[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14408-S14419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 1276. A bill to permit agricultural producers to enter into market 
transition contracts and receive loans, to require a pilot revenue 
insurance program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                 the farm income transition act of 1995

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate Agriculture Committee 
began marking up the commodity title to the 1995 farm bill. Although I 
am no longer a member of that committee, the farm bill has as much 
impact on my State as any other piece of legislation considered before 
this body.
  For that reason, Mr. President, I have used my position on other 
committees to indirectly influence farm policy. I have also formed a 
group, the Farm Policy Coalition, that is cochaired by Senator Dorgan 
and consists of 52 Members of the Senate. In order to more directly 
influence the debate.
  Today, however, the Agriculture Committee was not able to agree on a 
farm bill to take to reconciliation. And there are rumors that the 
Budget Committee may have to act to make the necessary cuts in farm 
spending. As a member of the Budget Committee, I publicly stated that 
the Agriculture Committee, and not the Budget Committee, is the best 
place to write the farm bill.
  But now with the Agriculture Committee deadlocked, I feel it 
necessary to send a clear signal, as a Budget Committee member and a 
Senator interested in the future of agriculture, on how I believe we 
should proceed on the 1995 farm bill; taking into consideration what is 
in the best interests of my State and American agriculture as a whole.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Farm Income 
Transition Act of 1995. This bill is similar to one introduced by the 
distinguished chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Pat Roberts, 
known as the Freedom to Farm Act.
  My bill represents a transition to a new era of farm programs; an era 
that will be characterized by limited Government intrusion in the 
market and the unleashing of the productivity of American agriculture. 
Yet the Federal Government will still play a role in providing a 
safety-net for the family farmer.
  Mr. President, this bill is a dramatic departure from the farm 
programs of the past. We all know that our current farm programs were 
established during the Great Depression of the 1930's.
  The intent of the program then, as it is now, was to stabilize farm 
income while ensuring a dependable, abundant, and inexpensive food 
supply. This is accomplished mainly by making direct payments to 
farmers when commodity prices are low, and implementing production 
controls to limit the supply of commodities.
  To a large extent, the programs of the past have been successful. The 
American consumer spends less than 10 percent of their disposable 
income on food; the lowest of any Nation in the world.
  Despite its success, the farm program has had many critics. Some 
criticize the program for its high degree of Government intervention. 
Others argue that the benefits go primarily to large, corporate farms. 
Many farmers, themselves, have grown tired of the endless amount of 
paperwork and redtape associated with the program.
  Through all the criticism, however, the farm program has remained 
virtually unchanged for the last 50 years. But times have changed. And 
these changes mandate that a new direction be taken on farm programs.
  The crisis of the 1930's was rampant unemployment and poverty. 
Drastic action was needed to support the income of ordinary Americans.
  The crisis of the 1990's is rampant Government spending and 
intervention into the lives of ordinary Americans. The voters told us 
in no uncertain terms last November that they wanted the Government out 
of their lives and the budget deficit brought under control.
  Mr. President, the Senate approved a budget resolution this spring 
that will bring the Federal budget into balance in the year 2002. 
This resolution contains a sense-of-the Senate calling for a cut in 
spending on agriculture commodity programs of about $9.6 billion over 
the next 7 years.

