Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6337-S6356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. SIMON:
S. 766. A bill to protest the constitutional right to travel to
foreign countries; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

freedom to travel act

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation dealing with
the
[[Page S6338]] constitutional right of American citizens and legal
permanent residents to travel to foreign countries.
Last October 5, I held a hearing in my capacity as chairman of the
Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on the
Constitutional Right to International Travel. The hearing focused on
the derivation of this well-established constitutional right, on the
circumstances under which the right can be restricted, and on the
wisdom as a policy matter of restricting the ability of Americans to
visit nations with whom we may have political differences.
In the course of this hearing, it became clear to me that there are
limited instances in which the right of Americans to travel abroad
should be restricted--namely, instances where international travel
endangers the safety of the traveler or implicates national security
concerns. Otherwise, as a matter of both constitutional law, the first
and fifth amendments as well as other constitutional provisions, and
policy, the right to a free trade in ideas and to investigations into
other nations and cultures should be not only left untrammelled, but
encouraged.
When such restrictions on foreign travel are in place, they do great
damage to a number of interests that we hold dear. When Americans are
denied the right to travel to a foreign country:
Businessmen are prevented from exploring opportunities in that
country that might confer economic benefits on this country;
American scholars are denied the opportunity to engage in a dialog
with their foreign colleagues;
Americans with families abroad are prevented from visiting their
loved ones;
Human rights organizations concerned about abuses abroad are
prevented from seeing those abuses first-hand,
and from giving corrupt foreign governments the kind of close scrutiny
that forces reform of repressive systems;

Average Americans with an interest in world affairs are denied the
opportunity to become better informed citizens by virtue of their
direct exposure to nations that play an important role in our own
foreign policy;
Finally, our own Government loses the ability to influence foreign
governments through the transmission of American ideals of democracy
and justice. It is no coincidence that in those nations to which
American travel was not restricted--such as the nations of the former
Soviet bloc--the infusion of American ideas contributed mightily to the
downfall of repressive regimes.
The fact that travel abroad should in most cases be encouraged, and
not restricted, however, has not prevented administrations both past
and present from limiting the right of Americans to travel abroad. In
response to these efforts, Congress has often stepped in to limit the
President's right to restrict foreign travel. Most recently, last
year's Foreign Relations Authorization Act limited the President's
authority to impose travel related restrictions on Americans seeking to
visit foreign countries that are not currently the subject of such
restrictions. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, however,
permitted the President to continue to impose travel, restrictions to
those countries now subject to such restrictions--even though none of
these countries pose any threat to the health or safety of prospective
visitors, or to America's national security. These countries include
Libya, Iraq, North Korea, and, most controversially, Cuba.
The bill I now introduce--the Freedom to Travel Act of 1995--would
extend the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act's limitations on the
President's power to restrict travel to those countries that are
currently the subject of travel restrictions. The bill would also make
clear that the President may only restrict travel to countries with
which the United States is at war, where armed hostilities are in
progress, or where there is imminent danger to the public health or the
physical safety of U.S. travelers. This is the standard that currently
governs the Government's right to deny a passport to a U.S. citizen. I
believe that this standard should apply to any Government effort to
restrict foreign travel.
I believe this legislation to be necessary both as a matter of policy
and as a matter of international and constitutional law. Protecting the
right of Americans to travel abroad is constitutionally required, is
internationally recognized as part of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and is an important way of safeguarding and furthering
our intellectual, economic, and political interests. I hope my
colleagues will join our efforts to work for this protection.
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. 766
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 ``Freedom to Travel Act of
1995''.

SEC. 2. TRAVEL TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

(a) Freedom of Travel for United States Citizens and Legal
Residents.--The President shall not restrict travel abroad by
United States citizens or legal residents, except to
countries with which the United States is at war, where armed
hostilities are in progress, or where there is imminent
danger to the public health or the physical safety of United
States travelers.
(b) International Emergency Economic Powers Act.--Section
203(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1702(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraphs (2) and
(3); and
(2) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) any of the following transactions incident to travel
by individuals who are citizens or residents of the United
States:
``(A) any transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or
from any country, including the importation into a country or
the United States of accompanied baggage for personal use
only;
``(B) any transactions ordinarily incident to travel or
maintenance within any country, including the payment of
living expenses and the acquisition of goods or services for
personal use;
``(C) any transactions ordinarily incident to the
arrangement, promotion, or facilitation of travel to, from,
or within a country;
``(D) any transactions incident to nonscheduled air, sea,
or land voyages, except that this subparagraph does not
authorize the carriage of articles into a country except
accompanied baggage; and
``(E) normal banking transactions incident to the
activities described in the preceding provisions of this
paragraph, including the issuance, clearing, processing, or
payment of checks, drafts, travelers checks, credit or debit
card instruments, or similar instruments;

except that this paragraph does not authorize the importation
into the United States of any goods for personal consumption
acquired in another country other than those items described
in paragraphs (1) and (3); or''.
(c) Amendments to Trading With the Enemy Act.--Section 5(b)
of the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) The authority granted by the President in this
section does not include the authority to regulate or
prohibit, directly or indirectly, any of the following
transactions incident to travel by individuals who are
citizens or residents of the United States:
``(A) Any transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or
from any country, including importation into a country or the
United States of accompanied baggage for personal use only.
``(B) Any transactions ordinarily incident to travel or
maintenance within any country, including the payment of
living expenses and the acquisition of goods or services for
personal use.
``(C) Any transactions ordinarily incident to the
arrangement, promotion, or facilitation of travel to, from,
or within a country.
``(D) Any transactions incident to nonscheduled air, sea,
or land voyages, except that this subparagraph does not
authorize the carriage of articles into a country except
accompanied baggage.
``(E) Normal banking transactions incident to the
activities described in the preceding provisions of this
paragraph, including the issuance, clearing, processing, or
payment of checks, drafts, travelers checks, credit or debit
card instruments, negotiable instruments, or similar
instruments.

This paragraph does not authorize the importation into the
United States of any goods for personal consumption acquired
in another country other than those items described in
paragraph (4).''.

SEC. 3. EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL, AND SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES AND
EXCHANGES.

(a) International Emergency Economic Powers Act.--Section
203(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1702(b)) is amended by adding after paragraph (4) the
following new paragraph:
``(5) financial or other transactions, or travel, incident
to--
``(A) activities of scholars;
[[Page S6339]] ``(B) other educational or academic
activities;
``(C) exchanges in furtherance of any such activities;
``(D) cultural activities and exchanges; or
``(E) public exhibitions or performances by the nationals
of one country in another country,

to the extent that any such activities, exchanges,
exhibitions, or performances are not otherwise controlled for
export under section 5 of the Export Administration Act of
1979 and to the extent that, with respect to such activities,
exchanges, exhibitions, or performances, no acts are
prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18, United States Code.''.
(b) Trading With the Enemy Act.--Section 5(b) of the
Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) The authority granted to the President in this
subsection does not include the authority to regulate or
prohibit, directly or indirectly, financial or other
transactions, or travel, incident to--
``(A) activities of scholars;
``(B) other educational or academic activities;
``(C) exchanges in furtherance of any such activities;
``(D) cultural activities and exchanges; or
``(E) public exhibitions or performances by the nationals
of one country in another country,

SEC. 4. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961.

Section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2370(a)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:
``(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the authority granted
to the President in such paragraph does not include the
authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly,
any activities or transactions which may not be regulated or
prohibited under paragraph (5) or (6) of section 5(b) of the
Trading With the Enemy Act.''.

SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.

(a) International Economic Emergency Powers Act.--The
amendments made by sections 2(a) and 3(a) apply to actions
taken by the President under section 203 of the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act before the date of the
enactment of this Act which are in effect on such date of
enactment, and to actions taken under such section on or
after such date.
(b) Trading With the Enemy Act.--The authorities conferred
upon the President by section 5(b) of the Trading With the
Enemy Act, which were being exercised with respect to a
country on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency
declared by the President before such date, and are being
exercised on the date of the enactment of this Act, do not
include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or
indirectly, any activity which under section 5(b)(5) or (6)
of the Trading With the Enemy Act (as added by this Act) may
not be regulated or prohibited.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 767. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to extend the deadline for
the imposition of sanctions under section 179 of the act that relate to
a State vehicle inspection and maintenance program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

clean air act amendment legislation

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill that I believe
will help States and municipalities in their efforts to comply with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, this bill will extend
the deadline for sanctions under section 179 of the act that relate to
State vehicle and inspection programs. Congressman Schiff has
introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
As you know, Mr. President, the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act
set forth requirements for areas that are not in attainment for certain
air pollutants. These requirements include submission and
implementation by those nonattainment areas of extensive and detailed
remediation plans. Since enactment of the 1990 amendments, many States
and municipalities have made great strides in fulfilling these
requirements.
Under section 179 of the act, however, the Environmental Protection
Agency can levy sanctions on those areas that fail to meet the
requirements, sanctions which include the cutting off of highway
funding. Unfortunately, implementation of some of the requirements has
proven to be much more time-consuming than originally thought. Prime
examples of this problem are the provisions for vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs, also known as I/M programs. The EPA has
promulgated very complex--and often controversial--rules for I/M
programs. Although States and municipalities are trying very hard to
implement the I/M rules, and although many are getting very close to
compliance, it has become clear that in some cases they will simply
need more time.
This bill addresses this situation by delaying sanctions for failure
to implement I/M programs by 12 months, thus allowing States and
municipalities to finish coming into compliance with these Federal
mandates without losing critically needed highway funds. I urge my
colleagues to join me in this effort.
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. 767

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SANCTIONS DEADLINE.

(a) Extension.--Section 179(a) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7509(a)) is amended in the matter following paragraph
(4) by inserting ``(or, in the case of a requirement relating
to a State vehicle inspection and maintenance program, 30
months)'' after ``18 months''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect with respect to any finding, disapproval,
or determination made under section 179(a) of the Clean Air
Act after the date that is 18 months prior to the date of
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Shelby,
and Mr. Packwood):
S. 768. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to
reauthorize the act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.

endangered species act reform act

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today is an important day for working
people and their families across America whose lives have been impacted
by the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Today I am proud
to introduce legislation, together with Senator Johnston, Senator
Shelby, Senator Breaux, and Senator Packwood to amend the Endangered
Species Act to require that the act consider people.
For 6 years, this Senator has fought to bring legislation before the
Senate to amend the Endangered Species Act. For much of these 6 years,
I have been unsuccessful in forcing the Senate to debate
reauthorization of the act.
This year, however, is different. I believe that this year proponents
of reform have a unique opportunity to bring legislation to reform the
act before the Senate for debate. I intend to work very hard to see
that this does, in fact, happen. I am committed to working with Senator
Chafee, as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
and with Senator Kempthorne, as chairman of the Drinking Water,
Fisheries and Wildlife Subcommittee, to see that legislation to
reauthorize the act is passed by the Senate this year.
The debate over the ESA is all about choices. Difficult, yet
fundamental choices that as people who live in a free and productive
society have to make. How important to society is this species?
What is the biological significance of the species? Is it the last of
its kind? Will it provide a cure for a deadly disease? How many people
will lose their jobs as a result of protecting this species? How will
species protection impact the lives of people, their families, and
their communities? In short, the debate will be about people, and
choices we must make.
Earlier this year, a wonderful book entitled ``Noah's Choice''
focused on these choices. The title is designed to remind us of the
story in the book of Genesis, where God commands Noah to build an ark
to house his family and a male and female pair of every species. As the
story goes, it then rained for 40 days and nights, and when the rain
stopped, and the water dried, Noah had saved every living substance.
The authors write:

Noah had it easy. The materials he needed to build his Ark
were at hand and the design, provided by the Supreme Deity,
was guaranteed to be sufficient for the task. Two by two, the
creatures walked aboard, filling the vessel just to capacity.
When the parade finished, Noah had fulfilled his obligations.
He had saved ``every living substance.'' There had been no
need to exercise judgement or agonize over tough choices. He
and his sons
[[Page S6340]] just stood on the gangplank and let
everything in. When no creature was waiting outside, he shut
the door and waited for rain.

Unfortunately our choices are not so simple. The act must be reformed
to include choices, Mr. President, because currently it does not. The
current act is all about uncompromising, intrusive, and unrelenting
Federal mandates, and little about choices. To prove this point, you
only have to take a look at the Pacific Northwest.

