local, state, and regional affiliated early childhood 
     organizations.
                                                                    ____


   School Principals Support Children's Media Protection Act of 1995

       Alexandria, VA., February 2, 1995--The National Association 
     of Elementary School Principals pledged full support for the 
     Children's Media Protection Act of 1995 introduced today by 
     North Dakota's Senator Kent Conrad.
       ``The effect of television on children is of great concern 
     to school principals,'' said Samuel G. Sava, NAESP's 
     executive director. ``The family room television is a more 
     persuasive and pervasive educator than all the teachers in 
     America's classrooms. There's no question that the overdose 
     of media violence American children receive is linked to 
     their increasingly violent behavior,'' he said. ``But more 
     troubling for parents and educators is the fact that the 
     violence children see, hear, and are entertained by makes 
     them insensitive to real violence.''
       NAESP, which represents 26,000 elementary and middle school 
     principals nationwide, has long been on record in support of 
     strengthening and enforcing guidelines for the Children's 
     Television Act that would improve programming for children 
     and give parents peace of mind. NAESP has repeatedly asked 
     the FCC and Congress to employ a clearer definition of 
     educational programming and require that stations air at 
     least one hour of 30-minute educational shows every day 
     between 7:00 a.m., and 10:00 p.m., when children are 
     watching.
       NAESP further urges Congress to protect children from media 
     violence by:
       Developing a violence code, which gives rules for rating 
     the level of violence in television programming;
       Allowing violent programs to air only between 10:00 and 
     6:00 a.m.; and
       Requiring manufacturers to install devices on TVs that can 
     be used to block programming.
       ``Educators want families to have better control over their 
     children's TV viewing. We need a family-friendly media 
     industry that is responsible to its youngest audience,'' Sava 
     said.
       Attached is NAESP's ``Report to Parents,'' produced in the 
     fall of 1993, which its members reproduce to send home to the 
     families to their students.
       Established in 1921, the National Association of Elementary 
     School Principals serves 26,000 elementary and middle school 
     principals in the United States, Canada, and overseas.
                                                                    ____

           [From the NCTV-News, Washington, DC, Feb. 2, 1995]

         NCTV Supports Sen. Conrad's Children's Television Bill

       Washington DC.--The National Coalition on Television 
     Violence (NCTV) supports of Senator Kent Conrad's bill to 
     control the amount of television violence witnessed by 
     children. The Children's Media Protection Act of 1995, 
     introduced by Sen. Conrad (D. ND.) provides a combination of 
     real tools that parents can use to effectively supervise 
     their children's viewing habits and enforcement mechanisms to 
     hold broadcasters accountable for their compliance (or lack 
     of compliance) to existing rules.
       The industry has consistently used a defensive strategy of 
     tossing the problem back into the laps of parents by claiming 
     a conflict with First Amendment Rights and criticizing 
     parental responsibility. Parents have long been frustrated by 
     their inability to cope with the overwhelming, ever present 
     nature of television.
       This bill requires broadcasters to provide the public with 
     the information they need to identify objectionable 
     programming, along with the technological tools they need to 
     effectively block it from coming into their homes.
       The provisions of bill state that:
       A rating system will be developed to identify programming 
     detrimental to children;
       Computer technology (which is currently available) that can 
     be used to selectively screen out unwanted programming will 
     be required to be built into new televisions sets; and
       Broadcaster's license renewal will be contingent on their 
     compliance with the provisions set forth it the Children's 
     Television Act of 1990.
       Implementation of the Children Television Act of 1990 
     provides for ``truth in packaging'' for television programs 
     and a ``safe harbor'' of television air time free from 
     gratuitous violence. As any parent knows, even when 
     exercising extreme vigilance over children's viewing, a child 
     appropriate program is often subject to the insertion of 
     promotional messages for just the sort of programs or movies 
     that the parent is trying to avoid. These one minute (or 
     less) interruptions also frequently use the most violent 
     clips from the programs as their promotional message!
       More than 40 years of research has demonstrated the 
     negative effects of television on children, particularly the 
     links between media violence and aggressive behavior. NCTV 
     commends Sen. Conrad for his willingness to counter the trend 
     of ``feel good legislation with no teeth'' to propose 
     legislation that calls for true accountability from the 
     broadcast media in a genuine move to improve the lives of 
     America's children.
                                                                    ____

         NASSP, The National Association of Secondary School 
           Principals
                                     Reston, VA, February 2, 1995.
     Hon Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: The National Association of Secondary 
     School Principals (NASSP) and its 42,000 members commend you 
     for your efforts to protect our children and youth from 
     exposure to violence in television and the media. We join you 
     in seeking passage of the Children's Media Protection act of 
     1995.
       Our nation is experiencing an unrivaled period of juvenile 
     violent crime perpetrated by youths from all races, social 
     classes, and lifestyles. Without question, the entertainment 
     industry plays a role in fostering this anti-social behavior 
     by promoting instant gratification, glorifying casual sex, 
     and encouraging the use of profanity, nudity, violence, 
     killing, and racial and sexual stereotyping.
       A national effort to monitor and ultimately decrease 
     violence in television and the entertainment media is vitally 
     important to the well-being and subsequent development of 
     youngsters. Therefore, NASSP joins you in recommending that:
       Manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, install 
     technology on all television sets to permit parents to block 
     television programming with violent or objectionable program 
     content;
       The Federal Communication Commission (FCC), in consultation 
     with television broadcasters, cable operators, private 
     interest groups, and concerned citizens, prescribe 
     [[Page S2040]] rules for rating the level of violence in 
     television programming;
       The FCC grant and renew television operating licenses only 
     after ensuring the applicant is in compliance with the 
     standards for children's programming established under the 
     Children's Television Act of 1990; and
       Programming containing gratuitous violence be prohibited 
     between the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
       NASSP strongly urges Congress to halt the increasingly 
     senseless portrayals of violence in the entertainment media 
     by supporting this crucial movement.
           Sincerely,
                                              Dr. Timothy J. Dyer,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

            Violence in the Media and Entertainment Industry

       Whereas, in 1979, the National Association of Secondary 
     School Principals urged the broadcasting and motion picture 
     industries to work with educators and parents in moving 
     toward a significant reduction of violent acts in television 
     film programming;
       Whereas, the nation is experiencing an unrivaled period of 
     juvenile violent crime perpetrated by youths from all races, 
     social classes, and lifestyles;
       Whereas, the average American child views 8,000 murders and 
     100,000 acts of violence on TV before finishing elementary 
     school, and by the age of 18, that same teenager will have 
     witnessed 200,000 acts of violence on TV, including 40,000 
     murders; and,
       Whereas, the entertainment industry (movies, records, music 
     videos, radio, and television) plays an important role in 
     fostering anti-social behavior by promoting instant 
     gratification, glorifying casual sex, encouraging the use of 
     profanity, nudity, violence, killing, and racial and sexual 
     stereotyping; be it therefore known, that the National 
     Association of Secondary School Principals:
       Appreciates the efforts of the U.S. Attorney General to 
     focus on the problem of increasing violence in the media;
       Stands in opposition to violence and insensitive behavior 
     and dialogue in the entertainment industry;
       Commends television broadcasters who have begun self-
     regulation by labeling each program it deems potentially 
     offensive with the following warning: DUE TO VIOLENT CONTENT, 
     PARENTAL DISCRETION IS ADVISED, and producers of music videos 
     and records who use similar labeling systems;
       Encourages parents to responsibly monitor and control the 
     viewing and listening habits of their children with popular 
     media products (records, videos, TV programs, etc.);
       Calls upon advertisers to take responsible steps to screen 
     the programs they support on the basis of their violent and 
     profane content;
       Supports federal legislation designed to decrease and 
     monitor TV violence; and
       Calls upon the Federal Communications Commission to 
     initiate hearings on violence in the media, and to consider 
     as part of those hearings the establishment of guidelines for 
     broadcasters to follow during prime time and children's 
     viewing hours; furthermore, the FCC should use its licensing 
     powers to ensure broadcasters' compliance with guidelines on 
     violence and establish a strict procedure to levy fines 
     against those licensees who fail to comply.
       Adopted by the Membership of the National Association of 
     Secondary School Principals, February 1994.
                                                                    ____


 [From the American Medical Association, Washington, DC, Feb. 2, 1995]

        AMA Supports the Children's Media Protection Act of 1995

               (By Robert E. McAfee, MD, President, AMA)

       ``As President of the American Medical Association, and on 
     behalf of our 300,000 physician and medical student members, 
     and the members of our Alliance, I am pleased to support the 
     Children's Media Protection Act of 1995, which Senator Kent 
     Conrad will introduce today.
       ``Violence is a major medical and public health epidemic in 
     America. Each year, an estimated 50,000 deaths are 
     attributable to violence in the form of homicide and suicide. 
     The United States ranks first among industrialized nations in 
     silent death rates.
       ``We are a people living in fear. Which of us has not been 
     haunted by dark thoughts we try to ignore: Will my 9-year-old 
     be safe today in her classroom? Could my father be the victim 
     of a drive-by shooting as he walks the dog? Will I be the 
     next car-jacking victim? My sister a victim of domestic 
     violence? No one can disagree: violence in America is out of 
     control.
       ``Certainly, the root causes of violence are varied and 
     debatable. But over the past two decades, a growing body of 
     scientific evidence has documented the relationship between 
     the mass media and violent behavior. Report after report 
     brings us to the same conclusion: programming shown by the 
     mass media contributes significantly to the aggressive 
     behavior and to the aggression-related attitudes of children, 
     adolescents, and adults.
       ``It is estimated that by the time children leave 
     elementary school, they have viewed 8,000 killings and more 
     than 100,000 other violent acts. Children learn behavior by 
     example. They have an instinctive desire to imitate actions 
     they observe, without always possessing the intellect or 
     maturity to determine if the actions are appropriate. This 
     principle certainly applies to TV violence. Children's 
     exposure to violence in the mass media can have lifelong 
     consequences.
       ``We must take strong action now to curb TV violence if we 
     are to have any chance of halting the violent behavior our 
     children learn through watching television. If we fail to do 
     so, it is a virtual certainty the situation will continue to 
     worsen. The time for action is now.''
                                                                    ____

Citizens Task Force on TV Violence Recommendations For Attorney General 
                               Janet Reno

       Adoption of Entertainment Media Violence Code;
       Parental Involvement;
       FCC Hearings;
       Children's Television Act;
       Viewing Violent Television Programming in Prisons;
       White House Conference on Violence; and
       Continuation of Television Industry Discussions.
                                                                    ____

                                             United States Senate,
                                Washington, DC, December 15, 1993.
     Hon. Janet Reno, 
     Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: Pursuant to your discussions 
     on November 22, 1993 with members of the Citizens Task Force 
     on TV Violence, I am very pleased to enclose specific 
     recommendations that members of the coalition believe you and 
     other members of the Interagency Working Group on Violence 
     should carefully examine as you consider the Federal response 
     to the horrible violence in society, including violence in 
     the entertainment media.
       These recommendations are endorsed by the following 
     organizations, all members of the Citizens Task Force on TV 
     Violence--
       National Association of Elementary School Principals.
       National Association of Secondary School Principals.
       American Medical Association.
       American Medical Association Alliance.
       National Child Care Association.
       Parent Action.
       American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
       National Foundation To Improve Television.
       National School Boards Association.
       National Association For Family and Community Education.
       American Psychiatric Association.
       Americans For Responsible Television.
       National Association For The Education Of Young Children.
       National Association of Social Workers.
       Future Wave.
       National Council of Churches.
       Alliance Against Violence in Entertainment For Children.
       National Coalition On Television Violence.
       National Council for Children's TV and Media.
       National Parent Teacher Association (PTA).
       Letters and more detailed comments in support of the 
     recommendations from Future Wave, the National Sheriffs 
     Association, the National PTA, the International Association 
     of Chiefs of Police, and the Center For Media Education are 
     also attached for your consideration.
       We are most grateful for your support on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senator.
                                                                    ____


  Recommendations for Attorney General Janet Reno/Interagency Working 
       Group on Violence From Citizens Task Force on TV Violence


            1. adoption of entertainment media violence code

       We support the adoption of a Code, similar to the Code 
     recently announced by the Canadian Radio and 
     Telecommunications Commission and the Canadian Association of 
     Broadcasters, understanding that such a Code would be best 
     developed through a collaborative effort between Government 
     and the television, cable and motion picture industries.
       We suggest the formation of an Action Task Group, comprised 
     of Government, television, cable, motion picture industry and 
     public interest representatives, and television advertisers 
     to develop the Code.
       Certain features of the Code would be a matter of the 
     broadcasters, cable programmers and motion picture industry 
     representatives exercising voluntary judgements to program in 
     the public interest, such as a general agreement not to 
     program gratuitous violence and to exercise severe restraints 
     on violence with respect to children's programming.
       However, we feel that the Code should contain a ``safe-
     harbor'' rule to the effect that gratuitous dramatized 
     violence, including violent commercials for movies or 
     upcoming shows, would not be programmed on broadcast or cable 
     television between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 
     that such a rule would be fully enforceable by the Federal 
     Communications Commission (FCC) as a regulation that is 
     narrowly drawn to further a compelling state interest, i.e., 
     the protection of children under the age of 12. Compliance 
     with such a rule would be a factor taken into 
     [[Page S2041]] account when the FCC considers renewal of 
     licenses in the case of broadcast TV, and would be enforced 
     by fines in the case of cable TV.
       Finally, in the event that the television industry refuses 
     to cooperate in the development of such a Code, then we 
     believe that the FCC (in collaboration with Congress) should 
     design and implement appropriate regulations that will 
     withstand judicial scrutiny to protect children under the age 
     of 12 from the demonstrated harm of TV violence.


                        2. parental involvement

       We support steps which would work to empower parents to 
     more effectively monitor and control what their young 
     children view on television. These recommendations include--
       Mechanical/electronic devices installed in television sets 
     or cable boxes that would enable parents to block out 
     television programming (cable or broadcast) that contains 
     ``V''
      rating. We believe such a device would be more effective 
     than present lockout devices (devices that can lock out a 
     particular channel or program) which presupposes parental 
     participation in the selection of programming, which is 
     not the case in so many of our nation's homes.
       Viewer warnings. Audio and visual warnings of programming 
     containing gratuitous dramatized violence between 6:00 a.m. 
     and 10 p.m. would be telecast before the program and at each 
     commercial break until 10:00 p.m. Superimposed warnings would 
     be displayed continuously during programming containing 
     gratuitous violence.
       Violence Rating System. We support the development (by The 
     Action Task Group referred to above) and implementation of a 
     rating system that would classify programs on the basis of 
     their violent content and that such ratings be made available 
     to parents through TV guides, listings, etc. We suggest that 
     such ratings would, in the first instance, be assigned by the 
     programmers themselves, and that only in the event of a 
     breach of their good faith responsibility to assign proper 
     ratings, would the FCC become involved.


                            3. fcc hearings

       We support and urge that the FCC hold hearings on the issue 
     of television violence, most particularly on proposed 
     voluntary and regulatory solutions to some, in several forums 
     around the country. From these hearings the FCC would hone a 
     definition of ``television violence'' as well as gather the 
     necessary data to support the Code and the basis of any 
     regulations that become part of the Code.


                      4. children's television act

       We support and urge that the FCC continue with the 
     initiative to strengthen and enforce the FCC's rules 
     promulgated in implementing the Children's Television Act, in 
     order that beneficial programming for children be increased 
     to provide a real alternative to television violence. We also 
     urge that such programming include materials to educate and 
     inform children about the effects of violence and media 
     violence in particular. In addition, we recommend public 
     service announcements to educate viewers about the effects of 
     violence generally, and media violence in particular.


          5. viewing violent television programming in prisons

       We suggest that one step that could be taken immediately on 
     the issue of television violence and its adverse effect on 
     our society would be to end the availability of violent TV 
     programs in prisons.


                 6. white house conference on violence

       We strongly support the initiative of convening a White 
     House Conference on Violence that would focus on the causes 
     of our epidemic of violence, including media violence. At the 
     session on media violence, there would be included, in 
     addition to the representatives of the television, cable and 
     motion picture industries, the approximately 100 major 
     advertisers on television. We believe that a well-designed 
     initiative of consciousness-raising specifically aimed at 
     these advertisers would be effective in reducing gratuitous 
     violence on television.


           7. continuation of television industry discussion

       Since many of the above recommendations and initiatives 
     require the joint cooperation and collaboration of the TV 
     industry, we support the extension of the current antitrust 
     exemption as provided under the Television Program 
     Improvement Act--Public Law 101-650, to permit the 
     continuation of television industry discussions.
                                 ______


      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Lott):

  S. 333. A bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to institute certain 
procedures in the performance of risk assessments in connection with 
environmental restoration activities, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1995

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me acknowledge my colleague, 
Senator Lott, who has spoken on the necessity of the legislation which 
we are introducing today, the Department of Energy Risk Management Act 
of 1995.
  I am very pleased to rise today to introduce the Department of Energy 
Risk Management Act of 1995 for myself, Senator Johnston, and Senator 
Lott. Congress needs to require agencies to use sound science, risk 
assessment, and cost-benefit analysis in the regulatory decision-making 
process.
  So often, as you know, Mr. President, decisions are made on the basis 
of emotion. The group that speaks the loudest, has the most numbers, or 
makes the most outlandish statements influences the decision, instead 
of decisions being made on sound science. If we cannot depend on 
scientists who spend a portion of their lives becoming experts on a 
particular subject, we certainly cannot depend on the short span of 
attention that we have as politicians as we attempt to evaluate the 
merits of some very difficult and sophisticated subjects.
  One of the difficulties, of course, is to get the scientific 
community to step forward and put their reputation on the line behind, 
if you will, their recommendations. So often, we find a situation where 
the scientists say, ``Well, if I had another appropriation, I could 
study that a little bit more and probably give you a little more 
definitive answer.'' Decisions have to be made every day. You and I, 
Mr. President, have to vote up and down. We cannot vote maybe. We have 
to make some decisions. With the regulatory process that has run amuck 
in this country today these decisions are not being made competently 
and are not being made on the basis of the best information available. 
We cannot seem to get the scientific community to bear the 
responsibility for their advice to those of us who have to vote yes or 
no.
  What are we really talking about? This is not a complicated concept. 
This is risk analysis, cost benefit, and every time you pick up a can 
of soup or you go buy some crackers it tells you if you have fat soup, 
skinny soup, or crackers with sodium in them. But with risk assessment 
and cost-benefit
 analysis in the application of a permit by the Environmental 
Protection Agency and various other agencies, you do not know what the 
cost is. You do not know what the benefit is. You do not know what the 
risk is.

  So this legislation would simply mandate that the public have 
awareness when the administrative agencies come down with their 
evaluation of the permitting process as to what the risk is and what 
the cost is. It is perfectly reasonable. Yet there is a tremendous 
concern out there among America's environmental community that somehow 
this will dismantle our environmental laws. What an outlandish 
generalization.
  So I think, Mr. President, we need to require the agencies to use 
sound science, risk assessment, and cost-benefit analysis in the 
regulatory decisionmaking process. This legislation applies to 
environmental restoration activities conducted by the Department of 
Energy [DOE]. Although the scope of this bill applies to DOE cleanups, 
we hope to have the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis debate 
cover all agencies' activities. We are coordinating our legislative 
effort with other legislative efforts.
  In the last Congress Senator Johnston offered an amendment to the EPA 
Cabinet level bill in the spring of 1993. At the same time the Johnston 
amendment was adopted, I offered an amendment requiring cost-benefit 
analysis that was agreed to by the Senate. I have continued to look for 
ways to improve and refine our regulatory decisionmaking process. 
Senator Lott also introduced legislation last Congress that is 
incorporated into our bill. Since the last Congress, the momentum for 
risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis has only intensified and the 
November elections have brought about renewed interest in advancing 
risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis legislation.
  I hope the agencies out there got the message of what the last 
election suggested, that the process was out of balance, and it needed 
correcting.
  On January 17, I hosted, along with Senator Lott, Representative 
Crapo, and Representative Karen Thurmond, the first meeting of a 
bipartisan, bicameral Regulatory Reform Caucus now made up of 35 
Representatives and some 12 Senators. The caucus wants a proactive 
strategy to require agencies to use sound science, risk assessment, and 
cost-benefit analysis in the regulatory decisionmaking process.
  [[Page S2042]] At that meeting we heard from two excellent speakers. 
John Stossel of ABC News spoke persuasively about how the public's 
perception of environmental and health risks affects our overregulation 
of those risks. Mr. Stossel showed a chart that broke down how much 
given risks shorten the average life. It is interesting to note that we 
spend billions of dollars regulating toxic waste sites and there are 
lots of news stories about places, like Love Canal. But, even based on 
the most extreme estimates provided by environmental organizations 
toxic wastes are calculated to shorten the average life by just 4 days. 
Other risks shorten the average life span by years, yet we do not 
regulate them.
  Dr. John Graham, Director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, 
gave an objective view of how government overregulates our lives and 
businesses. I was particularly impressed with Dr. Graham's point that 
over 80 percent of Americans favor better risk analysis in 
environmental policy. And, as Dr. Graham has indicated, risk and cost-
benefit analysis is the key to sound environmental policy of the 
future. In fact, I think it is fair to say that incorporation of sound 
science, detailed and well communicated assessments, cost-benefit 
analysis, and the prioritizing of our limited resources is the 
environmental policy of the future. It is a commonsense policy that is 
here to stay.
  American businesses spend more than $150 billion annually just to 
comply with environmental laws--costs that increasingly strain U.S. 
competitiveness. Risk-based regulations rely on worst-case scenarios 
and ignore the best science, producing elaborate, expensive regulation 
of unimportant problems.
  Imagine, Mr. President, if we relied on a worst-case scenario. We 
would not walk outside. We would not be in this building. Worst case 
means the worst possible case, whether it be flood, earthquake, you 
name it.
  So risk-based scenarios really are scenarios that ignore best science 
contrary to the real world. As a result, the Federal Government is 
forcing the expenditure of billions of dollars by local government and 
industry on these excessively hypothetical and exaggerated perceptions 
of risks.
  The intent of the policy of incorporating risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis into the decisionmaking process is to ensure better, 
more cost-effective regulations and decisions over the long term. 
Again, it is the smart way to make sure we get the most value for our 
limited Government resources, especially in a time where the American 
public is unequivocally demanding a smaller Federal bureaucracy and 
less Government control of their lives.
  A couple of examples, Mr. President, to liven up the morning. I am 
told that a Kansas City bank was ordered by Federal regulators to put a 
braille keypad on drive-through ATM, automatic teller machines.
  A little food for thought. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 
another case, required California farmers to dispose of millions of 
pounds of otherwise good peaches and nectarines simply because they 
were smaller than Federal standards permitted. Fruit that could have 
been given away to the needy had to be left to rot.
  In Boise, ID, a plumbing contractor was penalized by OSHA because 
proper safety precautions were not taken by the employees, who 
successfully rescued a suffocating construction worker from a collapsed 
trench. The $7,785 fine was rescinded due to public outrage. Can you 
imagine that?
  A self-employed truck mechanic in Morrisville, PA, was fined $2,200 
and sentenced to 3 years in jail for hauling away 7,000 old tires and 
rusting cars and placing clean fill on his own occasionally wet 
property without a Federal permit, because it was classified as a 
``wetlands.'' The EPA argued the property was wetlands because of a 
stream--dry for most of the year--was partially trapped by the 
discarded junk and created several pools of water.
  I could go on and on with those horror stories, Mr. President, but I 
know you are familiar with them as well.
  Finally, the legislation Senator Lott, Senator Johnston, and I have 
put together on risk assessment/cost-benefit would accomplish several 
important goals.
  First, the legislation establishes clear principles to be followed by 
the Department of Energy. It does not set up a new bureaucracy, but it 
requires specifics when it performs risk assessments, and they include 
the consideration and discussion of data that may or may not 
specifically point to a health risk; precise guidelines for the use of 
assumptions to bridge some of the data gaps; and most importantly, 
assessments that are objective and unbiased.
  Second, the bill establishes principles for risk characterization 
that will allow for better understanding and communication, so the 
public can read what the risk is, like
 they can read the risk if they want fat soup or skinny crackers, 
because it is on there. DOE must issue a final regulation implementing 
the risk assessment and risk characterization principles. DOE must 
develop a plan to review and revise early risk assessments, which shall 
include a process by which members of the public may petition the DOE 
for review of particular risk assessments.

  In addition to establishing a risk assessment procedural framework, 
the bill would also require the Department to apply the results of 
those assessments in significant ways that will ensure safer, more 
efficient and more cost-effective cleanup. Any plan, assessment, or 
record of decision to conduct an environmental restoration activity 
must go through a cost-benefit analysis. The Secretary is going to have 
to certify that the analysis is based upon the best reasonable 
information; the analysis is objective and unbiased; the environmental 
restoration activity significantly reduces the targeted risk; no 
alternative environmental restoration activity is more cost-effective; 
and the environmental restoration activity is likely to reduce benefits 
that justify its cost. The Department must prioritize resources to 
address the most serious and most cost-effective risks first.
  We intend to expand the scope of this legislation to apply to 
regulations and all agencies, to provide for an independent and 
external peer review process.
  I do not want to complicate this with a lot of words. We are simply 
asking for a process that the public can understand and it is almost 
like truth-in-lending, which has never been applicable to the 
regulatory process. That is what we propose in this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent at this time to have printed in the Record 
some of the risk comparisons that help to illustrate the importance of 
having comparative risks available to the public, and an article 
entitled ``Unloading Excess Regulations,'' by Murray Weidenbaum, which 
appeared in the Journal of Commerce on January 27, 1995.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          WHY WE HAVE TO CHOOSE WHICH RISKS ARE WORTH REDUCING          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Cost per death  
                      Activity                             averted      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES                                    
                                                                        
Diphtheria immunization (Gambia)...................                  $87
Malaria prevention (Africa)........................                  440
Measles immunization (Ivory Coast).................                  850
Improved health care...............................                1,930
Improved water sanitation..........................                4,030
Dietary supplements................................                5,300
                                                                        
          UNITED STATES, NON-ENVIRONMENTAL                              
                                                                        
Improved traffic signs.............................               31,000
Cervical cancer screening..........................               50,000
Improved lighting..................................               80,000
Upgrade guard rails................................              101,000
Mobile intensive care units........................              120,000
Breakaway sign supports............................              125,000
Lung cancer screening..............................              140,000
Breast cancer screening............................              160,000
                                                                        
      UNITED STATES, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS                          
                                                                        
Asbestos ban.......................................          110,700,000
Benzene NESHAP (revised waste operations)..........          168,200,000
1,2 dichloropropane drinking water standard........          653,000,000
Hazardous waste land disposal ban (1st 3rd)........        4,190,400,000
Municipal landfill standards (1988 proposed).......       19,107,000,000
Formaldehyde occupational exposure limit #2........       86,201,800,000
Atrazine/alachlor drinking water standard..........       92,069,700,000
Hazardous waste listing for wood-preserving                             
 chemicals.........................................    5,700,000,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Bernard L. Cohen, ``Perspectives on the Cost Effectiveness of  
  Life Saving,'' in Jay H. Lehr, Rational Readings on Environmental     
  Concerns, pp. 462-465. (Author acknowledges that many of these numbers
  are only estimates and depend on other factors) John F. Morrall III,  
  ``A Review of the Record,'' Regulation 10 (2) (1986), p. 30. Updated  
  by Morrall, et al. (1990) and printed in U.S. Chemical Industry       
  Statistical Handbook 1992, p. 141.                                    