  During the debate on the budget, I voiced my strong opposition to 
further cuts in agriculture spending. I will not repeat all of the 
arguments I made at that time, but it is clear to me that agriculture 
has contributed disproportionately to deficit reduction in the past. 
All I asked for at that time, Mr. President, was that agriculture be 
treated equitably in the budget process.
  I also argued during the budget debate that agriculture, more than 
any other sector of this economy, has much to gain by achieving a 
balanced budget.
  Agriculture is a capital-intensive business, its success dependent on 
low-interest rates. Only by getting our fiscal house in order can we 
ensure a sustained period of low-interest rates and the continued 
success of the family farmer.
  So although Federal spending on agriculture will be reduced, because 
this reduction is within the context of a balanced budget, agriculture 
will benefit greatly in the long run.
  But, Mr. President, it is vital that as Federal spending on 
agriculture is reduced, the regulations and restrictions on individual 
farmers are reduced accordingly. Because if farmers are getting less 
from the Government, they must have the tools to earn more income from 
the marketplace.
  This bill meets both of these goals: It reduces spending to meet the 
requirements of my sense-of-the Senate in the budget resolution and it 
dramatically reduces the regulatory burden placed on farmers.
  Mr. President, I will take a moment to describe how this bill 
accomplishes these goals. First, it mirrors the Freedom to Farm Act by 
providing farmers with a 7-year contract consisting of annual payments. 
In return, the farmer must maintain compliance with current 
conservation requirements. The total payments over the 7-year period 
are capped at $43 billion, which meets the requirements of the budget 
resolution.
  Furthermore, the regulatory burden on farmers is significantly 
diminished. For many years, the planting decisions of American farmers 
have been dictated, in part, by the U.S. Congress and the Department of 
Agriculture. This limits a farmer's ability to maximize his profit from 
the marketplace. These decisions must be removed from the hands of 
bureaucrats and put back into the hands of the farmers.
  My bill provides for full planting flexibility. Farmers' planting 
decisions will no longer be restricted by their historical crop base. 
This will allow farmers to plant for the marketplace and not the 
Federal farm program.
  The bill also eliminates the acreage reduction program. No longer 
will farmers be required to leave a portion of their productive land 
unplanted because of a mandate imposed by Washington.
  Furthermore, the bill maintains certain aspects of the current farm 
program while reforming others. For instance, nonrecourse loans will 
continue to be made available. This is a necessary and important 
marketing tool for farmers that does not require direct Government 
spending.
  On the other hand, the three-entity rule is eliminated. Payments will 
now be directly attributed to farmers instead of corporations and other 
entities. 

[[Page S 14409]]

  Last, the bill provides for a new era of farm programs based on risk 
management. Specifically, it directs the Secretary to initiate a 
revenue insurance pilot program as an alternative to the crop insurance 
program.
  Revenue insurance will cost the Federal Government no more than the 
current crop insurance program. But it will give the farmer a solid and 
dependable safety net.
  The program will allow a farmer to pay a premium to protect himself 
from a significant decline in revenue, whether it is caused by crop 
loss or low prices. Thus unlike crop insurance, the farmer is protected 
from both natural disasters and from situations when too much grain on 
the market causes extremely low prices.
  This revenue insurance program truly represents a revolutionary new 
farm program.
  Mr. President, the future of American agriculture is not in 
Government payments and subsidies. The future of American agriculture 
rests on the ability of farmers to remain competitive in a world 
marketplace.
  The role of government consists of opening access to new markets for 
agricultural products, providing research for the development of better 
crops and new uses for existing commodities, and providing a safety net 
for the family farm structure.
  Mr. President, I am convinced that not only will American agriculture 
reach unprecedented levels of productivity and profitability in the 
future, but there will continue to be a vital role for the family 
farmer.
  The independent, family farmer is still the backbone of the 
agricultural economy in my State of Iowa. These farmers tell me that 
they can compete with the large farms, if they only have a level 
playing field and equal access to markets and information.
  Government should do everything in its power to provide this level 
playing field. I believe that the bill I have introduced today helps 
put all farmers on an equal footing as agriculture approaches the 21st 
century.
  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. 1276

       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 ``Farm Income Transition Act 
     of 1995 ''.

     SEC. 2. CERTAINTY AND FLEXIBILITY FOR AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS.