pacific northwest as a test case for the esa

Consider this: less than a decade ago, rural timber communities
across my State were thriving. Families were strong and together.
Fathers had a steady job at the mill, that paid a good family wage.
Mothers could afford to stay home and take care of the children, to be
there when they got home from school. Parents could save for their
kids' education. Kids could be kids.
These were good places to live and work. Rural areas, surrounded by
our national parks and forest lands. Communities built up around the
timberlands. Families who had worked for generations in the woods,
continued to pass the trade down to the next generation. These were
communities where you didn't have to lock the front door. Places where
strangers get a wave, or a nod of acknowledgement as they drive through
town. That was 10 years ago.
Today it's different. Unemployment is up. Families that were once
strong, and together, are falling apart. Divorce and incidents of
domestic violence have dramatically increased. People can't find work.
Mills have shut down. Food bank use has skyrocketed. Homes are for
sale. Once proud, and productive members of our society, have,
reluctantly, become society's burden.
All of this, Mr. President, in the period of 6 short years.
It began when the northern spotted owl was listed under the
Endangered Species Act in 1989. And in the time since that listing, the
destruction of rural timber communities has followed. But I want to
make clear, it was not the listing of the owl that caused this
devastation. It was the implementation of the act that caused it--the
implementation of an act that does not consider the impacts on people,
and their communities.
Last month, I held a timber family hearing in Olympia, WA. The
purpose of my hearing was to hear from the people whose lives have been
impacted by the Endangered Species Act, to hear from them, once again,
as to why this act must be changed. Over the course of 6 years, I have
heard the personal stories of people who live--or once lived--in my
State's timber communities. Their stories are hard to listen to,
because their stories could have been different--if only their Federal
Government had listened to their plight. Here are a few of the stories
I heard.
One man, probably close to 40 years old, told me that before the
listing of the spotted owl, he went to work each day and came home to
his wife and children. In other words, he lived a normal life. But
today he's got to go across the State in order to find work. He's away
from home for weeks at a time. He told me that he can't afford to buy a
video camera or VCR to record his children as they grow up. He told me
that he misses his children, that he misses his wife. He asked me if I
could fix this law so that he could go home to stay, so that he could
live with his family again.
Another story. Barbara Mossman and her husband used to own a logging
truck company. Today they live day to day, and, if they are lucky
enough to find work, paycheck to paycheck. Before the owl crisis,
Barbara and her husband were hardworking small business owners.
Barbara told me about the first time she and her husband had to go to
a food bank. They didn't want to do it, that's not the way they were
raised. They were brought up to believe that if you are a hard worker,
you will always find a job, that you should take care of yourself, your
family, and help your neighbor. They were proud. But, as Barbara told
me, they had to set aside their pride and go to the food bank, because
they did not have anything to eat.
But if anything captured the spirit of my timber family hearing it
was a plea from Bill Pickell, of the Washington Contract Loggers
Association. The people in this room, he said, do not want a handout.
They do not want a government program. They want to take care of their
neighbors, help their community spring back to life. They want to work.
Mr. President, the stories are real. They are not made up. There are
hundreds of stories like this from across my State. The message is the
same--the act does not consider people.
Of course, if you read the newspapers, or listen to the nightly news
you would never realize that people are suffering across my State, and
the Nation, because of misguided Federal policies. The media spins a
different tale. In 1990, in the media frenzy to pit people against
nature, there was a rush to judgment. A judgment was made that people
who live and work in natural resource-based industries cannot coexist
with their environment. That the two are mutually exclusive. That the
timber worker was an evil raper of the land. That the environment would
perish because of his life's work.
In this rush to judgment, Time magazine put a spotted owl on its
cover with the heading ``Who Gives a Hoot? The timber industry says
that saving this spotted owl will cost 30,000 jobs. It isn't that
simple.''
Time got one thing right--it is not that simple. But I wonder, in
1995, would Time put a picture of the unemployed timber worker and his
community on the cover of its magazine, under the heading ``Can it be
saved?'' The answer? Probably not.
It's a tactic often used by the media to oversimplify. To make it, us
versus them. Jobs versus the environment. People versus owls. This
Senator believes that the media does the public a great disservice in
its efforts to provide trite, oversimplifications of complex issues.
This Senator gives the American public more credit.
The legislation that I have introduced today, with that of my primary
sponsors, recognizes that in order to find the appropriate balance
between people and their desire to protect the environment difficult
choices must be made. My legislation recognizes that these decisions
are not simple, and that the people and the communities most directly
affected by these decisions must have a say in the process. My
legislation attempts to achieve the delicate balance that has long been
absent from the current act.
the esa reform act of 1995

Mr. President, 22 years ago Congress passed, and President Nixon
signed, legislation creating the Endangered Species Act. The
legislation was written in broad brush stokes--leaving the details to
Federal bureaucrats to plug in. Not having been a Member of the U.S.
Senate at the time the original law was enacted, one can only guess
that most Members of Congress were enthusiastic about passing such
legislation. This was legislation, after all, that would protect our
Nation's symbol of freedom, the bald eagle, and the other precious and
unique creatures that we identified with as Americans. Simply put, the
legislation was as American as baseball and apple pie.
In writing the original legislation, Congress, in all its wisdom,
decided that it could, in fact, become Noah. The Endangered Species Act
was developed, as most laws are, to address a seemingly one-dimensional
situation--to stop species from extinction. But 22 years later, the
details of the legislation have been filled in, and slowly people have
begun to realize that the original act was written without an eye to
the consequences.
Mr. President, from the start of this debate in 1989, I have
advocated for a balance--a delicate balance between the needs of people
and that of their environment. The two are not mutually exclusive. In
1989, my call for balance was viewed as radical and extreme. In 1995,
newspaper editorials in my State consistently use the word to describe
how the act should be reformed. The administration has even put forward
10 principles for ESA reform that advocate for a more balanced
decisionmaking process.
Under my legislation, sound, peer reviewed science would drive the
listing process. Economic considerations are not included in the
listing process. Upon a final decision to list a species, an interim
management period would begin, in which the listed species would
[[Page S6341]] be provided with the protection against a direct
killing or injury to the species. This is a dramatic departure from
current law. Under current law, with the final listing decision comes a
whole host of regulations restricting the use of property and ongoing
activities. Under my legislation, the Secretary is required to make a
well informed decision before designating critical habitat or other
regulations.
Once a final listing decision is made, the Secretary convenes a
planning and assessment team to review the biological, economic, and
intergovernmental impacts of the listing decision. The team would
consist of representatives of affected local communities, as nominated
by the communities, representatives from the State, as nominated by the
Governor, and the appropriate biologists, economists, and land use
specialists.
The cornerstone of the legislation is the development of the
Secretary's conservation objective for the listed species. The team
provides the Secretary with the information from which he will develop
his conservation objective for the listed species. The team provides
the Secretary with the answers to questions like this: What's the
biological significance of the species? What is the critical habitat of
the species? How many jobs would be lost if the species were afforded
the full protections of the act? What would be the impact on the local
economy? On social, and community values? In other words, the team
provides the Secretary with the information to select the conservation
objective for the species.
Under current law, the Secretary must provide for the full recovery
of a species once it is listed. No flexibility. No questions asked. My
bill changes this by providing the Secretary with a range of options.
In developing a conservation objective for the species, the Secretary
selects an objective from a range consisting of, but not limited to:
full recovery of the species, conservation of the existing population
of the species, or a prohibition against direct injury or killing of
the species. The Secretary must always provide protection for the
listed species from direct injury or killing. The selection of this
objective is solely at the Secretary's discretion. This is a
revolutionary concept. No longer will the Secretary's hands be tied to
an inflexible standard.
In selecting a conservation objective, and, if necessary, developing
a conservation plan for the listed species, the Secretary is provided
the broadest discretionary authority. The only challenge to the
Secretary's decision in the courts would be if it could be proven that
the Secretary grossly abused his authority, traditionally a very hard
challenge to meet. What does this mean? In real life terms it means
that the Secretary cannot hide behind the law he is charged with
implementing in making a decision to conserve a species. The
administration could no longer say that a plan it put together to
protect a species, although it might be bad for people, was the best
plan it could put forward under the law. Under my legislation, there
would be no more excuses. The
Secretary would be held politically accountable for his or her
decision.

After the Secretary develops a conservation objective for the
species, the Secretary is directed to look toward voluntary, non-
Federal conservation proposals that meet the objective. My legislation
recognizes that the Federal Government is not the solution to every
problem--that individuals, and State and local governments, if given
the incentive and opportunity, can effectively provide for the
conservation of a listed species.
There is, however, a degree of risk to my legislation. The Secretary
has the discretion to totally disregard all of the information--all of
the social and economic consequences of draconian recovery measures--
and mandate full recovery, for every single species, every time. And,
if the Secretary makes this decision, under the full sunshine of public
review, then so be it. But the people affected by his decision will
know that it was his decision--and his alone--to make. If the people
affected by the decision don't like it, they have a recourse. Their
recourse comes every other November in the voting booth. Under my
legislation, the Secretary and his boss, the President of the United
States, will be held politically accountable for their decision.
Throughout my legislation everyday citizens are included in the
process. Contrary to old ways of thinking, I believe that people, their
families, and local communities know best. They know how to run things
better than Washington, DC bureaucrats. To some people--especially for
the opponents of change--this is a revolutionary way of thinking. For
me, and for the people I have been fighting alongside for 7 years,
these are not revolutionary ideas. It is just the way it should be.

administration's 10 esa reform principles

Two short months ago, after years of insisting that the ESA did not
need to be reformed, the administration put forward 10 principles for
ESA reforms. When I read the reforms, I found myself nodding in
agreement with each one. ``Minimize Social and Economic Impacts of the
Act'' reads one. This Senator certainly agrees with that principle.
``Base ESA Decisions on Sound and Objective Science'' reads another. I
agree with this principle too. In fact, Senator Johnston, Senator
Shelby, and I, agreed with each and every principle put forward by the
administration and included them in our legislation. I applaud the
administration for recognizing that the act must be reformed.

people must be considered

The fundamental flaw of the current act is that it does not consider
people. In the case of the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest,
people, their jobs, and their communities were not considered at all in
the decisionmaking process. Their life's work was denigrated. Their
views were not considered. Their Federal Government did not care about
their plight.
The decisions we must make to protect endangered or threatened
species will involve choices. Sometimes these choices will be easy, and
most often they will not. But we must give the people whose lives are
directly affected by these decisions an opportunity to have their
voices heard. To know that they have a say in the decisions that will
forever change their lives.
Six years ago, I wish that the people in timber communities in my
State had the opportunity to have a say in the decisionmaking process.
To tell the Secretary on how their lives would forever be changed by
his decision. Maybe the Secretary would have ignored their views, but
at least they could say that they had given it a shot. That they had
participated in the process. That they went down swinging. But they
were not given that opportunity.
We must change the act to give people the opportunity to be heard.
I recall again, Bill Pickell's request of me last month at my timber
family hearing:

The people in this room do not want a handout. They don't
want a government program. They want to take care of their
neighbors, help their community spring back to life. They
want to work.