                    Ranking Possible Cancer Hazards

       Low levels of exposure to man-made chemicals means the risk 
     they pose is very small compared to that of nationally 
     occurring chemicals. The figures below assume that 
     experiments on laboratory animals are reliable indicators of 
     human carcinogenic hazards.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Source and daily exposure                   Risk factor 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wine (one glass)........................................         4,700.0


                                                                        
[[Page S2043]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Source and daily exposure                  Risk factor  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beer (12 ounces)........................................         2,800.0
Cola (one)..............................................         2,700.0
Bread (two slices)......................................           400.0
Mushroom (one, raw).....................................           100.0
Basil (1 gram of dried leaf)............................           100.0
Shrimp (100 grams)......................................            90.0
Brown mustard (5 grams).................................            70.0
Saccharin (in 12 oz of diet soda).......................            60.0
Peanut butter (one sandwich)............................            30.0
Cooked bacon (100 grams)................................             9.0
Tap water (one liter)...................................             1.0
Additives and pesticides in other food..................             0.5
Additives and pesticides in bread and grain products....             0.4
Coffee (one cup)........................................            0.3 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Human Exposure Rodent Potency (HERP) index, multiplied by 1000, 
  based on Bruce Ames et al., ``Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards,''
  Science 236 (April 17, 1987), page 271. See article for explanation of
  methodology and interpretation of results.                            


                    ODDS OF DYING FROM VARIOUS CAUSES                   
                  [Risk per 1 million population, U.S.]                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Risk per
                            Causes                               million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real risk of death this year caused by:                                 
    Being murdered in Washington, DC (residents)..............     760.0
    Chronically abusing alcohol...............................     600.0
    Being in a car accident...................................     200.0
    Being in a home accident..................................     110.0
    Being murdered............................................      92.0
    Giving birth to a child (women)...........................      66.0
    Being electrocuted........................................       3.0
    Being struck by lightning.................................       1.6
    Drowning in a bathtub.....................................       1.5
Hypothetical risk of death from cancer caused by:                       
    Drinking one can of light beer per day for one year.......      20.0
    Eating one peanut butter sandwich per day for one year....      10.0
    Living next door to a nuclear power plant for 70 years              
     (NCI)....................................................      10.0
    Lifetime exposure to pesticide residues (EPA).............       3.0
    Lifetime exposure to pesticide residues (Doll and Peto)...      <1.0
    Lifetime exposure to landfill emissions (EPA).............      <1.0
    Lifetime exposure to emissions from incinerators (EPA)....     <1.0 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: John and Sean Paling, Up to Your Armpits in Alligators?        
  (Gainesville, FL: The Environmental institute) 1993; Statistical      
  Abstract of the United States, 1992, Table 123; National Cancer       
  Institute, ``Highlights of NCI's Carcinogenesis Studies,'' Cancer     
  Facts, June 23, 1993, p. 7; Sir Richard Doll an Richard Peto, Journal 
  of the National Cancer institute 66 (6) (June 1981); Jennifer Chilton 
  and Kenneth Chilton, ``A Critique of Risk Modeling and Risk Assessment
  of Municipal Landfills Based on U.S. EPA Techniques,'' Waste          
  management & Research 10 (1992), pp. 505-516.                         

           [From the Journal of Commerce, Jan. 27, 1995]

                      Unloading Excess Regulations

                         (By Murray Weidenbaum)

       St. Louis.--The time is ripe for a new round of reform in 
     government regulation of business.
       The limited reductions of transportation regulation carried 
     out in the late 1970s and early 1980s are ancient history, 
     and the 1990s to date have been dominated by a new round of 
     expensive and burdensome regulation of the private sector.
       The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is moving 
     forward with one of the most ambitious regulatory agendas in 
     its history, including an indoor-air-quality proposal the 
     agency estimates would cost $8 billion a year.
       The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department is hiring 
     25 new lawyers, after adding 34 attorneys and 60 paralegals 
     since mid-1992.
       All this pales in comparison with the escalation of 
     environmental and workplace regulation taking place in the 
     United States.
       It costs about $150 billion a year to meet the directives 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency. And the impact on the 
     economy of employment regulation, such as civil rights 
     enforcement and affirmative action requirements, is estimated 
     at up to $200 billion a year.
       What really hurts is that many of the costs associated with 
     regulatory programs are extremely frivolous from the 
     viewpoint of achieving any serious public policy objective.
       Here are just a few examples of the many absurd 
     requirements imposed on U.S. businesses:
       A Kansas City bank was ordered by regulators to put a 
     Braille keypad on a drive-through ATM, or automatic teller 
     machine.
       The U.S. Department of Agriculture required California 
     farmers to dispose of millions of pounds of otherwise good 
     peaches and nectarines simply because they were smaller than 
     federal standards permitted. Fruit that could have been sold 
     or given away to the needy had to be left to rot.
       In Boise, Idaho, a plumbing company was penalized by OSHA 
     because ``proper'' safety precautions were not taken by the 
     employees who successfully rescued a suffocating construction 
     worker from a collapsed trench. The $7,875 fine was 
     eventually rescinded due to public outrage.
       A self-employed truck mechanism in Morrisville, Pa., was 
     fined $202,000 and sentenced to three years in jail for 
     hauling away 7,000 old tires and rusting car pans and placing 
     clean fill on his own, occasionally wet, property without a 
     federal permit. The EPA argued the property was a wetland 
     because a stream--dry for most of the year--was partly 
     trapped by the discarded junk and created several pools of 
     water.
       To respond to the critics, over the years many efforts have 
     been made to improve the process of government regulation. 
     However, virtually all the changes have focused on executive 
     branch rule-making.
       But truly reforming government regulation means far more 
     than just improving the way regulatory agencies carry out the 
     tasks assigned to them by Congress. In order to reduce the 
     very large and often avoidable economic burdens imposed by 
     regulation, policymakers need to focus on the birth stage of 
     the rulemaking process.
       The crucial action occurs, for example, when the 
     legislature enacts an 800-page Clean Air Act with unrealistic 
     timetables and an almost endless array of requirements.
       No amount of executive branch analysis performed afterward 
     can adequately deal with the problem.
       It is up to Congress itself to weigh carefully the results 
     of benefit-cost analysis before it enacts a regulatory 
     statute and also to ascertain that, if a new law is required, 
     its provisions are as cost-effective as feasible.
       Congress also should examine the cumulative effects of 
     government regulation on the performance of the economic 
     system. But rather than tackling piecemeal the hundreds of 
     regulatory statutes on the books, Congress should write 
     several new laws that will reform regulation across the 
     board.
       Five key changes would be especially helpful.
       Congress should require benefit-cost analysis in each key 
     stage of the regulatory process, from writing the laws to 
     issuing regulations and reviewing the operation of programs.
       When a law requires citizens or organizations to obtain a 
     permit, agencies should be forced to act in a timely fashion. 
     If an agency cannot process an application by the dead-line, 
     the permit should be granted automatically.
       Congress should emphasize objectives sought rather than 
     precise methods to be used for each regulatory program.
       Detailed laws that place ``legislative handcuffs'' on 
     agencies hamper more cost-effective solutions. However, 
     legislators should avoid writing laws so vague that they know 
     in advance the courts will have to wrestle with the details.
       The federal government should use risk assessment to set 
     priorities for achieving greater protection of health, safety 
     and the environment in the most cost-effective manner.
       All risks are not equally serious. Government should focus 
     on the most serious hazards. Sound science and comparative 
     risk analysis should be drawn upon during the legislative 
     drafting process.
       Congress should promote regulatory justice Legislators and 
     regulators should avoid imposing costs on innocent parties. 
     Where regulation substantially reduces property rights, 
     compensation should be paid.
       Now is an especially good time for Congress to embark on 
     significant reform of government regulation. Such action 
     would respond to widespread dissatisfaction with the high 
     cost and limited benefits of many governmental activities.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I urge my colleagues to consider the merits of this 
legislation. I assure you that the public supports it almost 
unanimously, because the system is simply out of balance. We need to 
address correctly the forms, cost benefits and risk analyses, which is 
one way to do it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor, along with 
Chairman Murkowski and Senator Lott, the Department of Energy risk 
Management Act of 1995.
  This bill builds upon work that I began in April of 1993, when I 
offered an amendment to the EPA Cabinet bill that would have required 
risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis with respect to EPA 
regulations. That amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 95-3. 
However, it did not become law because of the opposition of 
environmental advocacy groups and several House committee and 
subcommittee chairmen.
  I then spent nearly a year working with those who had concerns about 
the amendment. The result was a revised amendment, supported by 
Senators Baucus and Moynihan, that met every legitimate concern. In May 
of last year, I offered the revised amendment to the safe drinking 
water bill, and it passed by a vote of 90-8.
  That simple amendment would have required EPA to do a risk assessment 
and cost-benefit analysis when preparing regulations that have an 
impact on the economy of $100 million or more. As part of the process, 
the amendment provided that the Administrator must certify that the 
best reasonably obtainable science was used, that the regulation would 
actually reduce the risk addressed, that the regulation was the most 
cost-effective alternative, and that the benefits of the regulation 
justified the costs. It changed no environmental laws, and created no 
new causes of action. It was simply a truth-in-regulating provision.
  Unfortunately, environmental advocacy groups and certain members of 
the house continued to oppose the revised provision, and refused to 
pass the safe drinking water bill with my amendment. As a result, the 
safe drinking water bill died along with the amendment. This, in my 
opinion, was one of the sorriest chapters of the 103d Congress.
  The Republicans then picked up the risk assessment and cost-benefit 
issue and included it in their Contract with America. As a result, it 
has become a high Republican priority, and is due to be acted upon 
during the first 100 days of this Congress.
  [[Page S2044]] Although I am very pleased by the attention that the 
risk issue is now receiving, and fully agree that legislation should be 
enacted promptly, I urge my Republican colleagues to not get carried 
away. If we do this right, we will inject much-needed discipline into 
the process of setting environmental priorities. But if we go too far, 
we will bring the regulatory process to a grinding halt, a result that 
is not in the best interest of the public or the regulated industries.
  The bill we are introducing today is narrowly drawn to apply only to 
the cleanup activities of the Department of Energy, such as those at 
Hanford, WA, and Rocky Flats, CO. We drafted the bill in this manner 
because the cleanup of DOE weapons sites is one of the toughest issues 
facing the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Chairman 
Murkowski and I want to focus the Energy Committee's attention on the 
need for risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis in prioritizing that 
cleanup effort.
  We feel that the cleanup problem at Department of Energy facilities 
is a perfect example of our inability to set rational priorities when 
it comes to environmental protection. Currently, we are spending $6 
billion a year of our constituents' money and accomplishing virtually 
nothing in terms of actual cleanup. If we can set risk-based priorities 
for the cleanup of those facilities, and then implement those 
priorities in a cost-effective fashion, that would be a major 
accomplishment.
  This is not to say that Chairman Murkowski, Senator Lott, and I feel 
that risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis should be applied only 
to the cleanup of Department of Energy facilities. Chairman Murkowski 
and Senator Lott will soon introduce an amendment to the bill, which 
will follow the bill to the Energy Committee. The amendment will apply 
the requirements of the bill to
 all Federal agencies, including EPA. The bill and the amendment will 
then be the subject of hearings in our committee.

  Although I agree with the thrust of the amendment, I chose not to be 
a cosponsor for two reasons. First, I want to reserve judgment on 
whether risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis should be required of 
all Federal agencies. I am confident that they should apply to EPA and 
the Department of Energy, but I think we need to carefully examine the 
issue of applying those principles to all other Federal agencies.
  Second, and perhaps more important, I am concerned about the judicial 
review provision that Chairman Murkowski and Senator Lott are expected 
to include in their amendment. That provision states, in part, that,

       Any decision, regulatory analysis, risk assessment, hazard 
     identification, risk characterization, or certification 
     provided for under this act is subject to judicial review in 
     the same manner and at the same time as the underlying final 
     action to which it pertains, * * *

  My concern is that this provision may lead to a substantial increase 
in litigation. As my colleagues may recall, the judicial review 
provision that I included in last year's amendment was quite narrow, 
and I remain convinced that more litigation hurts rather than helps our 
efforts to set rational environmental priorities. Therefore, Chairman 
Murkowski, Senator Lott, and I agreed that we would not include a 
judicial review provision in our bill, and that I would not cosponsor 
the amendment containing their judicial review provision. Instead, we 
will continue to study this crucial issue, with the expectation that we 
can resolve it before reporting a bill.
  I also want to briefly explain why the bill has no dollar threshold. 
Last year, my amendment applied only to EPA regulations that have an 
effect on the economy of $100 million a year or more. The bill we are 
introducing today, however, does not contain a dollar threshold because 
the cleanup activities of DOE are so easily divided into small 
increments. In other words, there was concern that even a relatively 
low threshold could be evaded by dividing a cleanup plan into units 
that fit under the dollar threshold The issue of the appropriate 
threshold, both as to DOE cleanups and as to regulations issued by 
other agencies, is one that will need careful examination when we hold 
hearings on this legislation.
  Mr. President, it often takes more than one Congress to enact 
important legislation, and this matter has proven to be no exception. 
In a recent article entitled ``Congress Discovers Risk Analysis,'' 
Terry Davies of Resources for the Future begins by stating that:

       The 103d Congress, which concluded in November 1994 in a 
     blaze of partisan bickering, will be forgotten for many 
     reasons by those interested in environmental policy. With the 
     exception of creating a new national park in the California 
     desert, Congress failed to take action on a long list of 
     environmental issue. However, the 103d Congress will be 
     memorable on at least one environmental count: it was the 
     Congress that discovered risk analysis.

  Now that we have discovered risk assessment, I urge that it is the 
task of the 104th Congress to legislate on the subject with all 
deliberate speed. Given that we spend almost $150 billion a year on 
environmental protection, we cannot afford to delay in setting 
priorities based on the extent of risk posed to the public and the 
environment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Davies' article be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
              [From Resources for the Future, Winter 1995]

                    Congress Discovers Risk Analysis

                           (By Terry Davies)

       The 103d Congress, which concluded in November 1994 in a 
     blaze of partisan bickering, will be forgotten for many 
     reasons by those interested in environmental policy. With the 
     exception of creating a new national park in the California 
     desert, Congress failed to take action on a long list of 
     environmental issues. However, the 103d Congress will be 
     memorable on at least one environmental count: it was the 
     Congress that discovered risk analysis.
       Congress has regulated risk for decades. For example, the 
     national ambient air quality standards called for in the 
     Clean Air Act of 1970 are required to protect against health 
     risks to sensitive populations. The Toxic Substances Control 
     Act, enacted in 1976, was probably the first law to 
     explicitly use ``unreasonable risk'' as the criterion for 
     government to take regulatory action. But Congress has never 
     concerned itself with how risks were calculated or with 
     comparing different risks. Risk as a general concept was of 
     concern but, with a few notable exceptions, risk analysis was 
     not. In 1993-1994, this situation changed dramatically.
       Below I review some of the efforts in the 103d Congress to 
     deal with risk analysis; I then identify the major factors 
     underlying lawmakers' interest in such analysis. I also 
     outline what risk legislation can (and cannot) accomplish and 
     distinguish among the uses of risk assessment, two issues 
     about which Congress seems to be confused.

                       legislative risk proposals

       More than a dozen bills dealing with risk analysis were 
     introduced in the 103d
      Congress. Notable among these were bills introduced by 
     Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York) and 
     Representative Herbert C. Klein (D-New Jersey). Even more 
     notable was an amendment to S.R. 171, a bill proposed by 
     Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio) to make the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) a cabinet department.
       Senator Bennett Johnston (D-Louisiana) introduced the 
     amendment, which would have required that EPA conduct a risk 
     analysis for each of its regulations and compare the risk 
     reduction to be achieved by the regulation with the cost of 
     the legislation and with other types of risks. The Senate 
     overwhelmingly passed it by a 95-3 vote, but later the 
     content of the Johnston amendment was modified several times. 
     (The original version required risk analysis of all final 
     regulations; later versions made the requirement applicable 
     only to major regulations and to proposed rather than final 
     regulations.)
       Legislators proposed adding this amendment to almost every 
     pending environmental bill. The lack of action on 
     environmental legislation during the 103d Congress was due, 
     to a great extent, to an inability to reach an acceptable 
     compromise on the amendments's language. Junior members of 
     the House surprised the leadership by defeating the rule 
     under which the EPA cabinet bill would go to the House floor 
     for a vote, in part because the rule would have precluded 
     consideration of the Johnston amendment.
       The basic requirements of the Johnston amendment were 
     similar to the cost-benefit requirements already called for 
     by a Clinton administration executive order (E.O. 12866). The 
     Johnston amendment's one novel requirement was that the risks 
     to be regulated be compared with other risks--a challenging 
     requirement but not one that would bring to a halt all 
     environmental regulatory efforts.
       Senator Moynihan's bill (S.R. 110), the ``Environmental 
     Risk Reduction Act of 1993,'' would have required the EPA 
     administrator to establish a Committee on Relative Risks to 
     ``identify and rank the greatest environmental risks to human 
     health, welfare, and ecological resources,'' as well as a 
     Committee on Environmental Benefits to provide expert advice 
     on estimating the quantitative
      benefits of reducing risks. In addition, the 
     [[Page S2045]] bill would have required EPA to develop 
     ``guidelines to ensure consistency and technical quality in 
     risk assessments.'' Finally, the bill would have required EPA 
     to establish a research program on environmental risk 
     assessment and to create an Interagency Panel on Risk 
     Assessment and Reduction to coordinate federal efforts.
       Moynihan's bill, which was aimed at improving the quality 
     and visibility of risk assessment, emphasized comparative 
     risk analysis of the problems addressed by different EPA 
     programs, rather than risk analysis of the problems addressed 
     by individual regulations. A bill introduced by 
     Representative Klein contained some of the same provisions as 
     the Moynihan bill but focused on improving the quality of 
     risk assessments done to support individual regulations. 
     Klein's bill (H.R. 4306) would have established a Risk 
     Assessment Program within EPA to develop, review, and update 
     risk assessment guidelines. Other elements of the Klein bill 
     included research and training in risk assessment and a pilot 
     project on comparative risk analysis.
       The Klein bill originally was supported by the Clinton 
     administration. Environmentalists, who have generally opposed 
     any efforts to promote risk analysis, stated that they would 
     not oppose the bill. However, the House Committee on Science, 
     Space, and Technology made a series of changes in the bill 
     that caused both the administration and the environmentalists 
     to oppose its passage.
       The offending changes were put forward by congressional 
     members and staff who believe that EPA risk assessments are 
     generally biased in favor of regulation and exaggerate the 
     degree of risk. The changes would have done two things. 
     First, they would have made both risk assessment guidelines 
     and EPA's risk assessments potentially subject to judicial 
     review. In withdrawing support for the bill, EPA stated that 
     the changes could make risk assessment ``more a construct of 
     the courts than of sound science.'' Second, the changes would 
     have directed EPA to use ``the most plausible'' and 
     ``unbiased'' assumptions to calculate ``central estimates of 
     risk'' and to employ the ``best information.'' Although these 
     changes sound innocuous, they could have changed
      EPA's risk assessment methodology in fundamental ways, 
     especially when combined with the threat of litigation.
       In the closing days of the session, Congress enacted a U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture reorganization bill with a version 
     of the Johnston amendment attached to it. However, the 
     amendment applies only to environmental and health 
     regulations promulgated by the Department of Agriculture. No 
     other risk legislation passed, but the issues raised in the 
     debate over the Klein bill will be high on the agenda of the 
     104th Congress, many of whose Republican members have 
     promised reform of federal regulations as part of the 
     ``Contract with America.'' The reasons for interest in risk 
     have become, if anything, more pressing, and the Republicans 
     have generally been more supportive of risk legislation than 
     the Democrats.


             factors underlying congress's interest in risk

       Why the sudden passion for risk analysis and comparative 
     risk assessment? Several interrelated factors account for 
     Congress's newfound interest.
       The first factor is a shift in the public's view of 
     environmental problems. Whether because of the increasing 
     costs of environmental remedies, the rightward shift of the 
     nation's politics, growing cynicism toward all groups and 
     institutions, or other reasons, many people no longer believe 
     that all environmental problems are urgently pressing. The 
     notion of priorities--of some problems being more important 
     than others--has entered the environmental debate.
       The second factor is the squeeze being put on some state 
     and local governments by unfunded environmental mandates. 
     These governments have seized upon comparative risk 
     assessment as a potent weapon for fighting expensive and 
     often unwanted federal requirements. In many cases, states 
     and localities believe they can show that they are being 
     required to expend funds on problems that either pose smaller 
     risks than those arising from other problems on which the 
     money could be spent or that pose trivial or nonexistent 
     risks. This ``grass roots'' dimension of the push for 
     comparative risk analysis is politically of great 
     significance.
       In Congress, risk analysis also has been linked with the 
     issue of takings, uncompensated restrictions on private land 
     use. Environmentalists have dubbed risk analysis, unfunded 
     mandates, and takings as ``the unholy trinity,'' although 
     risk and takings do not have the direct, substantive 
     connection that risk and unfunded mandates often do. The 
     three have become linked because each potentially could slow 
     or halt federal environmental regulation.
       A third factor contributing to the interest in comparative 
     risk is the shortage of public funds at all governmental 
     levels. The shortage emphasizes the need to set priorities 
     and to make hard choices. Not coincidentally, the 
     congressional committees responsible for appropriating money 
     to EPA have been strong supporters of applying comparative 
     risk analysis to different EPA programs (as opposed to 
     different proposed regulations). For these committees, risk 
     analysis holds the promise of providing a rationale and a 
     defense for difficult budgetary choices. At the same time, 
     the results of risk analysis are sufficiently broad and 
     uncertain that the committees do not have to worry about 
     losing control over budgetary decisions.


                  what risk legislation can accomplish

       No other congressional issue is marked more by confusion 
     and misinformation than the current debate over risk 
     assessment. One reason is that legislators seem confused 
     (perhaps in some cases deliberately) about what risk 
     assessment legislation can accomplish.
       Members of Congress have an understandable tendency to 
     blame EPA for problems that local constituents have with 
     pollution-control requirements. Since risk assessment 
     supposedly guides EPA decisions, they believe that changing 
     the way risk assessment is done can alleviate the problem of 
     unwanted or unreasonable requirements imposed on local 
     governments and corporations. However, for Congress, in many 
     cases both Shakespeare and the comic strip character Pogo are 
     apt. The fault is not in the stars--Congress has met the 
     enemy and it is them.
       The unfunded mandates that have caused the most problems 
     for local governments are those related to drinking water. 
     Communities complain that EPA is requiring them to monitor 
     for chemicals that pose no risk and that the agency is 
     demanding expensive capital investments to deal with 
     nonexistent threats. But most of these difficulties arise 
     from the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act--
     amendments that required EPA to set standards for forty water 
     contaminants within two years of the act's passage and to 
     keep issuing standards for additional contaminants at an 
     equally rapid pace. Congress directed that the standards be 
     set ``as close to the maximum contaminant level goal as is 
     feasible.'' In turn, the maximum contaminant goal is to be 
     set ``at the level at which no known or anticipated adverse 
     effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an 
     adequate margin of safety.''
       To put it bluntly, Congress should not pass laws that 
     require absolute protection for the public and then complain 
     when EPA promulgates standards that provide such protection. 
     It should not pass laws that require EPA to move rapidly to 
     promulgate numerous regulations and then complain when the 
     agency moves rapidly to promulgate numerous regulations. 
     Implementing the law should not be considered a political 
     crime.
       Another ``confusion'' in Congress is that risk drives all 
     environmental decisions. In fact, many environmental 
     regulatory requirements are statutorily determined by 
     technology and thus relatively unaffected by risk findings. 
     For example, the initial standards for controlling hazardous 
     air pollutants under the clean Air Act amendments of 1990 are 
     to be based on the best technologies employed by each type of 
     polluting facility, not on risk. Similarly, many of the 
     regulatory requirements under the Clean Water Act are based 
     on ``best available technology,'' a determination of which is 
     unrelated to risk. EPA actions under these provisions will 
     not be influenced by any changes in risk assessment methods.
                        uses of risk assessment

       A more general source of confusion in the current debate 
     over risk assessment arises from a failure to distinguish 
     among different uses of risk assessment. At least four 
     different policy uses of risk assessment exist. Each involves 
     different methodologies and raises different problems.
       The most common use of risk assessment in policymaking is 
     in regulatory decisionmaking. For all significant 
     regulations, E.O. 12866 requires the agency proposing the 
     regulation to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. From the 
     perspective of EPA and the other health and safety regulatory 
     agencies, the benefit side of the cost-benefit equation 
     generally is the amount of risk reduced by the regulation as 
     calculated by some type of risk assessment. Within EPA, risk 
     assessment is often used to gauge where to set a standard 
     (although, as noted above, statutory requirements frequently 
     preclude risk considerations), because it is the only way to 
     determine how much (if any) danger a given substance, 
     product, or activity poses.
       A second use of risk assessment occurs in Congress' 
     statutory definition of ``acceptable risk.'' Probably the 
     best example of this use is the Clean Air Act, which requires 
     the EPA administrator to promulgate more stringent standards 
     for emissions of hazardous pollutants when the technology-
     based standards for the emissions ``do not reduce life-time 
     excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed * * * to 
     less than one in one million.
       These bright line provisions have been based on 
     quantitative assessment of cancer risk, but cancer may not be 
     the risk that is of most concern. Ecological threats, birth 
     defects, liver damage, hormonal or immune deficiencies, or 
     any of a thousand other problems may be the reason for 
     regulating risk. Because the cancer risk may be irrelevant, 
     gearing the risk standard to cancer may set the standard too 
     high or too low. Risk assessment takes many different forms. 
     Quantitative cancer risk assessment is only one of them and 
     often not the most appropriate one to use.
       Another problem is that the bright line, acceptable risk 
     approach assumes a precision that most risk assessments 
     cannot achieve. Risk assessment is still a relatively crude 
     science and depending on which methodological assumptions are 
     used, its results may vary a hundredfold or more. Thus, 
     placing great legal weight on one point estimate 
     [[Page S2046]] of risk is an open invitation to shade the 
     assumptions in a certain direction in order to achieve the 
     desired outcome.
       A third use of risk assessment is priority setting for 
     individual risks or regulations, which involves comparing one 
     specific risk to another. Such comparisons can be useful in 
     putting any particular risk into perspective; but two 
     caveats, neither of which has received much attention in 
     Congress, are important to note. The first concerns the 
     crudeness of risk estimates. If the uncertainty range around 
     any point estimate of risk is several orders of magnitude, it 
     frequently will be impossible to establish clearly that one 
     risk is greater than another. The second caveat relates to 
     the many dimensions of risk other than the amount of damage 
     to health and the environment. These dimensions include 
     whether the risk is undertaken voluntarily, whether the 
     victims can be identified, and whether the nature of the risk 
     is catastrophic--that is, whether great damage occurs at one 
     time, as in a plane crash, or whether less damage occurs and 
     is spread over time, as in car accidents. These dimensions of 
     risk are important politically, psychologically, and even 
     ethically. They need to be taken into account when comparing 
     risks.
       The fourth use of risk assessment is priority setting for 
     government programs and budgets. This use was pioneered by 
     EPA in 1987 when it published its report Unfinished Business. 
     Senator Moynihan has introduced legislation requiring this 
     type of priority setting to be instituted within EPA. Both 
     the House and Senate appropriations committees for EPA have 
     expressed interest in this approach in the belief that it 
     might provide a ``scientific'' way of making (or justifying) 
     difficult budget choices.
       Comparisons of risks regulated by different programs are a 
     useful way to consider priorities, and they hold long-term 
     promise of bringing greater rationality to government 
     budgeting and goal setting. However, we do not have (and may 
     never have) good methods for comparing
      different types of risks. Comparing health risks with 
     ecological risks, for example, is clearly a value-laden 
     process. Moreover, acting on the results of broad risk 
     comparisons is almost always impeded by individual 
     statutory mandates. Each environmental program has its 
     statutory support, which is designed (in part) to give 
     each program high priority and prevent its being compared 
     to other programs.