       The Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1441 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by transferring sections 106, 106A, and 106B to the end 
     of part I of subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) and 
     redesignating the sections as sections 320D, 320E, and 320F, 
     respectively;
       (2) by moving sections 104, 111, 112, 114, and 202 to the 
     end of title IV and redesignating the sections as sections 
     428, 429, 430, 431, and 432 respectively;
       (3) by moving sections 108B, 204, and 206 to the end of 
     title IV (as amended by paragraph (2)) and redesignating the 
     sections as sections 433, 434, and 435, respectively; and
       (4) by striking titles I through III and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this Act:
       ``(1) Considered planted.--The term `considered planted', 
     with respect to acreage on a farm, means acreage considered 
     planted to a covered commodity (as defined in section 201(a)) 
     in the conservation reserve, or under a program in effect 
     under this Act through the 1995 crop of a commodity or the 
     1996 crop of winter wheat on--
       ``(A) any reduced acreage on the farm;
       ``(B) any acreage on the farm that producers were prevented 
     from planting to the commodity because of drought, flood, or 
     other natural disaster, or other condition beyond the control 
     of the producers;
       ``(C) acreage in a quantity equal to the difference between 
     the permitted acreage for a commodity and the acreage planted 
     to the commodity, if the acreage considered to be planted is 
     devoted to conservation uses or the production of crops 
     permitted by the Secretary under the programs established for 
     any of the 1990 through 1994 crops of a commodity; or
       ``(D) any acreage on the farm that the Secretary determines 
     is necessary to be included in establishing a fair and 
     equitable crop acreage base.
       ``(2) Crop acreage base.--The term `crop acreage base' 
     means the average of the quantity of acres planted and 
     considered planted to the commodity for the 1990 through 1994 
     crops, including the crop acreage base for extra long staple 
     cotton established under section 103(h)(5) (as in effect 
     prior to the date of enactment of the Farm Income Transition 
     Act of 1995).
       ``(3) Double cropping.--The term `double cropping' means a 
     farming practice, as defined by the Secretary, that has been 
     carried out on a farm during at least 3 of the 5 crop years 
     immediately preceding the crop year for which the crop 
     acreage base for the farm is established.
       ``(4) Market transition payment.--The term `market 
     transition payment' means a payment made pursuant to a 
     contract entered into under section 201 with producers on a 
     farm who--
       ``(A) satisfy the eligibility requirements of section 
     201(c); and
       ``(B) in exchange for annual payments, are in compliance 
     with the conservation compliance plan for the farm prepared 
     in accordance with section 1212 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3812) and wetland protection requirements 
     applicable to the farm under subtitle C of title XII of the 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.).
       ``(5) Nonrecourse commodity loan.--The term `nonrecourse 
     commodity loan' means a nonrecourse loan paid to producers on 
     a farm under the terms provided in section 202.
       ``(6) Person.--The term `person' means an individual, 
     corporation, or other entity, as defined by the Secretary.
       ``(7) Producers.--The term `producers' means 1 or more 
     individual persons who, as determined by the Secretary--
       ``(A) share in the risk of production of a commodity; and
       ``(B) is, or would have been, entitled to a share of the 
     proceeds from the marketing of the commodity.
       ``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       ``(9) United states.--The term `United States' means the 
     several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and 
     the other territories and possessions of the United States.
     ``TITLE I--FUNDING FOR FEDERAL FARM PROGRAM COMMODITY PAYMENTS

     ``SEC. 101. EXPENDITURES FOR MARKET TRANSITION PAYMENTS FOR 
                   1996 THROUGH 2002 CROP YEARS.

       ``(a) Total Expenditures.--The total amount of funds 
     expended by the Commodity Credit Corporation under this title 
     may not exceed $46,920,000,000 for--
       ``(1) payments made for the 1995 crop of a commodity after 
     September 30, 1995; and
       ``(2) market transition payments for a commodity for the 
     1996 through 2002 crops.
       ``(b) Total Expenditures Per Crop Year.--The Secretary 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expend not more 
     than the following amounts on market transition payments:
       ``(1) For the 1996 crop, $8,260,000,000.
       ``(2) For the 1997 crop, $7,240,000,000.
       ``(3) For the 1998 crop, $7,080,000,000.
       ``(4) For the 1999 crop, $6,850,000,000.
       ``(5) For the 2000 crop, $6,590,000,000.
       ``(6) For the 2001 crop, $5,490,000,000.
       ``(7) For the 2002 crop, $5,380,000,000.
       ``(c) Commodity Credit Corporation.--
       ``(1) Salaries and expenses.--No funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation may be used to pay any salary or expense 
     of an officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture in 
     connection with the administration of market transition 
     payments or nonrecourse commodity loans.
       ``(2) Agricultural production.--No funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation in excess of the amounts authorized by 
     subsection (b) may be used to support--
       ``(A) the price of a covered commodity (as defined in 
     section 201(a)) or any similar activity in relation to the 
     commodity; or
       ``(B) the income of producers on a farm.
    ``TITLE II--MULTIYEAR PAYMENTS TO IMPROVE FARMING CERTAINTY AND 
                              FLEXIBILITY