A simple, heartfelt plea that speaks more eloquently than I can about
the need for us to bring balance to this act. To give communities
across our Nation the ability to work, to provide for their families,
and be productive members of our society.
The debate that we will have this year will be about choices. Choices
that will impact people's lives, their families, their communities.
This Senator believes that the people who are directly affected by
these decisions should have the opportunity to be heard. That is what
my legislation seeks to accomplish, and I hope that my colleagues will
join me in this effort.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the defenders of the current wording of
the Endangered Species Act have engaged in a desperate attempt over the
past few years to claim that the act is flexible, that it takes account
of human economic and social needs and that it actually works at
recovering species. They are dead wrong on each of these points. The
ESA currently takes almost no account of human economic concerns,
provides less flexibility for private land owners than for Federal
agencies, and is an open-ended statute with no focus on the recovery of
endangered species.
Less than 20 species have ever been delisted and most of these
actions were the result of listing errors. The effort to reform this
law is about bringing flexibility, common sense and effectiveness to
the statute. Something
[[Page S6342]] that is sorely lacking under the current law. With
4,000 listed and candidate species and virtually the entire country
covered by the range of one or more endangered species, the imperative
to act to change the law has never been stronger.
As currently constructed, the bill makes many needed changes to what
is, in its design and application, a misguided and overly broad
statute. The current law provides no mandatory requirement for the
independent review of the science supporting listing decisions. This
legislation would make such a peer review mandatory, upon request of an
affected party. In addition, the bill would create a binding
conservation and recovery plan for each listed species.
Currently, recovery plans are not required for each listed species
and have no binding effect on the Secretary of Interior even when they
are promulgated. As a result, a species listing becomes an open ended
commitment with no focus on recovering and ultimately delisting a
species.
The bill also provides important flexibility and discretion to the
Secretary of the Interior in carrying out the requirements of the act.
Under this legislation, the Secretary will be given broad discretion
as to how to proceed with a species' recovery or to decide whether
recovery is at all feasible for some species. In addition, the
Secretary will be given the authority to issue regional exemptions from
the take provisions of the act for particular activities that may or
may not affect the habitat of a given species. Such an exemption
process could have dramatic effects in preventing future regional train
wrecks where entire categories of commercial activities are halted by a
species listing.
The bill also narrows the definition of harm to a species back to its
congressionally intended scope of meaning actual injury to a member of
species. The current broad interpretation of ``take'' under the act is
the single most egregious provision in the law with respect to
assaulting the property rights of individuals caught in the path of the
ESA.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I do not regard
this bill as perfect legislation, but instead as an excellent starting
point for reform.
Indeed, I would have liked for this legislation to include more
substantive protections under the act for private property owners.
Comprehensive private property rights legislation becoming law is far
from guaranteed in this Congress and I believe that this legislation
should have included a provision to compensate property owners for lost
land value as a result of the act. Eighty-five percent of the land in
Alabama is privately owned and the State is fourth in the Nation in
candidate and listed species.
These two statistics speak volumes for the concerns I have about
protecting private property rights.
In addition, I would have preferred that the legislation eliminate
the ability of the Interior Department to list population segments of
larger, healthy species. In Alabama, and across the country, a
substantial percentage of new listings and proposed listings deal with
arcane population segments like snuffbox mussels and shoal sprite
snails.
Preserving these population segments is less often about concerns for
the larger species and more likely to be a convenient way to slow or
impede commercial activity. Not surprisingly, the Fish and Wildlife
Service was prepared last year to list the Alabama Sturgeon as a
population segment after failing for years to establish it as a
distinct species.
However, we have a long way to go in this process and as part of the
team effort to reform the ESA, I will work to further strengthen this
legislation in concert with my colleagues here today.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my
colleagues, Senator Gorton and Senator Shelby, in introducing the
Endangered Species Act Reform Amendments of 1995. This is the first
step in reforming and reauthorizing a law that, although well-
intentioned, has proven to be unworkable and unnecessarily burdensome.
Our purpose is to address the very real shortcomings of the law while
maintaining our Nation's commitment to the vitality of our living
natural resources.
Mr. President, Louisiana has plenty of experience with the Endangered
Species Act. Its provisions have been applied with respect to the
Louisiana black bear, the red cockaded woodpecker, and several species
of sea turtles. My experience is that the act sometimes requires
private parties to take extraordinary and unreasonable actions, such as
the overly burdensome measures that are imposed on the shrimping
industry with respect to the sea turtle. The result is that the act has
become enormously unpopular with large groups of our citizens,
particularly in the West and Southeast, which the Act has been applied
most frequently.
Since I entered the Senate in 1972, I have witnessed the evolution of
the Endangered Species Act from a noncontroversial bill that passed the
Senate by voice vote in 1973 to our most restrictive and controversial
environmental law. I particularly remember the prolonged controversy
that arose when a creature known as a snail darter was discovered late
in the construction of the Tellico Dam in Tennessee. As some of my
colleagues may recall, that led to the Supreme Court's decision in TVA
versus Hill, which held that the Endangered Species Act is supreme to
all other Federal, State, and local law. Congress then created the so-
called ``God Committee'' to resolve conflicts between the act and other
national goals, but this mechanism has proved to be almost entirely
unworkable. Ironically, the only good news is that the snail darter has
been found in many others rivers since the battle over the Tellico Dam.
The time has come to thoroughly reexamine the act and its
implementation. The act has been due for reauthorization since 1993,
and we should delay no further. I intend to do everything I can to
enact legislation in 1995, and I believe that it is vitally important
that the debate be conducted on a solidly bipartisan basis. Although I
have no doubt that there is room for improvement in the bill, I think
it is a sound starting point for that debate.
As we begin the process of reforming this enormously complex law, we
should be guided by certain principles that I believe we all share.
Secretary Babbitt did an admirable job of articulating a set of
principles in his March 6 publication, ``Protecting America's Living
Heritage: a Fair, Cooperative, and Scientifically Sound Approach to
Improving the Endangered Species Act.''
Those 10 principles are:
First, Base ESA decisions on sound and objective science; second,
minimize social and economic impacts; third, provide quick, responsive
answers and certainty to landowners; fourth, treat landowners fairly
and with consideration; fifth, create incentives for landowners to
conserve species; sixth, make effective use of limited public and
private resources by focusing on groups of species dependent on the
same habitat; seventh, prevent species from beginning endangered or
threatened; eighth, promptly recover the delist threatened and
endangered species; ninth, promote efficiency and consistency; and
last, provide State, tribal, and local governments with opportunities
to play a greater role in carrying out the ESA.
I believe that our bill reflects these principles. However, I
understand that the devil is in the details, and am quite open to
suggested modifications that will better achieve these principles.
Although I will not attempt to summarize the entire bill, there are
several provisions that should be emphasized. First, the bill requires
that the decision to list a species be based solely on sound science,
and that the science be independently peer-reviewed. Specifically, the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as the case may
be, appoints a three-person peer review panel from among qualified
persons recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. As my
colleagues know, the promotion of sound science is a high priority of
mine, and there is no place where science is more important than in
implementing the Endangered Species Act.
Second, the bill instills political accountability by requiring the
Secretary to establish a specific conservation objective for each
listed species. Before we expend tens of millions of public and private
dollars on efforts to restore a particular species, we need a high-
ranking member of the Federal
[[Page S6343]] Government to stand up and take responsibility for
that decision. We need the official to explain to us why the species is
important. And if the species is important, we need that official to
set forth a conservation plan, based on the best reasonably obtainable
science, that will actually achieve that conservation goal. And if the
species is important, and there is a conservation plan that will
actually work, we need to know that the Secretary has formulated that
plan after considering the economic and social impacts of the plan.
Third, the bill encourages and facilitates cooperative actions
between the Federal Government and States, local governments, and the
private sector to conserve species without the need to trigger the more
restrictive provisions of the act. The most effective and efficient way
to protect species is to take cooperative measures as early as
possible, before a species declines to the point that more restrictive
and expensive steps are needed.
Finally, I want to mention a matter that we are not addressing in the
bill. At least one of the outside groups urging reform of the ESA asked
Senator Gorton and me to include a provision that would have
compensated private landowners whose property values are lowered by the
restrictions of the act. I concluded, and Senator Gorton concurred,
that this legislation is not the place to try to resolve the incredibly
complex issue of when to compensate landowners for reductions in
property value due to governmental regulations. That issue cuts across
all of our environmental laws, not just the ESA, and it should be
addressed in that larger context. Furthermore, I believe that the
reforms of the act that we are proposing in this bill, along with the
requirement that the bill be administered so as to minimize impacts on
private property, will greatly reduce the frequency and severity of the
impacts of the act on the value of private property.
I look forward to working with Senator Gorton and Senator Shelby, the
members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and other
interested Senators to revise the ESA in a way that allows us to
effectively protect our natural heritage without imposing unnecessary
burdens on our citizens. The present act is not working, and failure to
address its problems can only lead to further crisis and confrontation,
followed by calls to scrap the act altogether. The bill we are
introducing today marks the opening of the debate on how to reform the
ESA so as to save it. This bill is a work in progress, and I invite all
interested parties to contribute their efforts toward improving it as
we move through the legislative process.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this morning, the Senator from Washington
State, Senator Gorton, introduced his reauthorization of the Endangered
Species Act. I would just like to make a few comments about that act
and also the amendments that will be offered in its reauthorization.
Congress was scheduled to reauthorize it this year and, of course,
last year, and it has been a while since it has been done. I think it
is about time that this Congress take a look at the Endangered Species
Act and try to make it more workable.
Currently, there are about 60 listed or candidate species in Montana
on the Endangered Species Act. There always seems to be new species
from some group that wants it put on the list just about every week. In
a recent effort by a group based in Colorado, they want the black-
tailed prairie dog placed on the candidate list. This petition is
related to the black-footed ferret.
If you want to hear some stories about one act and how it impacts a
State or community, we can probably write an entire book about this.
But our largest industry in the State of Montana is agriculture. If you
ask Montana farmers and ranchers what law they want Congress to fix,
most will say this act, the Endangered Species Act. If you are in the
western part of the State, near the wood products industry and those
folks that work in the woods, and you ask them what law needs fixing,
they would also reply the Endangered Species Act, because half of the
economy of western Montana is based on wood products. They will tell
you a lot of stories about infringing on their ability to make a living
for their families, about the grizzly bears, the road closures, and
once again, coming back to the old Endangered Species Act.
There is no doubt that we must reform the law. It is the single most
restrictive law that Montanans and other Americans who rely on the land
to make a living must deal with. The communities in Montana lack the
economic stability and the predictability that they deserve.
When we have 38 percent total land mass in one State that belongs to
the Federal Government, it is hard to find that stability and
predictability about the policies carried out on those public lands.
The current law has many communities in Montana and throughout our
Nation living on pins and needles. Jobs have been lost because of this
act. The bottom line, of course, is the economic well-being of
communities, and our communities are suffering.
We need to change the act, that it really does protect the species
and recover species, that it does not cost millions of dollars per
species and it will protect the private property rights and also
perhaps bring some economic viability and predictability to our
communities.
This act should be amended so we can recognize species in trouble and
emphasize restoring the populations to healthy levels. Emphasis must be
placed on recovery, however.
The current law emphasizes the listing of species instead of
protecting and recovering species. In order to do this, the new act
should contain the following principles. The new act needs to be
amended so it is based on better science. We know that our science has
not been too good in the past. Peer review procedures need to be added
to improve the overall data collected so that the right decision can be
made, or at least to arrive at some decision based on proper science.
We must have these decisions made outside of politics, and instead done
by objective individuals who have a background in that science.
As I stated earlier, above all, we must concentrate our efforts on
recovery plans. I think if we want a simplified solution to it, we have
to decouple the listing process from the recovery process. If we do
that, we would focus on the least costly alternative and we would have
access to impacting the decisions made under the act, and of course
take into consideration local economics.
In addition, this would force priorities to be set and would generate
recovery plans which are reasonable. And yes, they are attainable. I
think that is very, very important. The decoupling process may be the
toughest part of this entire debate.
The best decisions are those that are made at the local level. I
believe we need increased private participation in our conservation
efforts. The fact is that local individuals are the best people to
support any kind of a conservation plan. We are finding that out now,
with the farm bill, in the 1985 farm bill, which required conservation
plans on farms and ranches in order to participate in the farm program.
We need people who live and work in the areas that are affected,
because they have a stake in what happens in their own backyard.
Washington should not forget that these people want to maintain the
quality of life that they have for their families now.
The act should encourage cooperative management agreements for non-
Federal efforts. We just talked this morning about several activities
going on in Montana that have the cooperation not only of private
landowners, but also several environmental groups and Federal land
management agencies that are cooperating now in order to provide the
best use of a natural resource on public lands, but also to protect the
environment and hang onto the economic viability of the area. Just to
mention a couple, there are Willow Creek and Fleecer up in Montana and,
of course, the Blackfoot challenge that we talked about this morning in
our office.
However, we cannot solely rely on these cooperative management
agreements. Some landowners and communities will not have the resources
to pay for some of these agreements.
It is in these instances that the Federal Government will have to
play a larger role. Local involvement is still essential to carry out
the objectives of recovering species. Any proposal
[[Page S6344]] should require local public hearings in the affected
communities.
Local communities must be given the opportunity to express their
support, comments and, yes, their areas of concern. Also, the
conservation and recovery process must recognize State and local laws.
Federal agencies should not be allowed to run roughshod over State
management agencies, State laws, or their agreements.
Without a doubt, compensation must be given individuals who lose the
use of their private property under a Federal Government conservation
plan. Our Constitution and property rights need protection on every
front. Anything short of that is selling our constitutional rights down
the river.
It is also, if one has to wonder why we take property rights so
seriously, because when we pass that property on to our children and
our offspring, it is our only thing that we can pass along to them that
ensures their freedom for generations to come.
The Endangered Species Act has a good goal. It does make everyone
aware of the world. However, since it has become law, it has been
twisted and misused for other purposes.
We need some common sense to put back in not only recovering the
species but also taking into account the human factor. After all, part
of the system, the ecosystem, is man himself. Starting from a new
viewpoint in crafting the act, which would truly reflect what we want
to do is to conserve and recover the species, has to be the focus.
It cannot let the existing law and regulations run multiple use off
of our lands. Most of our lands are under multiple use, use for the
highest economic benefit. Of course, most of the time, that is either
logging, mining, running of livestock, or grazing, but sometimes it is
also recreation. Even recreation can be in conflict with the recovery
of the Endangered Species Act.
The bill, introduced by Senators Gorton, Johnston, and Shelby, is a
good starting point. I have added my name as a cosponsor because I am
very supportive of this process moving forward. I am supportive of the
basic concepts of this reform bill.
The bill makes sure that better science is used. It provides peer
review. It also allows for more local participation incentives and non-
Federal efforts, and encourages cooperative agreements and habitat
conservation plans.
This bill places the emphasis on recognizing the species that are in
trouble, coming up with a plan to protect them, and most importantly,
recovering the species.
We have a great job ahead of Members. It takes a great deal of
cooperation between private landowners, Government agencies, and State
and local communities in order to get it done. However, I am a
supporter of the bill.
I have some reservations about it. The current act is complicated. I
would like to see it reformed, simplified, and made easier for
landowners and people who use the public lands to be in compliance with
the law.
Basically, the law needs to be streamlined. I also strongly believe
in private property compensation if the need arises. The bill ensures
that people are not denied reasonable use of their property. However,
there is no compensation provision. The consultation provision needs to
be strengthened. There are just too many instances where other Federal
agencies cannot use plain old common sense because the Interior or
Commerce Departments will not let them, based on this and other areas
of the law which I think we need to take a closer look at.
I am glad that we have finally started moving the process forward. I
am thankful for the work that has been done by the sponsors of this
legislation.
In addition, I have made a request to Senator Kempthorne that a
hearing on this issue be held in the State of Montana. I do not know
whether there is a State in the Union that is impacted more by this
action than the State of Montana. After all, we have been dealing with
the grizzly bear a long, long time.
By the way, the recovery has been very successful. In fact,
biologically, the animal now can be delisted and taken off the list of
those endangered.
I hope this summer Senator Kempthorne's Subcommittee on Clean Water,
Fisheries and Wildlife will be able to come to my home State of Montana
and hear the testimony from us folks who live in Montana.
Reforming the Endangered Species Act is essential. It is essential to
our economy. Our four largest industries, agriculture, timber, mining,
and oil and gas, rely on the use of those lands. It is these industries
which supply the jobs and the tax base for the State of Montana.
Changing the laws on conserving and recovering endangered species is
important for jobs for Montana. It is important for sound land
management activities. It is time we took a look at this area. I want
to reiterate on how, possibly, we can make the act work. There has to
be a different process of listing a species and then the process of how
to recover the species.
Right now the law is pretty hard and tough. Once a species is listed
as threatened or endangered, the law kicks in and kicks out all
conversation or any flexibility, in order to recover the species
without large impacts where the species is to be recovered.
I applaud my colleagues for their work on this bill. I am a cosponsor
of it. It is a bill that needs reforming and the time has come.
I urge all my colleagues in the Senate to get involved in this debate
and let us reform the Endangered Species Act so it will work for this
country and the species we are trying to recover.
______

By Mr. KOHL:
S. 769. A bill to amend title 11 of the United States Code to limit
the value of certain real and personal property that the debtor may
elect to exempt under State or local law, and for other purposes.

bankruptcy abuse reform act

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation--the
Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act of 1995--to address a problem that
threatens Americans' confidence in our Bankruptcy Code. The measure
would cap at $100,000 the State homestead exemption that an individual
filing for personal bankruptcy can claim. Let me tell you why this
legislation is critically needed.
In chapter 7 Federal personal bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is
allowed to exempt certain possessions and interests from being used to
satisfy his outstanding debts. One of the chief things that a debtor
seeks to protect is his home, and I agree with that in principle. Few
question that debtors should be able to keep roofs over their heads.
But in practice this homestead exemption has become a source of abuse.
Under section 522 of the code, a debtor may opt to exempt his home
according to local, State or Federal bankruptcy provisions. The Federal
exemption allows the debtor to shield up to $15,000 of value in his
house. The State exemptions vary tremendously: some States do not allow
the debtor to exempt any of his home's value, while a few States allow
an unlimited exemption. The vast majority of States have exemptions of
under $40,000.
My amendment to section 522 would cap State exemptions so that no
debtor could ever exempt more than $100,000 of the value of his home.
Mr. President, in the last few years, the ability of debtors to use
State homestead exemptions has led to flagrant abuses of the Bankruptcy
Code. Multimillionaire debtors have moved to one of the 8 States that
have unlimited exemptions--most often Florida or Texas--bought multi-
million-dollar houses, and continued to live like kings even after
declaring bankruptcy. This shameless manipulation of the Bankruptcy
Code cheats creditors out of compensation and rewards only those whose
lawyers can game the system. Oftentimes, the creditor who is robbed is
the American taxpayer. In recent years, S&L swindlers, insider trading
convicts, and other shady characters have managed to protect their ill-
gotten gains through this loophole.
One infamous S&L banker with more than $4 billion in claims against
him bought a multi-million-dollar horse ranch in Florida. Another man
who pled guilty to insider trading abuses lives in a 7,000-square-foot
beachfront home worth $3.25 million, all tucked away from the $2.75
billion in suits against him. These deadbeats get wealthier while
legitimate creditors--including the U.S. Government--get the short end
of the stick.