                             the road ahead

       Risk assessment can be a powerful tool for improving 
     environmental policy and decisionmaking. Like all powerful 
     tools, however, it can be abused and employed for nefarious 
     purposes.
       Most of the risk legislation that has been proposed would 
     have little short-term effect on environmental policy. 
     However, I believe some of the proposals could do major harm 
     to the quality of the science behind regulatory initiatives 
     by making risk guidelines judicially enforceable. Doing so 
     would transform risk analysis from a scientific undertaking 
     to a legal one, would preclude the exercise of scientific 
     judgment on how to conduct risk assessments of individual 
     chemicals, and would be a major obstacle to incorporating 
     scientific advances into risk assessment. In addition, some 
     proposals would make risk assessment information useless to 
     decisionmakers by dictating which risk assessment 
     methodologies are used. Some of these proposals can be 
     interpreted to mean that risk assessments should determine 
     risk to the average person rather than to the most vulnerable 
     people.
       However, the discovery of risk analysis by the 103d 
     Congress means that the new Republican Congress has an 
     opportunity to forge legislation that will improve the long-
     term quality of regulatory decisions and environmental 
     policy. If the varied interests with a stake in environmental 
     policy can reduce the ideological and partisan coloration 
     that has characterized the risk debate so far, and if they 
     can accept both the uses and limitations of risk assessment, 
     the risk debate could lead to a new era of more effective, 
     efficient, and equitable environmental programs.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to announce that with my 
colleagues, Senators Murkowski and Johnston, we are introducing the 
Department of Energy Risk Management Act of 1995.
  I believe that most Americans would be shocked and dismayed to 
discover that Federal agencies every day release and enforce rules that 
have not been validated with solid, sound, scientific data.
  It does not make sense, but unfortunately it is true.
  That is why legislation is needed to mandate a commonsense approach.
  We have crafted a bill which simply demands that the Department of 
Energy act in a scientifically responsible manner.
  This year's legislation builds on the bill I introduced in the last 
Congress and the two successful amendments offered by Senator Johnston 
of Louisiana.
  Senator Johnston's amendments were overwhelmingly adopted, and this 
clearly illustrates the congressional frustration and bipartisan 
support for stopping Federal agencies which avoid sound science and 
fiscal responsibility in rulemaking.
  Senator Murkowski, as the new chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, has played a critical role in focusing this 
legislation. And his committee is an appropriate forum to examine the 
issue and its consequences.
  This year similar legislation was introduced in the House of 
Representatives and is already receiving scrutiny through hearings.
  There is also comparable and more comprehensive legislation being 
drafted by Senator Dole, the majority leader.
  There are also bills introduced by Senators Baucus, Moynihan, and 
Roth which touch on the same subject.
  Clearly, there is a groundswell of legislative activity to stop 
Federal agency abuse in the name of science which, more often than not, 
turns out to be false, questionable, or even misleading.
  This deceptive and dishonest regulatory zeal reminds me of the title 
of an ABC news program by John Stossel--``Are We Scaring Ourselves to 
Death.''
  This program made its point in a compelling manner--Federal 
rulemaking is seriously flawed.
  Our legislation will not add to the confusion. It will not stall 
scientific advances, and it will not prescribe how to conduct 
scientific research.
  On the contrary, in a nutshell, it will just force transparency and 
accountability in the rulemaking process and nothing more.
  No Federal agency should be afraid of honestly displaying to the 
American people they are protecting the science, logic, assumptions, 
and inferences used to establish the rules and standards it imposes.
  This is not irresponsible and not burdensome.
  Our legislation does permit Americans to: First, challenge existing 
risk assessments; second, insist on an independent peer review of the 
risk and its corresponding rule; and third, request the ultimate 
American right of a trial when there is an honest disagreement.
  The existing regulatory system is upside down. Agencies which have a 
vested interest in promulgating rules cannot be challenged in any 
public forum on the very foundation and basis for its rules.
  Our legislation is not questioning the necessity for the rule or 
rulemaking. We are just talking about the underlying risk assessments.
  Our legislation merely levels the playing field between the 
benevolent protector and the protected American public. I cannot 
imagine why this is so threatening, unless there are many rules that 
cannot pass the red-face test as my coauthor and friend, Senator 
Johnston, is fond of saying.
  Tell me what is so threatening by the words ``scientifically 
objective and unbiased.''
  Maybe the status quo can be characterized, as I believe, as cavalier 
and arbitrary.
  I see peer review as a useful certification function which ends the 
Federal Government's stifling monopoly over risk assessment methodology 
and practices. By extending power to scientists from academia, who have 
no vested interest in the agency, makes good Mississippi sense. Who 
feels safe when the fox watches the hen house? And that is what is 
happening now.
  All we want to do is restore the public confidence in the rulemaking 
process and the risk assessment methods.
  And, I am confident that this is the same goal of each Senator who is 
involved in examining this issue.
  It serves no useful purpose for regulators to hide their value 
judgments behind complicated mathematical probabilities which just do 
not make sense. In the end the American citizen is unable to either 
comprehend or distinguish the authentic risk.
  Our legislation will not bog down the process as opponents will 
assert. But, like many of the risks subjected to rules, this too is a 
false argument because only major rules will be subjected to this 
process.
  Our legislation will not gut existing environmental laws as opponents 
will also claim. Wrong. There is a specific section in the bill which 
expressly states that no existing statutes will be removed. Although 
there are a lot that 
[[Page S2047]] I would like to see removed as we go forward, that is 
not what this bill does.
  Why would opponents advance such shrill and untrue assertions? 
Perhaps there are regulations which will fail the Johnston red-face 
test or serve as another illustration for John Stossel to humiliate an 
agency.
  Public policy should not be maintained just to avoid agency 
embarrassment.
  This only perpetuates the harm done to Americans who have lost 
economic opportunities through misplaced priorities for unfounded 
risks.
  And, even more serious, public dollars have been wasted chasing an 
agenda rather than valid risks. This has exposed Americans to real 
risks which could have been corrected long ago.
  Risk based decisionmaking is obvious, especially since our 
Government, and the private sector, spends billions through the 
regulatory process to protect the environment and human health.
  Our country needs a way to choose regulatory priorities, just like 
families prioritize its spending. This can be done with the cost/
benefit provision in this legislation without greater exposure to 
risks.
  Asserting an unfounded risk is not a substitute for informed and 
thoughtful consideration by accountable officials who work with the 
public to make balanced decisions.
  The Murkowski-Johnston bill gives you accountability and public 
access.
  I am proud of the bipartisan and collaborative effort this 
legislation represents.
  It is a solid commitment to sound rulemaking which will not 
jeopardize our environment or the health of our citizens.
  Our legislation will remove misinformation and public confusion.
  I believe the Department of Energy Risk Management Act deserves your 
serious consideration and support.
  So I urge my colleagues to look at this legislation. It has been 
carefully crafted over a number of months. It is long overdue in my 
opinion.
  I would like to say now that I certainly commend the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska for the good work he has done. He has already had 
some preliminary hearings on this. I hope we can move this legislation 
early in this session.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Biden):
  S. 334. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to encourage States to enact a law enforcement 
officers' bill of rights, to provide standards and protection for the 
conduct of internal police investigations, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


        the law enforcement officers' bill of rights act of 1995

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill 
to establish a law enforcement officer's bill of rights. In every city 
and town, we rely on law enforcement officers to protect our safety. 
They put their lives on the line for us every single day.
  And, often their jobs can be very difficult. The Constitution 
requires they conduct themselves appropriately, and they are subject to 
the laws and regulations set out by Congress as well as State and local 
regulatory bodies. They have to make snap decisions in high pressure 
situations. If they make the wrong decision, they can be subject to a 
lawsuit--for violation of the civil rights of a citizen.
  While citizens have protection when a law enforcement officer engages 
in improper conduct, the police officer is often left without any legal 
rights when subject to disciplinary action. This bill aims to correct 
that unfairness.
  The bill guarantees basic due process rights to law enforcement 
officers who are subject to investigation or interrogation for 
noncriminal disciplinary matters. And, let me emphasize that these 
rights do not apply in an emergency situation where the police officer 
is suspected of committing a crime or where that officer would be a 
threat to the safety or property of others. The bill reserves in the 
chief of police or other local officials the right to immediately 
suspend an officer who is suspected of committing a serious offense.
  But, where there is no criminal conduct and no emergency situation, a 
police officer should have a right to be informed of his or her 
misconduct, to answer the charges, and to be represented by a lawyer or 
other appropriate person. These are basic due process rights that 
should be guaranteed to those on whom we rely to protect our safety.
  Mr. President, there are some 475,000 State and local law enforcement 
officers who put their lives on the line for the rest of us. Let us 
give them their basic and fundamental rights.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 334
       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 ``Law Enforcement Officers' 
     Bill of Rights Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) In General.--Part H of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3781 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:


                  ``RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

       ``Sec. 819. (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       `` `disciplinary action' means the suspension, demotion, 
     reduction in pay or other employment benefit, dismissal, 
     transfer, or similar action taken against a law enforcement 
     officer as punishment for misconduct.
       `` `disciplinary hearing' means an administrative hearing 
     initiated by a law enforcement agency against a law 
     enforcement officer, based on probable cause to believe that 
     the officer has violated or is violating a rule, regulation, 
     or procedure related to service as an officer and is subject 
     to disciplinary action.
       `` `emergency suspension' means temporary action imposed by 
     the head of the law enforcement agency when that official 
     determines that there is probable cause to believe that a law 
     enforcement officer--
       ``(A) has committed a felony; or
       ``(B) poses an immediate threat to the safety of the 
     officer or others or the property of others.
       ```investigation'--
       ``(A) means the action of a law enforcement agency, acting 
     alone or in cooperation with another agency, or a division or 
     unit within an agency, or the action of an individual law 
     enforcement officer, taken with regard to another enforcement 
     officer, if such action is based on reasonable suspicion that 
     the law enforcement officer has violated, is violating, or 
     will in the future violate a statute or ordinance, or 
     administrative rule, regulation, or procedure relating to 
     service as a law enforcement officer; and
       ``(B) includes--
       ``(i) asking questions of other law enforcement officers or 
     nonlaw enforcement officers;
       ``(ii) conducting observations;
       ``(iii) evaluating reports, records, or other documents; 
     and
       ``(iv) examining physical evidence.
       `` `law enforcement agency' means a State or local public 
     agency charged by law with the duty to prevent or investigate 
     crimes or apprehend or hold in custody persons charged with 
     or convicted of crimes.
       ```law enforcement officer' and `officer'--
       ``(A) mean a member of a law enforcement agency serving in 
     a law enforcement position, which is usually indicated by 
     formal training (regardless of whether the officer has 
     completed or been assigned to such training) and usually 
     accompanied by the power to make arrests; and
       ``(B) include--
       ``(i) a member who serves full time, whether probationary 
     or nonprobationary, commissioned or noncommissioned, career 
     or noncareer, tenured or nontenured, and merit or nonmerit; 
     and
       ``(ii) the chief law enforcement officer of a law 
     enforcement agency.
       ```summary punishment' means punishment imposed for a minor 
     violation of a law enforcement agency's rules and regulations 
     that does not result in suspension, demotion, reduction in 
     pay or other employment benefit, dismissal, or transfer.
       ``(b) Application of Section.--
       ``(1) In general.--This section sets forth rights that 
     shall be afforded a law enforcement officer who is the 
     subject of an investigation.
       ``(2) Nonapplicability.--This section does not apply in the 
     case of--
       ``(A) a criminal investigation of a law enforcement 
     officer's conduct; or
       ``(B) a nondisciplinary action taken in good faith on the 
     basis of a law enforcement officer's employment related 
     performance.
       ``(c) Political Activity.--Except when on duty or acting in 
     an official capacity, no law enforcement officer shall be 
     prohibited from engaging in political activity or be denied 
     the right to refrain from engaging in such activity.
       ``(d) Rights of Law Enforcement Officers While Under 
     Investigation.--When a law enforcement officer is under 
     investigation that could lead to disciplinary action, 
     [[Page S2048]] the following minimum standards shall apply:
       ``(1) Notice of investigation.--A law enforcement officer 
     shall be notified of the investigation prior to being 
     interviewed. Notice shall include the general nature and 
     scope of the investigation and all departmental violations 
     for which reasonable suspicion exists. No investigation based 
     on a complaint from outside the law enforcement agency may 
     commence unless the complainant provides a signed detailed 
     statement. An investigation based on a complaint from outside 
     the agency shall commence within 15 days after receipt of the 
     complaint by the agency.
       ``(2) Notice of proposed findings and recommendation.--At 
     the conclusion of the investigation, the person in charge of 
     the investigation shall inform the law enforcement officer 
     under investigation, in writing, of the investigative 
     findings and any recommendation for disciplinary action that 
     the person intends to make.
       ``(e) Rights of Law Enforcement Officers Prior to and 
     During Questioning.--When a law enforcement officer is 
     subjected to questioning that could lead to disciplinary 
     action, the following minimum standards shall apply:
       ``(1) Reasonable hours.--Questioning of a law enforcement 
     officer shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably 
     when the law enforcement officer is on duty, unless exigent 
     circumstances otherwise require.
       ``(2) Place of questioning.--Questioning of the law 
     enforcement officer shall take place at the offices of the 
     persons who are conducting the investigation or the place 
     where the law enforcement officer reports for duty, unless 
     the officer consents in writing to being questioned 
     elsewhere.
       ``(3) Identification of questioner.--The law enforcement 
     officer under investigation shall be informed, at the 
     commencement of any questioning, of the name, rank, and 
     command of the officer conducting the questioning.
       ``(4) Single questioner.--During any single period of 
     questioning of the law enforcement officer, all questions 
     shall be asked by or through a single investigator.
       ``(5) Notice of nature of investigation.--The law 
     enforcement officer under investigation shall be informed in 
     writing of the nature of the investigation prior to any 
     questioning.
       ``(6) Reasonable time period.--Any questioning of a law 
     enforcement officer in connection with an investigation shall 
     be for a reasonable period of time and shall allow for 
     reasonable periods for the rest and personal necessities of 
     the law enforcement officer.
       ``(7) No threats or promises.--Threats against, harassment 
     of, or promise of reward shall not be made in connection with 
     an investigation to induce the answering of any question. No 
     statement given by the officer may be used in a subsequent 
     criminal proceeding unless the officer has received a written 
     grant of use and derivative use immunity or transactional 
     immunity.
       ``(8) Recordation.--All questioning of any law enforcement 
     officer in connection with the investigation shall be 
     recorded in full, in writing or by electronic device, and a 
     copy of the transcript shall be made available to the officer 
     under investigation.
       ``(9) Counsel.--The law enforcement officer under 
     investigation shall be entitled to counsel (or any other one 
     person of the officer's choice) at any questioning of the 
     officer, unless the officer consents in writing to being 
     questioned outside the presence of counsel.
       ``(f) Disciplinary Hearing.--
       ``(1) Notice of opportunity for hearing.--Except in a case 
     of summary punishment or emergency suspension described in 
     subsection (h), if an investigation of a law enforcement 
     officer results in a recommendation of disciplinary action, 
     the law enforcement agency shall notify the law enforcement 
     officer that the law enforcement officer is entitled to a 
     hearing on the issues by a hearing officer or board prior to 
     the imposition of any disciplinary action.
       ``(2) Requirement of determination of violation.--No 
     disciplinary action may be taken unless a hearing officer or 
     board determines, pursuant to a fairly conducted disciplinary 
     hearing, that the law enforcement officer violated a statute, 
     ordinance, or published administrative rule, regulation, or 
     procedure.
       ``(3) Time limit.--No disciplinary charges may be brought 
     against a law enforcement officer unless filed within 90 days 
     after the commencement of an investigation, except for good 
     cause shown.
       ``(4) Notice of filing of charges.--The law enforcement 
     agency shall provide written, actual notification to the law 
     enforcement officer, not later than 30 days after the filing 
     of disciplinary charges, of the following:
       ``(A) The date, time, and location of the disciplinary 
     hearing, which shall take place not sooner than 30 days and 
     not later than 60 days after notification to the law 
     enforcement officer under investigation unless waived in 
     writing by the officer.
       ``(B) The name and mailing address of the hearing officer.
       ``(C) The name, rank, and command of the prosecutor, if a 
     law enforcement officer, or the name, position, and mailing 
     address of the prosecutor, if not a law enforcement officer.
       ``(5) Representation.--During a disciplinary hearing an 
     officer shall be entitled to be represented by counsel or 
     nonattorney representative.
       ``(6) Hearing board and procedure.--(A) A State shall 
     determine the composition of a disciplinary hearing board and 
     the procedures for a disciplinary hearing.
       ``(B) A disciplinary hearing board that includes employees 
     of the law enforcement agency of which the officer who is the 
     subject of the hearing is a member shall include at least 1 
     law enforcement officer of equal or lesser rank to the 
     officer who is the subject of the hearing.
       ``(7) Access to evidence.--A law enforcement officer who is 
     brought before a disciplinary hearing board shall be provided 
     access to all transcripts, records, written statements, 
     written reports, analyses, and electronically recorded 
     information pertinent to the case that--
       ``(A) contain exculpatory information;
       ``(B) are intended to support any disciplinary action; or
       ``(C) are to be introduced in the disciplinary hearing.
       ``(8) Identification of witnesses.--The disciplinary 
     advocate for the law enforcement agency of which the officer 
     who is the subject of the hearing is a member shall notify 
     the law enforcement officer, or his attorney if he is 
     represented by counsel, not later than 15 days prior to the 
     hearing, of the name and addresses of all witnesses for the 
     law enforcement agency.
       ``(9) Copy of investigative file.--The disciplinary 
     advocate for the law enforcement agency of which the officer 
     who is the subject of the hearing is a member shall provide 
     to the law enforcement officer, at the law enforcement 
     officer's request, not later than 15 days prior to the 
     hearing, a copy of the investigative file, including all 
     exculpatory and inculpatory information but excluding 
     confidential sources.
       ``(10) Examination of physical evidence.--The disciplinary 
     advocate for the law enforcement agency of which the officer 
     who is the subject of the hearing is a member shall notify 
     the law enforcement officer, at the officer's request, not 
     later than 15 days prior to the hearing, of all physical, 
     nondocumentary evidence, and provide reasonable date, time, 
     place, and manner for the officer to examine such evidence at 
     least 10 days prior to the hearing.
       ``(11) Summonses.--The hearing board shall have the power 
     to issue summonses to compel testimony of witnesses and 
     production of documentary evidence. If confronted with a 
     failure to comply with a summons, the hearing officer or 
     board may petition a court to issue an order, with failure to 
     comply being subject to contempt of court.
       ``(12) Closed hearing.--A disciplinary hearing shall be 
     closed to the public unless the law enforcement officer who 
     is the subject of the hearing requests, in writing, that the 
     hearing be open to specified individuals or the general 
     public.
       ``(13) Recordation.--All aspects of a disciplinary hearing, 
     including prehearing motions, shall be recorded by audio 
     tape, video tape, or transcription.
       ``(14) Sequestration of witnesses.--Either side in a 
     disciplinary hearing may move for and be entitled to 
     sequestration of witnesses.
       ``(15) Testimony under oath.--The hearing officer or board 
     shall administer an oath or affirmation to each witness, who 
     shall testify subject to the applicable laws of perjury.
       ``(16) Verdict on each charge.--At the conclusion of all 
     the evidence, and after oral argument from both sides, the 
     hearing officer or board shall deliberate and render a 
     verdict on each charge.
       ``(17) Burden of persuasion.--The prosecutor's burden of 
     persuasion shall be by clear and convincing evidence as to 
     each charge involving false representation, fraud, 
     dishonesty, deceit, or criminal behavior and by a 
     preponderance of the evidence as to all other charges.
       ``(18) Finding of not guilty.--If the law enforcement 
     officer is found not guilty of the disciplinary violations, 
     the matter is concluded and no disciplinary action may be 
     taken.
       ``(19) Finding of guilty.--If the law enforcement officer 
     is found guilty, the hearing officer or board shall make a 
     written recommendation of a penalty. The sentencing authority 
     may not impose greater than the penalty recommended by the 
     hearing officer or board.
       ``(20) Appeal.--A law enforcement officer may appeal from a 
     final decision of a law enforcement agency to a court to the 
     extent available in any other administrative proceeding, in 
     accordance with the applicable State law.
       ``(g) Waiver of Rights.--A law enforcement officer may 
     waive any of the rights guaranteed by this section subsequent 
     to the time that the officer has been notified that the 
     officer is under investigation. Such a waiver shall be in 
     writing and signed by the officer.
       ``(h) Summary Punishment and Emergency Suspension.--
       ``(1) In general.--This section does not preclude a State 
     from providing for summary punishment or emergency 
     suspension.
       ``(2) Health benefits.--An emergency suspension shall not 
     affect or infringe on the health benefits of a law 
     enforcement officer or the officer's dependents.
       ``(i) Retaliation for Exercising Rights.--There shall be no 
     penalty or threat of penalty against a law enforcement 
     officer for the exercise of the officer's rights under this 
     section.
      [[Page S2049]]   ``(j) Other Remedies Not Impaired.--Nothing 
     in this section shall be construed to impair any other legal 
     right or remedy that a law enforcement officer may have as a 
     result of a constitution, statute, ordinance, regulation, 
     collective bargaining agreement or other sources of rights.
       ``(k) Declaratory or Injunctive Relief.--A law enforcement 
     officer who is being denied any right afforded by this 
     section may petition a State court for declaratory or 
     injunctive relief to prohibit the law enforcement agency from 
     violating such right.
       ``(l) Prohibition of Adverse Material in Officer's File.--A 
     law enforcement agency shall not insert any adverse material 
     into the file of any law enforcement officer, or possess or 
     maintain control over any adverse material in any form within 
     the law enforcement agency, unless the officer has had an 
     opportunity to review and comment in writing on the adverse 
     material.
       ``(m) Disclosure of Personal Assets.--A law enforcement 
     officer shall not be required or requested to disclose any 
     item of the officer's personal property, income, assets, 
     sources of income, debts, personal or domestic expenditures 
     (including those of any member of the officer's household), 
     unless--
       ``(1) the information is necessary to the investigation of 
     a violation of any Federal, State or local law, rule, or 
     regulation with respect to the performance of official 
     duties; and
       ``(2) such disclosure is required by Federal, State, or 
     local law.
       ``(n) States' Rights.--This section does not preempt State 
     laws in effect on the date of enactment of this Act that 
     confer rights that equal or exceed the rights and coverage 
     afforded by this section. This section shall not be a bar to 
     the enactment of a police officer's bill of rights, or 
     similar legislation, by any State. A State law which confers 
     fewer rights or provides less protection than this section 
     shall be preempted by this section.
       ``(o) Mutually Agreed Upon Collective Bargaining 
     Agreements.--This section does not preempt existing mutually 
     agreed upon collective bargaining agreements in effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act that are substantially similar 
     to the rights and coverage afforded under this section.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. preceding 3701) is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 818 the following new item:

``Sec. 819. Rights of law enforcement officers.''.

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President; today I and Senator McConnell are 
introducing the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights Act of 1995, a 
bill aimed at protecting the rights of law enforcement officers on the 
front line of this Nation's fight against violent crime and drug 
trafficking.
  Police work is an incredibly difficult job, demanding split-second 
decisions that have life-or-death consequences. My colleagues may be 
surprised to find that despite the critical role that front-line law 
enforcement officers play to enforce the Constitution's rights and 
guarantees, and the related need to guarantee the highest standards of 
police conduct, internal disciplinary procedures in law enforcement 
agencies continue to vary widely across the nation.
  The often ad hoc procedures that many departments use to guide 
internal investigations frequently allows police executives to take 
arbitrary and unfair actions against innocent police officers, while 
allowing culpable officers to avoid any punishment at all.
  The law enforcement officers' bill of rights is designed to replace 
the ad hoc nature of many internal police investigations by encouraging 
States to provide minimum procedural standards to guide such 
investigations. The standards and protections offered by this bill are 
modeled on the Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies developed by the 
National Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement.
  As the preface to the Commission's standards on internal affairs 
notes:

       `The internal affairs function is important for the 
     maintenance of professional conduct in a law enforcement 
     agency. The integrity of the agency depends on the personal 
     integrity and discipline of each employee. To a large degree, 
     the public image of the agency is determined by the quality 
     of the internal affairs function in responding to allegations 
     of misconduct by the agency or its employees.