     ``SEC. 201. MARKET TRANSITION PAYMENTS.

       ``(a) Definition of Covered Commodity.--In this section, 
     the term `covered commodity' means wheat, corn, grain 
     sorghums, barley, oats, upland cotton, extra long staple 
     cotton, and rice.
       ``(b) Market Transition Contracts.--
       ``(1) Offer and consideration.--Beginning as soon as 
     practicable after the date of enactment of the Farm Income 
     Transition Act of 1995, but not later than February 1, 1996, 
     the Secretary shall offer to enter into a market transition 
     contract with producers on a farm who satisfy the 
     requirements of subsection (c). Participating producers shall 
     agree, in exchange for annual payments, to comply with the 
     conservation compliance plan for the farm established under 
     section 1212 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3812) and the wetland protection requirements applicable to 
     the farm under subtitle C of title XII of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3821 et seq.).
       ``(2) Entry into contracts.--
       ``(A) Deadline.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), producers on a farm shall elect whether to enter 
     into a market transition contract not later than April 15, 
     1996.
       ``(B) Conservation reserve lands.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a conservation reserve 
     contract applicable to cropland on a farm that expires after 
     April 15, 1996, producers on the farm shall have the option 
     of including the cropland on the farm that has considered 
     planting history (as determined by the Secretary) in a market 
     transition contract of the producers. To be eligible, the 
     cropland must include 1 or more crop 

[[Page S 14410]]
     acreage bases attributable to the cropland (as determined by the 
     Secretary).
       ``(ii) Whole farm enrolled in conservation reserve.--
     Producers on a farm who have enrolled the entire cropland on 
     the farm, as determined by the Secretary, into the 
     conservation reserve shall have the option, on expiration of 
     the conservation reserve contract, to enter into a market 
     transition contract.
       ``(iii) Amount.--Market transition payments made for 
     cropland under this subparagraph shall be made at the rate 
     and amount applicable to the market transition payment level 
     for that year.
       ``(C) 1996 crop of winter wheat.--
       ``(i) In general.--Producers on a farm who plant a 1996 
     crop of winter wheat in 1995 may elect to enter into a market 
     transition contract, or obtain loans and payments for the 
     1996 crop of winter wheat, under the same terms and 
     conditions as were in effect for the 1995 crop of winter 
     wheat.
       ``(ii) Timing of payments.--The Secretary shall, if the 
     Secretary determines practicable, pay producers on a farm who 
     plant a 1996 crop of winter wheat and elect to enter into a 
     market transition contract for the crop--

       ``(I) an advance payment not later than June 1, 1996; and
       ``(II) a final payment not later than September 30, 1996.