[[Page S6345]]

Simply put, the current practice is grossly unfair and contravenes
the intent of our laws: People are supposed to get a fresh start, not a
head start, under the Bankruptcy Code.
In addition, these unlimited homestead exemptions have made it
increasingly difficult for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
and the Resolution Trust Corporation to go after S&L crooks. With the
S&L crisis costing us billions of dollars and with a deficit that
remains out of control, we owe it to the taxpayers to make it as hard
as possible for those responsible to profit from their wrongs.
Mr. President, the legislation I have introduced today is simple,
effective, and straightforward. It caps the homestead exemption at
$100,000, which is close to the average price of an American house. And
it will protect middle class Americans while preventing the abuses that
are making the American middle class question the integrity of our
laws.
Indeed, it is even generous to debtors. Other than the eight States
that have no limit to the homestead exemption, no State has a homestead
exemption exceeding $100,000. In fact, 38 States have exemptions of
$40,000 or less. My own home State of Wisconsin has a $40,000 exemption
and that, in my opinion, is more than sufficient.
Mr. President, this proposal is an effort to make our bankruptcy laws
more equitable. We owe it to the average American to ensure that the
Bankruptcy Code is more than just a beachball for millionaires who want
to protect their assets. I urge my colleagues to support this important
measure, and I ask that a copy of the legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 769

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 ``Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act
of 1995''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

Section 522 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)(A) by inserting ``subject to
subsection (n),'' after ``(2)(A)'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(n) As a result of electing under subsection (b)(2)(A) to
exempt property under State or local law, the debtor may not
exempt an aggregate interest of more than $100,000 in value
in real or personal property that the debtor or a dependent
of the debtor uses as a residence, in a cooperative that owns
property that the debtor or a dependent of the debtor uses as
a residence, or in a burial plot for the debtor or a
dependent of the debtor.''.
______

By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Inouye, Mr. D'Amato, Mr.
Helms, Mr. Brown, Mr. Mack, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr.
Thurmond, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Faircloth, and Mr.
Bradley):
S. 770. A bill to provide for the relocation of the United States
Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and for other purposes; ordered held at
the desk.

Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along
with the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, the Senator from Hawaii,
Senator Inouye, the Senator from New York, Senator D'Amato, and others,
to move the United States Embassy in Israel to the capital of
Jerusalem. I am pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues, and
I ask unanimous consent at this time that when I send the bill to the
desk, it be held at the desk until noon tomorrow for additional
cosponsors.
Mr. President, I know the interest in this legislation is
considerable, and that is why I have asked it be held at the desk.
The issue of Jerusalem has many elements--emotional, religious,
cultural, spiritual, historical, and political. Jerusalem may be the
most remarkable city in the world. Three of the world's great religions
have roots in Jerusalem. No other city has been the capital of the same
country, inhabited by the same people speaking the same language
worshipping the same God today as it was 3,000 years ago. And yet the
United States does not maintain its Embassy in Jerusalem.
This issue of where to place the American Embassy in Israel has a
long history in the United States Congress. Successive Congresses and
successive administrations have been on opposite sides.
At the outset, I want to commend the leadership of some of my
colleagues on this issue, in particular Senator Moynihan and
Senator D'Amato. They have led congressional efforts to relocate the
U.S. Embassy for many years.

Years ago, I was one of those who expressed concerns about the timing
of proposals to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I
felt that doing so could have undermined our efforts and ability to act
as a peacemaker. However, much has changed since those earlier efforts.
The Soviet Union is gone. We successfully waged war--with Arab allies--
to liberate Kuwait. Jordan and the PLO have joined Egypt in beginning a
formal peace process with Israel. The peace process has made great
strides and our commitment to that process is unchallengeable. Delaying
the process of moving the Embassy now only sends a signal of false
hopes.
I was proud to join with 92 of my colleagues--Republican and
Democratic--in signing the D'Amato-Moynihan letter last March urging
the administration to move our Embassy no later than May 1999. As the
letter pointed out to Secretary Christopher, the United States enjoys
diplomatic relations with 184 countries--but Israel is the only country
in which our Embassy is not located in the functioning capital.
Yesterday, I met with Prime Minister Rabin, and we discussed this
legislation. As Prime Minister Rabin said after our meeting, the people
of Israel ``would welcome recognition of the fact that Jerusalem is the
capital'' of Israel, and ``we will welcome embassies that will come.''

The time has come to move beyond letters, expressions of support and
sense of the Congress resolutions. The time has come to enact
legislation that will get the job done--to move the United States
Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem by May 1999. The Jerusalem Embassy
Relocation Act of 1995 is that legislation.
This is not a partisan effort, and this is not an effort to undermine
the peace process. Democrats have historically supported efforts to
move the Embassy. In fact, as the Democratic leader Tom Daschle pointed
out in a speech last night, support for moving the Embassy to Jerusalem
has been in the Democratic Party's platform since 1968. It has been in
the Republican platform for many years as well.
Placing the American Embassy in Jerusalem is an idea whose time has
come. Construction will take time, but we should begin soon. The fact
is that Jerusalem has been and should remain the undivided capital of
Israel. Let me close by quoting from a speech I gave 18 years ago in
Jerusalem:

In the search for a solution to the dilemma which Israel's
first President called ``a conflict of right with right,''
whatever else may be negotiable, the capital of Israel
clearly is not.
Let me also thank my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, who has
actually been in the forefront of this legislation, who had the initial
idea. We have been working with him and now put together, I believe,
legislation that can be sponsored or cosponsored by nearly all of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We certainly welcome cosponsors.
The legislation will be held at the desk under the previous consent
agreement until noon tomorrow. So anybody wishing to cosponsor the
legislation just notify the clerk.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 770, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995

Provides that construction begin on a new United States
Embassy in Jerusalem in 1996, and the new Embassy open by May
31, 1999.
Section 1 states the short title of the legislation is the
Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995.
Section 2 states Congressional findings on the history and
status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Section 3 establishes a timetable for the relocation of the
United States Embassy including groundbreaking by December
31, 1996, and official opening no later than May 31, 1999.
Section 3(b) withholds 50% (approximately $200-250 million)
of fiscal year 1997
[[Page S6346]] State Department foreign construction funds
until the Secretary of State determines and reports to
Congress that construction has begun. Section 3(c) withholds
50% of fiscal year 1999 foreign construction funds until the
Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that
the embassy has opened.
Section 4 earmarks $5 million of already appropriated
fiscal year 1995 funds for immediate costs associated with
relocating the Embassy.
Section 5 authorizes $25 million for fiscal year 1996 and
$75 million for fiscal year 1997. Estimates are based on new
embassy construction in a high-threat area.
Section 6 requires a report within 30 days by the Secretary
of State detailing the Department's plan to implement the
Act, including estimated dates of completion and costs.
Section 7 requires semiannual reports to Congress on
implementation of the Act.
Section 8 defines ``United States Embassy'' to include both
the offices of the diplomatic mission and the residence of
the chief of mission.
moving the u.s. embassy to jerusalem

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as a member of the committee to commemorate--
in 1996--the 3,000th anniversary of Jerusalem as the capital of the
Jewish people, I am pleased to join Senator Dole and introduce the
Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995, to begin
immediate construction on a United States Embassy in Jerusalem.
It is historic and important that the majority leader and the Speaker
of the House are the primary sponsors of this legislation in the Senate
and House.
For three millennia--since King David established Jerusalem as the
capital of the Jewish people--Jerusalem has been the center of Jewish
liturgy. Twice a year, for the last 2,000 years, Jews from around the
world have offered a simple prayer: ``Next Year in Jerusalem.''
And throughout the Jewish people's long exile from the land of
Israel, through the Holocaust, pogroms, and countless expulsions the
``City Upon a Hill'' served as the focal point of their aspiration to
rebuild Israel.
In addition to Israel's undisputable historical and biblical claim to
Jerusalem, upon regaining control over East Jerusalem in 1967, Israel
has restored the holy city as a place open to all for worship.
Memories may be short, but it is important to remember that while
Jordan occupied East Jerusalem--1948-1967--Jews were expelled and many
Christians, feeling persecuted, emigrated. During this period, proper
respect was not given to the spiritual importance of the city. A
highway was even built on ancient burial grounds and religious sites
desecrated.
Yet, successive United States administrations since 1948--for fear of
interfering with the ability of the United States to serve as an honest
broker for Arab and Israeli claims--have refused to recognize Israeli
sovereignty over Jerusalem, and have refused to locate the United
States Embassy in the capital of Israel. While there is superficial
logic to that concern, I believe it bases United States policy on a
disingenuous position--that if Arab leaders hold out long enough, the
United States might abandon our ally and force it to do the one thing
Israel has made clear it will never do--abandon its claim to Jerusalem
as its eternal and undivided capital.
The fact is, the United States will not do that. Better that all
parties understand that at the outset, rather than learning it at the
unsuccessful conclusions of negotiations.
United States Middle East diplomacy should be based on honesty and on
the power and loyalty to our friends and our principles. Moving the
Embassy to Jerusalem should aid in any peace between Israel and her
neighbors by sending a clear, unambiguous message that the status of
Jerusalem is not and never will be negotiable.
Israel cannot under any circumstances negotiate this issue any more
than Americans would negotiate over Washington being our Capital.
Moving the United States Embassy to Jerusalem does no injustice to
the Arab people, nor is it intended, in any way, to be disrespectful to
them. During the hundreds of years in which Jerusalem was under Arab or
Moslem rule, Jerusalem never served as a capital city for the rulers.
And while East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control, Jordan's capital
remained in Amman and was never moved to Jerusalem. Islam's holiest
text, the Koran, does not mention Jerusalem a single time.
Even Moslems who pray at the Al-Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem face Mecca
when they pray. No one can dispute, however, the historical and
spiritual vitality of Jerusalem to Israel.
It is time for the United States to locate its embassy in the capital
city of Israel, as is the case for every other country that the United
States recognizes, whether it be ally or enemy.
Those who have expressed support for United States recognition of
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel now have a way to convert words to
action, by supporting the Dole-Kyl-Inouye resolution, so that
construction of the United States Embassy in Jerusalem will commence in
time for the city's 3,000 year anniversary as the capital of the people
of Israel. ``Next Year in Jerusalem.''
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join the distinguished
majority leader, Senator Dole, as an original cosponsor of the
Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995.
It is outrageous that the United States has diplomatic relations with
184 countries throughout the world and in every one, but Israel, our
Embassy is in the functioning capital. In Israel, our Embassy is in Tel
Aviv. I see no reason why this should be the case. It is wrong and it
must end now. Jerusalem should not be thrown around like a bone to
Yasir Arafat.
Israel has endured much throughout her history and for her to have to
suffer the indignity of her main ally refusing to place its Embassy in
her functioning capital is an insult. With the exception of the Sinai
given back under the treaty with Egypt, she has had to fight again and
again for the same pieces of land. Jerusalem, however, is a different
case. Jerusalem, the holy city and ancient capital of Israel, must
never again become divided.
It was for this reason that Senator Moynihan, myself, and 91 other
Members of the Senate sent a joint letter to the Secretary of State
urging him to begin planning now for the relocation of the Embassy to
Jerusalem by no later than May 1999. This letter was sent in March of
this year. To date, there has been no reply. This is unfortunate.
The matter is simple. Jerusalem is and will remain the permanent and
undivided capital of a sovereign Israel. I'm not going to let the State
Department bureaucrats forget that.
I call on the President to recognize this and to begin the process
toward moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. It is shameful that the
United States continues to bend to pressure to place the American
Embassy in Tel Aviv and not in Jerusalem.
Mr. President, while I understand that the present negotiations are
delicate, I do not want this administration to be under the impression
that Jerusalem is some prize to be claimed by the Palestinians or
anyone else. Let the message be clear: A united Jerusalem is off limits
for negotiation. Jerusalem belongs to Israel and our Embassy belongs in
Jerusalem.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and I urge its
swift passage so that our Embassy in Israel can finally be rightfully
located in Jerusalem.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks appear in the
Record along with those of Senator Dole and the other cosponsors of
this legislation.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader, Mr.
Dole, is right on target with his legislation to move the United States
Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Action by Congress is long overdue,
and I'm delighted to be a principal cosponsor of Senator Dole's
legislation.
There has been some murmuring during the past few days by those who
oppose moving the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Their contention is that this is a sensitive time in the peace process.
Fair enough, but I need to be informed as to when no sensitive time in
the peace process exists.
I remember well a time in 1988 when I offered legislation to move the
United States Embassy to Jerusalem. After extensive negotiations with
the Department of State--that also was a sensitive time in the peace
process--we ended with what I understood to be an agreement to acquire
land for an Embassy in Jerusalem. I am sorry to hear that my efforts of
1988 are being used
[[Page S6347]] today as an argument against passage of the
legislation before us today.
Mr. President, the mere acquisition of land in Jerusalem is not
enough. My purpose then, as now, was to get the United States Embassy
to Jerusalem, not to begin real estate negotiations.
The point, Mr. President, is this: There is only one nation in this
world where the United States mission is not in the capital city, and
that is Israel.
Jerusalem, the Holy City, was divided by barbed wire for almost two
decades. Worshippers were denied access to the Holy places under
Jordanian rule in East Jerusalem. In the 28 years during which Israel
has presided over a united city of Jerusalem, the rights of Christians,
Jews and Moslems have been fully respected.
Time and again, the Senate has voted overwhelmingly in favor of
recognizing United Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.
I commend Senator Dole for his leadership in this and other matters.
______

By Mr. PRYOR:
S. 771. A bill to provide that certain Federal property shall be made
available to States for State use before being made available to other
entities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.