  The specific standards and rights guaranteed by the law enforcement 
officers bill of rights introduced today include:

       The right to engage or not engage in political activities 
     independent of an officer's official capacity;
       The right to be informed by a written statement of the 
     charges brought against an officer;
       The right to be free from undue coercion or harassment 
     during an investigation; and
       The right to counsel during an investigation.

  The provisions of this bill will take effect at the end of the second 
full legislative term of each State. After such time, a law enforcement 
officer whose rights have been abridged may sue in State court for 
pecuniary and other damages, including full reinstatement.
  Although the bill provides certain procedural rights, it gives States 
considerable discretion in implementing these safeguards, including the 
flexibility to provide for summary punishment and emergency suspensions 
of law enforcement officers.
  It is also important to note what the bill does not do. The bill 
explicitly provides that the standards and protections governing 
internal investigations shall not apply to investigations of criminal 
misconduct by law enforcement officers. As a result, criminal 
investigations of law enforcement officers would not be affected by 
this bill.
  Moreover, the protections in this bill do not apply to minor 
violations of departmental rules or regulations, not to actions taken 
on the basis of an officers' employment-related performance.
  I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of several of the 
Nation's leading law enforcement organizations on this important bill. 
the real leaders behind this effort--and they have been the leaders 
since the police officers' bill of rights won passage in the Senate in 
1991--are the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of 
Police Organizations, and the International Brotherhood of Police 
Officers. No one should be confused about where the force behind the 
law enforcement officers bill of rights lies--it lies with these 
organizations.
  Finally, let me say to the entire law enforcement community--you 
enjoy one of the most amicable and productive relationships between the 
rank and file and management. Many have observed that the reason for 
these relations is the fact that today's chief was yesterday's patrol 
officer--just as today's patrol officer will be tomorrow's sheriff. 
That is why I look forward to working with all members of the law 
enforcement community to pass legislation protecting the rights of all 
law enforcement officers.
  Mr. President, I have heard many Members of the Senate reflect on the 
commitment of those brave individuals who risk their lives as front-
line law enforcement officers. Mr. President, the bill we introduce 
today gives every Member of the Senate the chance to provide at least 
some of the protections these police heroes deserve.
                                 ______

      By Mr. D'AMATO:
  S. 337. A bill to enhance competition in the financial services 
sector, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.


           the depository institution affiliation act of 1995

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I today introduce the Depository 
Institution Affiliation Act of 1995 to modernize the antiquated laws 
governing the financial services industry. I am pleased that 
Representative Richard Baker, chairman of the House Banking 
Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored 
Enterprises, will today introduce similar legislation. This 
comprehensive legislation seeks:
  To promote competition among bank and nonbank providers of financial 
services;
  To encourage innovation in the design and delivery of financial 
services and products to individuals, large and small businesses, 
nonprofit institutions, and municipalities;
  To ensure the adequate regulation of financial intermediaries in 
order to protect depositors and investors;
  To preserve the safety and soundness of the banking system and the 
overall financial system; and
  To protect the Nation's taxpayers by requiring that nonbanking 
activities are conducted in separately capitalized and functionally 
regulated affiliates.
  Mr. President, now is the time to ready the Nation's financial 
services industry for the 21st century. Congress has allowed regulation 
of the financial services industry, a goliath with 5 million employees 
and $16 trillion in assets, to fall far behind market forces. Since the 
late 1970's, market forces have fueled massive changes in the financial 
services industry. But the 
[[Page S2050]] United States still relies on a regulatory system, born 
in the wake of the Great Depression, which stifles competition among 
providers of financial services. Without comprehensive reform, the 
Nation risks losing its leadership in the global market for financial 
services to Europe and Japan.
  Mr. President, this bill is virtually identical to legislation that I 
have previously sponsored or cosponsored. I first introduced this bill 
in 1987 as S. 1905, and I reintroduced it in 1989 as S. 530. The actual 
text of the 1995 bill, and its significant principles and provisions, 
are identical to the earlier versions. The 1995 version, however, 
contains technical and conforming changes to reflect the enactment of 
banking laws since its original introduction, such as the Financial 
Institutions Reform and Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, Public 
Law 101-73, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act 
of 1991, Public Law 102-242, and the interstate banking and community 
development bills of the last Congress.
  Mr. President, I remain committed to comprehensive, fair, and 
innovative financial services reform. Congress must assert its 
authority and meet its responsibility to increase the availability of 
innovative financial products and services for consumers, businesses 
and Government at the lowest possible cost.
  Mr. President, let me summarize the key provisions of the Depository 
Institution Affiliation Act [DIAA]. I will submit a more detailed 
section-by-section explanation of the bill at the end of my remarks.
  In general, the DIAA retains and reinforces the basic principles 
reflected in the present framework for regulation of federally insured 
banks and thrifts, while permitting banks and nonbanks to affiliate in 
a holding
 company framework. The DIAA thus preserves all the safety-and-
soundness and conflict-of-interest protections of the present system, 
while providing legal flexibility for a company to meet the financial 
needs of consumers, businesses and others by removing limitations on 
affiliations.

  Mr. President, the DIAA would establish a new charter alternative for 
all companies interested in entering or diversifying in the financial 
services field--a financial services holding company [FSHC]. The bill 
would permit the merging of banking and commerce under carefully 
regulated circumstances by allowing a FSHC to own both a depository 
institution and companies engaged in both financial and nonfinancial 
activities.
  Mr. President, by authorizing an alternative regulatory framework, 
the legislation would essentially exempt a FSHC's subsidiaries and 
affiliates from those sections of the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding 
Company Acts that restrict mixing commercial banking with other 
financial--securities, investment banking, and so forth--and 
nonfinancial activities--retailing, technology, manufacturing. A FSHC 
would be able to diversify into any activity through affiliates of the 
holding company with such affiliates subject to enhanced regulation.
  Mr. President, the regulation of the bank and nonbank affiliates of 
financial services holding companies would be along functional lines. 
The insured-bank affiliate would be regulated by Federal and State bank 
regulators, the securities affiliate by the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, and so on. Thus, for each affiliate, existing regulatory 
expertise will be applied to protect consumers, investors and 
taxpayers. Functional regulation will also assure that competition in 
discrete products and services is fair by eliminating current loopholes 
and regulatory gaps.
  Mr. President, I want to underscore that the DIAA would not require 
existing firms to alter their regulatory structure. By permitting 
financial services providers to become FSHC's, such providers will have 
the options to phase gradually into, or expand within, the financial 
services industry.
  Mr. President, our country still relies on a system of financial 
regulation that was established in the aftermath of the economic 
collapse of the 1930's and the Great Depression. By restricting 
competition among the various sectors of the financial services 
industry, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the Federal securities law of 
that era, and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 sought to enhance 
the safety of financial instruments and intermediaries.
  Mr. President, the past 20 years have seen a growing competition 
among providers of financial services. Banks seek more freedom to sell 
securities, mutual funds and insurance. Nonbank lenders, such as 
brokerage and insurance firms, offer commercial loans and other 
financing arrangements to business. And, finance companies and their 
commercial owners now play an increased role in the Nation's financial 
system. Many financial intermediaries provide functionally equivalent 
products and services.
  Mr. President, the United States must adopt a regulatory regime that 
recognizes market realities and assesses and controls risk. Our present 
patchwork of financial laws protects particular industries, restrains 
competition, prevents diversification that would limit risks, restricts 
potential sources of capital, and undermines the efficient delivery of 
services and the competitive position of our financial institutions in 
world markets.
  Mr. President, the Banking Committee and other committees of Congress 
have already held exhaustive hearings on the issues raised by the DIAA 
and reviewed bookshelves full of studies and blueprints for financial 
reform. Rather than enact comprehensive reform, Congress has thus far 
ceded the playing field to piecemeal deregulation by bank regulators 
and the courts. We must now end this debate and enact a legal framework 
that prepares our financial institutions for the new century and the 
challenges of a rapidly changing global economy.
  Mr. President, the DIAA represents a good starting point and a sound 
approach to modernizing our financial structure. I recognize that this 
bill can be improved from the 1987 version, and I am specifically 
requesting constructive and helpful comments to improve and to refine 
the major principles underlying the bill.
  Mr. President, congressional studies, Federal regulators, and 
industry leaders have supported comprehensive reform of the Nation's 
financial system. The Treasury Department's study, ``Modernizing the 
Financial System: Recommendations for Safer, More Competitive Banks'' 
(1991), essentially endorsed the legislation I am introducing today. In 
the recently enacted Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Efficiency Act 
of 1994 Congress directed Treasury to conduct another study of the 
Nation's financial services system. In a letter sent to Secretary Rubin 
today, I have strongly urged the Treasury Department to endorse and to 
reaffirm the basic conclusions of its 1991 study and to make further 
recommendations to promote competitiveness and efficiency, and to 
protect the taxpayer.
  Mr. President, given the broad support for comprehensive reform, why 
has Congress not overhauled the antiquated laws governing financial 
services? Why has Congress, by default, permitted the bank regulatory 
agencies and the courts to rewrite, in an ad hoc fashion, these laws?
  Mr. President, the answer is clear. Congress, Federal regulators, and 
the affected industries have lacked the vision to support the 
comprehensive reform reflected in this bill. We have debated bank 
deregulation and expanded bank powers. This polarizing debate has 
pitted the banks against securities firms, big banks against small 
banks, and banks against insurance agents and real estate brokers.
  Mr. President, history must not repeat itself. Today, as the Fed, the 
FDIC and the Comptroller of the Currency consider modifying their rules 
to permit banks, nonbank affiliates of holding companies and operating 
subsidiaries of national banks to engage in a de novo or additional 
securities and insurance activities, I have a sense of deja vu. In 
1987, the Competitive Equality Banking Act was passed to preserve 
Congress' ability to conduct a comprehensive review of banking and 
financial laws, and to make decisions on the need for financial 
restructuring legislation. Congress imposed a statutory moratorium on 
the authority of bank regulators to approve certain securities, 
insurance and real estate activities, 100-86. This moratorium ended on 
March 1, 1988.
  Mr. President, the Banking Committee closely monitors activities and 
[[Page S2051]] rulemaking of Federal bank regulators. With all the talk 
around Washington of regulatory moratoriums, I strongly urge bank 
regulators to support our efforts to rewrite the laws they administer 
rather than to stretch current laws beyond their statutory terms or the 
intent of Congress.
  Mr. President, our outdated regulatory regime has hurt the global 
competitiveness of U.S. financial institutions. Over the past 20 years, 
in part because financial markets in Japan and Europe are less 
regulated than in the United States, the number of American banks among 
the top 25 in the world has dropped from eight to none. In an era of 
increased globalization and free trade, as illustrated by NAFTA and 
GATT, we must not shackle U.S. financial institutions with a statutory 
framework that responds to the policy concerns of the 1930's.
  Mr. President, the 104th Congress must address and resolve the 
important questions relating to the health and future of the banking 
industry in the broader context of a financial system that is 
increasingly composed of nonbank financial service providers. We must 
focus on the needs of our economy for credit and growth in the future 
and the next century. We must focus on financial stability, safety and 
soundness, fair competition, and functional regulation of all financial 
service providers--whether they are banks, investment banks, insurance 
companies, finance companies or even telecommunications or computer 
companies.
  Mr. President, we must live up to the challenge. In recent years, 
Congress has responded quickly and effectively to correct deficiencies 
or excesses in the financial system. In the face of problems created by 
stock market breaks, depleted deposit insurance funds, or credit 
crunches, we have addressed serious financial crises. In the process, 
Congress has prudently learned that statutory provisions adopted in the 
1930's can aggravate and actually create problems for depository 
institution and other financial providers in the 1980's and 1990's--for 
example, interest rate controls, restrictions on interstate banking, 
portfolio concentrations, and statutory impediments to diversification. 
Congress has eliminated or modified many of these provisions of law in 
the past decade for banks and thrifts. The homogenization of financial 
service and globalization of markets has also necessitated the close 
coordination by discrete regulators, nationally and internationally, 
through informal mechanisms, such as the Treasury Department's Working 
Group and the so-called Basle Committee. In recent years, in FIRREA and 
FIDICA, Congress has also employed market-oriented substitutes for 
direct government regulation, such as industry developed codes of 
conduct, capital strength, internal controls, management information 
systems and management experience.
  Mr. President, Congress must modernize the restrictions on 
affiliations found in the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company Acts. 
I introduce this bill today, and make these extensive remarks, to 
underscore the critical national importance of modernizing our 
financial system. Last year, Congress was finally able to eliminate 
barriers to interstate banking, to facilitate the securitization of 
small business loans, and to prune outdated and burdensome regulatory 
requirements. Those bills were the result of a successful collaboration 
among the administration, Federal and State regulators, and providers 
and consumers of financial services. I seek to sustain this process and 
pass comprehensive financial services reform during this Congress.
  Mr. President, history demonstrates that financial services reform 
that is not comprehensive will not be enacted. I have previously 
opposed piecemeal reform because such reform is not pro-competitive, is 
inconsistent
 with the objective of ``competitive equality'' articulated by Congress 
in 1987 and the Treasury's 1991 study, and will not advance the long-
term interests of the banking industry or the United States.

  Mr. President, the DIAA will make the financial system as a whole 
safer and more stable. Rather than debate the important but narrow 
issue of the future of the banking franchise and the role of banks in 
the economy and attempt to gerrymander markets through piecemeal 
legislation to protect any single component, Congress must enact 
comprehensive legislation. Only comprehensive legislation will produce 
beneficial changes for all financial intermediaries by:
  Permitting financial intermedi- aries--commercial banks, 
investment banks, thrifts, et cetera--to attract capital by eliminating 
existing restrictions on ownership by and affiliations among depository 
and nondepository firms;
  Facilitating diversification and assuring fair competition by 
creating a new category of financial service holding companies 
authorized to engage in any financial activity through separately 
regulated subsidiaries;
  Insulating insured subsidiaries from the more risky business 
activities of other affiliates as well as the parent holding company;
  Enhancing substantially the quality and effectiveness of regulation 
through functional regulation;
  Improving coordination and supervision of the overall financial 
system by permitting more effective analysis and monitoring of 
aggregate stability and vulnerability to severe disruptions and 
breakdown; and
  Removing unnecessary barriers to competition between providers of 
financial service in the United States in order to maintain the 
preeminence of the U.S. capital markets and U.S. financial 
intermediaries and to respond to growing competition from foreign 
companies.
  Mr. President, this legislation, as introduced, is not intended to 
force major changes in the insurance industry. Nevertheless, it will 
affect issues important to the insurance agents, insurance companies, 
and financial institutions engaged in insurance activities. The exact 
impact of the legislation on the relationship between banking and 
insurance will continue to be examined--especially the issues raised by 
traditional State regulation of the business of insurance.
  Immediately following the bill's introduction, the Banking Committee 
will begin to examine issues relating to bank involvement in insurance 
activities. In the end, I expect the bill to balance appropriately fair 
competition, functional regulation and respect for the traditional 
leadership of the States in insurance regulation. As the committee 
proceeds to hearings and further consideration of the bill, I intend to 
make changes and adjustments in order to ensure fairness, safety and 
soundness, consumer protection, and effective and efficient regulation, 
particularly as it relates to insurance and other financial products.
  Mr. President, I introduce the Depository Institution Affiliation Act 
as a prelude to a vigorous debate about the future of our financial 
system. I strongly believe that this Congress can achieve the passage 
of a comprehensive financial services reform bill. By working together, 
the Congress and the administration can overcome the complaints of 
vested interests and reform our antiquated financial services laws. We 
should not miss this opportunity for constructive bipartisanship.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that more detailed section-by-
section summary of the bill and a copy of my letter to Secretary Rubin 
be reprinted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
  Depository Institution Affiliation Act--Section-by-Section Analysis

       Section 1: Short Title and table of contents.
       Section 1 provides that this Act be cited as the 
     ``Depository Institution Affiliation Act''.
       Section 2: Findings and Purpose.
       The purpose of this Act is to promote the safety and 
     soundness of the nation's financial system, to increase the 
     availability of financial products and services to consumers, 
     businesses, charitable institutions and government in an 
     efficient and cost effective manner. In addition, this Act 
     aims to promote a legal structure governing providers of 
     financial services that permits open and fair competition and 
     affords all financial services companies equal opportunity to 
     serve the full range of credit and financial needs in the 
     marketplace. This Act also aims to ensure that domestic 
     financial institutions and companies are able to compete 
     effectively in international financial markets. Finally, this 
     Act aims to regulate financial activities and companies along 
     functional lines without regard to ownership, control, or 
     affiliation.
  [[Page S2052]] title i--creation and control of financial services 
                           holding companies