       ``(iii) Subsequent crops.--Producers on a farm who plant a 
     1996 crop of winter wheat shall elect whether to enter into a 
     market transition contract for each of the 1997 through 2002 
     crops not later than April 15, 1996.
       ``(3) Duration of contract.--Except for the 1996 crop of 
     winter wheat, a market transition contract shall apply to the 
     1996 crop of a covered commodity and terminate on December 
     31, 2002.
       ``(c) Eligibility for Market Transition Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible for market transition 
     payments, producers on a farm must--
       ``(A) own, rent, or crop share land that has a crop acreage 
     base that is attributable to the farm, as determined by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(B) satisfy the criteria under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Payments based on production history.--Producers on a 
     farm shall be eligible for market transition payments if 
     deficiency payments and, if applicable, conservation reserve 
     payments were made for covered commodities that were planted, 
     or considered planted, on a crop acreage base established on 
     the farm for at least 2 of the 1990 through 1994 crops.
       ``(d) Amount of Market Transition Payments.--
       ``(1) Definition of payments.--In this subsection (except 
     as otherwise specifically provided), the term `payments' 
     means--
       ``(A) deficiency payments; and
       ``(B) if applicable, the lesser of--
       ``(i) conservation reserve payments; or
       ``(ii) the amount of deficiency payments that would have 
     been made for the quantity of the covered commodity 
     considered planted if the commodity had been planted, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) 1990-1994 payments.--The Secretary shall determine 
     the total amount of payments--
       ``(A) made to producers on a farm for all covered 
     commodities that were planted or considered planted on the 
     farm for the 1990 through 1994 crops; and
       ``(B) made for all covered commodities that were planted 
     and considered planted throughout the United States for the 
     1990 through 1994 crops.
       ``(3) Market transition payment for 1996-2002 crops.--The 
     annual market transition payment for each of the 1996 through 
     2002 crops shall equal the product of--
       ``(A) the total amount of payments made to producers on a 
     farm determined under paragraph (2)(A) divided by the total 
     amount of payments made throughout the United States 
     determined under paragraph (2)(C); and
       ``(B) the annual funding available for the crop under 
     section 101(b).
       ``(4) Adjustment.--To maintain equity and fairness in 
     market transition payments, the Secretary shall, as 
     determined appropriate, adjust the payments to producers on a 
     farm to reflect the ratio of--
       ``(A) the land on the farm on which there is historical 
     production and considered planting history on 1 or more crop 
     acreage bases; to
       ``(B) the land on the farm for which the producers on the 
     farm are at risk in the year of the market transition 
     payment.
       ``(e) Receipt of Market Transition Payments.--
       ``(1) Annual payment estimate.--The Secretary shall 
     announce the estimated minimum payment to producers entering 
     into a market transition contract not later than March 15 of 
     each year of the term of the contract. The producers may 
     terminate the contract without penalty not later than 15 days 
     after the date of the announcement.
       ``(2) Timing of payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--Payments shall be made not later than 
     September 30 of the year covered by the contract.
       ``(B) Advance payment.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary 
     may provide \1/2\ of the annual payment in advance to 
     producers on a farm not later than March 15 of the same year, 
     at the option of the producers.
       ``(ii) 1996 crop.--If the Secretary elects to provide 
     advance payments for the 1996 crop, the Secretary shall make 
     the advance payments as soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of the Farm Income Transition Act of 1995, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Eligibility.--Producers on a farm who have entered 
     into a market transition contract shall be eligible to 
     receive market transition payments if the producers comply 
     with the conservation compliance plan for the farm and 
     applicable wetland protection requirements, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(f) Planting Flexibility.--Producers on a farm who 
     possess 1 or more crop acreage bases shall plant any crop or 
     conserving crop on the acreage base to receive a market 
     transition payment. If a perennial conserving crop is 
     planted, the producers shall not be required to replant the 
     crop in the subsequent year.
       ``(g) Payment Limitation.--
       ``(1) Amount.--The total amount of payments made to a 
     person under a market transition contract for any year may 
     not exceed $50,000.
       ``(2) Attribution.--The Secretary shall attribute payments 
     to a natural person in proportion to the ownership interests 
     of the person in a corporation, limited partnership, or other 
     entity (as determined by the Secretary).
       ``(3) Scheme or device.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     person has knowingly adopted a material scheme or device to 
     obtain market transition payments to which the person is not 
     entitled, has evaded the requirements of this section, or has 
     acted with the purpose of evading the requirements of this 
     section, the person shall be ineligible to receive all 
     payments applicable to the crop year for which the scheme or 
     device was adopted and the succeeding crop year. The 
     authority provided by this paragraph shall be in addition to, 
     and shall not supplant, the authority provided by subsection 
     (h).
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations--
       ``(A) defining the term `person', as used in this 
     subsection, in a manner that conforms, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, to the regulations defining the term `person' 
     issued under section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 
     U.S.C. 1308);
       ``(B) prescribing such rules as the Secretary determines 
     are necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable application of 
     the limitation established under this subsection; and
       ``(C) providing for the tracking of payments made or 
     attributed to a person or entity (as determined by the 
     Secretary) on the basis of the social security account number 
     of the person or the employer identification number of the 
     entity.
       ``(h) Violation of Contract.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if 
     the Secretary determines that producers on a farm are in 
     violation of, or have violated, the conservation compliance 
     plan for the farm or wetland protection requirements 
     applicable to the farm, the Secretary may terminate the 
     market transition contract with respect to the producers. On 
     termination, the producers shall forfeit all rights to 
     receive future payments under the contract and shall refund 
     to the Secretary all payments received by the producers 
     during the period of the violation with interest (as 
     determined by the Secretary).
       ``(2) Refund or adjustment.--If the Secretary determines 
     that a violation does not warrant termination of the 
     contract, the Secretary shall require the producers to--
       ``(A) refund to the Secretary a portion of the payments 
     received during the period of the violation, together with 
     interest, that is proportionate to the severity of the 
     violation (as determined by the Secretary); or
       ``(B) accept a reduction in the amount of future payments 
     that is proportionate to the severity of the violation (as 
     determined by the Secretary).
       ``(i) Transfer of Interest in Land Subject to Contract.--
       ``(1) Effect of transfer.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), if producers on a farm who have entered into a market 
     transition contract transfer title of the land of the farm to 
     another person, or otherwise transfer the right to receive 
     market transition payments, the transfer shall void the 
     contract with the producers on the farm, effective as of the 
     date of the transfer, unless--
       ``(A) the transferee of the land or the right to receive 
     the remaining market transition payments agrees to assume all 
     or a portion of the obligations of the contract in proportion 
     to the transfer (as determined by the Secretary); and
       ``(B) the transferor agrees to transfer all or a portion of 
     the remaining transition payments in proportion to the 
     transfer (as determined by the Secretary).
       ``(2) Exception.--If a producer who is eligible for 
     payments under a market transition contract dies, becomes 
     incompetent, or is otherwise unable to receive the payments, 
     the Secretary shall make the payments in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 202. NONRECOURSE AND MARKETING LOANS.