surplus property legislation

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter that
receives far too little attention here in Washington, but is of vital
importance to all of our States. I am speaking about the surplus
property donated by the Federal Government to various entities.
As my colleagues know, once a Federal agency has decided that a desk
or a computer or some other item of personal property has been declared
``excess'' to that agency, that piece of property is then offered to
other Federal agencies for their use. If no other Federal agency has a
need for that property, then the surplus property can be donated to the
States or other entities for their use. In 1992, 603 million dollars
worth of surplus property was sent to the States.
Mr. President, the surplus property that goes to our States is very
important to local jurisdictions throughout the country. For example,
the State of Arkansas has received high quality equipment that enables
local jurisdictions to fight forest fires, carry out rescue operations,
and repair State and county highways. In each and every State, this
surplus property, from trucks to air compressors, provides critical
equipment to help jurisdictions to carry out their programs.
Furthermore, the local jurisdictions receive this equipment at a vastly
reduced rate which provides some much-needed financial relief to their
budgets.
However, as a result of years of legislation amending the property
disposal program, States are being denied some useful and desirable
surplus property. While these legislative initiatives were well-
intended, they changed the priorities and placed other entities at the
front of the line, limiting the property available to States.
For example, in 1986, the Defense authorization bill contained a
provision that permitted the Pentagon to make some of its excess
supplies available for humanitarian relief. Originally, this program
was designed to assist the refugee and resistance groups in
Afghanistan. While this program had a very modest beginning, and
involved only 4 million dollars worth of property the first year, which
was mainly clothing, this program has grown rapidly. Some 25,802 items,
worth $227 million, were shipped in 1993. Today, our States are
concerned that they are losing opportunities to bid on Federal surplus
property. While none of our States object to shipping surplus blankets
and food items to needy people, this program has expanded and now
includes heavy construction equipment as well. These road graders,
front loaders, and pick-up trucks were bought and paid for by U.S.
taxpayers, but our States did not even get to look at them. This is the
type of surplus property that the States would very much like to
receive.
Mr. President, I share the concern of our States about this program.
While I am glad that our Nation can assist refugees around the world
with blankets and surplus food, I think the time has come to examine
this donation program. A program that began by shipping clothes to one
or two countries now involves hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
items going to 117 countries. We already have a number of foreign-aid
programs and I do not think we should operate yet another one out of
the Pentagon.
Furthermore, Mr. President, I have heard of sketchy reports that
quite often this excess equipment is not being used by the recipient
country. There are basically two ways that this well-intended program
may be abused. First of all, this equipment can be sold immediately by
the recipient nation. Instead of being put to good use, this valuable
equipment can be sold and the money spent on anything the recipient
nation wants. Second, there have been reports that some of this heavy
construction equipment is sitting idle due to the lack of skilled
mechanics and the resources to repair it. I have been disappointed to
discover that despite these reports, there has been no comprehensive
review of the final end-use of this equipment. Today I am writing to
the Inspector General at the Pentagon to ask her to fully investigate
this program to determine if these reports are factual.
Another provision of my legislation addresses another program that
has caused concern in many of our States. In 1990, the Congress passed
a provision that permitted DOD to make available to certain African
countries property for use in the preservation of wildlife. While
everyone wants to help preserve elephants, the States have a legitimate
question as to why does
this program receive a higher priority than the interests of U.S.
taxpayers? The simple solution is to put the States first. My
legislation would allow the States to take a first look at this surplus
property to see if they can use any of it. Then, and only then, it
could be shipped to help preserve African wildlife.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today returns to the
basic principal of the fair and equitable distribution of surplus
Government personal property. While there are many worthy entities
interested in this property, I think it is time to again put our States
first in line.
My bill puts States at the head of the list before the Humanitarian
Assistance program at the Department of Defense and the Foreign
environmental protection program; ensures the State agencies for
surplus property are part of the process in the Small Business donation
program; repeals the authority for the Department of Energy to dispose
of personal property outside of the regular process involving the State
agencies; allows DOD to continue to donate surplus small arms and
ammunition to local law enforcement agencies while excluding surplus
motor vehicles from the program; and requires the General Services
Administration to review the entire range of surplus personal property
programs to determine how effective these programs are, the amount of
property donated through these programs, and to suggest any legislative
recommendations to improve the process and ensure the States
participation in this process. GSA, in the course of its review, will
not be able to limit the access of local communities impacted by the
closure of a military base.
Mr. President, I think it is time to put our States first in line
when it comes to receiving surplus property. My bill does just that and
I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the
bill and a summary be printed in the Record. I also have a letter from
Mr. Gerald Marlin, manager of Federal surplus property in Arkansas that
I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 771

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

SECTION 1. PRIORITY TO STATES FOR THE TRANSFER OF NONLETHAL
EXCESS SUPPLIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

Section 2547 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking out ``The Secretary of
Defense'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Subject to
subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection (d):
[[Page S6348]] ``(d) Nonlethal excess supplies of the
Department of Defense shall be made available to a State, a
local government of a State, a Territory, or a possession,
upon the request of the State, local government, Territory,
or possession pursuant to authority provided in another
provision of law, before such supplies are made available for
humanitarian relief purposes under this section. The
President may make such supplies available for humanitarian
purposes before such supplies are made available to a State,
local government, Territory, or possession under this
subsection in order to respond to an emergency for which such
supplies are especially suited.''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITIES OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE REGARDING
DISPOSAL OF EXCESS AND SURPLUS PROPERTY.

(a) Support of Counter Drug Activities.--Section 1208(a)(1)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189; 10 U.S.C. 372 note) is
amended by inserting ``and excluding motor vehicles'' after
``small arms and ammunition''.
(b) Support for Regional Equipment Centers.--
(1) Newport township center.--Section 210 of Public Law
101-302 (104 Stat. 220) is repealed.
(2) Cambria county center.--Section 9148 of Public Law 102-
396 (106 Stat. 1941) is repealed.

SEC. 3. TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

Section 608(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2357(d)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;
(2) by striking ``(d) The'' and inserting ``(d)(1) Except
as provided in paragraph (2), the''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) No property may be transferred under paragraph (1)
unless the Administrator of General Services determines that
there is no Federal or State use requirements for the
property under any other provision of law.''.

SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO SMALL BUSINESS ACT.

Section 7(j)(13)(F) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(j)(13)(F)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``This subparagraph shall be carried out under the
supervision of the Administrator of General Services in
consultation with State agencies responsible for the
distribution of surplus property.''.

SEC. 5. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCIENCE EDUCATION ENHANCEMENT
ACT AMENDMENT.

Section 3166(b) of the Department of Energy Science
Education Enhancement Act (42 U.S.C. 7381e(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as
paragraphs (2) through (5), respectively.

SEC. 6. STEVENSON-WYDLER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 1980
AMENDMENT.

(a) Repeal.--Section 11(i) of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710(i)) is
repealed.
(b) Delegation of Authority to Directors of Federal
Laboratories.--Section 203(j) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484(j)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Under such regulations as the Administrator may
prescribe, the Administrator may delegate to the director of
any Federal laboratory (as defined in section 12(d)(2) of the
Stevension-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15
U.S.C. 3710a(d)(2)) the authority of the Administrator under
this subsection with respect to the transfer and disposal of
scientific and technical surplus property under the
management or control of that Federal laboratory, if the
director of the Federal laboratory certifies that the
equipment is needed by an educational institution or
nonprofit organization for the conduct of scientific and
technical education and research.''.

SEC. 7. REPORT ON DISPOSAL AND DONATION OF SURPLUS PERSONAL
PROPERTY.

No later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of General Services shall review
all statutes relating to the disposal and donation of surplus
personal property and submit to the Congress a report on such
statutes including--
(1) the effectiveness of programs administered under such
statutes (except for any program that grants access to
personal property by local communities impacted by the
closure of a military base), and the amount and type of
property administered under each such program during fiscal
years 1993 and 1994; and
(2) legislative recommendations to integrate and
consolidate all such programs to be administered by a single
Federal authority working with State agencies while
accomplishing the purposes of such programs.
____

Bill Summary

Purpose: To ensure that certain surplus Federal personal
property is available to States for their use before being
made available to other organizations.
Background: In 1977 Congress approved legislation
permitting Federal personal property no longer needed by an
agency to be offered to other Federal agencies and afterward
to State and local governments through designated state
agencies for surplus property within each state (Public Law
94-519). The regulations require that the General Services
Administration administer the disposition of this personal
property to ensure its fair and equitable distribution.
This program was a good example of Federal-State
cooperation. However, beginning in 1986 Congress has enacted
legislation that placed a variety of interests higher on the
priority list to receive surplus property. The National
Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property (NASASP)
has compiled a partial listing of these legislative
provisions:
1986--Humanitarian Assistance Program. (Section 2547), 10
USC) Program gives foreign countries excess DOD property
before it is available to the States.
1987--Southern Regional Amendment. Congress authorized DOD
to make equipment available to base rights countries prior to
its being available to other Federal agencies or states.
1989--Small Business Administration. Congress authorized
SBA to make Federal surplus property available to 8A
contractors before the states.
1990--Wildlife Preservation in Africa. Congress authorized
DOD to make available to certain African countries excess
property for use in the preservation of wildlife, prior to
its becoming available to other Federal agencies or states.
1990--Law Enforcement Assistance. Authorized DOD to make
property available directly to state law enforcement agencies
to combat drugs prior to its becoming available to other
Federal agencies or states.
The total effect of these, and other provisions, has been
to erode the idea that one agency within each state would
work with the Federal government and with localities to
ensure ``fair and equitable distribution,'' While these
programs are worthwhile, taken as a whole, they fragment our
surplus property disposal system.
Summary of bill: The bill has seven sections:
Section 1--Places States before foreign countries. The
humanitarian assistance program (HAP) began as an effort to
get food and blankets to the Afghanistan refugees. It has
grown to include the shipping of construction equipment and
motor vehicles. The dollar value of the property shipped in
1994 was $136 million. Of particular interest to the States
is construction equipment that is being sent overseas. The
bill would leave HAP intact, but would allow states to review
the DOD inventory and bid on any item for which they have a
need. The truly humanitarian portion of the property (i.e.
food rations, blankets) would continue without disruption.
Section 2--Excludes motor vehicles from the DOD program to
aid law enforcement. The states are concerned that the larger
local jurisdictions are receiving trucks and other vehicles
before other jurisdictions have a chance to bid for them. DOD
would still be able to provide surplus ammunition and
firearms directly to local police departments, however, motor
vehicles would be distributed through the state property
agencies. This section also repeals the provisions creating
the special equipment depots that receive the surplus before
the States bid on it.
Section 3--Amends the Wildlife preservation program so that
property may not be transferred unless there is a
determination that there is no Federal or State use for the
property. The Administrator of the General Services
Administration shall make this determination.
Section 4--Amends the Small Business program to ensure
distribution of property through the State agencies. The
property would still be designated for and allocated to small
businesses, but it would be coordinated through the existing
state agency for surplus property. This has been an
underutilized program and this section should increase the
amount of property going to small businesses.
Section 5--Eliminates the Department of Energy's Science
education program. The program is designed to give DOE the
authority to give its excess property directly to schools.
However, this allows certain jurisdictions to benefit to the
detriment of others. By eliminating this special program this
property will be distributed through the state agencies and
give each and every school system an opportunity to receive
this equipment.
Section 6--Modifies the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
program. Instead of equipment going directly from the Federal
laboratories to educational institutions without any
direction from the General Services Administration, this
provision requires that the laboratory certify to GSA that
the particular equipment is needed for scientific and
educational research. This will bring this program into the
overall surplus property program and alleviate concern that
some of the scientific equipment has been sold when an
institution receives it.
Section 7--Requires a report on disposal and donation of
surplus personal property. While the other sections of this
bill will begin the process of returning our property
disposal system to its original focus of fair and equitable
distribution nationwide, there are still other issues and
special exemptions to review. The GSA is able to study this
matter and report to Congress on the volume of property going
out under other authorities and whether legislative changes
should be considered to alleviate any concern of unfair
treatment of various entities.
[[Page S6349]] The bill will not allow GSA to recommend
any change to the base closure authority. Congress has only
recently begun this program which gives local jurisdictions
access to the personal property on the military base that is
being closed. This exemption is widely supported and can be
justified due to the adverse economic impact on the local
jurisdiction of the closing of the base.
____

Arkansas Department of Education,

North Little Rock, AR, March 14, 1995.
Hon. David Pryor,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Pryor: I want to thank you for the support of
Federal Surplus Property Donation Program. This program has
been a great help to the state for the many years it has been
operating.
I am sure that our Donees that serve all segments of our
state are pleased with your support. Many of our small school
districts, counties, cities, and rural fire departments tell
us they would not be able to provide needed services without
help from this donation program.
I received, from our National Association of State Agencies
for Surplus Property, a draft of your Bill to provide that
Federal Surplus Property be made available to states before
being made available to other entities. The Chairman of our
Legislative Committee tells me our association is working
with your staff on this and is thankful for the opportunity.
In fiscal year 1994, there were 17,184 line items valued at
$136,752,392.00 transferred to the Humanitarian Assistance
Program. The State of Arkansas receives approximately
$7,500,000.00 per year, and this is property that the
Humanitarian Assistance Program has rejected.
We really appreciate your work as our Senator!
Sincerely,
Gerald D. Marlin,
Manager, Federal Surplus Property.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 772. A bill to provide for an assessment of the violence broadcast
on television, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.

television violence report card act

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Hutchison and I
are introducing legislation that will help empower parents and all
consumers to take the responsibility to address the problem of
television violence. Our legislation, the Television Violence Report
Card Act of 1995 would authorize grants to private, not-for-profit
entities to conduct quarterly assessments of violence on television.
This legislation is similar to a bill I introduced in the last
Congress, but it has some significant differences. The primary
difference is that this bill would not involve any direct governmental
assessment of the content of television. Under this legislation, the
governmental role would be limited to identifying credible and
qualified research entities which will be awarded a nominal amount of
funding to ensure that regular assessments of the violent content of
television programming is conducted and that the public has access to
this information.
Ninety-eight percent of all American households have a least one
television set. More Americans have televisions than have telephones or
indoor plumbing. The average American watches over 4 hours of TV each
day and the average household watches over 7 hours a day. Children
between the ages of 2 and 11 watch television an average of 28 hours
per week.
Television is, beyond a doubt, the most influential cultural and
social teacher of American children. Consider the fact that the average
American teenager spends less than 2 hours per week reading, only 5\1/
2\ hours doing homework and 21 hours per week watching television.
The problem is that children and adults are getting a steady diet of
violence through television. According to a 1992 University of
Pennsylvania study, a record 32 violent acts per hour were recorded
during children's shows and several other studies have found that
television violence increased during the 1980's during prime-time and
children's television hours. The American Academy of Pediatrics
estimates that violence on television tripled in the 1980's and the
National Coalition on Television Violence found that 25 percent of
prime-time television shows contain ``very violent'' material. The
average child watches 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on
television before finishing elementary school.
Television enables the television industry to bypass parents, slip
past the front door of the home, and enter the family living room where
they can speak directly to children. For better or worse, TV is one of
the most powerful instruments of social and behavioral instruction in
the life of a child.
Television, unfortunately, uses its potency and influence to portray
violence as sexy and glamorous, not to mention Hollywood's obsession
with the more violence, the better. To the networks, violence is a
quick tool to better ratings. To our children, violence becomes the way
of life that is taught over the airways and into the fabric of our
culture.
The fact is that television is more than just entertainment, it is a
potent force that shapes everyday life in American culture and society.
The question is: What kind of a force is it. Newton Minow, former FCC
Chairman under the Kennedy administration, referred to television as a
``vast wasteland * * * of blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism,
murder.'' He also said: ``In 1961, I worried that my children would not
benefit much from television, but in 1991 I worry that my children will
actually be harmed by it.'' And according to a March 3, 1993 poll by
Times Mirror, three-fourths of the public find TV too violent and even
a higher percentage of TV station managers agree (Electronic Media
poll, Aug. 2, 1993). Even children believe television is a bad
influence. According to a ``Children Now'' survey released in February,
most children say what they see on television encourages them to engage
in aggressive behavior, to take part in sexual activity too soon, to
lie, and to show disrespect for their parents.
Children that are continually exposed to television violence do not
perceive their own aggressive behavior as deviant or unusual, they see
it as the way life is and that's how one goes about solving problems.
Aggressive behavior is learned.