       Section 101. This section creates a new type of financial 
     company, a Financial Services Holding Company, and sets out 
     the terms and conditions under which such a company can be 
     established and must be operated.
       Subsection (a) Definitions. This subsection defines terms 
     used in this section.
       Paragraph (a)(1) Financial Services Holding Company 
     (FSHC)--defines a FSHC to be any company that files a notice 
     with the National Financial Services Committee (see Title II 
     of this Act) that it intends to comply with the provisions of 
     this section, and controls an insured depository institution, 
     or, either (i) has, within the preceding 12 months filed a 
     notice under subsection (b) of this section to establish or 
     acquire control of a federally insured depository institution 
     or a company owning such a federally insured depository 
     institution, or (ii) controls a company which, within the 
     preceding 12 months, has filed an application for federal 
     deposit insurance, provided that such notice or application 
     has not been disapproved by the appropriate Federal banking 
     agency or withdrawn. Any bank holding company
      which elects to become a FSHC will lose its status as a bank 
     holding company immediately upon filing the notice of its 
     election to become a FSHC. Similarly, a savings and loan 
     holding company that elects to become a FSHC will lose 
     that status upon filing the notice of its election to 
     become a FSHC.
       Paragraph (a)(2) Bank Holding Company--gives the term 
     ``bank holding company'' the meaning given to it in section 
     2(a) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended.
       Paragraph (a)(3) Savings and Loan Holding Company--gives 
     the term ``savings and loan holding company'' the meaning 
     given to it in section 10(a) of the Home Owners' Loan Act.
       Paragraph (a)(4) Affiliate--defines for this section, 
     except paragraph (5) of subsection (f), the term 
     ``affiliate'' of a company as any company which controls, is 
     controlled by, or is under common control with such a 
     company.
       Paragraph (a)(5) Appropriate Federal Banking Agency 
     (AFBA)--gives the term ``appropriate Federal banking agency'' 
     the meaning given to it in section 3 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act.
       Paragraph (a)(6) Depository Institution and Insured 
     Depository Institution--gives the term ``depository 
     institution'' and ``insured depository institution'' the 
     meaning given to them in section 3 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act.
       Paragraph (a)(7) State--gives the term ``State'' the 
     meaning given to it in section 3 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act.
       Paragraph (a)(8) Company--defines the term ``company'' to 
     mean any corporation, partnership, business trust, 
     association or similar organization. However, corporations 
     that are majority owned by the United States or any State are 
     excluded from the definition of company.
       Paragraph (a)(9) Control--defines control by one company 
     over another. For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``control'' means the power, directly or indirectly, to 
     direct the management or policies of a company, or to vote 
     25% or more of any class of voting securities of a company.
       There are three exceptions from the definition of control: 
     These pertain to ownership of voting securities acquired or 
     held:
       1. as agent, trustee or in some other fiduciary capacity;
       2. as underwriter for such a period of time as will permit 
     the sale of these securities on a reasonable basis; or in 
     connection with or incidental to market making, dealing,
      trading, brokerage or other securities-related activities, 
     provided that such shares are not acquired with a view 
     toward acquiring, exercising or transferring control of 
     the management or policies of the company;
       3. for the purpose of securing or collection of a prior 
     debt until two years after the date of the acquisition; and
       In addition, no company formed for the sole purpose of 
     proxy solicitation shall be deemed to be in control of 
     another company by virtue of its acquisition of the voting 
     rights of the other company's securities.
       Paragraph (a)(10) Adequately Capi- talized--the term 
     `adequately capitalized' with respect to an insured 
     depository institution has the meaning given to it in section 
     38(b)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       Paragraph (a)(11) Well Capitalized--the term `well 
     capitalized' with respect to an insured depository 
     institution has the meaning given to it in section 38(b)(1) 
     of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       Paragraph (a)(12) Minimum Required Capital--defines the 
     term `minimum required capital' with respect to an insured 
     depository institution as the amount of capital that is 
     required to be adequately capitalized.
       Paragraph (a)(13) Domestic Branch--gives the term `domestic 
     branch' the same meaning as in section 3(o) of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act.
       Subsection (b): Changes in Control of Insured Depository 
     Institutions. This subsection provides that any FSHC wishing 
     to acquire control of an insured depository institution or 
     company owning such insured depository institution must 
     comply with the requirements of the Change in Bank Control 
     Act. Failure to comply with these requirements will subject 
     the relevant FSHC to the penalties and procedures provided in 
     subsections (i) through (m) of this section, in addition to 
     otherwise applicable penalties.
       Subsection (c): Affiliate Transactions. This subsection 
     empowers each AFBA to impose restrictions on affiliate 
     transactions to prohibit unsafe or unsound practices. These 
     regulations would be in addition to the restrictions on 
     interaffiliate transactions provided for under sections 23A 
     or 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. This subsection gives each 
     AFBA some flexibility to promulgate and adapt rules and 
     regulations in response to changing market conditions so that 
     the AFBA has at all times the capability to prevent insured 
     depository institutions under its
      supervision that are controlled by FSHCs from engaging in 
     transactions that would compromise the safety and 
     soundness of such insured depository institutions or that 
     would jeopardize the deposit insurance funds.
       Moreover, other provisions of this Act assure that the AFBA 
     will have the capability to enforce these regulations 
     vigorously (subsection (i) of this section) and that any 
     violations of these regulations will be more severely 
     punished than violations of regulations applicable to insured 
     depository institutions that are not controlled by FSHCs 
     (subsections (i), (j), (k) and (l) of this section).
       Paragraph (c)(2) Regulatory Activity--provides that any 
     rules adopted under subparagraph (c)(1)(A) shall be issued in 
     accordance with normal rulemaking procedures and shall afford 
     interested parties the opportunity to comment in writing and 
     orally on any proposed rule.
       Paragraph (c)(3) Application to Prior Approved 
     Transactions--grandfathers inter- affiliate 
     transactions specifically approved by a AFBA prior to the 
     enactment of this Act.
       Paragraph (c)(4) Federal Reserve Act Treatment--makes it 
     clear that sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act 
     will apply to every insured depository institution controlled 
     by a financial services holding company.
       Paragraphs (c) (5) and (6) Limitations and Exception--
     prohibits any insured depository institution controlled by a 
     FSHC from extending credit to or purchasing the assets of a 
     securities affiliate and providing other types of financial 
     support to that FSHC's securities affiliate except for 
     daylight overdrafts that relate to U.S. Government securities 
     transactions if the daylight overdrafts are fully 
     collateralized by U.S. Government securities as to principal 
     and interest.
       Paragraph (c)(7) Limitation on Certain Marketability 
     Activities--prohibits insured depository institutions 
     controlled by a FSHC from providing any type of guarantee for 
     the purpose of enhancing the marketability of a securities 
     issue underwritten or distributed by a securities affiliate 
     of that FSHC.
       Paragraph (c)(8) Activities During Securities 
     Distribution--prohibits insured depository institutions 
     controlled by a FSHC from extending credit secured by or for 
     the purposes of purchasing any security during an 
     underwriting period or for 30 days thereafter where a 
     securities affiliate or such institution participates as an 
     underwriter or member of a selling group.
       Paragraph (c)(9) Extensions of Credit for Payment of 
     Dividends--prohibits insured depository institutions 
     controlled by a FSHC from extending credit to an issuer of 
     securities underwritten by a securities affiliate for the 
     purpose of paying the principal of those securities or 
     interest for dividends on those securities.
       Paragraph (c)(10) Securities Affiliate Defined--defines 
     `securities affiliate' for the purposes of paragraphs (c)(5) 
     through (c)(9) as a company that engages in underwriting, 
     distributing or dealing in securities, except insurance 
     products.
       Subsection (d): Capitalization. This subsection regulates 
     the capitalization of insured depository institutions that 
     are controlled by a FSHC.
       Paragraph (d)(1) In General--requires that insured 
     depository institutions controlled by a FSHC be well 
     capitalized.
       Paragraph (d)(2) Actions by Federal Regulators--Provides 
     that if the AFBA finds that an insured depository institution 
     subsidiary of a FSHC is not well capitalized, the FSHC shall 
     have thirty days to reach an agreement without the AFBA 
     concerning how and according to what schedule the insured 
     depository institution will bring its minimum capital back 
     into conformance with requirements. During that time the 
     insured depository institution shall operate under the close 
     supervision of the AFBA.
       In the event that the FSHC does not reach an agreement 
     within thirty days with the AFBA on how and according to what 
     schedule the capital of the insured depository institution 
     will be replenished, the FSHC will be required to divest the 
     insured depository institution in an orderly manner within a 
     period of six months, or such additional period of time as 
     the AFBA may determine is reasonably required in order to 
     effect such divestiture.
       Paragraph (d)(3) Capital of Holding Company--Prohibits a 
     AFBA from imposing any capital requirement on a FSHC.
       Subsection (e): Interstate Acquisitions and Activities of 
     Insured Depository Institutions. This subsection subjects 
     interstate acquisitions of an insured depository institution 
     by a FSHC to the same restrictions as those applicable to 
     bank holding companies under section 3(d) of the Bank Holding 
     Company Act of 1956, as amended, and it subjects interstate 
     acquisitions of savings associations by a FSHC to the same 
     restrictions as those applicable to savings and loan holding 
     companies. It also treats a FSHC as a BHC 
     [[Page S2053]] for purposes of Section 18(r) of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act regarding affiliate depository 
     institution agency activities.
       Subsection (f): Differential Treatment Prohibition; Laws 
     Inconsistent with this Act. This subsection does two things. 
     First, it prohibits adversely differential treatment of FSHCs 
     and their affiliates, including their insured depository 
     institution affiliates, except as this Act specifically 
     provides. Second, this subsection ensures that state and 
     federal initiatives do not undermine achievement of the 
     purposes of this Act. Whether couched as affiliation, 
     licensing or agency restrictions or as constraints on access 
     to state courts, such laws effectively perpetuate market 
     barriers and deny consumers the opportunity to choose between 
     different financial products and services.
       Paragraph (f)(1) this paragraph specifically prohibits 
     states from enacting laws that discriminate against FSHCs or 
     against their affiliates, including their insured depository 
     institution affiliates. This paragraph also prohibits, 
     notwithstanding any other federal law, federal and state 
     regulatory agencies from discriminating by rule, regulation, 
     order or any other means against FSHCs or against their 
     affiliates, including their insured depository institution 
     affiliates, except as this Act specifically provides. This is 
     intended to assure that the primary purpose of this Act--the 
     enhancement of competition in the depository institution 
     sector--will be fulfilled.
       Paragraph (f)(2) Application of State Laws--this subsection 
     recognizes that certain State affiliation and licensing laws 
     restrain legitimate competition in interstate commerce, deny 
     consumers freedom of choice in selecting an insured 
     depository institution and threaten the long-term safety and 
     soundness of insured depository institutions by limiting 
     their access to capital.
       Accordingly, with the exception of certain laws related to 
     insurance and real estate brokerage which are treated in 
     Subsection (g), this paragraph preempts any provision of 
     federal or state law, rule, regulation or order that is 
     expressly or impliedly inconsistent with the provisions of 
     this section. The preempted statutes include state banking, 
     savings and loan, securities, finance company, retail or 
     other laws which restrict the affiliation of insured 
     depository institutions or their owners, agents, principals, 
     brokers, directors, officers, employees or other 
     representatives with other firms. Similarly, laws prohibiting 
     cross marketing of products and services are preempted 
     insofar as such cross marketing activities are conducted by 
     FSHCs, their affiliates, or by any agent, principal, broker, 
     director, officer, employee or other representative. By 
     contrast, nondiscriminatory state approval, examination, 
     supervisory, regulatory, reporting, licensing, and similar 
     requirements are not affected.
       Paragraph (f)(3) Laws Affecting Court Actions--removes a 
     common uncertainty under state licensing and qualification to 
     do business statutes, which leaves an out-of-state insured 
     depository institution's access to another state's courts 
     unresolved. Under this provision, so long as such an insured 
     depository institution limits its activities to those which 
     do not constitute the establishment or operation of a 
     ``domestic branch'' of an insured depository institution in 
     that other state, it can qualify to maintain or defend in 
     that state's court any action which could be maintained or 
     defended by a company which is not an insured depository 
     institution and is not located in that state, subject to the 
     same filing, fee and other conditions as may be imposed on 
     such a company. This paragraph is not intended to grant 
     states any power that they do not currently have to regulate 
     the activities of out-of-state insured depository 
     institutions.
       Paragraph (f)(4) Other Restrictions--makes clear that a 
     state, except subject to the provisions of this Act, may not 
     impede or prevent any insured depository institution 
     affiliated with a FSHC or any FSHC or affiliate thereof from 
     marketing products and services in that state by utilizing 
     and compensating its agents, solicitors, brokers, employees 
     and other persons located in that state and representing such 
     a insured depository institution, company, or affiliate. 
     However, to the extent such persons are performing loan 
     origination, deposit solicitation or other activities in 
     which an insured depository institution may engage, those 
     activities cannot constitute the establishment or operation 
     of a ``domestic branch'' at any location other than the main 
     or branch offices of the depository institution.
       Paragraph (f)(5) Definitions--contains a special definition 
     of ``affiliate'' and ``control'' for purposes of paragraph 
     (2) through (4) this subsection only. Control is deemed to 
     occur where a person or entity owns or has the power to vote 
     10% of the voting securities of another entity or where a 
     person or entity directly or indirectly determines the 
     management or policies of another entity or person. Unlike 
     the definition of affiliate set forth in paragraph (4) of 
     subsection (a), this definition encompasses not only 
     corporate affiliations but affiliations between corporations 
     and individuals.
       Subsection (g): Securities, Insurance and Real Estate 
     Activities of Insured Depository Institutions. In order to 
     facilitate functional regulation of the activities of FSHCs 
     this section prohibits insured depository institutions 
     controlled by FSHCs from conducting certain securities, 
     insurance and real estate activities currently permissible 
     for some insured depository institutions.
       Subparagraph (g)(1)(A) Securities Activities--provides that 
     no insured depository institution controlled by a FSHC shall 
     directly engage in dealing in or underwriting securities, or 
     purchasing or selling securities as agent, except to the 
     extent such activities are performed with regard to 
     obligations of the United States or are the type of 
     activities that could be performed by a national bank's trust 
     department.
       Subparagraph (g)(1)(B) Insurance Activities--provides that 
     no insured depository institution controlled by a FSHC shall 
     directly engage in insurance underwriting.
       Subparagraph (g)(1)(C) Real Estate Activities--provides 
     that no insured depository institution controlled by a FSHC 
     shall directly engage in real estate investment or 
     development except insofar as these activities are incidental 
     to the insured depository institution's investment in or 
     operation of its own premises, result from foreclosure on 
     collateral securing a loan, or are the type of activities 
     that could be performed by a national bank's trust 
     department.
       Paragraph (g)(2) Construction--clarifies that nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to prohibit or impede a 
     FSHC or any of its affiliates (other than an insured 
     depository institution) from engaging in any of the 
     activities set forth in paragraph (1) or to prohibit an 
     employee of an insured depository institution that is an 
     affiliate of a FSHC from offering or marketing products or 
     services of an affiliate of such an insured depository 
     institution as set forth in paragraph (1).
       Paragraph (g)(3) De Novo Securities and Real Estate 
     Activities--except for activities permitted under Section 
     4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act no FSHC can engage in 
     insurance or real estate activities de novo. Rather, they 
     would have to purchase either an insurance agency or real 
     estate brokerage business which had been in business for at 
     least two years prior to passage of the Act.
       Paragraph (g)(4) Existing Contracts--provides that nothing 
     in this subsection will require the breach of a contract 
     entered into prior to enactment of this Act.
       Subsection (h): Tying and Insider Lender Provisions. This 
     section subjects FSHCs to the tying provisions of section 106 
     of the Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970 and to the 
     insider lending prohibitions of section 22(h) of the Federal 
     Reserve Act. These sections prohibit tying between products 
     and services offered by insured depository institutions and 
     products and services offered by the FSHC itself or by any of 
     its other affiliates. Note, however, that these tying 
     provisions do not apply to products and services that do not 
     involve an insured
      depository institution. The insider lending provisions 
     severely limit loans by an insured depository institution 
     to officers and directors of the insured depository 
     institution. For purposes of both provisions, the AFBA 
     will exercise the rulemaking authority vested in the 
     Federal Reserve with regard to these limitations.
       Subsection (i): Examination and Enforcement. This 
     subsection provides that the AFBA shall use its examination 
     and supervision authority to enforce the provisions of this 
     section, including any rules and regulations promulgated 
     under subsection (c). In particular, it is intended that each 
     AFBA should structure its examination process so as to 
     uncover possible violations of the provisions of this section 
     and that the agency should not hesitate to make full use of 
     its cease-and-desist powers or to impose as warranted the 
     special penalties discussed below, if it believes that an 
     insured depository institution under its supervision that is 
     controlled by a FSHC is in violation of any of the provisions 
     of this section.
       This subsection also grants the AFBA authority to examine 
     any other affiliate of the FSHC as well as the FSHC itself in 
     order to ensure compliance with the limitations of this 
     section or other provisions of law made applicable by this 
     section such as sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve 
     Act.
       In addition, this subsection grants each AFBA the right to 
     apply to the appropriate district court of the United States 
     for a temporary or permanent injunction or a restraining 
     order to enjoin any person or company from violation of the 
     provisions of this section or any regulation prescribed under 
     this section. The AFBA may seek such an injunction or 
     restraining order whenever it considers that an insured 
     depository institution under its supervision or any FSHC 
     controlling such an insured depository institution is 
     violating, has violated or is about to violate any provision 
     of this section or any regulation prescribed under this 
     section. In seeking such an injunction or restraining order 
     the AFBA may also request such equitable relief as may be 
     necessary to prevent the violation in question. This relief 
     may include a requirement that the FSHC divest itself of 
     control of the insured depository institution, if this is the 
     only way in which the violation can be prevented.
       This injunctive power will enable the AFBA to move speedily 
     to stop practices that it believes endanger the safety and 
     soundness of an insured depository institution under its 
     supervision that is controlled by a FSHC. If necessary to 
     protect the depositors and safeguard the deposit insurance 
     funds, the AFBA may request that the injunction proceedings 
     be held in camera, so as not to provoke a run on the insured 
     depository institution.
       Subsection (j): Divestiture. This subsection states that an 
     AFBA may require a FSHC to 
     [[Page S2054]] divest itself of an insured depository 
     institution, if the agency finds that the insured depository 
     institution is engaging in a continuing course of action 
     involving the FSHC or any of its affiliates that would 
     endanger the safety and soundness of that insured depository 
     institution. Although the FSHC would have the right to a 
     hearing and to judicial review and have one year in which to 
     divest the insured depository institution, it should be 
     emphasized that the insured depository institution would 
     operate under the close supervision of the AFBA from the date 
     of the initial order until the date the divestiture is 
     completed. This is intended to safeguard the insured 
     depository institution in question, its depositors and the 
     deposit insurance funds.
       Subsection (k): Criminal Penalties. This subsection 
     provides for criminal penalties for knowing and willful 
     violations of the provisions of this section, even if these 
     violations do not result in an initial or final order 
     requiring divestiture of the insured depository institution. 
     For companies found to be in violation of the provisions of 
     this section the maximum penalty shall be the greater of (a) 
     $250,000 per day for each day that the violation continues or 
     (b) one percent of the minimum required capital of the 
     insured depository institution per day for each day that the 
     violation continues, up to a maximum of 10% of the minimum 
     capital of the insured depository institution--a fine that 
     could amount to tens of millions of dollars for a large 
     insured depository institution. Such a fine is designed to be 
     large enough to deter even larger insured depository 
     institutions from violating the provisions of this section.
       For individuals found to be in violation of the provisions 
     of this section the penalty shall be a fine and/or a prison 
     term. The maximum fine shall be the greater of (a) $250,000 
     or (b) twice the individual's annual rate of total 
     compensation at the time the violation occurred. The maximum 
     prison sentence shall be one year. In addition, individuals 
     violating the provisions of this section will also be subject 
     to the penalties provided for in Section 1005 of Title 18 for 
     false entries in any book, report or statement to the extent 
     that the violation included such false entries.
       A FSHC and its affiliates shall also be subject to the 
     Criminal penalties provisions of the Financial Institutions 
     Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 and the 
     Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer 
     Recovery Act of 1990 to the same extent as a registered bank 
     holding company, savings and loan holding company or any 
     affiliate of such companies.
       Subsection (1): Civil Enforcement, Cease-and-Desist Orders, 
     Civil Money Penalties. This subsection provides for civil 
     enforcement, cease-and-desist orders and civil money 
     penalties consistent with subsections (b) and (s) and 
     subsection (u) of Section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Act for FSHCs that violates the provisions of this section in 
     the same manner as they apply to an insured depository 
     institution.
       Subsection (m): Civil money Penalties. This subsection 
     grants the AFBA the power to impose and collect civil money 
     penalties after providing the company or person accused of 
     such violation notice and the opportunity to object in 
     writing to its finding.
       Subsection (n): Judicial Review. This subsection provides 
     for judicial review of decisions reached by an AFBA under the 
     provisions of this section. This right to review includes a 
     right of judicial review of statutes, rules, regulations, 
     orders and other actions that would discriminate against 
     FSHCs or affiliates controlled by such companies.
       Section 102: Amendment to the Bank Holding Company Act of 
     1956. This section contains a conforming amendment to the 
     definition of the term ``bank'' in the Bank Holding Company 
     Act to ensure that a FSHC owning an insured depository 
     institution will be regulated under this Act rather than the 
     Bank Holding Company Act.
       Section 103: Amendments to the Federal Reserve Act. This 
     section clarifies the application of Section 23A of the 
     Federal Reserve Act to certain loans and extensions of credit 
     to persons who are not affiliated with a member bank. Section 
     23A contains a provision that was intended to prevent the use 
     of ``straw man'' intermediaries to evade section 23A's 
     limitations on loans and extensions of credit to affiliates. 
     Contrary to its original purpose, the provision may also be 
     literally read to restrict a bona fide loan or extension of 
     credit to a third party who happens to use the proceeds to 
     purchase goods or services from an affiliate of the insured 
     depository institution; such a loan could occur, for example, 
     if a customer happens to use a credit card issued by an 
     insured depository institution to buy an item sold by the 
     insured depository institution's affiliates. This section 
     clarifies that such loans and extensions of credit are not 
     covered by section 23A as long as (i) the insured depository 
     institution approves them in accordance with substantially 
     the same standards and procedures and on substantially the 
     same terms that it applies to similar loans or extensions of 
     credit that do not involve the payment of the proceeds to an 
     affiliate, and (ii) the loans or extensions of credit are not 
     made for the purpose of evading any requirement of section 
     23A.
       Section 104: Amendments to the Banking Act of 1933.
       Subsection (a) Section 20--amends section 20 of the Glass-
     Steagall Act so that it does not apply to member banks that 
     are controlled by FSHCs.
       Subsection (b) Section 32--amends section 32 of the Glass-
     Steagall Act so that it does not apply to officers, directors 
     and employees of affiliates of a single financial services 
     holding company.
       Section 105: Amendment to the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Act. This section amends the Change in Bank Control Act to 
     provide that an acquisition of a FSHC controlling an insured 
     depository institution may only be accomplished after 
     complying with that Act's procedures. It also modifies the 
     definition of ``control'' to conform it to the definition in 
     section 101(a)(9) of this Act.
       Section 106: Amendment to the Securities Exchange Act of 
     1934. This section amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
     to provide for the registration and regulation of Broker 
     Dealers affiliated with a FSHC.
       Section 107: Amendment to the Home Owners' Loan Act. This 
     section amends section 11 of the Home Owners' Loan Act in 
     order to apply Section 101(c)(1)(B) of this section to 
     savings associations.
       Section 108: Amendment to the Community Reinvestment Act. 
     This section amends the Community Reinvestment Act to make it 
     applicable to acquisitions of insured depository institutions 
     by FSHCs.
       Section 106: Amendment to the Securities Exchange Act of 
     1934. This section amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
     to provide for the registration and regulation of Broker 
     Dealers.
       Section 107: Amendment to the Home Owners' Loan Act. This 
     section amends section 11 of the Home Owners' Loan Act in 
     order to apply Section 101(c)(1)(B) of this section to 
     savings associations.
       Section 108: Amendment to the Community Reinvestment Act. 
     This section amends the Community Reinvestment Act to make it 
     applicable to acquisitions of insured depository institutions 
     by FSHCs.
                   title ii--supervisory improvements

       Section 201: National Financial Services Committee. This 
     section establishes a standing committee, the National 
     Financial Services Oversight Committee (Committee), in order 
     to provide a forum in which federal and state regulators can 
     reach a consensus regarding how the regulation of insured 
     depository institutions should evolve in response to changing 
     market conditions. In addition, the Committee also provides a 
     mechanism through which various federal regulatory agencies 
     could coordinate their responses to a financial crisis, if 
     such a crisis were to occur. The Committee comprises all 
     federal agencies responsible for regulating financial 
     institutions or financial activities, and it is structured to 
     allow state regulators to participate in its deliberations.
       The Committee consists of the Chairman of the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, who is also the Chairman of the Committee, the 
     Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System, the Chairman of the FDIC, the Director of the Office 
     of Thrift Supervision, the Comptroller of the Currency, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, the Chairman of 
     the SEC, and the Chairman of the CFTC.
       The Committee is directed to report to Congress within one 
     year of enactment of this Act on proposed legislative or 
     regulatory actions that will improve the examination process 
     to permit better oversight of all insured depository 
     institutions. It is also directed to establish uniform 
     principles and standards for examinations.
                                                                    ____

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
           Affairs,
                                 Washington, DC, February 2, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Rubin,
     Secretary, Department of Treasury, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: The Treasury Department in conducting a 
     study of the financial services system required by the 
     Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (P.L. 
     103-328). The Department must submit recommendations to 
     Congress for ``changes in statutes, regulations, and policies 
     to improve the operation of the financial service system'' by 
     the end of 1995.
       I introduced today the ``Depository Institution Affiliation 
     Act of 1995'' (``DIAA'') and urge you to consider it 
     carefully as the Treasury Department conducts its study. The 
     bill and a summary of its major provisions are enclosed.
       The DIAA would allow any company--financial or commercial--
     to become a financial services holding company and be 
     affiliated with an insured depository institution. A company 
     that opts into the alternative regulatory format could engage 
     in an expanded range of activities with and through its 
     depository institution and other affiliates. Non-depository 
     financial and/or commercial activities would be conducted 
     through separately capitalized subsidiaries and regulated 
     along functional lines. This separation of the non-depository 
     institution properly insulates the depository institution 
     from self-dealing and other inappropriate practices and 
     serves to protect the deposit insurance system.
       The legislation is a rational legislative response to the 
     need for comprehensive financial services reform. Moreover, 
     the Treasury Department's 1991 study, Modernizing the 
     Financial System: Recommendations for Safer More Competitive 
     Banks, essentially endorsed the principles contained in the 
     DIAA.
       [[Page S2055]] In formulating Treasury's proposal for 
     financial services restructuring, I urge you to consider and 
     support the DIAA and the creation of financial services 
     holding companies.
           Sincerely,
                                               Alfonse M. D'Amato,
                                                 Chairman.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Kerrey, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Campbell):
  S. 338. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the 
period of eligibility for inpatient care for veterans exposed to toxic 
substances, radiation, or environmental hazards, to extend the period 
of eligibility for outpatient care for veterans exposed to such 
substances or hazards during service in the Persian Gulf, and to expand 
the eligibility of veterans exposed to toxic substances or radiation 
for outpatient care; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


               the veterans' outpatient care act of 1995

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will provide much needed medical care to veterans exposed to agent 
orange or ionizing radiation, as well as to veterans exposed to toxic 
substances or environmental hazards during the Persian Gulf war. I am 
joined in this effort by Senators Rockefeller, Akaka, Kerrey, Dorgan, 
and Campbell.
  Most Americans have heard about the mysterious illnesses afflicting 
thousands of gulf war veterans. Even though it has been almost 4 years 
since most of our troops returned home, we are still unable to pinpoint 
the cause or causes of these illnesses.
  Are these illnesses service-connected? I believe so, though we will 
not be able to answer that question fully until further scientific 
research is done. Indeed, it is possible that scientists may never be 
able to discover the true cause(s) of these illnesses.
  Does that mean gulf war veterans should wait for medical care until 
we know for sure that their ailments are service-connected? Certainly 
not. These men and women put their lives on the line for this Nation, 
and they deserve quality care from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Likewise, we must not forget that other veterans continue to suffer 
from illnesses potentially caused by toxic exposures during their 
military service. Specifically, I am referring to veterans exposed to 
the defoliant agent orange during the Vietnam war and to veterans 
exposed to ionizing radiation either as a result of participation in 
the military's nuclear testing program or during the occupation of 
Hiroshima and Nagaski during World War II.
  Title 38 of the United States Code currently authorizes the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to provide hospital and nursing home 
care to veterans suffering from agent orange, radiation or gulf war 
exposures. For veterans of the gulf war, outpatient services are also 
available.
  However, this authority is scheduled to expire this year. Without 
prompt action by Congress, these veterans will become ineligible to 
receive care at VA facilities for all conditions potentially related to 
these exposures.
  My bill will ensure that these veterans are eligible for VA medical 
care through December 31, 2003. Although some may argue for a shorter 
extension, I believe the period must be long enough to ensure that 
these veterans get the care they deserve.
  Let me elaborate. In the 97th Congress, we granted VA the authority 
to provide care to veterans exposed to agent orange or ionizing 
radiation. Since that time, Congress has approved short extensions of 
this authority on four different occasions. For veterans, this has 
meant great uncertainty about whether they will
 receive much-needed health care. A longer extension will help 
alleviate this uncertainty.

  Moreover, scientists cannot provide us with quick answers as to why 
gulf war veterans are sick. And in the meantime, these men and women 
will continue to suffer. They need to know that a grateful nation will 
help them through this difficult time.
  I should stress that this authority to provide care only applies to 
medical conditions that are related or may be related to agent orange, 
ionizing radiation, or gulf war exposures. It does not extend to 
conditions for which VA doctors have affirmatively identified other 
causes.
  My bill does go one step further than a simple extension of current 
law. It also ensures that veterans exposed to agent orange and ionizing 
radiation are eligible for the same range of medical services currently 
available to gulf war veterans. Specifically, the bill authorizes the 
VA to provide outpatient care for these veterans--care that could very 
well save money in the long run by avoiding the need for more costly 
inpatient care.
  Veterans who are ill because of toxic exposures during military 
service are as deserving of VA medical care as their comrades injured 
by bullets or landmines. I hope that my colleagues will join me in 
preserving their access to such care.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 338

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF ELIGIBILITY FOR INPATIENT 
                   CARE.

       (a) Care for Exposure to Toxic Substances and Ionizing 
     Radiation.--Section 1710(e)(3) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking out ``June 30, 1995,'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``December 31, 2003,''.
       (b) Care for Exposure During Persian Gulf Service.--Such 
     section is further amended by striking out ``December 31, 
     1995'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 31, 2003''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR OUTPATIENT 
                   CARE.

       (a) Extension of Eligibility for Exposure During Persian 
     Gulf Service.--Paragraph (1)(D) of section 1712(a) of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``December 
     31, 1995,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 31, 
     2003,''.
       (b) Expansion of Eligibility To Cover Toxic Substances and 
     Ionizing Radiation.--Such section is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking out ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (B) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph 
     (D) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(E) during the period before December 31, 2003, for any 
     disability in the case of a veteran who served on active duty 
     in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era and who the 
     Secretary finds may have been exposed during such service to 
     dioxin or was exposed during such service to a toxic 
     substance found in a herbicide or defoliant used in 
     connection with military purposes during such era, 
     notwithstanding that there is insufficient medical evidence 
     to conclude that the disability may be associated with such 
     exposure; and
       ``(F) during the period before December 31, 2003, for any 
     disability in the case of a veteran who the Secretary finds 
     was exposed while serving on active duty to ionizing 
     radiation from the detonation of a nuclear device in 
     connection with such veteran's participation in the test of 
     such a device or with the American occupation of Hiroshima 
     and Nagasaki, Japan, during the period beginning on September 
     11, 1945, and ending on July 1, 1946, notwithstanding that 
     there is insufficient medical evidence to conclude that the 
     disability may be associated with such exposure.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (7)--
       (A) by striking out ``under paragraph (1)(D)'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``under subparagraph (D), (E), or 
     (F) of paragraph (1) of this subsection''; and
       (B) by striking out ``in that paragraph'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``in the applicable subparagraph''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 339. A bill to ensure the provision of appropriate compensation 
for the real and mining claims taken by the United States as a result 
of the establishment of the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.


             THE WHITE SANDS FAIR COMPENSATION ACT OF 1995

 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman and 
myself, I am offering legislation that will compensate a very special 
group of Americans: a group of patriots who heard the call to arms in 
1941, answered that call, and entered into a good faith effort with our 
Government. Unfortunately, it was a good faith effort that turned sour. 
This bill, the White Sands Fair Compensation Act of 1995, is offered in 
an effort to right some wrong that began over 50 years ago.
  On September 1, 1939, a chain of events began to unfold that would 
affect Americans from coast to coast. I 
[[Page S2056]] am speaking, of course, of the outbreak of World War II. 
Americans made concessions to support the war effort and they willingly 
made extreme sacrifices--sacrifices of time, loved ones, and--for 
some--their homes and their way of life.
  In 1942, President Roosevelt signed an executive order that would 
temporarily withdraw all public lands and acquire all surrounding 
private lands in an area of New Mexico that had great potential as a 
testing area for the army. The land was abundant, sparsely populated, 
and in the middle of nowhere. For the sake of national security and for 
the benefit of the Nation, ranchers and miners in this area entered 
into a temporary agreement to leave their homes and their livelihood. 
The White Sands Missile Range [WSMR] had gained its first foothold in 
the State of New Mexico. The ranchers and miners had taken their first 
step out of their former lives.
  At the end of World War II, the Government determined the Nation's 
security was still at risk and the use of the WSMR area was necessary. 
Nevertheless, the army relented to allow WSMR ranchers to return to 
their homes on a shared use basis. Until 1950, the ranchers and the 
military attempted to work together in sharing the WSMR area. Sharing 
simply did not work. In 1952, the Government began to formally withdraw 
all the public lands with the understanding that at some time in the 
future the lands were to revert back to the Department of the Interior 
for public use. During this time, the WSMR ranchers were still allowed 
the use of their private lands, but they could no longer use the 
surrounding Federal lands that had been integral components of their 
land holdings. For many, this was the difference between raising cattle 
and sheep as pets or as food. Furthermore, the military maintained 
evacuation contracts with the ranchers, directing the ranchers to 
vacate their private lands during weapons testing.
  All these factors added up to financial disaster for the ranchers 
who, in 1942, believed they were contributing to the war effort. WSMR 
ranchers couldn't ranch, nor could they sell their land. The WSMR 
ranches had changed in 10 years from thriving companies producing food 
and fiber, to crippled businesses waiting to be unloaded on the first 
prospective buyer.
  That prospective buyer came 20 years later. The Government offered to 
buy the lands from the WSMR ranchers. Those ranchers who agreed 
received a devalued price for their homes; those who disagreed had 
their lands condemned and received the same low price.
  Mr. President, I would like to put this issue into some historical 
context. The Congress during the years of Jefferson and Hamilton, was 
embroiled in a debate surrounding the country's Federal lands and a 
troublesome national debt. The debt prompted leaders to consider 
clearing the Nation's debt through the sale of its Federal lands to 
bring in much needed revenue as well as to encourage the expansion of 
the western territories. After much deliberation and many successive 
Congresses, several measures were signed into law that would entice 
Americans to move west and homestead the land.
  Between 1895 and 1920, many of the ranchers began to settle in what 
would become WSMR. Each rancher paid the Government for the land. These 
lands had water, grass, and good soil. The Federal Government retained 
the title to those lands they could not sell. Holding that land, 
however, did not generate revenue. Therefore, the Government believed 
it important to enter into a new agreement with the ranchers. This new 
agreement encouraged the settlers to invest money, time, and effort 
into the less fertile Federal lands in exchange for increasing the 
settler holdings. Another good faith agreement was entered into between 
the ranchers and the Government.
  Through the years this agreement resulted into a valuable arrangement 
for both the ranchers and the Government. The ranchers use the expanded 
holdings as collateral, and the Internal Revenue Service taxes these 
holdings as net worth. The WSMR ranchers' land, both privately and 
publicly held, had value. The ranchers had invested substantially in 
both.
  Senator Bingaman and I are introducing a bill today which will 
compensate these individuals for their investments. The Whites Sands 
Fair Compensation Act of 1995 establishes a Commission in the 
Department of Defense to provide compensation to the individuals who 
lost their ranches or mining claims to the Government. This Commission 
will evaluate the history surrounding this issue, evaluate claims 
submitted by owners who relinquished their property, and will terminate 
its work after completing action on all claims filed under this act. I 
ask that a copy of my bill be included in the Record at the conclusion 
of my remarks.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to urge this Congress to work 
quickly on this measure. Many WSMR ranchers and miners have died, and 
many more are elderly. My colleagues in the House of Representatives, 
Congressman Joe Skeen, Congressman Steve Schiff, and Congressman Bill 
Richardson will introduce a companion measure. It is my hope that this 
Congress will acknowledge what this special group of Americans 
contributed to winning a war fought so very long ago.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Hutchison, 
        Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Lott, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Domenici, 
        Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Coats, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Smith, 
        Mr. Santorum, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 343. A bill to reform the regulatory process, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            the comprehensive regulatory reform act of 1995