       ``(a) Definition of Covered Commodity.--In this section, 
     the term `covered commodity' means corn, grain sorghums, 
     barley, oats, rye, wheat, upland cotton, extra long staple 
     cotton, rice, soybeans, sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, 
     safflower, flaxseed, and mustard seed.

[[Page S 14411]]

       ``(b) Nonrecourse Loans.--For each of the 1996 through 2002 
     crops of a covered commodity, the Secretary shall make 
     available to producers on a farm a nonrecourse commodity loan 
     under terms and conditions prescribed by the Secretary. A 
     nonrecourse commodity loan shall have a term of 9 months, 
     beginning on the first day of the first month after the month 
     in which the loan is made and may be extended at the 
     discretion of the Secretary.
       ``(c) Loan Rate.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall announce the loan 
     rate for each covered commodity not later than the first day 
     of the marketing year for which the loan rate is to be in 
     effect.
       ``(2) Calculation.--The loan rate for a marketing 
     transition loan for a crop shall be equal to 80 percent of 
     the simple average price received by the producer for the 
     covered commodity during the immediately preceding 5 
     marketing years for the commodity, excluding the year in 
     which the average price was lowest and the year in which the 
     average price was highest.
       ``(3) Simple average price.--For purposes of paragraph (2), 
     the Secretary shall determine the simple average price 
     received by producers of a covered commodity for the 
     immediately preceding marketing year.
       ``(d) Marketing Loans.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may permit producers on a 
     farm to repay a loan made under this section for a covered 
     commodity at a level that is the lesser of--
       ``(A) the loan level; or
       ``(B) the prevailing world market price for the commodity 
     (adjusted to United States quality and location), as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Prevailing world market price.--If the Secretary 
     permits producers on a farm to repay a loan in accordance 
     with paragraph (1), the Secretary shall prescribe by 
     regulation--
       ``(A) a formula to determine the prevailing world market 
     price for the crop of a covered commodity, adjusted to United 
     States quality and location; and
       ``(B) a mechanism by which the Secretary shall announce 
     periodically the prevailing world market price for the crop 
     of the commodity.
                      ``TITLE III--ADMINISTRATION