the problem of tv violence:

Public concern about TV violence is not a new issue, Congress has
been down this road before. Congressional hearings were held 40 years
ago, at the beginning of the television age, on the impact that
television and radio was having on children and youth. In the sixties
and seventies, Congress held more hearings.
Each time, the pattern has been the same. The public expresses
outrage and concern over the bloodshed that a handful of media magnates
pour into the Nation's living rooms. The industry either denies the
problem, or offers earnest promises of reform, but no results. The
Nation's attention shifts to other problems, as it always does.
Television is a habit. One student of the industry called it a
``plug-in drug,'' especially where children are concerned. Violence on
TV is an addiction too--children become addicted to watching.
Television violence viewing leads to heightened aggressiveness, which
in turn leads to more television violence viewing. As with any
addiction, it takes constantly bigger doses to achieve the same effect.
According to ``Prime Time: How TV Portrays American Culture,'' by
Lichter et al., a review of 1 month of prime-time fictional series
episodes found over 1,000 scenes involving violence. One out of five
violent scenes involved gunplay, and nearly half included some kind of
serious personal assault. The review also showed that weekly fictional
series averaged between three and four scenes of violence per episode.
In addition, Lichter's study found that violent crime is far more
pervasive on television than in real life. A comparison between real
life crime statistics (FBI's ``Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the
United States'') and television's crime levels shows that:
Since 1955 television characters have been murdered at a rate 1,000
times higher than real world victims. In the 1950's, there were 7
murders for every 100 characters seen on TV--this was over 1,400 times
higher than the actual murder rate for the United States during the
same period.
Violent crimes not involving murder accounted for 1 crime in 8 on TV
during the decade 1955 to 1964, which occurred at a rate of 40 for
every 1,000 characters. At that same time, the real world rate for
crimes involving murder was only 2 in every 1,000 inhabitants.
[[Page S6350]] During the decade covering 1965 to 1975 crime rose
both on TV and the real world, but TV crime rate remained more than
five times that of the real world, at 140 crimes per 1,000 characters.
While the FBI-calculated rate for violent crime also doubled to 3
incidents per 1,000 inhabitants, the TV rate for violent crimes was
over 30 times greater than reality at a rate of 114 incidents per 1,000
characters.
Although television crime and real life crime have moved closer
together in the past 20 years, FBI statistics showed that serious crime
was about half the rate in real life than on television. Violent crime
rates were only one-eighth the rate seen on television.
TV crime not only presents a higher rate of violent crime than the
real world, it portrays a different type of crime. On TV, violent crime
is more often calculated and felony in nature, whereas in real life,
most--40 percent--of the murders committed are committed out of passion
or the result of an argument.
Guns are more pervasive on TV. In the real world, about one-fourth of
all violent crimes, and a majority of murders, involve guns. Almost all
of television's violent crimes involve some type of gun.
Television is not only more crime-ridden than real life, it also
highlights the most violent serious crimes. A majority of crimes
portrayed on TV involve violence and 23 percent are murders.
There is no disputing the link between television content and human
behavior. Twenty-six people died from self-inflicted gunshot wounds to
the head after watching the Russian roulette scene in the movie ``The
Deer Hunter'' when it was shown on national TV. It has been alleged
that the cartoon Beavis and Butt-head's depiction of setting objects on
fire recently led a 5-year-old in Ohio to set his family's mobile on
fire, causing the death of his 2-year-old sister.
The American Psychological Association has found that ``since 1955,
about 1,000 studies, reports, and commentaries concerning the impact of
television violence have been published * * * the accumulated research
clearly demonstrates a correlation between viewing violence and
aggressive behavior.'' Here are just a few of those research studies
and reports. These studies, lead to one conclusion: violence on
television is a threat to our Nation's children and our society at
large:
First, report to the Surgeon General, ``Television and Growing up:
The Impact of Televised Violence,'' 1972. The Surgeon General concluded
that there is indeed a causal effect of viewing violent television
programs and subsequent aggressive behavior in children.
Second, a technical report to the Surgeon General, volume III:
Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, and Huesman, ``Television Violence and Child
Aggression: A Follow-up Study.'' (Television and Social Behavior,
1972.) ``A violent television diet is related to violent behavior.''
This study shows a direct positive correlation between the amount of
television viewed by third-grade boys and aggressiveness 10 years
later. Early aggression in boys is a predictor of and a basis for later
aggression.
Third, National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], ``Television and
Behavior,'' 1982. After 10 more years of research, in 1982, the NIMH
did a follow-up report to the 1972 Surgeon General's report and
concluded that violence on television does lead to aggressive behavior
by children and teenagers who watch the programs. It also concluded
that television violence is as strongly correlated with aggressive
behavior as any other behavioral variable that has been measured.
Fourth, ``U.S. Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence,''
1984. This report says that ``the evidence is overwhelming--TV violence
contributes to the acting out of real violence. Just as witnessing
violence in the home may contribute to normal adults and children
learning and acting out behavior, violence on TV and in the movies may
contribute to the same result.''
Fifth, Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz and Walder, ``The Stability of
Aggression Over Time and Generations,'' 1984. (Developmental
Psychology.) After studying the viewing habits and behavior of 875
children in a rural New York county at ages 8, 19, and 30, this study
concludes that the more a subject watched television at 8, the more
serious the crime he was convicted for at age 30.
Sixth, Singer, Singer and Rapaczynski, ``Family Patterns and
Television Viewing as Predictors of Children's Beliefs and
Aggression,'' 1984. This study concluded that children who watch more
than 4 hours of television violence per day during preschool years,
exhibit later aggressive behavior. Children who view violent adult
programs were suspicious or fearful of their neighborhood and world.
And they tended to be restless when required to wait.
Seventh, American Psychological Association [APA], ``Violence on
Television: APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for
Psychology,'' 1985. In the early 1980's, the APA did a complete review
of reports and literature on television violence. As a result, the APA
adopted the position that television violence has a causal effect on
aggressive behavior.
Eighth, David Phillips, ``Natural Experiments on the Effects of Mass
Media Violence on Fatal Aggression,'' 1986. This study provides
evidence that some types of mass media violence tend to elicit fatal
aggression--suicide, homicide, and accidents--among adults in the
United States.
Ninth, L. Rowell Husemann and Laurie S. Miller, ``Long-Term Effects
of Repeated Exposure to Media Violence in Childhood,'' 1994. The
violent scenes that a child observes on television can serve to teach a
child to be aggressive through several learning processes, as the child
not only observes aggressive patterns of behaviors but also witnesses
their acceptance and reinforcement. This study finds that there is a
severe negative outcome for children who display antisocial behavior,
and that televised violence is regarded as one contributor to the
learning environment of children who eventually go on to develop
aggressive and antisocial behavior.
Tenth, George Comstock and Haejung Paik, ``The Effects of Television
Violence on Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis,'' 1994. This study
suggests that the influence of violent television portrayals is not
confined to childhood or early adolescence and concludes that the
findings obtained in the last 15 years strengthen the evidence that
television violence increases aggressive and antisocial behavior.

The Solution--Public Information and Free Market Regulation

In my judgment, this legislation is as critically important as ever.
We have to make the television industry accountable, and the way to do
this is through public information. It is not the role of Government in
this country to tell people what they can watch. Nor should we try to
tell broadcasters and sponsors what they can put on the air. But it is
the role of Government to help make the free marketplace work, by
providing information to the public--information on which they can make
their own free choices. That's what I'm proposing regarding violence on
TV.
Under this approach, the Government wouldn't regulate; parents would.
Government would do for them no more than it does for business of all
kinds: gather information that would help parents express their own
free choices.
Why shouldn't the Government start helping parents, the way it helps
corporations? The Federal Government spends millions and probably
billions of dollars a year, gathering data for use by business. The
Census Bureau alone provides a treasure drove of demographic research
for ad agencies and corporate marketing departments. Corporations use
this Government data to target consumers. Now it's time to give parents
data by which they can target advertisers who are abusing their
children.
If Americans don't really care about this violence, then it would
continue. If they do care about it, and send their market message
accordingly, then it would change. That's the way a democracy and a
market economy are supposed to work.

Industry Actions

As I mentioned earlier, public concern over television violence is
not new. Several hearings were held in the 103d on this issue. In
addition, the industry, in response to public concern,
[[Page S6351]] has adopted some measures to address this problem.
In 1990, the Congress passed legislation, the Television Violence Act
of 1990, which provided the television industry a 3-year antitrust
exemption to allow it to develop standards on television violence. In
December 1992, the three major networks adopted ``Standards for the
Depiction of Violence in Television Programs'' which included
commitments by the industry to:
Only include depictions of violence when such depictions are relevant
and necessary to the plot;
Reject gratuitous or excessive depictions of violence as
``unacceptable''; and
Not use depictions of violence to shock or stimulate the audience.
The National Cable Television Association adopted an industry policy
in January 1993 to address the problems of television violence. The
program
includes voluntary industry standards and encourages cable program
networks to adopt their own standards and practices.

In July 1993, the networks adopted an additional plan to impose
warning labels on programming that contained violence, ``The Advance
Parental Advisory Plan'' which will use the following warning label
preceding violent shows: ``Due to some violent content, parental
discretion advised.'' A similar advisory program was adopted by the
Independent Television Association.
And late last year, both the broadcast networks and the cable
industry agreed to finance independent studies that are currently
monitoring and analyzing violence on television. These actions are good
and I applaud the industry's efforts. In particular, I believe their
monitoring studies will provide a positive contribution to the debate
over television violence.
In addition to television industry actions, the Electronic Industries
Association [EIA], representing television manufacturers, has been
working diligently over the past year and a half toward establishing a
voluntary standard which will allow for the implementation of
technology to block violent programming. EIA's efforts reflect the fact
that television manufacturers recognize consumers' desires and are
attempting to provide adequate choice in the marketplace.
EIA's leadership demonstrates that voluntary efforts can be
effective. It is my preference that voluntary industry efforts would be
the solution, as opposed to a Government mandate. It is my hope that
all sectors of the television industry work together with the EIA in
their effort toward empowering parents and providing consumers the
tools to control what is broadcast into their homes.

conclusion

Although industry actions are commendable, legislation is necessary
that will augment the industry-led monitoring programs. The fundamental
purpose of this legislation is to ensure that consumers, especially
parents, have access to useable information about what violent shows
are on television and who sponsors those shows. Despite all the
research and the monitoring studies established by the broadcast and
cable industries, there is still a void in assuring consumers that
regular, usable information in the form of a report card will be
available.
It seems to me that the approach of establishing television violence
report cards, created by private entities, is a very modest and
appropriate response for the Congress. I encourage my colleagues to
support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 772

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 ``Television Violence Report
Card Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Three out of every four people in the United States
consider television programming too violent, according to a
1993 poll by Electronic Media.
(2) Three Surgeon Generals, the National Institute of
Mental Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the American
Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and
the American Psychological Association have concurred for
nearly 20 years as to the deleterious effects of televised
violence on children.
(3) In conjunction with other societal factors such as
poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, and poor education, the
depiction of violence in all forms of media contribute to
violence in United States society.
(4) The entertainment industry is becoming increasingly
sensitive to public sentiment against excessive violence in
television programming. A recent survey of 867 entertainment
executives by U.S. News and World Report and the University
of California in Los Angeles reveals the following:
(A) 59 percent of such executives consider violence on
television and in movies a problem.
(B) Nearly 9 out of 10 such executives say that violence in
the media contributes to the level of violence in the United
States.
(C) 63 percent of such executives believe that the
entertainment media glorify violence.
(D) 83 percent of such executives believe that the debate
on excessive violence in television programming has affected
the programming decisions made by the broadcast television
industry.
(5) The broadcast television and cable programming
industries have undertaken efforts to decrease violence on
television through joint standards on violence,
implementation of an advance parental advisory plan, and the
establishment of independent efforts to monitor the incidence
of violence in television programming, analyze the portrayal
of violence in network television programming and in other
forms of video programming, and analyze the trends and
changes in the treatment of violent themes by the media.
(6) The American Psychosocial Association finds that
approximately 1,000 studies and reports on the effects of
violence on television have been published since 1955. The
accumulated research clearly demonstrates a correlation
between the viewing of violence on television and aggressive
behavior.
(7) To the fullest extent possible, parents and consumers
should be empowered to choose which television programs they
consider appropriate for their children and which programs
they consider too violent.