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that begins 
the process of getting the regulatory state under control. This 
legislation represents a comprehensive effort to inject common sense 
into a Federal regulatory process that is often too costly, too arcane, 
and too inflexible.
  Last November, the American people sent us a message: Rein in big 
Government. Stop wasting taxpayers' moneys. Stop passing the buck to 
State and local governments. Stop micromanaging our lives 
through burdensome and costly regulations.
  We are responding to that message. Our agenda reduces Government--in 
size and scope--and increases individual freedom. Our agenda will 
restore the true balance between Government and individual reflected in 
the 10th amendment, which leaves all powers not given to the Federal 
Government to the States or to the people.
  Our agenda is a package of reforms--and make no mistake about it, we 
need them all. The first set of reforms focus on making Congress 
accountable and responsible--cutting spending; stopping unfunded 
mandates; balancing the budget; and a line-item veto. But, as 
important, we need to make the agencies that have come to regulate 
almost every aspect of our lives just as accountable and responsible--
we need regulatory reform.
  Mr. President, the true scope of regulations in America is 
staggering: OMB estimates that the private sector spends more than 6.6 
billion hours in 1 year complying with regulations; and the costs of 
regulation on our economy are conservatively estimated at $500 billion.
  And it is not merely a matter of too many regulations or whether they 
make sense. They are often inflexible and unfair. It is very difficult 
for one person or one business to take on the Government--even if they 
are right. Sometimes they must, just to survive, and the costs of 
enforcement are often a dead weight loss to society in terms of lost 
productivity and innovation.
  I know of one small business in Paola, KS, that spent 5 years in a 
lawsuit with OSHA and finally settled for $6,000. This company 
typically spends between $7,500 and $10,000 annually for legal and 
management costs just dealing with OSHA. The regulatory state is out of 
control.
  Mr. President, this legislation will accomplish six major objectives:
  First, responsibility. Major regulations--those with $50 million 
impact on the economy--will go through an analysis that ensures that 
the benefits outweigh the costs;
  Second, sound science. Risk assessments will be based on realistic 
data 
[[Page S2057]] and sound science and will be part of the agency 
decisionmaking process;
  Third, accountability. We will put a stop to the practice of 
expanding Federal power and jurisdiction beyond what a statute 
provides. We will insist that the public be informed of the true costs 
and benefits of regulation, and that those affected by regulations be 
able to enforce these requirements in a court of law;
  Fourth, congressional oversight. We ensure Congress' overall 
responsibility by providing for a 45-day period in which Congress may 
review major regulations before they take effect;
  Fifth, remedying past mistakes. There are undoubtedly many 
regulations that impose costs that wildly exceed the benefits. We allow 
for review of existing regulations in order to weed out past mistakes; 
and
  Sixth, small business relief. The costs of regulations often fall 
disproportionately on those least able to cope--small businesses. We 
reform the Regulatory Flexibility Act that is already law, by allowing 
small businesses the ability to enforce its provisions in court.
  Mr. President, there are a lot of good ideas out there about 
regulatory reform. We want to hear them. But we will insist that 
fundamental reform be enacted this year. The American people deserve 
nothing less.
  I ask unanimous consent that the legislation I introduce today be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 343

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Regulatory 
     Reform Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. ANALYSIS OF AGENCY PROPOSALS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
             ``SUBCHAPTER II--ANALYSIS OF AGENCY PROPOSALS

     ``Sec. 621. Definitions

       ``For purposes of this subchapter and subchapter III of 
     this chapter--
       ``(1) the term `agency' has the same meaning as in section 
     551(1) of this title;
       ``(2) the term `person' has the same meaning as in section 
     551(2) of this title;
       ``(3) the term `rule' has the same meaning as in section 
     551(4) of this title;
       ``(4)(A) the term `major rule' means--
       ``(i) a rule or a group of closely related rules that the 
     agency proposing the rule or the President reasonably 
     determines is likely to have a gross annual effect on the 
     economy of $50,000,000 or more in reasonably quantifiable 
     increased direct and indirect costs, or has a significant 
     impact on a sector of the economy; or
       ``(ii) a rule or a group of closely related rules that is 
     otherwise designated a major rule by the agency proposing the 
     rule, or by the President on the ground that the rule is 
     likely to result in--
       ``(I) a substantial increase in costs or prices for wage 
     earners, consumers, individual industries, nonprofit 
     organizations, Federal, State, or local government agencies, 
     or geographic regions; or
       ``(II) significant adverse effects on competition, 
     employment, investment, productivity, innovation, the 
     environment, public health or safety, or the ability of 
     enterprises whose principal places of business are in the 
     United States to compete in domestic or export markets;
       ``(B) the term `major rule' does not include--
       ``(i) a rule that involves the internal revenue laws of the 
     United States; or
       ``(ii) a rule that authorizes the introduction into 
     commerce, or recognizes the marketable status, of a product;
       ``(5) the term `benefit' means the reasonably identifiable 
     significant benefits, including social and economic benefits, 
     that are expected to result directly or indirectly from 
     implementation of a rule or an alternative to a rule;
       ``(6) the term `cost' means the reasonably identifiable 
     significant costs and adverse effects, including social and 
     economic costs, reduced consumer choice, substitution 
     effects, and impeded technological advancement, that are 
     expected to result directly or indirectly from implementation 
     of, or compliance with, a rule or an alternative to a rule; 
     and
       ``(7) the term `market-based mechanism' means a regulatory 
     program that--
       ``(A) imposes legal accountability for the achievement of 
     an explicit regulatory objective on each regulated person;
       ``(B) affords maximum flexibility to each regulated person 
     in complying with mandatory regulatory objectives, which 
     flexibility shall, where feasible and appropriate, include, 
     but not be limited to, the opportunity to transfer to, or 
     receive from, other persons, including for cash or other 
     legal consideration, increments of compliance responsibility 
     established by the program; and
       ``(C) permits regulated persons to respond automatically to 
     changes in general economic conditions and in economic 
     circumstances directly pertinent to the regulatory program 
     without affecting the achievement of the program's explicit 
     regulatory mandates.

     ``Sec. 622. Rulemaking cost-benefit analysis

       ``(a)(1) Prior to publishing notice of a proposed 
     rulemaking for any rule (or, in the case of a notice of a 
     proposed rulemaking that has been published on or before the 
     date of enactment of this subchapter, not later than 30 days 
     after such date of enactment), each agency shall determine 
     whether the rule is or is not a major rule within the meaning 
     of section 621(4)(A)(i) and, if it is not, whether it should 
     be designated a major rule under section 621(4)(A)(ii). For 
     the purpose of any such determination or designation, a group 
     of closely related rules shall be considered as one rule.
       ``(2) Each notice of proposed rulemaking shall include a 
     succinct statement and explanation of the agency's 
     determination under paragraph (1).
       ``(b)(1) If an agency has determined that a rule is not a 
     major rule within the meaning of section 621(4)(A)(i) and has 
     not designated the rule a major rule within the meaning of 
     section 621(4)(A)(ii), the President may, as appropriate, 
     determine that the rule is a major rule or designate the rule 
     a major rule not later than 30 days after the publication of 
     the notice of proposed rulemaking for the rule (or, in the 
     case of a notice of proposed rulemaking that has been 
     published on or before the date of enactment of this 
     subchapter, not later than 60 days after such date of 
     enactment).
       ``(2) Such determination or designation shall be published 
     in the Federal Register, together with a succinct statement 
     of the basis for the determination or designation.
       ``(c)(1)(A) When the agency publishes a notice of proposed 
     rulemaking for a major rule, the agency shall issue and place 
     in the rulemaking record a draft cost-benefit analysis, and 
     shall include a summary of such analysis in the notice of 
     proposed rulemaking.
       ``(B)(i) When the President has published a determination 
     or designation that a rule is a major rule after the 
     publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking for the 
     rule, the agency shall promptly issue and place in the 
     rulemaking file a draft cost-benefit analysis for the rule 
     and shall publish in the Federal Register a summary of such 
     analysis.
       ``(ii) Following the issuance of a draft cost-benefit 
     analysis under clause (i), the agency shall give interested 
     persons an opportunity to comment pursuant to section 553 of 
     this title in the same manner as if the draft cost-benefit 
     analysis had been issued with the notice of proposed 
     rulemaking.
       ``(2) Each draft cost-benefit analysis shall contain--
       ``(A) an analysis of the benefit of the proposed rule, and 
     an explanation of how the agency anticipates each benefit 
     will be achieved by the proposed rule;
       ``(B) an analysis of the costs of the proposed rule, and an 
     explanation of how the agency anticipates each such cost will 
     result from the proposed rule;
       ``(C) an identification (including an analysis of the costs 
     and benefits) of reasonable alternatives for achieving the 
     identified benefits of the proposed rule, including 
     alternatives that--
       ``(i) require no Government action;
       ``(ii) will accommodate differences among geographic 
     regions and among persons with differing levels of resources 
     with which to comply; and
       ``(iii) employ performance or other market-based standards 
     that permit the greatest flexibility in achieving the 
     identified benefits of the proposed rule and that comply with 
     the requirements of subparagraph (D);
       ``(D) an assessment of the feasibility of establishing a 
     regulatory program that operates through the application of 
     market-based mechanisms;
       ``(E) in any case in which the proposed rule is based on 
     one or more scientific evaluations or information or is 
     subject to the risk assessment requirements of subchapter 
     III, a description of actions undertaken by the agency to 
     verify the quality, reliability, and relevance of such 
     scientific evaluations or scientific information in 
     accordance with the risk assessment requirements of 
     subchapter III;
       ``(F) an assessment of the aggregate effect of the rule on 
     small businesses with fewer than 100 employees, including an 
     assessment of the net employment effect of the rule; and
       ``(G) an analysis of whether the identified benefits of the 
     proposed rule are likely to exceed the identified costs of 
     the proposed rule, and an analysis of whether the proposed 
     rule will provide greater net benefits to society than any of 
     the alternatives to the proposed rule, including alternatives 
     identified in accordance with subparagraph (C).
       ``(d)(1) When the agency publishes a final major rule, the 
     agency shall also issue and place in the rulemaking record a 
     final cost-benefit analysis, and shall include a summary of 
     the analysis in the statement of basis and purpose.
       ``(2) Each final cost-benefit analysis shall contain--
       ``(A) a description and comparison of the benefits and 
     costs of the rule and of the reasonable alternatives to the 
     rule described in the rulemaking, including the market-based 
     mechanisms identified pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(D); and
     [[Page S2058]]   ``(B) an analysis, based upon the rulemaking 
     record considered as a whole, of--
       ``(i) whether the benefits of the rule outweigh the costs 
     of the rule; and
       ``(ii) whether the rule will provide greater net benefits 
     to society than any of the alternatives described in the 
     rulemaking, including the market-based incentives identified 
     pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(D).
       ``(e)(1)(A) The description of the benefits and costs of a 
     proposed and a final rule required under this section shall 
     include, to the extent feasible, a quantification or 
     numerical estimate of the quantifiable benefits and costs. 
     Such quantification or numerical estimate shall be made in 
     the most appropriate unit of measurement, using comparable 
     assumptions, including time periods, and shall specify the 
     ranges of predictions and shall explain the margins of error 
     involved in the quantification methods and in the estimates 
     used. An agency shall describe the nature and extent of the 
     nonquantifiable benefits and costs of a final rule pursuant 
     to this section in as precise and succinct a manner as 
     possible.
       ``(B) Where practicable, the description of the benefits 
     and costs of a proposed and final rule required under this 
     section shall describe such benefits and costs on an industry 
     by industry basis.
       ``(2)(A) In evaluating and comparing costs and benefits and 
     in evaluating the risk assessment information developed 
     pursuant to subchapter III, the agency shall not rely on 
     cost, benefit, or risk assessment information that is not 
     accompanied by data, analysis, or other supporting materials 
     that would enable the agency and other persons interested in 
     the rulemaking to assess the accuracy, reliability, and 
     uncertainty factors applicable to such information.
       ``(B) The agency evaluations of the relationships of the 
     benefits of a proposed and final rule to its costs shall be 
     clearly articulated in accordance with this section.

     ``Sec. 623. Decisional criteria

       ``(a) No final rule subject to this subchapter shall be 
     promulgated unless the agency finds that--
       ``(1) the potential benefits to society from the rule 
     outweigh the potential costs of the rule to society, as 
     determined by the analysis required by section 622(d)(2)(B); 
     and
       ``(2) the rule will provide greater net benefits to society 
     than any of the reasonable alternatives identified pursuant 
     to section 622(c)(2)(C), including the market-based 
     mechanisms identified pursuant to section 622(c)(2)(D).
       ``(b) The requirements of this section shall supplement the 
     decisional criteria for rulemaking otherwise applicable under 
     the statute granting the rulemaking authority, except when 
     such statute contains explicit textual language prohibiting 
     the consideration of the criteria set forth in this section. 
     Where the agency finds that consideration of the criteria set 
     forth in this section is prohibited by explicit statutory 
     language, the agency shall transmit its finding to Congress, 
     along with the final cost-benefit analysis required by 
     section 622(d)(2)(B).

     ``Sec. 624. Judicial review

       ``(a) Compliance or noncompliance by an agency with the 
     provisions of this subchapter shall be subject to judicial 
     review in accordance with this section.
       ``(b)(1) Each of the following shall be subject to judicial 
     review:
       ``(A) A determination by an agency or by the President that 
     a rule is or is not a major rule within the meaning of 
     section 621(4).
       ``(B) A designation by an agency or by the President of a 
     rule as a major rule.
       ``(C) A decision by an agency or by the President not to 
     designate a rule a major rule.
       ``(2) A determination by an agency or by the President that 
     a rule is not a major rule within the meaning of section 
     621(4), or the decision by an agency or by the President not 
     to designate a rule a major rule, shall be set aside by a 
     reviewing court only upon a showing of clear and convincing 
     evidence that the determination or decision not to designate 
     is erroneous in light of the information available to the 
     agency at the time the determination or decision not to 
     designate was made.
       ``(3) An action to review a determination that a rule is 
     not a major rule or to review a decision not to designate 
     shall be filed not later than 30 days after the date of 
     publication of such determination or failure to designate.
       ``(c) If a court of the United States finds that a rule 
     should have been reviewed pursuant to this subchapter, such 
     rule shall have no force or effect until such time as the 
     requirements of this subchapter are met.
       ``(d) Each court with jurisdiction to review final agency 
     action under the statute granting the agency authority to 
     conduct the rulemaking shall have jurisdiction to review 
     findings by any agency under this subchapter and shall set 
     aside agency action that fails to satisfy the decisional 
     criteria of section 623. The court shall apply the same 
     standards of judicial review that apply to the review of 
     agency findings under the statute granting the agency 
     authority to conduct the rulemaking.

     ``Sec. 625. Petition for cost-benefit analysis

       ``(a)(1) Any person subject to a major rule may petition 
     the relevant agency or the President to perform a cost-
     benefit analysis under this subchapter for the major rule, 
     including a major rule in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this subchapter for which a cost-benefit analysis pursuant to 
     such subchapter has not been performed, regardless of whether 
     a cost-benefit analysis was previously performed to meet 
     requirements imposed before the date of enactment of this 
     subchapter.
       ``(2) The petition shall identify with reasonable 
     specificity the major rule to be reviewed.
       ``(3) The agency or the President shall grant the petition 
     if the petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood 
     that the costs of the major rule outweigh the benefits, or 
     that reasonable questions exist as to whether the rule 
     provides greater net benefits to society than any reasonable 
     alternative to the rule that may be more clearly resolved 
     through examination pursuant to this subchapter and 
     subchapter III.
       ``(4) A decision to grant or deny a petition under this 
     subsection shall be made not later than 180 days after 
     submittal. A decision to deny a petition shall be subject to 
     judicial review immediately upon denial as final agency 
     action under the statute granting the agency authority to 
     conduct the rulemaking.
       ``(b) For each major rule for which a petition has been 
     granted under subsection (a), the agency shall conduct a 
     cost-benefit analysis in accordance with this subchapter, and 
     shall determine whether the rule satisfies the decisional 
     criteria set forth in section 623. If the rule does not 
     satisfy the decisional criteria, then the agency shall take 
     immediate action to either revoke or amend the rule to 
     conform the rule to the requirements of this subchapter and 
     the decisional criteria under section 623.
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `major rule' 
     means any major rule or portion thereof.
       ``(d)(1) Any person may petition the relevant agency to 
     withdraw, as contrary to this subchapter, any agency guidance 
     or general statement of policy that would be a major rule if 
     the guidance or general statement of policy had been adopted 
     as a rule.
       ``(2) The petition shall identify with reasonable 
     specificity why the guidance or general statement of policy 
     would be major if adopted as a rule.
       ``(3) The agency shall grant the petition if the petition 
     shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the guidance 
     or general statement of policy would be major if adopted as a 
     rule.
       ``(4) A decision to grant or deny a petition under this 
     subsection shall be made not later than 180 days after the 
     petition is submitted. If the agency fails to act by such 
     date, the petition shall be deemed to have been granted. A 
     decision to deny a petition shall be subject to judicial 
     review immediately upon denial as final agency action under 
     the statute under which the agency has issued the guidance or 
     general statement of policy.
       ``(e) For each petition granted under subsection (d), the 
     agency shall be prohibited from enforcing against any person 
     the regulatory standards or criteria contained in such 
     guidance or policy unless included in a rule proposed and 
     promulgated in accordance with this subchapter.

     ``Sec. 626. Effective date of final regulations

       ``(a)(1) Beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     section, all deadlines in statutes that require agencies to 
     propose or promulgate any rule subject to this subchapter are 
     suspended until such time as the requirements of this 
     subchapter are satisfied.
       ``(2) Beginning on the date of enactment of this section, 
     the jurisdiction of any court of the United States to enforce 
     any deadline that would require an agency to propose or 
     promulgate a rule subject to subchapter II of chapter 5 of 
     title 5, United States Code (as added by this section), is 
     suspended until such time as the requirements of this 
     subchapter are satisfied.
       ``(3) In any case in which the failure to promulgate a rule 
     by a deadline would create an obligation to regulate through 
     individual adjudications, the obligation to conduct 
     individual adjudications shall be suspended to allow the 
     requirements of this subchapter to be satisfied.
       ``(b)(1) Before a major rule takes effect as a final rule, 
     the agency promulgating such rule shall submit to the 
     Congress a copy of such rule and a report containing a 
     concise general statement relating to the rule, including a 
     complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis, and the proposed 
     effective date of the rule.
       ``(2) A major rule relating to a report submitted under 
     paragraph (1) shall take effect as a final rule, the latest 
     of--
       ``(A) the later of the date occurring 45 days after the 
     date on which--
       ``(i) the Congress receives the report submitted under 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(ii) the rule is published in the Federal Register;
       ``(B) if the Congress passes a joint resolution of 
     disapproval described under subsection (h) relating to the 
     rule, and the President signs a veto of such resolution, the 
     earlier date--
       ``(i) on which either House of Congress votes and fails to 
     override the veto of the President; or
       ``(ii) occurring 30 session days after the date on which 
     the Congress received the veto and objections of the 
     President; or
       ``(C) the date the rule would have otherwise taken effect, 
     if not for this section (unless a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under subsection (h) is enacted).
     [[Page S2059]]   ``(c) A rule shall not take effect as a 
     final rule if the Congress passes a joint resolution of 
     disapproval described under subsection (h).
       ``(d)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a rule that would 
     not take effect by reason of this section may take effect if 
     the President makes a determination under paragraph (2) and 
     submits written notice of such determination to the Congress.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the 
     President by Executive order that the rule should take effect 
     because such rule is--
       ``(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 
     safety or other emergency;
       ``(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws; or
       ``(C) necessary for national security.
       ``(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under 
     this subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under 
     subsection (h) or the effect of a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under this section.
       ``(4) This subsection and an Executive order issued by the 
     President under this subsection shall not be subject to 
     judicial review by a court of the United States.
       ``(e)(1) Subsection (h) shall apply to any rule that is 
     published in the Federal Register (as a rule that shall take 
     effect as a final rule) during the period beginning on the 
     date occurring 60 days before the date the Congress adjourns 
     sine die through the date on which the succeeding Congress 
     first convenes.
       ``(2) For purposes of subsection (h), a rule described 
     under paragraph (1) shall be treated as though such rule were 
     published in the Federal Register (as a rule that shall take 
     effect as a final rule) on the date the succeeding Congress 
     first convenes.
       ``(3) During the period between the date the Congress 
     adjourns sine die through the date on which the succeeding 
     Congress first convenes, a rule described under paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect as a final rule as otherwise provided by 
     law.
       ``(f) Any rule that takes effect and later is made of no 
     force or effect by the enactment of a joint resolution under 
     subsection (h) shall be treated as though such rule had never 
     taken effect.
       ``(g) If the Congress does not enact a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under subsection (h), no court or agency may 
     infer any intent of the Congress from any action or inaction 
     of the Congress with regard to such rule, related statute, or 
     joint resolution of disapproval.
       ``(h)(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term `joint 
     resolution' means only a joint resolution introduced after 
     the date on which the report referred to in subsection (b) is 
     received by Congress the matter after the resolving clause of 
     which is as follows: `That Congress disapproves the rule 
     submitted by the ________ relating to ________, and such rule 
     shall have no force or effect. (The blank spaces being 
     appropriately filled in.)'.
       ``(2)(A) A resolution described in paragraph (1) shall be 
     referred to the committees in each House of Congress with 
     jurisdiction. Such a resolution shall not be reported before 
     the eighth day after its submission or publication date.
       ``(B) For purposes of this subsection the term `submission 
     or publication date' means the later of the date on which--
       ``(i) the Congress receives the report submitted under 
     subsection (b)(1); or
       ``(ii) the rule is published in the Federal Register.
       ``(3) If the committee to which a resolution described in 
     paragraph (1) is referred has not reported such resolution 
     (or an identical resolution) at the end of 20 calendar days 
     after its submission or publication date, such committee may 
     be discharged by the Majority Leader of the Senate or the 
     Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, as the case 
     may be, from further consideration of such resolution and 
     such resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar 
     of the House involved.
       ``(4)(A) When the committee to which a resolution is 
     referred has reported, or when a committee is discharged 
     (under paragraph (3)) from further consideration of, a 
     resolution described in paragraph (1), it shall at any time 
     thereafter be in order (even though a previous motion to the 
     same effect has been disagreed to) for any Member of the 
     respective House to move to proceed to the consideration of 
     the resolution, and all points of order against the 
     resolution (and against consideration of the resolution) 
     shall be waived. The motion shall be highly privileged in the 
     House of Representatives and shall be privileged in the 
     Senate and shall not be debatable. The motion shall not 
     subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of other business. A 
     motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed 
     to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of the resolution is agreed to, 
     the resolution shall remain the unfinished business of the 
     respective House until disposed of.
       ``(B) Debate on the resolution, and on all debatable 
     motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited 
     to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally 
     between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. A 
     motion further to limit debate shall be in order and shall 
     not be debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to postpone, 
     or a motion to proceed to the consideration of other 
     business, or a motion to recommit the resolution shall not be 
     in order. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
     resolution is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in 
     order.
       ``(C) Immediately following the conclusion of the debate on 
     a resolution described in paragraph (1), and a single quorum 
     call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in 
     accordance with the rules of the appropriate House, the vote 
     on final passage of the resolution shall occur.
       ``(D) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to 
     the application of the rules of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives, as the case may be, to the procedure 
     relating to a resolution described in paragraph (1) shall be 
     decided without debate.
       ``(5) If, before the passage by one House of a resolution 
     of that House described in paragraph (1), that House receives 
     from the other House a resolution described in paragraph (1), 
     then the following procedures shall apply:
       ``(A) The resolution of the other House shall not be 
     referred to a committee.
       ``(B) With respect to a resolution described in paragraph 
     (1) of the House receiving the resolution--
       ``(i) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if 
     no resolution had been received from the other House; but
       ``(ii) the vote on final passage shall be on the resolution 
     of the other House.
       ``(6) This subsection is enacted by Congress--
       ``(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed to be a part of the rules of each House, respectively, 
     but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be 
     followed in that House in the case of a resolution described 
     in paragraph (1), and it supersedes other rules only to the 
     extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
       ``(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.

     ``Sec. 627. Unauthorized rulemakings

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning 
     on July 1, 1995, any rule that expands Federal power or 
     jurisdiction beyond the level of regulatory action needed to 
     satisfy statutory requirements shall be prohibited.
       ``(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent 
     any agency from promulgating a rule that repeals, narrows, or 
     streamlines a rule, regulation, or administrative process, or 
     from issuing or promulgating a rule providing for tax relief 
     or clarification or reducing regulatory burdens.

     ``Sec. 628. Standard for review of agency interpretations of 
       an enabling statute

       ``(a) In reviewing a final agency action under section 706 
     of this title, or under a statute that provides for review of 
     a final agency action, the reviewing court shall affirm the 
     agency's interpretation of the statute granting authority to 
     promulgate the rule if, applying traditional principles of 
     statutory construction, the reviewing court finds that the 
     interpretation is clearly the interpretation of the statute 
     intended by Congress.
       ``(b) If the reviewing court, applying traditional 
     principles of statutory construction, finds that an 
     interpretation other than the interpretation applied by the 
     agency is clearly the interpretation of the statute intended 
     by Congress, the reviewing court shall find that the agency's 
     interpretation is erroneous and contrary to law.
       ``(c)(1) If the reviewing court, applying established 
     principles of statutory construction, finds that the statute 
     gives the agency discretion to choose from among a range of 
     permissible statutory constructions, the reviewing court 
     shall affirm the agency's interpretation where the record on 
     review establishes that--
       ``(A) the agency has correctly identified the range of 
     permissible statutory constructions;
       ``(B) the interpretation chosen is one that is within that 
     range; and
       ``(C) the agency has engaged in reasoned decisionmaking in 
     determining that the interpretation, rather than other 
     permissible constructions of the statute, is the one that 
     maximizes net benefits to society.
       ``(2) If an agency's interpretation of a statute cannot be 
     affirmed under paragraph (1), the reviewing court shall find 
     that the agency's interpretation is arbitrary and capricious.
                  ``SUBCHAPTER IV--EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT

     ``Sec. 651. Procedures

       ``The President shall--
       ``(1) establish procedures for agency compliance with 
     subchapters II and III; and
       ``(2) monitor, review, and ensure agency implementation of 
     such procedures.

     ``Sec. 652. Promulgation and adoption

       ``(a) Procedures established pursuant to section 651 shall 
     only be implemented after opportunity for public comment. Any 
     such procedures shall be consistent with the prompt 
     completion of rulemaking proceedings.
       ``(b)(1) If procedures established pursuant to section 651 
     include review of preliminary or final regulatory analyses to 
     ensure that they comply with subchapters II and III, the 
     [[Page S2060]] time for any such review of a preliminary 
     regulatory analysis shall not exceed 30 days following the 
     receipt of the analysis by the President or by an officer to 
     whom the authority granted under section 651 has been 
     delegated pursuant to section 653.
       ``(2) The time for review of a final regulatory analysis 
     shall not exceed 30 days following the receipt of the 
     analysis by the President or such officer.
       ``(3)(A) The times for each such review may be extended for 
     good cause by the President or such officer for an additional 
     30 days.
       ``(B) Notice of any such extension, together with a 
     succinct statement of the reasons therefor, shall be inserted 
     in the rulemaking file.

     ``Sec. 653. Delegation of authority

       ``(a) The President may delegate the authority granted by 
     this subchapter to the Vice President or to an officer within 
     the Executive Office of the President whose appointment has 
     been subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
       ``(b)(1) Notice of any delegation, or any revocation or 
     modification thereof, shall be published in the Federal 
     Register.
       ``(2) Any notice with respect to a delegation to the Vice 
     President shall contain a statement by the Vice President 
     that the Vice President will make every reasonable effort to 
     respond to congressional inquiries concerning the exercise of 
     the authority delegated under this section.

     ``Sec. 654. Applicability

       ``The authority granted under this subchapter shall not 
     apply to rules issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

     ``Sec. 655. Judicial review

       ``The exercise of the authority granted under this 
     subchapter by the President or by an officer to whom such 
     authority has been delegated under section 653 shall not be 
     subject to judicial review in any manner under this 
     chapter.''.
       (b) Judicial Review of Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--
       (1) Amendment.--Section 611 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 611. Judicial review

       ``(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), not later 
     than 1 year after the effective date of a final rule with 
     respect to which an agency--
       ``(A) certified, pursuant to section 605(b), that such rule 
     would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
     number of small entities; or
       ``(B) prepared final regulatory flexibility analysis 
     pursuant to section 604,
     an affected small entity may petition for the judicial review 
     of such certification or analysis in accordance with this 
     subsection. A court having jurisdiction to review such rule 
     for compliance with section 553 of this title or under any 
     other provision of law shall have jurisdiction to review such 
     certification or analysis.
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in the 
     case of a provision of law that requires that an action 
     challenging a final agency regulation be commenced before the 
     expiration of the 1-year period provided in paragraph (1), 
     such lesser period shall apply to a petition for the judicial 
     review under this subsection.
       ``(B) In a case in which an agency delays the issuance of a 
     final regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to section 
     608(b), a petition for judicial review under this subsection 
     shall be filed not later than--
       ``(i) 1 year; or
       ``(ii) in a case in which a provision of law requires that 
     an action challenging a final agency regulation be commenced 
     before the expiration of the 1-year period provided in 
     paragraph (1), the number of days specified in such provision 
     of law,
     after the date the analysis is made available to the public.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `affected 
     small entity' means a small entity that is or will be 
     adversely affected by the final rule.
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     affect the authority of any court to stay the effective date 
     of any rule or provision thereof under any other provision of 
     law.
       ``(5)(A) In a case in which an agency certifies that such 
     rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
     substantial number of small entities, the court may order the 
     agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis 
     pursuant to section 604 if the court determines, on the basis 
     of the rulemaking record, that the certification was 
     arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 
     not in accordance with law.
       ``(B) In a case in which the agency prepared a final 
     regulatory flexibility analysis, the court may order the 
     agency to take corrective action consistent with section 604 
     if the court determines, on the basis of the rulemaking 
     record, that the final regulatory flexibility analysis was 
     prepared by the agency without complying with section 604.
       ``(6) If, by the end of the 90-day period beginning on the 
     date of the order of the court pursuant to paragraph (5) (or 
     such longer period as the court may provide), the agency 
     fails, as appropriate--
       ``(A) to prepare the analysis required by section 604; or
       ``(B) to take corrective action consistent with section 604 
     of this title,
     the court may stay the rule or grant such other relief as it 
     deems appropriate.
       ``(7) In making any determination or granting any relief 
     authorized by this subsection, the court shall take due 
     account of the rule of prejudicial error.
       ``(b) In an action for the judicial review of a rule, any 
     regulatory flexibility analysis for such rule (including an 
     analysis prepared or corrected pursuant to subsection (a)(5)) 
     shall constitute part of the whole record of agency action in 
     connection with such review.
       ``(c) Nothing in this section bars judicial review of any 
     other impact statement or similar analysis required by any 
     other law if judicial review of such statement or analysis is 
     otherwise provided by law.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     except that the judicial review authorized by section 611(a) 
     of title 5, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), 
     shall apply only to final agency rules issued after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Presidential Authority.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     limit the exercise by the President of the authority and 
     responsibility that the President otherwise possesses under 
     the Constitution and other laws of the United States with 
     respect to regulatory policies, procedures, and programs of 
     departments, agencies, and offices.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--(1) Part I of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out the 
     chapter heading and table of sections for chapter 6 and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
           ``CHAPTER 6--THE ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
                  ``SUBCHAPTER I--REGULATORY ANALYSIS

``Sec.
``601.  Definitions.
``602.  Regulatory agenda.
``603.  Initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
``604.  Final regulatory flexibility analysis.
``605.  Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses.
``606.  Effect on other law.
``607.  Preparation of analyses.
``608.  Procedure for waiver or delay of completion.
``609.  Procedures for gathering comments.
``610.  Periodic review of rules.
``611.  Judicial review.
``612.  Reports and intervention rights.

             ``SUBCHAPTER II--ANALYSIS OF AGENCY PROPOSALS

``621.  Definitions.
``622.  Rulemaking cost-benefit analysis.
``623.  Decisional criteria.
``624.  Judicial review.
``625.  Petition for cost-benefit analysis.
``626.  Effective date of final regulations.
``627.  Unauthorized rulemakings.
``628.  Standard for review of agency interpretations of an enabling 
              statute.

                   ``SUBCHAPTER III--RISK ASSESSMENTS

``631.  Definitions.
``632.  Applicability.
``633.  Rule of construction.
``634.  Requirement to prepare risk assessments.
``635.  Principles for risk assessment.
``636.  Principles for risk characterization and communication.
``637.  Regulations; plan for assessing new information.
``638.  Decisional criteria.
``639.  Regulatory priorities.
``640.  Establishment of program.

                  ``SUBCHAPTER IV--EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT

``651.  Procedures.
``652.  Promulgation and adoption.
``653.  Delegation of authority.
``654.  Applicability.
``655.  Judicial review.''.
       (2) Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting immediately before section 601, the following 
     subchapter heading:

                 ``SUBCHAPTER I--REGULATORY ANALYSIS''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 346. A bill to establish in the Department of the Interior the 
Office of Indian Women and Families, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.


the office of women and families in the bureau of indian affairs act of 
                                  1995

 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined 
by the vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator 
Daniel K. Inouye, in introducing a bill to create the Office of Women 
and Families in the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], U.S. Department of 
Interior. I am grateful for Senator Inouye's support of this 
legislation. We hope to improve Federal Government attention and 
services for Indian women and their families, with a special emphasis 
on the economic well-being of Indian women and families including 
employment and business opportunities. This new office will be 
responsible for addressing the special needs of Indian women and 
families within the cultural context of each tribe or village. Existing 
and new Federal policies for the benefit of Indian people will be 
better focused on 
[[Page S2061]] Indian women who are too often ignored by policy makers 
and agency programs.
  I am also pleased to report that this legislation has now been 
endorsed by the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos of New Mexico and the 
Judiciary Committee of the Navajo Nation Council.
  The Office of Women and Families in the BIA will be responsible for 
integrating the needed policy and program changes in the BIA programs 
and coordinating with other Federal agencies and tribal governments to 
improve the living conditions of Indian women and their families.
  I would like to quote from a letter I received in support of this 
concept from Dr. Carolyn M. Elgin, president of the Southwestern Indian 
Polytechnic Institute and Federal Women's Program Manager for the BIA's 
Albuquerque Area. Dr. Elgin says,

       Throughout the National Indian Community, the diverse and 
     specialized needs of Indian women and Indian families need to 
     be comprehensively addressed (congressional attention, budget 
     appropriations, program development and policy consideration 
     within the Bureau). Again, I applaud your sensitivity and 
     fully support your legislative efforts on behalf of Indian 
     women and families.

  Mr. President, the Federal Government spends over hundreds of 
millions of dollars per year for Indian programs in several key 
departments including Interior, Health and Human Services, Labor, 
Education, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Commerce, and 
other agencies like the Small Business Administration.
  While the BIA is the theoretical center of our country's efforts to 
improve the daily lives of 2,000,000 American Indians--about half of 
whom reside on federally recognized Indian reservations, many other 
Federal departments or agencies have some involvement with Indians. 
There is, however, very little coordination among these Federal 
agencies who serve the same target population.
  While this bill will establish the new office in the BIA, its thrust 
will include all major programs affecting Indian women and families. 
Before I explain more about these programs, I would like to focus on 
the need to pay special attention to Indian women and families.
  In brief, Indians are the poorest of the poor. Elsie Zion of the 
Women Studies Program at the University of New Mexico describes it this 
way: ``Indian women are the poorest of the poorest group. While 
American women come up against a `glass ceiling,' Indian women have 
problems getting off the floor.'' In this case, she means that too many 
Indian women have a ``hard time getting jobs outside the fields of 
cleaning, cooking, or clerking.''
  Regarding Indian family members, some of the highest youth suicide 
rates in America occur on Indian reservations. I know this is true for 
the Jicarilla Apache Tribe and the Navajo Nation. Many Pueblo Indians 
also have disproportionately high suicide rates. Substance abuse is a 
severe problem among young Indians.
  By examining program and policy failures, it is our hope that new 
methods can be tried to inspire, educate, and employ more young Indian 
people. We want to keep them away from the dangers of drugs, alcohol, 
and other self-destructive behaviors. An Office of Women and Families 
can certainly go far in helping to idenify weaknesses in the fabric of 
Federal programs intended to improve the quality of life on Indian 
reservations.
  The Office of Women and Families is not simply another BIA program. 
It is built in, permanent policy mechanism to shape programs and 
enhance the potential for direct benefits to Indian women and families 
within existing and new programs of the BIA and the Federal Government 
as a whole.
  This new policy program should focus on Federal Government policies 
relating to such concerns as job opportunities for Indian women and 
Indian youth suicide. The Office could also focus on such related 
employment issues as trade between Indian reservations and Japan or 
Europe. The idea is to identify those problem areas that require new 
policy attention, better programmatic effort, or enhanced coordination 
with other Federal programs like the Minority Business Development 
Administration of the Department of Commerce and small business 
development programs of the Small Business Administration.
  We are also very concerned that basic BIA programs be better targeted 
to reach Indian women. Indian women-owned businesses, for example, can 
be encouraged more often through start-up grants and guaranteed loans. 
BIA social service, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, and child 
protection programs can be enhanced and improved.
                            Invisible Women

  Due mainly to their strong cultural traditions, it is often difficult 
to determine the impact of these Federal efforts on the living 
standards of Indian women and their families. Indian women remain an 
enigma to most of us. In Santa Fe, NM, we can see the famous scenes of 
Indian women at the Palace of the Governor selling their famous pots 
and jewelry. At pueblo feast days and public dances we are impressed by 
their elaborate dress and serene dancing styles. These women clearly 
have a strong presence and influence in the daily lives of New Mexico 
Pueblo, Navajo, and Apache tribes of New Mexico.
  Yet, there remains the fact that we have a difficult time identifying 
many of the indicators of social well-being for Indian women precisely 
because the contributions of Indian women remain undervalued and 
overlooked in the policies and programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
and other Federal agencies with programs designed to help all Indian 
people.
  As the National Advisory Council on Women's Educational Program once 
observed:

       To date there has been no specific Federal recognition of 
     the special educational and training needs of Indian women 
     and girls. As a result, Indian women are often relegated to 
     position which do not reflect their capacity and potential 
     contribution not only to tribal governments but to the 
     general society.

  Elsie Zion of the Women Studies Program at the University of New 
Mexico, who I quoted above, has searched for statistics to back her 
observations. Indians, she concludes, ``fall at the very bottom of 
indicators of status and well-being.''
  Elsie is skeptical that the ``Great White Father''--in the form of 
the BIA--will actually help Indian women. That is one reason this 
office is designed to reach out into the reservations themselves to 
encourage female participation in the forming and implementation of BIA 
policy and programs.
  Wherever key Federal policies exist that directly impact on the 
social conditions of Indian women, the BIA Office of Women and Families 
can have a policy impact, and hence a direct impact on the lives of 
Indian women and families who could be or should be participating.


                 Indian Children and Youth in Distress

  The Indian Child Welfare Act (P.L. 95-608) and the Indian Child 
Protection Act (P.L. 101-630) are two good recent examples of 
Congressional attempts to improve conditions for young Indians. The 
Child Welfare Act creates a grant system to tribes for child and family 
service programs to prevent the breakup of Indian families and provide 
for the protection of Indian children. The Child Protection Act is 
designed to protect Indian children from family
 violence or abuse by bureau or tribal contract employees. Background 
checks, a reporting system and other child protective services are 
mandated by the act.

  The Director and the Policy Task Force of the proposed Office of 
Women and Families could help refine the reporting systems to assure 
solid measurement of progress made to minimize abuse or violence to 
Indian children and youth. If the proposed system is found to be 
adequate, the results will certainly help in the annual reports to the 
Congress on the well-being of Indian families as measured by the 
increased safety factors required by these acts.
  Other problems of young Indians can also be identified and reported. 
Substance abuse, alcoholism, school drop-out rates or teenage pregnancy 
are examples of additional indicators to be monitored by the new Office 
of Women and Families. Summer youth employment and vocational education 
potential are examples of other Department of Labor and BIA programs 
available to young Indians to enhance their potential and minimize 
problems like substance abuse and school drop-outs.
   [[Page S2062]] background on federal programs for american indians

  Mr. President, the Federal Government has wide-ranging policies and 
programs intended to improve the living conditions on some 250 Indian 
reservations and about 300 Native Alaskan villages. These programs 
include education, health care, business development, housing, job 
training, tribal government, transportation, law enforcement, and 
social services. Several Federal departments and agencies are primarily 
involved in the delivery of services to Native Americans--Interior, 
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and 
Education.
  The two major providers of services to Native Americans are the 
Indian Health Service of the Public Health Service in the Department of 
Health and Human Services [HHS] and the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] 
in the Department of Interior. The IHS had a budget of $2.0 billion in 
fiscal year 1993; the BIA's budget was $1.5 billion for the same fiscal 
year.
  Public housing for Indians in the HUD budget was about $257 million 
in fiscal year 1993; Labor committed $84.6 million for job training and 
summer jobs; HUD's Community Development Program for Indians totalled 
$65.4 million; and construction of Indian reservation roads was about 
$190 million.
  Clearly, there are many Federal Government programs that have direct 
impact on the daily lives of about 1.959 million Indian people in 
America--up from 1.42 million in 1980. About half of them live on 
Indian reservations.
  There is also no doubt that Indians lag seriously behind other ethnic 
groups in several key areas. Overall, they have lower household 
incomes, higher unemployment and less schooling than the rest of the 
United States.
  Indian birth rates--28.8 per 1,000 population--are almost twice that 
of the country as a whole--15.9 per 1,000. Prenatal care accompanying 
live births are lower than the United States as a whole--56.5 percent 
to 74.2 percent. More Indians die from accidents, alcoholism, diabetes, 
homicide, and tuberculosis than others in the country as a whole.
  Fortunately, the Congress passed and the President signed a bill, the 
Indian Health Care Improvements Act of 1992, to improve the health 
programs and policies of the Indian Health Service [IHS], Public Health 
Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This act 
includes my amendment establishing an Office of Indian Women's Health 
in the IHS.
  This new IHS office will certainly enhance and focus the good efforts 
of the IHS to identify and collect data about the health status of 
American Indian Women. While there is clearly room for improvement, the 
IHS is at least aware of the gaps in health care between Indian women 
and American women as a whole.
  Obviously, Mr. President, the policies and programs of the U.S. 
Government have a greater impact on American Indians than most people 
realize. Hundreds of treaties and a large body of law define our 
special government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes. Their 
special trust status with our Government also plays a critical role in 
defining the responsibility of the U.S. Government to American Indians 
and Alaska Natives.


                        education and employment

  Educational attainment is a key indicator of well-being in America. 
For American Indian women there is a large lag in high school graduates 
compared to the population in general. The high school graduation rate 
for Indian females is about 65.3 percent compared to 74.8 percent for 
all American women. For college graduates the gap widens considerably. 
Only 8.6 percent of Indian women graduate from college compared to 17.6 
percent for all American women.
  Unfortunately employment statistics are hard to get for Indians, and 
the figures vary greatly. The BIA has often affirmed unemployment rates 
of 30 percent to 60 percent on many reservations. New Mexico Pueblos 
often have unemployment rates in the 40 percent to 50 percent range. 
This data is not readily available by sex. As a key indicator of 
general well-being, I hope the Office of Women and Families will be 
able to influence the collection of data regarding employment and 
unemployment among Indian women and teenagers.
  From the 1990 Census we have some encouraging data about Indian-owned 
businesses in New Mexico. The latest information from the 1990 Census 
reflects 1987 data. These data show that almost 800 Indian men and 
almost 500 Indian women own their own businesses. I would like to see 
this new office encourage more direct assistance to Indian women who 
are eligible for many BIA and Small Business Administration programs.
                  office of indian women and children

  It seems to me, Mr. President, that the Indian women of this country 
are in a particularly valuable position to offer good advice to our 
Government about ways to conduct policies and programs that are 
intended to improve conditions that affect these women and their 
families. This new office clearly fits within the electorate's demand 
that our Government carry out its responsibilities with greater 
efficiency and with clearer purposes.
  No one has yet called our national Indian policies a success. It is 
time to expand our efforts to reach out, in culturally appropriate 
ways, to solicit their thoughts about improving Federal programs so 
that a real difference is made in daily reservation life.
  In similar ways, young Indians can be included in designing and 
improving current programs to increase their effectiveness. The 
American Indian family is a vital structure to strengthen and preserve 
and we seek to enhance our national policies for their well-being.
  Initially, a temporary policy task force would be established to 
develop a policy paper to articulate a clear set of goals, objectives, 
management strategies, and monitoring systems for the improvement of 
key quality of life indicators for Indian women and families like the 
ones I have mentioned. There are, of course, many other areas of 
concern to be identified by the new Office and its related policy task 
force.
  Once articulated, these indicators could tell us about the degree to 
which Indian women and their families are participating in economic 
development and benefiting from new job opportunities on Indian 
reservations. Policy-makers and program managers would have better data 
on educational achievement and needs of Indian children and youth. 
Health statistics--from the Office of Women's Health at the Indian 
Health Service--could, for example, tell us how serious alcoholism is 
among Indian women and what program improvements are needed to enhance 
treatment.
  A Director of the Office of Women and Families would be responsible 
for integrating the needed changes in the BIA programs and coordinating 
with other Federal agencies to meet the policy goals and objectives 
established by the policy task force.
  This new office and its related policy mechanisms will have the 
flexibility to look into such areas as education, health, employment, 
economic development, housing, social, and other services of the BIA 
and other relevant Federal programs serving Indian women and families. 
By focusing on Indian women and families, the work of the BIA and other 
relevant Federal programs will be enhanced by their participation in 
the design and improvement of ongoing programs for Indian 
beneficiaries.
  As we prepare to strengthen our democracy and our economy for the 
21st century, we must not overlook any potential for a greater America. 
There is a growing awareness of the need to pay close attention to the 
inter-relationships between our national strength and the well-being of 
all women. Key factors are health, education, employment, housing, 
child care, business potential, and culture.
  There is no doubt that Indian women have long been essential to the 
well-being of Indian people and their families. As we strive to attain 
new levels of education, health, business involvement, employment, and 
housing quality for American Indians, we clearly need the ongoing 
participation and direct involvement of Indian women.
  I believe the strong family ties and responsibilities of Indian women 
can be enhanced by more attention to specific policies and programs now 
designed generally for American Indians without any special regard for 
the differing 
[[Page S2063]] cultural roles and responsibilities of Indian women.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Office of Indian Women and Families 
Act of 1995, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 346

       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 ``Office of Indian Women and 
     Families Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that:
       (1) The primary responsibilities of the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs are to encourage and assist Indian people to manage 
     their own affairs under the trust relationship between 
     Indians and the Federal Government, and to facilitate, with 
     maximum involvement of Indian people, full development of 
     their human and natural resource potential.
       (2) The Bureau of Indian Affairs coordinates its activities 
     with Indian tribal governments, Federal agencies and 
     departments, and other organizations and groups who share 
     similar interests and programs related to Indians.
       (3) Bureau of Indian Affairs policies, programs and 
     projects impact directly and significantly on the lives of 
     America's Indian people.
       (4) The unique roles and responsibilities of Indian women 
     contribute culturally, socially, and economically to the 
     well-being of Indian people, but these contributions are 
     often not fully realized and are undervalued and overlooked 
     within the policies, program, and projects of the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs.
       (5) Indian children have special educational and social 
     service needs to prepare them for traditional tribal 
     responsibilities and nontribal social and employment 
     opportunities.
       (6) The particular responsibilities, contributions, and 
     needs of Indian women and families can and should be taken 
     into account to improve Bureau of Indian Affairs policy 
     formulation and program operations for the direct benefit of 
     Indian women and families and Indian people as a whole.
       (7) Bureau of Indian Affairs policies, programs and 
     projects, including its coordination and liaison with other 
     Federal, State, and local entities, can be more responsive 
     and enhanced when Indian women and families are considered an 
     integral element of the process as well as contributors to 
     the success of these policies, programs, and projects.
       (8) There is a need for an Office of Indian Women and 
     Families in the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the purpose of 
     encouraging and promoting the participation and integration 
     of Indian women and families into Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     policies, programs, projects, and activities, thereby 
     improving the effectiveness of its mandate and the status and 
     lives of Indian women and families.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are:
       (1) To identify and integrate the issues related to Indian 
     women and families into all Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     policies, programs, projects, and activities. There will be a 
     special emphasis on the economic well-being of Indian women 
     and families including employment and business opportunities.
       (2) To establish an office to serve as a focal point for 
     all Federal Government policy issues affecting Indian women 
     and families for purposes of both economic and social 
     development.
       (3) To collect data related to the specific roles, 
     concerns, and needs of Indian women, and Indian families, and 
     use such data to support policy, program, and project 
     implementation throughout all offices of the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs and other Federal agencies, and to monitor the 
     impacts of these policies, programs and projects.
       (4) To enhance the economic and social participation of 
     Indian women and families in all levels of planning, 
     decisionmaking, and policy development within the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs, its area offices, and tribal governments and 
     reservations.
       (5) To conduct research and collect relevant studies 
     relating to special needs of Indian women and families.
       (6) To develop pilot programs and projects to strengthen 
     activities of the Bureau of Indian Affairs involving Indian 
     women and families, and serve as models for future endeavors 
     and planning.
       (7) To ensure a liaison with other Federal departments and 
     agencies, State and local governments, tribally controlled 
     community colleges, other academic institutions, any public 
     or private organizations, and tribal governments that serve 
     Indian peoples.
       (8) To ensure training endeavors for Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs offices and agencies at the national, area, and local 
     levels to ensure Bureau personnel and any other beneficiaries 
     of Bureau and other governmental programs understand the 
     purposes and policies of the office established by this Act.
       (9) To develop policy-level programs, with the assistance 
     of the Assistant Secretary and other senior-level personnel 
     of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to ensure that systems, 
     directives, management strategies and other related 
     methodologies are implemented to meet the purposes of this 
     Act.
       (10) To strengthen the role of Indian women and families by 
     developing and ensuring culturally appropriate policies and 
     programs.
       (11) To encourage other actions that serve to more fully 
     integrate Indian women and families as participants in and 
     agents for change in the Federal policy and program 
     activities of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) The term ``Indian woman'' means a woman who is a member 
     of an Indian tribe.
       (2) The term ``Indian tribe'' means any Indian tribe, band, 
     nation, or other organized group or community, any Alaska 
     Native village or regional or village corporation as defined 
     in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), which is recognized as 
     eligible for special programs and services provided by the 
     United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF INDIAN WOMEN AND INDIAN 
                   FAMILIES.

       (A) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     of the Interior the ``Office of Indian Women and Families'' 
     (hereinafter referred to as the ``Office'').
       (b) Director.--The Office shall be under the management of 
     a director (hereinafter referred to as the ``Director''), who 
     shall be appointed by the Assistant Secretary of Indian 
     Affairs. The Director shall report directly to the Assistant 
     Secretary of Indian Affairs.
       (c) Compensation.--The Director shall be compensated at the 
     rate prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5313 of title 5, United States Code.
       (d) Tenure.--The Director shall serve at the discretion of 
     the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs.
       (e) Vacancy.--A vacancy in the position of Director shall 
     be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was 
     made.
       (f) Duties.--The Director shall administer the Office and 
     carry out the purposes and functions of this Act. The 
     Director shall take such action as may be necessary in order 
     to integrate Indian women and family issues into the Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs policies, programs, projects and 
     activities.

     SEC. 6. FUNCTIONS OF OFFICE.

       It shall be the function of the Office to develop a Policy 
     Paper for Indian women and families to articulate the 
     objectives of the Office, to serve as a guideline for 
     systematically integrating Indian women and families issues 
     into the Bureau of Indian Affairs policies, programs, 
     projects, and activities, and to establish and detail 
     indicators and benchmarks for measuring the success of the 
     Office.

     SEC. 7. POLICY TASK FORCE.