SEC. 3. TELEVISION VIOLENCE REPORT CARDS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall, during
fiscal years 1996 and 1997, make grants directly to one or
more not-for-profit entities for purposes of permitting such
entities to carry out in such fiscal years an assessment of
the violence in television programming. The amount of the
grants shall be sufficient to permit such entities to carry
out the assessment.
(b) Assessment.--(1) In carrying out an assessment under
this section, an entity shall----
(A) review current television programs (including programs
on broadcast television, on independent television stations,
and on cable television) in order to determine the nature and
extent of the violence depicted in each program;
(B) prepare an assessment of the violence depicted in each
program that describes and categorizes the nature and extent
of the violence in the program; and
(C) take appropriate actions to make the assessment
available to the public.
(2) An entity shall carry out a review under paragraph
(1)(A) not less often than once every 90 days.
(3) In making an assessment public under paragraph (1)(C),
an entity shall identify the sponsor or sponsors of each
television program covered under the assessment.
(c) Grant Procedures.--The Secretary shall determine the
entities to which the Secretary shall make grants under this
section using competitive procedures. Applications for such
grants shall contain such information as the Secretary may
require to carry out the requirements of this Act.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to make the
grants required under this section.
______

By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Coats,
Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Frist, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Craig, Mr. Lugar, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Grassley, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Santorum, Mr.
Heflin, Mr. Bond, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Bennett, and Mr.
Helms):
S. 773. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
provide for improvements in the process of approving and using animal
drugs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.

animal drug availability act

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today, together with a bipartisan
group of colleagues, I am introducing the Animal Drug Availability Act
of 1995. This legislation will reform the Food and Drug
Administration's animal drug approval and export processes and
policies.
There is a serious lack of drugs for treating animals, in part
because the drug review process at the Food and Drug Administration's
Center for Veterinary Medicine is cumbersome and
[[Page S6352]] unpredictable. This discourages the development of new
drugs. The FDA has approved only four new chemical entities (new drugs)
for food-producing animals in the last 5 years. Further, an internal
study by the Center for Veterinary Medicine found that the agency was
taking an average of 58 months to approve drug applications. By law,
the process should take no more than 6 months.
The extra-label drug bill that was signed into law last year is a
short-term response to this problem. It assures that veterinarians can
legally prescribe drugs approved for one use or species for other uses
or species. But all involved in the extra-label bill last year agreed
that the real answer to the problem was reforming the animal drug
approval process.
Second, because our approval process is so slow, unpredictable, and
cumbersome and our export policies very restrictive, many animal drug
manufacturers are moving research and manufacturing facilities--and
jobs--abroad to take advantage of more efficient and predictable review
and approval processes and lucrative, growing world markets.
This legislation has the broad support of the animal producer groups,
the Animal Health Institute, and the American Veterinary Medical
Association.
I would welcome additional cosponsors of the Animal Drug Availability
Act of 1995.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this
legislation, which is intended to streamline and expedite the Food and
Drug Administration's approval process for animal drugs without
diminishing the human health protections contained in current law. This
bill represents a commendable effort to address a serious impediments
to the effective treatment of animal health problems, and is thus
particularly important to veterinary practitioners and livestock and
poultry producers.
For some time there has been an insufficient number of suitable,
fully approved and labelled drugs for the treatment of animals. In
significant part, this lack of approved drugs is attributable to delays
in the approval process used by FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.
Last year legislation was enacted to sanction the extra-label use of
FDA-approved drugs by or at the direction of veterinarians. Even at the
time that legislation was passed, however, there was general agreement
that the best solution to the lack of fully-approved and labelled
animal drugs is to remedy the unnecessary delays and other problems in
FDA's animal drug approval process.
The legislation introduced today is a strong and substantial step
toward improving FDA's animal drug approval process by reducing the
potential for delays, making the process more predictable and rational,
and lessening burdensome aspects of the current procedures. Again, this
bill is not designed or intended to lessen human health protections in
any way. Its primary focus, from a substantial perspective, is on the
proof of efficacy required to gain approval.
As we continue to work on this legislation, we will need to give
additional consideration to its various possible ramifications in
actual practice. I will be closely following the analysis of these
issues in order to ensure that the bill is appropriately modified to
address concerns that may arise. In particular, we must carefully
consider whether that may arise. In particular, we must carefully
consider whether the bill might have the unintended consequence of
diminishing human health protections in some way that is not now
evident or anticipated. I also want to obtain additional information on
the operation of the export provisions of the bill, including assurance
that FDA will continue to have sufficient authority to limit exports of
animal drugs on the basis of unacceptable risk to human health, either
in this country or in foreign countries.
In conclusion, this legislation addresses a pressing need in the
field of animal health. A good deal of work and thought have gone into
the bill thus far, and I look forward to working with Chairman
Kassebaum and other senators in further shaping the measure and gaining
its enactment.
______

By Mr. MACK:
S. 774. A bill to place restrictions on the promotion by the
Department of Labor and other Federal agencies and instrumentalities of
economically targeted investments in connection with employee benefit
plans; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

PENSION PROTECTION ACT

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which
will help protect the pensions of our Nation's seniors. The Pension
Protection Act will stop the administration's ongoing efforts to raid
our Nation's pension funds.
In an effort to find capital for its social projects, the Clinton
administration has effectively been chipping away at the strict
fiduciary standards set up by the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act [ERISA]. The Department of Labor has issued new interpretations of
ERISA fiduciary standards which challenge the requirement that pension
funds be invested for the sole purpose of increasing the economic
benefit of the pension's beneficiaries. This relaxing of ERISA
standards combined with a well-defined strategy to encourage pension
plan managers to invest in social projects puts at risk the hard-earned
pension benefits of current and future retirees. It is no surprise that
this administration wants to finance its social projects and pet
political programs with private pension funds. Currently, these funds
hold over $3.5 trillion in assets. Many see this pot of money as a
lucrative and untapped source of funding to finance their own political
agenda.
Mr. President, the Clinton administration has always viewed pension
funds as a convenient source of public funding. In fact, in his book
``Putting People First,'' President Clinton proposed a $20 billion
investment program paid for with pension funds. These economically
targeted investments [ETI's] would use pension funds to pay for
Government programs. This nice-sounding term is merely a disguise for
the systematic raiding of our pension funds.
My legislation would put the brakes on a dangerous course of action
which is being orchestrated by the Department of Labor. Specifically,
this legislation would abolish the ETI Clearinghouse recently
established by the Department of Labor. This Clearinghouse is designed
to identify investments that the administration deems socially
beneficial. The legislation would also nullify Secretary Reich's 1994
Interpretive Bulletin that encourages ETI's and would in effect ensure
that pension managers do not select investments which have a purpose
other than serving the ``sole interest of the plan participant.'' In
addition, this legislation would instruct the Labor Department to cease
acting as a promoter of ETI's and instead act as the enforcer of
ERISA's fiduciary standards. Finally, this bill would deny funding to
any Government agency for the purpose of operating an ETI database or
list.
Last year, the American people sent a loud and clear mandate for less
spending, less taxes, and less government. But this administration has
decided to ignore that mandate by trying to increase spending on
Government programs. First they raised taxes to pay for their programs
and now they seek to spend our retirees' hard-earned pension funds.
This is wrong.
Mr. President, directing private pension funds to replace public
funding of Government programs is yet another example in a long line of
``spend now, pay later'' policies that the Federal Government has
adopted over the years. Encouraging pension funds to participate in
risky investments deserves our strongest opposition. We should not be
compromising fiduciary standards and the financial security of our
Nation's retirees in order to meet partisan, political goals.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______

By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 776. A bill to reauthorize the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation
Act and the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

striped bass act

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the legislation that I introduce today
reauthorizes a law that has been a great success: The Atlantic Striped
Bass
[[Page S6353]] Conservation Act. This legislation will allow the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to
continue their important research and oversight role in support of
state efforts to conserve the Atlantic striped bass fishery.
From Maine to North Carolina, the striped bass has been an important
species for Atlantic coast fishermen for centuries. And, the presence
of the striped bass fishery has provided significant economic and
cultural benefits to the Atlantic Coastal States, and to the Nation.
Striped bass--often called rockfish in the Chesapeake Bay area--are
anadromous fish. They spawn in freshwater streams and migrate to
estuarine or marine waters. During their relatively long lives--up to
29 years--stripers are on the move. They migrate north during the
summer and south during the winter. Consequently, striped bass pass
through the jurisdictions of several States, and conservation efforts
must be well coordinated.
In 1979, I offered an amendment to the Anadromous Fish Conservation
Act that directed the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service to conduct an emergency study of striped bass. Why
was this study necessary? Fishermen had sounded the alarm that striped
bass landings had declined precipitously. The commercial striped bass
harvests dropped from 15 million pounds in 1973 to 3.5 million pounds
in 1983. The Federal study found that, although habitat degradation
played a role, overfishing was the primary cause of the population
decline.
In order to prevent overfishing, restrictions on the striped bass
harvest were necessary in 14 jurisdictions. The Atlantic Striped Bass
Conservation Act helped promote a coordinated approach to management by
requiring that the States fully implement a striped bass fishery
management plan developed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. If a State is found to be out of compliance with the
Commission's management plan, a Federal moratorium on striped bass
fishing is to be imposed jointly by the Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of Commerce. It is a testament to the efficacy of the
Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act and the cooperative efforts of
countless Federal and State biologists and managers, and commercial and
recreational fishermen, that the Federal sanction has only been applied
once in the past 10 years.
What else has happened over the past decade? The Atlantic striped
bass populations have made a dramatic recovery. All Atlantic striped
bass populations are recovering or improving. In the Chesapeake Bay,
the spawning ground for 90 percent of the Atlantic striped bass, the
population has been declared recovered. The Delaware stock is
recovering. The Albemarle Sound/Roanoke River stock is improving.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, without the State-
imposed moratoria and restrictions on harvest, fishing mortality rates
on the Chesapeake Bay striped bass stock would have exceeded the level
where the population could be maintained. In other words, without the
State-Federal partnership
promoted through the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, the
striper might have been fished to oblivion.

The striped bass have proven once again that, given half a chance,
nature will rebound and overcome tremendous setbacks. But, we must give
it that half a chance. Reauthorization of the Atlantic Striped Bass
Conservation Act will allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
continue its coastwise tagging program, populations monitoring, and
other data collection efforts to provide information that informs the
management decisions essential to maintaining healthy populations of
striped bass. The oversight authority shared by the Interior and
Commerce Departments regarding the management of the striped bass
fishery will ensure that States move cautiously as they reopen the
harvest. I believe that a continued Federal involvement is important at
this crucial time--a time to celebrate, and to monitor closely, the
recovery of the Atlantic striped bass.
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. 776

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 ``Striped Bass Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS CONSERVATION ACT

Section 7(a) of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act
(Public Law 98-613; 16 U.S.C. 1851 note) is amended by
striking ``1986'' and all that follows through ``1994'' and
inserting ``1995 through 1998''.

SEC. 3. ANADROMOUS FISH CONSERVATION ACT.

Section 7(d) of the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16
U.S.C. 757g(d)) is amended by striking ``1991, 1992, 1993,
and 1994'' and inserting ``1995 through 1998''.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my friend from
Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, in introducing the Atlantic Striped Bass
Act of 1995. This legislation reauthorizes the Atlantic Striped Bass
Conservation Act and the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. Atlantic
striped bass is an important commercial and game fish that ranges from
Maine to North Carolina. Its comeback from overfishing and habitat
destruction in the late 1980's is one of the great success stories of
fisheries management. One of the most critical contributors to that
recovery was the enactment of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation
Act in 1984.
The Striped Bass Act has provided the incentive for implementing
coordinated and comprehensive management of a wide-ranging species that
migrates throughout Atlantic coastal waters. The affected States came
together, made the hard decisions, and enacted the restrictions on
fishing that were necessary for the stocks to recover. Although great
sacrifices were required during the rebuilding period, now sport
anglers and commercial fishermen are seeing the benefits of effective
management. In Massachusetts, the commercial quota has been increased
substantially, and bag limits for the recreational fisherman have
doubled. These harvest increases are even more heartening since the
management program for striped bass is still very conservative--only 25
percent of the available adult population may be taken this year. This
success proves that conservative fishery management can work and
provides a blueprint for other fisheries that face difficult management
problems. I complement the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership
on this legislation and I encourage my colleagues to join with us in
supporting the extension of the Striped Bass Act and the Anadromous
Fish Conservation Act.
______

By Mr. SIMON:
S. 777. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide
equal time to labor organizations to present information relating to
labor organizations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources.
S. 778. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit
the selection of an employee labor organization through the signing of
a labor organization membership card by a majority of employees and
subsequent election, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources.
S. 779 A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to require
the arbitration of initial contract negotiation disputes, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
S. 780. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to require
Federal contracts debarment for persons who violate labor relations
provisions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
S. 781. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act to
require Federal Contracts debarment for persons who violate the act's
provisions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
S. 782. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, to permit additional remedies in
certain unfair labor practice cases, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
S. 783. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to set a
time limit for labor rulings on discharge complaints, and for other
purposes; to the
[[Page S6354]] Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
S. 784. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to impose a
penalty for encouraging others to violate the provisions of the
National Labor Relations Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Labor and Human Resources.

labor relations legislation

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
will promote a more even playing field for workers and employers.
Conditions have worsened for workers and their families in recent
years. It is time to reexamine our labor laws and see if we can't make
them fairer for the average working man and woman.
To improve working conditions and enhance workplace productivity, we
must reject both the adversarial approach to worker-management
relations and the oppressive, let's hold them down, attitude held by
some in management and government. Both of these extreme approaches
reduce productivity by destroying workplace comity. What we need to
enhance our productivity is a strong spirit of cooperation in the
workplace. And in order to bring this about, we need strong, vital
labor unions.
While unions have remained strong in other industrialized nations
over the past two decades, they have been steadily declining here in
the United States. Union membership has now fallen to about 15 percent
of the American workforce, and to 10.9 percent of private non-
agricultural workers. In Canada, by contrast, about 37 percent of the
workers belong to a union; in Germany, about 39 percent, in Great
Britain, 41 percent; and in Japan, about 24 percent. Of all the
industrialized democracies, only South Korea ranks below the United
States in union membership.
Not coincidentally, as union membership has declined, so had the
average manufacturing wage. As late as 1986, the average hourly
manufacturing wage in the United States was higher than that of any
other nation. Today, 10 nations have average manufacturing wages higher
than ours.
This decline in American workers' wages relative to those of workers
in other industrialized countries has been accompanied by increased
income disparities within our country. A recent study of worldwide
wealth and income trends by Prof. Edward Wolff of New York University
concludes that the United States now has the widest wealth and income
disparities of any advanced industrialized nation. The wealthiest 1
percent of Americans now own 40 percent of all the Nation's wealth. By
contrast, in England, a nation which we tend to think of as much more
class-based than our own, the top; 1 percent own only 18 percent of the
wealth, less than half the share of the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans.
The distribution of income in the United States is similarly skewed.
While the top 20 percent of households--those making $55,000 per year
or more--take home 55 percent of all after-tax income paid to
individuals, the lowest-earning 20 percent of Americans receive only
5.7 percent of all after-tax individual income. Since 1979, the 20
percent of families in the lowest income brackets have seen their
average real wages decline by 15 percent. Those in the second 20
percent have suffered a 7 percent decrease. In contrast, those in the
top 20 percent income bracket have enjoyed an 18 percent increase.
To reverse these unfortunate trends, we need to take steps to
facilitate the revival of organized American labor.
In addition to their importance in fighting for a fair wage for
American workers, American labor unions have played a vital role in
enhancing workplace safety and in supporting progressive social
legislation such as child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and Social
Security. And there is no question in my mind but that we would have a
much better health care delivery system in the United States if we had
as high a percentage of our workers organized as do Canada, Germany and
many other nations.
The causes of the decline of unions in America are numerous and
complex. Our large and persistent trade deficits have certainly played
a role in this decline, as have our Federal budget deficits. Part of
the decline has also been caused by past failures on the part of a few
unions to include women and minorities in their membership.
But the principal cause of this decline, in my view, has been a
public policy that has permitted and even encouraged some employers to
actively resist union organizing activities.
The legislation I am introducing today seeks to reverse this trend by
facilitating workers' efforts to organize and bargain collectively for
better wages and working conditions, to receive prompt adjudication of
their grievances when problems arise, and to enjoy better working
conditions.
I am well aware that we face firm opposition to these reforms. Steps
taken in recent months by the majority party would drive down the wages
of working families, threaten workplace health and safety, and further
weaken labor unions. Among the changes that have been proposed in
recent months are: repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, which would lower the
wages of workers in the construction industry; the weakening of
workplace safety and health laws; and a watering down of the time-and-
a-half provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Even proposals to
help those at the lowest rung of the income ladder by raising the
minimum wage, after fifteen years of decline in its real purchasing
power, have been greeted with scorn or indifference by many of those in
power.
Still, I believe that once we take a serious look at the conditions
of the hardest working and most vulnerable members of our society, the
conclusion will be unavoidable that we must do more to ensure that
their interests are represented fairly and equitably.
Following are brief descriptions of the eight bills I am introducing
today; and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of each bill be printed
in the Record following my statement.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 777

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 ``Labor Organizations Equal
Presentation Time Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS PRESENTATIONS.

Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
158) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after the subsection designation;
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) If an employer or employer representative addresses
the employees on the employer's premises or during work hours
on issues relating to representation by a labor organization,
the employees shall be assured, without loss of time or pay,
an equal opportunity to obtain, in an equivalent manner,
information concerning such issues from such labor
organization.
``(3) Subject to reasonable regulation by the Board, labor
organizations shall have--
``(A) access to areas in which employees work;
``(B) the right to use the employer's bulletin boards,
mailboxes, and other communication media; and
``(C) the right to use the employer's facilities for the
purpose of meetings with respect to the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by this Act.''.
____

S. 778

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 ``Labor Relations
Representative Amendment Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF SELECTED LABOR REPRESENTATIVE.

Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
159) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f)(1) Not later than 30 days after the receipt of signed
union recognition cards, which designate an entity as the
employee's labor organization, from 60 percent of the
employees of the employer, the Board shall direct an
expedited election with respect to the selection of the
entity as the exclusive collective bargaining representative
of such employees.
``(2) The expedited election, as directed by the Board, may
not be delayed for any reason or purpose.
``(3) The Board shall promulgate regulations that implement
rules and procedures to address any challenges with respect
to the designation or selection of an exclusive collective
bargaining representative under this subsection.
``(4) The challenges described in paragraph (3) may be
brought only after the expedited election described in
paragraph (1).''.

____

[[Page S6355]]

S. 779

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 ``Labor Relations First
Contract Negotiations Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. INITIAL CONTRACT DISPUTES.

Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
158) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h)(1) If, not later than 60 days after the certification
of a new representative of employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining, the employer of the employees and the
representative have not reached a collective bargaining
agreement with respect to the terms and conditions of
employment, the employer and the representative shall jointly
select a mediator to mediate those issues on which the
employer and the representative cannot agree.
``(2) If the employer and the representative are unable to
agree upon a mediator, either party may request the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service to select a mediator and
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall upon the
request select a person to serve as mediator.
``(3) If, not later than 30 days after the date of the
selection of a mediator under paragraph (1) or (2), the
employer and the representative have not reached an
agreement, the employer or the representative may transfer
the matters remaining in controversy to the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service for binding arbitration.''.
____

S. 780

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 ``Federal Contractor Labor
Relations Enforcement Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. DEBARMENT.

The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``federal contracts debarment

``Sec. 20. (a) Any person or entity that, with a clear
pattern and practice, violates the provisions of this Act
shall be ineligible for all Federal contracts for a period of
3 years.
``(b) The Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations
regarding debarment provisions and procedures. The
regulations shall require that Federal contracting agencies
shall refrain from entering into further contracts, or
extensions or other modifications of existing contracts, with
any person or entity described in subsection (A) during the
3-year period immediately following a determination by the
Secretary of Labor that the person or entity is in violation
(as described in subsection (a)) of this Act.
``(c) A debarment may be removed, or the period of
debarment may be reduced, by the Secretary of Labor upon the
submission of an application to the Secretary of Labor that
is supported by documentary evidence and that sets forth
appropriate reasons for the granting of the debarment removal
or reduction, including reasons such as compliance with the
final orders that are found to have been willfully violated,
a bond fide change of ownership or management, or a fraud or
misrepresentation of the charging party.''.
____

S. 781

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 ``Federal Contractor Safety
and Health Enforcement Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. DEBARMENT.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 33 and 34, as sections 34 and
35, respectively;
(2) by inserting after section 32 the following new
section:

``federal contracts debarment

``Sec. 33. (a) Any person or entity that, with a clear
pattern and practice, violates the provisions of this Act
shall be ineligible for all Federal contracts for a period of
3 years.
``(b) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations regarding
debarment provisions and procedures. The regulations shall
require that Federal contracting agencies shall refrain from
entering into further contracts, or extensions or
modifications of existing contracts, with any person or
entity described in subsection (a) during the 3-year period
immediately following a determination by the Secretary that
the person or entity is in violation (as described in
subsection (a)) of this Act.
``(c) A debarment may be removed, or the period of
debarment may be reduced, by the Secretary upon the
submission of an application to the Secretary that is
supported by documentary evidence and that sets forth
appropriate reasons for the granting of the debarment removal
or reduction, including reasons such as compliance with the
final orders that are found to have been willfully violated,
a bona fide change of ownership or management, or a fraud or
misrepresentation of the charging party.''.
____

S. 782

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 ``Labor Relations Remedies Act
of 1995''.

SEC. 2. BOARD REMEDIES.

Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29
U.S.C. 160(c)) is amended by inserting after the fourth
sentence the following new sentence: ``If the Board finds
that an employee was discharged as a result of an unfair
labor practice, the Board in such order shall (1) award back
pay in an amount equal to three times the employee's wage
rate at the time of the unfair labor practice and (2) notify
such employee of such employee's right to sue for punitive
damages and damages with respect to a wrongful discharge
under section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947
(29 U.S.C. 187), as amended by the Labor Relations Remedies
Act of 1995.''.

SEC. 3. COURT REMEDIES.

Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29
U.S.C. 187), is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsections:
``(c) It shall be unlawful, for purposes of this section,
for any employer to discharge an employee for exercising
rights protected under the National Labor Relations Act (29
U.S.C. 158).
``(d) An employee whose discharge is determined by the
National Labor Relations Board under section 10(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(c)) to be as a
result of an unfair labor practice under section 8 of such
Act may file a civil action in any district court of the
United States, without respect to the amount in controversy,
to recover punitive damages or if actionable, in any State
court to recover damages based on a wrongful discharge.''.
____

S. 783

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 ``National Labor Relations
Board Ruling Time Limit Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. BOARD RULING.

Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29
U.S.C. 160(b)) is amended by inserting after the second
sentence the following new sentence: ``In the case of an
unfair labor charge filed with the Board that involves the
discharge of an employee, the Board shall rule on such charge
within 30 days of the receipt of such charge by the Board.''.
____

S. 784

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 ``National Labor Relations
Penalty Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. PENALTIES.

The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``penalty
``Sec. 20. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person
including a consulting firm or legal firm to encourage an
employer or labor organization to violate the provisions of
this Act.
``(b) If a person described in subsection (a) violates the
provisions of such subsection, the person shall be fined by
the Secretary not more than $10,000.''.
____

Bill Summaries

The ``Labor Organizations Equal Presentation Time Act of
1995'' will counteract the unfair advantage employers enjoy
in using company time and resources to discourage union
organizing by giving labor organizations equal time to
present their side of the story.
This Act provides that if an employer addresses employees
on issues relating to representation by a labor organization,
the employees shall then have an equal opportunity to obtain,
without loss of time or pay, information concerning such
issues from the labor organization. The Act also promotes
fair access to company work areas, bulletin boards,
mailboxes, and other facilities, to facilitate the free flow
of information to employees.
The ``Labor Relations Representative Amendment Act of
1995'' is designed to streamline the union election and
certification process by eliminating undue administrative
delays at the Federal level.
At present, the union election and certification process
can be very time-consuming. In many instances, employees have
had to wait for years for this process to be completed. My
bill provides that once the NLRB receives union recognition
cares from 60 percent of the employees of a given firm, the
Board shall have 30 days to determine whether the labor
organization shall be recognized as the bargaining
representative representative of employees.
In the United States, approximately one-third of unions
never get a first collective bargaining agreement once they
have been
[[Page S6356]] certificated. To address this problem, I am
introducing the ``Labor Relations First Contract Negotiations
Act of 1995,'' a bill which will require the arbitration of
initial contract negotiation disputes.
Under this Act, if an employer and a newly elected
representative have not reached a collective bargaining
agreement within 60 days of the representative's
certification, the employer and the representative shall
jointly select a mediator to help them reach an agreement. If
they cannot agree on a mediator, one will be appointed for
them by the Federal Medication and Conciliation Service. In
the even that the parties do not reach an agreement in 30
days, the remaining issues may be transferred to the Federal
Medication and Conciliation Service for binding arbitration.
The Federal government can do more to sanction firms that
demonstrate a pattern and practice of National Labor
Relations Act violations. By debarring such firms from
Federal contracts, the ``Federal Contractor Labor Relations
Enforcement Act of 1995'' will encourage higher levels of
compliance with the law.
Under the Act, firms that are determined by the Secretary
of Labor to have shown a clear pattern the practice of NLRA
violations will be debarred from receiving contracts,
extensions of contracts, or modifications of existing
contracts with agencies of the Federal government for a
period of three years.
Similarly, the ``Federal Contractor Safety and Health
Enforcement Act of 1995'' directs the Secretary of Labor to
withhold Federal contracts in cases where firms show a clear
pattern and practice of Occupational Safety and Health Act
violations. This Act will help to ensure that employees who
repeatedly disregard the safety and health of their workers
will face consequences for their failure to abide by the law.
The ``Labor Relations Remedies Act of 1995'' protects
workers by making it unlawful for an employer to discharge an
employee for exercising rights protected under the National
Labor Relations Act. The Act also directs the National Labor
Relations Board to award additional damages in the event that
it finds that an employee has of his right to sue for
punitive damages and damages under any other state or Federal
law.
The ``National Labor Relations Board ruling Time Limit Act
of 1995'' will require that employees receive a prompt ruling
on claims of wrongful discharge. The Act provides that the
National Labor Relations Board shall rule on wrongful
discharge complaints within thirty days of receiving them.
I am also introducing legislation today that will address
the problem of law firms and consulting firms that stray over
the line into counseling their clients to implement illegal
policies or practices. Under the ``National Labor Relations
penalty Act'' persons or firms who encourage an employer or a
labor organization to violate the National Labor Relations
Act will be subject to a fine of up to $10,000.
______

By Mr. PACKWOOD:
S. 785. A bill to require the trustees of the Medicare trust funds to
report recommendations on resolving projected financial imbalance in
Medicare trust funds; to the Committee on Finance.

medicare legislation

Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, the 1995 annual reports of the trustees
on the status of the two Medicare trust funds, released on April 3,
1995, raise serious concerns about future financial viability of the
Medicare Program.
The trustees conclude that the Federal hospital insurance trust
fund--called Medicare part A:
First, has taken in less in Medicare payroll taxes than it has paid
out in Medicare benefits every year since 1992;
Second, starts having to liquidate assets next year, 1996; and
Third, will run out of money by the year 2002.
The status of the supplemental medical insurance trust fund--called
Medicare part B--is not much better. The trustees ``note with great
concern the past and projected rapid growth in the cost of the
program.''
Four Cabinet members of this administration are trustees of the
Medicare trust funds--the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of
Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration. These Cabinet members all signed
the 1995 trustee report, agreeing with the conclusions that the
Medicare trust fund is in serious financial trouble.
But this administration refuses to become engaged in proposing any
solutions. Repeatedly, the President and his Cabinet members have said
they are waiting for the Republicans' budget resolution before they
offer any suggestions to save Medicare.
In my memory, this is the first time an administration has so
completely refused to be a part of the budget process. The
administration claims to have done its part because it submitted its
1996 budget to the Congress. However, the President's 1996 budget
leaves Medicare virtually untouched. Medicare proposals in that budget
do not even do enough to delay Medicare insolvency for 1 year.
The financial problems of the Medicare Program are real. They exist
regardless of whether or not there is a budget resolution, or the
content of a budget resolution. We simply cannot avoid addressing this
issue, and the sooner the better.
Today, I am introducing a bill requiring the trustees of the Medicare
trust funds to report back to Congress by June 30, 1995, with their
recommendations for the specific program legislation to deal with
Medicare's financial condition that they call for in their 1995 annual
reports on the Medicare trust funds. This is an urgent responsibility
of this administration and they must come forward with initiatives so
that we can preserve the Medicare Program, not only for future
generations, but for our current senior population.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Congressional
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record as follows:

S. 785

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

SECTION 1. TRUSTEES' CONCLUSIONS REGARDING FINANCIAL STATUS
OF MEDICARE TRUST FUNDS.

(A) HI Trust Fund.--The 1995 annual report of the Board of
Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund,
submitted on April 3, 1995, contains the following
conclusions respecting the financial status of such Trust
Fund:
(1) Under the Trustees' intermediate assumptions, the
present financing schedule for the hospital insurance program
is sufficient to ensure the payment of benefits only over the
next 7 years.
(2) Under present law, hospital insurance program costs are
expected to far exceed revenues over the 75-year long-range
period under any reasonable set of assumptions.
(3) As a result, the hospital insurance program is severely
out of financial balance and the Trustees believe that the
Congress must take timely action to establish long-term
financial stability for the program.
(b) SMI Trust Fund.--The 1995 annual report of the Board of
Trustees of the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust
Fund, submitted on April 3, 1995, contains the following
conclusions respecting the financial status of such Trust
Fund:
(1) Although the supplementary medical insurance program is
currently actuarially sound, the Trustees note with great
concern the past and projected rapid growth in the cost of
the program.
(2) In spite of the evidence of somewhat slower growth
rates in the recent past, overall, the past growth rates have
been rapid, and the future growth rates are projected to
increase above those of the recent past.
(3) Growth rates have been so rapid that outlays of the
program have increased 53 percent in aggregate and 40 percent
per enrollee in the last 5 years.
(4) For the same time period, the program grew 19 percent
faster than the economy despite recent efforts to control the
costs of the program.

SEC. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS ON RESOLVING PROJECTED FINANCIAL
IMBALANCE IN MEDICARE TRUST FUNDS.

(a) Report.--Not later than June 30, 1995, the Board of
Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the
Board of Trustees of the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund shall submit to the Congress
recommendations for specific program legislation designed
solely--
(1) to control medicare hospital insurance program costs
and to address the projected financial imbalance in the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund in both the short-range
and long-range; and
(2) to more effectively control medicare supplementary
medical insurance costs.
(b) Use of Intermediate Assumptions.--The Boards of
Trustees shall use the intermediate assumptions described in
the 1995 annual reports of such Boards in making
recommendations under subsection (a).

____________________