       (a) Establishment of a Policy Task Force.--The Director, in 
     consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, 
     shall establish a temporary policy task force on Indian women 
     and families.
       (b) Membership.--Members of the task force shall be 
     appointed by the Director. The task force shall include 
     representatives from Federal agencies and departments, 
     relevant Indian organizations, State agencies and 
     organizations, Indian tribal governments, institutions of 
     higher education, and nongovernmental and private sector 
     organizations and institutions.
       (c) functions.--The policy task force shall:
       (1) Ensure that the Policy Paper for Indian women and 
     families prepared by the Bureau of Indian Affairs articulates 
     a set of goals, objectives, management strategies, and 
     monitoring systems for the improvement of all Federal 
     programs, including programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     designed to improve the quality of life of Indian women and 
     families.
       (2) Recommend a permanent policy mechanism to be 
     established in the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the 
     continuous monitoring and refinement of policy and programs 
     designed to improve the quality of life of Indian women and 
     families.
       (3) Recommend a permanent policy mechanism to be 
     established in the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the purpose 
     of collecting and disseminating to Congress and the public 
     information and other data relevant to the progress of the 
     policy and programs designed to improve the quality of life 
     of Indian women and families.
       (d) Termination.--The task force shall terminate upon the 
     expiration of 14 months following the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 8. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.

       The Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs shall:
       (1) Ensure that the Office receives adequate resources to 
     carry out the purposes of this Act.
       (2) Ensure that senior-level staff members and other 
     employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs are participants in 
     and responsible for assisting in carrying out the purposes of 
     this Act relating to the improvement of policies and programs 
     of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

     SEC. 9. REPORTING.

       The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs, shall, on or before March 15 of each of the 2 
     calendar years next following the calendar year in which this 
     Act is enacted, and biennially thereafter, report to Congress 
     on the progress of achieving the purposes of this Act. Such 
     report shall include, but not be 
     [[Page S2064]] limited to, information relative to the 
     current status of progress of the Bureau of Indian Affairs' 
     policy on Indian women and Indian families in fulfilling its 
     objectives, programs and projects, including how well the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs has operationally integrated the 
     issue of Indian women and families into its overall policies, 
     programs, projects and activities. Such report shall include 
     a review of data gathered to assess and improve the quality 
     of life of Indian women and families, including specific 
     recommendations to improve the education, health, employment, 
     economic, housing, social, and other services within the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs relating to Indian women and 
     families.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATIONS.

       Commencing with fiscal year 1994, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, there are authorized to be appropriated for 
     carrying out the provisions of this Act, $2,000,000.
                                 ______

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Brown):
  S. 347. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make 
membership in a terrorist organization a basis of exclusion from the 
United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  the terrorist exclusion act of 1995

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation 
I originally drafted and introduced in the last Congress as a Member of 
the other body. This legislation would deny U.S. visas to known members 
of terrorist organizations.
  Under current law, a visa can be denied to a known member of a 
terrorist organization only if the United States has compelling 
evidence that the individual was personally involved in a past 
terrorist act or if it is known that the person is coming to the United 
States to conduct such an act. Current law requires extraordinary steps 
to override the presumption that mere membership in a terrorist group 
is not grounds for denying a visa. high-level determination is required 
by the Secretary of State that permitting entry of the individual will 
be damaging to American foreign policy interests. My legislation will 
reverse that presumption. Under this bill, a known member of a group 
that conducts acts of terrorism will be excluded from the United States 
unless the Secretary of State determines on an individual basis that 
granting the visa would advance U.S. foreign policy interests.
  I discovered this dangerous loophole in our immigration laws last 
Congress during my investigation of the State Department failures that 
allowed the radical Egyptian cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, to 
travel to and reside in the United States since 1990. Sheikh Rahman is 
the spiritual leader of Egypt's terrorist organization, the Islamic 
Group. His followers have been convicted for the 1993 bombing of the 
World Trade Center in New York, and the Sheikh himself is now on trial 
for his alleged role in planning and approving a second wave of 
terrorist acts in the New York City area.
  Last year, I also found out through the investigation of the senior 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] that the State Department has in the 
past used this legal loophole to grant a visa to Tunisia's Sheikh 
Rashid el-Ghanoushi, the convicted leader of the Islamic fundamentalist 
terrorist organization Ennadha. At this very moment, the State 
Department is still considering a visa request by Sheikh Ghanoushi. A 
letter I received from the State Department on this matter confirmed 
that they interpret current law to require them to issue a visa to 
Ghanoushi--an acknowledged member of a terrorist organization--unless 
they can prove that he personally was involved in a terrorist act. 
Apparently his conviction in Tunisia for his part in an assassination 
plot against Tunisia's pro-Western President Ben Ali is not enough. Nor 
is the fact that he fled his country after his underground Islamic 
fundamentalist terrorist group launched violent attacks against the 
Government. Nor, apparently, do his virulently anti-Western and anti-
Israeli statements have any relevance to the visa decisions, as far as 
the State Department is concerned.
  Mr. President, after the recent rash of terrorist bombings in Israel, 
Argentina, Panama, and Britain, many countries are waking up to their 
vulnerability to terrorists. As reported in the July 28, 1994 Christian 
Science Monitor, the British Parliament is considering enacting 
legislation similar to this bill. Furthermore, this fall, the Anti-
Defamation League--an
 organization whose very purpose is to protect the civil and religious 
liberties of all Americans--also included my bill in their proposed 
legislative package on terrorism.

  It is well known that many foreign terrorist organizations depend on 
money raised in the United States for a major portion of their funding. 
There are also disturbing indications that many of these organizations 
are working to develop networks of members and supporters in our own 
country. Last week, the administration took the useful step of freezing 
the U.S. assets of certain terrorist organizations working against the 
peace process in the Middle East. But this action needs to be 
strengthened by also slamming the door on members of terrorist 
organizations who continue to travel freely to and within our country 
unfettered by our visa laws.
  Mr. President, I am confident that in the Senate this matter will 
receive the kind of fair treatment here that it deserves. I also note 
and welcome recent statements by the administration claiming that it 
too is now taking the terrorism issue seriously. After finding no need 
for my legislation last Congress, on January 20, 1995, the Secretary of 
State gave a speech at Harvard University in which he announced that 
the administration was going to strengthen its efforts against 
international terrorism. He specifically stated, ``we will toughen 
standards for obtaining visas for international criminals to gain entry 
to this country.'' I hope this means that the administration is finally 
willing to support legislation needed to accomplish this goal.
  The urgency of passing the Terrorist Exclusion Act comes from the sad 
truth that every day American lives continue to be put at risk out of 
deference to some imagined first amendment rights of foreign 
terrorists. This is an extreme misinterpretation of our cherished Bill 
of Rights, which the founders of our great nation intended to protect 
the liberties of all Americans. In my reading of the U.S. Constitution 
I see much about the protection of the safety and welfare of Americans, 
but nothing about protecting the rights of foreign terrorists to travel 
freely to the United States whenever they choose.
  Mr. President, I hope that this issue will be addressed swiftly by 
the 104th Congress. I hope that we do not put off its consideration yet 
again, only to have the issue suddenly reappear in reaction to what 
might have been an avoidable loss of American lives.
                                 ______

      By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Hutchinson, 
        Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Lott):
  S. 348. A bill to provide for a review by the Congress of rules 
promulgated by agencies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


                      the regulatory oversight act

 Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to 
provide for a 45-day layover of Federal regulations to permit Congress 
to review and, potentially, reject regulations before they become 
final.
  The Regulatory Oversight Act will improve the opportunity for 
Congress to ensure Federal agencies are properly carrying out 
congressional intent. All too often agencies issue regulations which go 
beyond the sense of reason.
  This act provides a 45-day period following publication of a final 
rule before that rule may become effective. This 45-day period will 
provide Congress with an opportunity to review the rule and enact, if 
it so chooses, a joint resolution of disapproval on a fast-track basis.
  Significant final rules, which the act defines as final rules that 
increase compliance costs on State, local, and tribal governments and 
the private sector of at least $100 million in any year may not take 
effect until at least 45 days after the rule is published. This is the 
same threshold in the unfunded mandates bill. Under current law, most 
rules already are delayed by 30 days pending the filing of an appeal. 
The delay of 45 days is provided in this act to avoid economic 
uncertainties and harm from these very large and burdensome rules 
during the congressional review period.
  [[Page S2065]] Final regulations addressing threats to imminent 
health or safety, or other emergencies, criminal law enforcement, or 
matters of national security, could be exempted by Executive order from 
the postponement of the effective date provided in the bill. However, a 
joint resolution of disapproval would still be eligible for fast-track 
consideration.
  Although a joint resolution may be introduced by any Member of 
Congress, the fast-track process for floor consideration of the joint 
resolution of disapproval is only available under two conditions: 
First, if the authorizing committee reports out the resolution; or 
second, if the majority leader of either House of Congress discharges 
the committee. The joint resolution, if passed by both Houses, would be 
subject to a Presidential veto and, in turn, a possible veto override.
  In reality, perhaps only a few regulations will be rejected by this 
process. But by providing a mechanism to hold Federal agencies 
accountable before it is too late, the Regulatory Oversight Act makes 
an important contribution to the critical regulatory reform effort.
  At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent that a detailed 
summary and the text of the Regulatory Oversight Act to be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 348
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF RULES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory 
     Oversight Act of 1995''.
       (b) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 553 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 553a. Congressional review of rules

       ``(a) For purposes of this section the term `significant 
     rule' means any rule that may have an annual effect on the 
     economy of $100,000,000 or more or adversely affect in a 
     material way the economy, a sector of the economy, 
     productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
     health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
     communities.
       ``(b)(1) Before a rule takes effect as a final rule, the 
     agency promulgating such rule shall submit to the Congress a 
     report containing--
       ``(A) a copy of the rule;
       ``(B) a concise general statement relating to the rule;
       ``(C) the proposed effective date of the rule; and
       ``(D) a complete copy of the cost benefit analysis of the 
     rule, if any.
       ``(2) A significant rule relating to a report submitted 
     under paragraph (1) shall take effect as a final rule, the 
     latest of--
       ``(A) the later of the date occurring 45 days after the 
     date on which--
       ``(i) the Congress receives the report submitted under 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(ii) the rule is published in the Federal Register;
       ``(B) if the Congress passes a joint resolution of 
     disapproval described under subsection (h) relating to the 
     rule, and the President signs a veto of such resolution, the 
     earlier date--
       ``(i) on which either House of Congress votes and fails to 
     override the veto of the President; or
       ``(ii) occurring 30 session days after the date on which 
     the Congress received the veto and objections of the 
     President; or
       ``(C) the date the rule would have otherwise taken effect, 
     if not for this section (unless a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under subsection (h) is enacted).
       ``(3) Except for a significant rule, a rule shall take 
     effect as otherwise provided by law after submission to 
     Congress under paragraph (1).
       ``(c) A rule shall not take effect as a final rule, if the 
     Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval described 
     under subsection (h).
       ``(d)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     section (except subject to paragraph (3)), a rule that would 
     not take effect by reason of this section may take effect, if 
     the President makes a determination under paragraph (2) and 
     submits written notice of such determination to the Congress.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a determination made by the 
     President by Executive order that the rule should take effect 
     because such rule is--
       ``(A) necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 
     safety or other emergency;
       ``(B) necessary for the enforcement of criminal laws; or
       ``(C) necessary for national security.
       ``(3) An exercise by the President of the authority under 
     this subsection shall have no effect on the procedures under 
     subsection (h) or the effect of a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under this section.
       ``(4) This subsection and an Executive order issued by the 
     President under this subsection shall not be subject to 
     judicial review by a court of the United States.
       ``(e)(1) The provisions of subsection (h) shall apply to 
     any rule that is published in the Federal Register (as a rule 
     that shall take effect as a final rule) during the period 
     beginning on the date occurring 60 days before the date the 
     Congress adjourns sine die through the date on which the 
     succeeding Congress first convenes.
       ``(2) For purposes of subsection (h), a rule described 
     under paragraph (1) shall be treated as though such rule were 
     published in the Federal Register (as a rule that shall take 
     effect as a final rule) on the date the succeeding Congress 
     first convenes.
       ``(3) During the period beginning on the date the Congress 
     adjourns sine die through the date on which the succeeding 
     Congress first convenes, a rule described under paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect as a final rule as otherwise provided by 
     law.
       ``(f) Any rule that takes effect and later is made of no 
     force or effect by the enactment of a joint resolution under 
     subsection (h) shall be treated as though such rule had never 
     taken effect.
       ``(g) If the Congress does not enact a joint resolution of 
     disapproval under subsection (h), no court or agency may 
     infer any intent of the Congress from any action or inaction 
     of the Congress with regard to such rule, related statute, or 
     joint resolution of disapproval.
       ``(h)(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term `joint 
     resolution' means only a joint resolution introduced after 
     the date on which the report referred to in subsection (b) is 
     received by Congress the matter after the resolving clause of 
     which is as follows: `That Congress disapproves the rule 
     submitted by the ________ relating to ________, and such rule 
     shall have no force or effect. (The blank spaces being 
     appropriately filled in.)'.
       ``(2)(A) A resolution described in paragraph (1) shall be 
     referred to the committees in each House of Congress with 
     jurisdiction. Such a resolution may not be reported before 
     the eighth day after its submission or publication date.
       ``(B) For purposes of this subsection the term `submission 
     or publication date' means the later of the date on which--
       ``(i) the Congress receives the report submitted under 
     subsection (b)(1); or
       ``(ii) the rule is published in the Federal Register.
       ``(3) If the committee to which is referred a resolution 
     described in paragraph (1) has not reported such resolution 
     (or an identical resolution) at the end of 20 calendar days 
     after the submission or publication date defined under 
     paragraph (2)(B), such committee may be discharged by the 
     Majority Leader of the Senate or the Majority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives, as the case may be, from further 
     consideration of such resolution and such resolution shall be 
     placed on the appropriate calendar of the House involved.
       ``(4)(A) When the committee to which a resolution is 
     referred has reported, or when a committee is discharged 
     (under paragraph (3)) from further consideration of, a 
     resolution described in paragraph (1), it is at any time 
     thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the 
     same effect has been disagreed to) for any Member of the 
     respective House to move to proceed to the consideration of 
     the resolution, and all points of order against the 
     resolution (and against consideration of the resolution) are 
     waived. The motion is highly privileged in the House of 
     Representatives and is privileged in the Senate and is not 
     debatable. The motion is not subject to amendment, or to a 
     motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the 
     vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall 
     not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration 
     of the resolution is agreed to, the resolution shall remain 
     the unfinished business of the respective House until 
     disposed of.
       ``(B) Debate on the resolution, and on all debatable 
     motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited 
     to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally 
     between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. A 
     motion further to limit debate is in order and not debatable. 
     An amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of other business, or a motion 
     to recommit the resolution is not in order. A motion to 
     reconsider the vote by which the resolution is agreed to or 
     disagreed to is not in order.
       ``(C) Immediately following the conclusion of the debate on 
     a resolution described in paragraph (1), and a single quorum 
     call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in 
     accordance with the rules of the appropriate House, the vote 
     on final passage of the resolution shall occur.
       ``(D) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to 
     the application of the rules of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives, as the case may be, to the procedure 
     relating to a resolution described in paragraph (1) shall be 
     decided without debate.
       ``(5) If, before the passage by one House of a resolution 
     of that House described in paragraph (1), that House receives 
     from the other House a resolution described in paragraph (1), 
     then the following procedures shall apply:
       ``(A) The resolution of the other House shall not be 
     referred to a committee.
       ``(B) With respect to a resolution described in paragraph 
     (1) of the House receiving the resolution--
     [[Page S2066]]   ``(i) the procedure in that House shall be 
     the same as if no resolution had been received from the other 
     House; but
       ``(ii) the vote on final passage shall be on the resolution 
     of the other House.
       ``(6) This subsection is enacted by Congress--
       ``(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a resolution described in 
     paragraph (1), and it supersedes other rules only to the 
     extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
       ``(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 553 
     the following:

``553a. Congressional review of rules.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any 
     significant rule that takes effect as a final rule on or 
     after such effective date.
                                                                    ____

                  The Regulatory Oversight Act of 1995

       A bill to amend the Administrative Procedures Act to 
     provide for a 45-day period during which the Congress may 
     enact a joint resolution of disapproval under a ``fact 
     track'' procedure.
       Provides a 45-day period after publication of any final 
     rule by a federal agency, during which the Congress has an 
     opportunity to review the rule and, if it chooses, enact a 
     joint resolution of disapproval on a fast-track basis. The 
     joint resolution of disapproval would declare that the rule 
     has no force or effect.
       The joint resolution of disapproval may be vetoed by the 
     President, and Congress has the opportunity to override the 
     veto.
       Upon issuing a final rule, a federal agency must send to 
     Congress a report containing a copy of the rule and the 
     complete cost/benefit analysis, if any, prepared for the 
     rule. The 45-day period for congressional review would begin 
     on the date the Congress receives the agency's report on the 
     rule, or on the date the final rule is published in the 
     Federal Register, whichever, is later. Any Senator or 
     Representative may introduce a resolution of disapproval, 
     which will be referred to the committees of jurisdiction.
       Congress will have 45 days to review final rules and 
     consider a resolution of disapproval, under the expedited 
     procedures established in this Act. All final rules that are 
     published less than 60 days before a Congress adjourns sine 
     die, or that are published during sine die adjournment, shall 
     be eligible for review and ``fast track'' disapproval 
     procedures for 45 days beginning on the date the new Congress 
     convenes.
       If the committee of jurisdiction has not reported the 
     resolution of disapproval within 20 calendar days from the 
     date the rule is published in the Federal Register, the 
     Majority Leader of the Senate and the Majority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives, respectively, may discharge the 
     committee(s) and place the resolution of disapproval directly 
     on the Calendar.
       Once the resolution of disapproval is placed on the 
     Calendar by the appropriate committee or by the Majority 
     Leader, any senator may make a motion to proceed to the 
     resolution. The motion to proceed is privileged and is not 
     debatable. Once the Senate has voted to proceed to the 
     resolution of disapproval, debate on the resolution of 
     disapproval is limited to ten hours, equally divided, with no 
     motions (other than motion to further limit debate) or 
     amendments in order. If the resolution passes one body, it is 
     eligible for immediate consideration on the Floor of the 
     other body.
       ``Significant'' final rules, which the Act defines as final 
     rules that have an economic effect on State, local, and 
     tribal governments and the private sector of at least $100 
     million in any year, may not take effect until at least 45 
     days after the rule is published. However, ``significant'' 
     final regulations addressing imminent threats to health and 
     safety, or other emergencies, criminal law enforcement, or 
     matters of national security, may be exempted by Executive 
     Order from the 45-day minimum delay in the effective date. 
     The decision by the President to exempt any significant final 
     rule from the delay is not subject to judicial review. Under 
     current law, most rules already are delayed by 30 days 
     pending the filing of an appeal. The delay of 45 days is 
     provided in this Act to avoid economic uncertainties and harm 
     from these very large and burdensome rules during the 
     congressional review period.
       The effective date of the ``significant'' final rule would 
     not go into effect after the 45-day period if the resolution 
     of disapproval has passed both Houses within that time. If 
     the joint resolution of disapproval is vetoed, the effective 
     date of the final rule will continue to be postponed until 30 
     legislative days have passed after the veto, or the date on 
     which either House fails to override the veto, whichever is 
     earlier.
       Generally, judicially-ordered deadlines would still apply 
     to the dates agencies must issue the final rule, but would 
     not apply to the 45-day postponement of the effective date 
     for ``significant'' rules.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 349. A bill to reauthorize appropriations for the Navajo-Hopi 
Relocation Housing Program; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


     the navajo-hopi relocation housing program reauthorization act

 Mr. McCAIN. 
 Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to reauthorize 
appropriations for the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing Program. I am 
pleased that Senator Kyl has joined me on this bill as an original 
cosponsor.

  I believe that most of my colleagues have at least some familiarity 
with the tragic land disputes which have divided the Navajo and Hopi 
Tribes for more than a century. In 1974 the Congress acted to try to 
bring about a resolution of those disputes through a partition of the 
disputed lands and the relocation of the members of each tribe from the 
lands partitioned to the other tribe. This has proven to be a difficult 
and contentious process and the original Settlement Act has been 
amended twice to try to resolve problems which arose in its 
implementation.
  Since the enactment of the Settlement Act, 4,432 Navajo and Hopi 
families have applied for relocation benefits. Of those, 3,255 have 
been certified eligible and 11,177 have been denied benefits. Of those 
who were denied benefits, 223 are engaged in active appeals. A total of 
2,434 families had been relocated as of the end of 1994 and 544 
eligible families were awaiting their benefits.
  Most of the 544 families still awaiting benefits long ago complied 
with the law and voluntarily left their homes which are located on 
lands partitioned to the other tribe. Unfortunately, the pace of the 
relocation housing program has been such that on average fewer than 200 
eligible families are served in each calendar year.
  The bill we are introducing today will provide 2 more years of 
authority for appropriations for the relocation housing program. It is 
my understanding that Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation is in 
the process of preparing a report for the appropriations committees 
which will provide information on the amount of funding necessary to 
complete the relocation program and an estimate of the time this will 
take. I look forward to reviewing that report. I also look forward to 
the hearing on this bill because it will provide an opportunity for the 
Committee on Indian Affairs to evaluate the relocation housing program 
to ensure that it is being operated as fairly and efficiently 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.

                                 S. 349

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

     SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NAVAJO-
                   HOPI RELOCATION HOUSING PROGRAM.

       Section 25(a)(8) of Public Law 93-531 (25 U.S.C. 640d-
     24(a)(8)) is amended by striking ``1989,'' and all that 
     follows through ``and 1995.'' and inserting ``1995, 1996, and 
     1997.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 350. A bill to amend chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, to 
modify the judiciary review of regulatory flexibility analyses, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 regulatory flexibility amendments act

 Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Regulatory 
Flexibility Amendments Act of 1995. The Regulatory Flexibility Act is 
of paramount importance to the 21 million U.S. small businesses. Small 
businesses employ 54 percent of the U.S. work force, account for 44 
percent of all sales, and generate 39 percent of our gross domestic 
product.
  Government regulations place extraordinary burdens on small 
businesses, and the result is to hinder their ability to compete at 
home and in the global marketplace. However, the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, Reg Flex Act, if properly implemented and appropriately 
strengthened, can help ease the regulatory burdens on small businesses. 
I am very pleased the small 
[[Page S2067]] business community endorses my bill. Furthermore, 
President Clinton has expressed his strong support for judicial review 
to permit small businesses to challenge Federal agencies under the Reg 
Flex Act.


                     the regulatory flexibility act

  The Reg Flex Act is based on two premises. First, Federal departments 
and agencies often do not recognize the impact of rules on small 
businesses. Second, small businesses are disproportionately affected by 
Federal regulations compared to their larger counterparts.
  The Reg Flex Act was enacted to reduce, where appropriate, the impact 
of Federal regulations on small business. The Reg Flex Act requires 
Federal agencies to assess the impact of their proposals on small 
businesses. Agencies have two options under the statute--performing a 
regulatory flexibility analysis or issuing a certification.
  An agency certifies a rule if it determines the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses. The certification must be announced in the--Federal 
Register and must be accompanied by ``a succinct statement explaining 
the reasons for such certification.'' Boilerplate statements that the 
rule will not have such an effect are inadequate under the Reg Flex 
Act.
  An agency assessment that reveals the rule will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses requires 
the agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. The analysis 
must contain: a description of the reasons why the action is being 
considered; a succinct statement of the objectives of and legal basis 
for the action; a description and estimate of the number of small 
businesses affected by the agency action; a detailed description of the 
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements with 
special attention to the affected small businesses; and any duplicative 
Federal regulations.
  Additionally, the analysis must describe and examine significant 
alternatives to the proposed rule which can accomplish the objectives 
of the agency, but which minimize the economic impact on small 
businesses. Significant alternatives may include but are not limited 
to: First establishment of differing compliance or reporting 
requirements that take into account the resources available to small 
businesses; second, the use of performance rather than design 
standards; and third, exemptions of small businesses from all or part 
of the rule. When an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 
of the Reg Flex Act, it must explain why it did not adopt other 
alternatives to minimize the effects on small businesses which were 
presented to the agency during the rulemaking process.


                      why amend the reg flex act?

  Unfortunately, too many Federal regulators fail to exercise their 
responsibilities under the Reg Flex Act. When government agencies fail 
to comply with the act, they impose significant and burdensome 
requirements on small businesses and thereby threaten their viability. 
All too often, these agencies view the act as nothing more than another 
procedural impediment to the adoption of a particular rule. As a 
result, agencies issue boilerplate certifications without performing 
the underlying assessment of impacts on small businesses required by 
the Reg Flex Act. As long as Federal departments and agencies continue 
to act in this manner, small businesses will be the big losers.


      means to strengthen agency compliance with the reg flex act

  My Regulatory Flexibility Act Amendment has one critical element: 
repeal the prohibition against judicial review.
  The Reg Flex Act requires Federal departments and agencies to 
consider the impact of their actions on small businesses. However, in 
1980, the authors of the act were concerned a litigation explosion 
might result under this law. The rationale being that businesses would 
attempt to delay the implementation of regulations through court 
action. To prevent this problem, the sponsors included a provision 
excluding separate judicial challenges to agency compliance with the 
Reg Flex Act.
  Today, we realize it is highly unlikely there would be a flood of 
litigation if judicial review is permitted under the Reg Flex Act. The 
fact is, most small businesses do not have the financial resources to 
bring frivolous, unfounded lawsuits. However, my bill will insure that 
small business have the opportunity to challenge regulators who attempt 
to avoid the Reg Flex Act. As a consequence, my colleagues should not 
be fooled by the ``red herring'' of a threat of litigation explosion.
  The ability of agencies to ignore their responsibilities under the 
Reg Flex Act is enhanced by the conspicuous absence of judicial review 
under the act. Without judicial review, compliance rests upon each 
agency's voluntary commitment to utilize the Reg Flex Act in its quest 
for rational rulemaking mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act 
[APA].
  Small businesses do not need voluntary commitments, they need 
concrete action. The primary means to accomplish mandatory compliance 
will be to authorize small businesses hurt by an agency's failure to 
comply with the Reg Flex Act to challenge that agency in federal court. 
That is what my bill does.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, the Regulatory Flexibility Amendments Act of 1995 will 
help curtail excessive regulation by Government bureaucrats. 
Furthermore, it will add teeth to the Reg Flex Act and give small 
businesses a legal means for countering continued violations of the 
act. The Reg Flex Act, if properly implemented and appropriately 
strengthened, can help ease the regulatory burdens on small businesses. 
Regulatory relief will create greater opportunities for small 
businesses, more jobs for American workers, and will expand the U.S. 
economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this reform of the Reg Flex 
Act.


                          ____________________