     ``SEC. 301. REVENUE INSURANCE.

       ``(a) Pilot Program.--Not later than December 31, 1996, the 
     Secretary shall carry out a pilot program in a limited number 
     of States or groups of States, as determined by the 
     Secretary, under which a producer of an agricultural 
     commodity can elect to receive revenue insurance that will 
     ensure that the producer receives an indemnity if the 
     producer suffers a loss of revenue, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) National Program.--Not later than December 31, 2000, 
     the Secretary shall offer revenue insurance to agricultural 
     producers at 1 or more levels of coverage that is in addition 
     to, or in place of, catastrophic and higher levels of crop 
     insurance.
       ``(c) Administration.--Revenue insurance under this section 
     shall--
       ``(1) be offered through reinsurance arrangements with 
     private insurance companies;
       ``(2) offer at least a minimum level of coverage that is an 
     alternative to catastrophic crop insurance;
       ``(3) be actuarily sound; and
       ``(4) require the payment of premiums and administrative 
     fees by participating producers.

     ``SEC. 302. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Equitable Relief.--
       ``(1) Loans and payments.--Notwithstanding section 201(h), 
     if the failure of producers on a farm to comply fully with 
     the terms and conditions of the program conducted under 
     titles I through III precludes the making of loans and 
     payments, the Secretary may, notwithstanding the failure, 
     make the loans and payments in such amounts as the Secretary 
     determines are equitable in relation to the seriousness of 
     the failure. The Secretary may consider whether the producers 
     made a good faith effort to comply fully with the terms and 
     conditions of the program in determining whether equitable 
     relief is warranted under this paragraph.
       ``(2) Deadlines and program requirements.--The Secretary 
     may authorize the county and State committees established 
     under section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
     Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)) to waive or modify 
     deadlines and other program requirements in cases in which 
     lateness or failure to meet the other requirements does not 
     affect adversely the operation of the program.
       ``(b) Commodity Credit Corporation.--The Secretary shall 
     carry out the programs authorized by title I through this 
     title through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
       ``(c) Assignment of Payments.--Section 8(g) of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(g)) 
     shall apply to payments or loans made under title I through 
     this title.
       ``(d) Sharing of Payments.--The Secretary shall provide for 
     the sharing of payments made under title I through this title 
     for any farm among the producers on the farm on a fair and 
     equitable basis.
       ``(e) Tenants and Sharecroppers.--In carrying out this Act, 
     the Secretary shall provide adequate safeguards to protect 
     the interests of tenants and sharecroppers.''.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Title X of the Food Security Act of 1985 is amended by 
     striking sections 1001, 1001A, 1001B, and 1001D (7 U.S.C. 
     1308 et seq.).

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in this subsection and 
     as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, this Act and 
     the amendments made by this Act shall apply beginning with 
     the earlier of--
       (A) the 1996 crop of an agricultural commodity; or
       (B) December 1, 1995.
       (2) Market transition contract.--Title II of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (as amended by section 2(4)) shall 
     apply as of the beginning of signup for market transition 
     payments under section 201 of the Act.
       (b) Prior Crops.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise specifically provided 
     and notwithstanding any other provision of law, this Act and 
     the amendments made by this Act shall not affect the 
     authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a 
     price support or production adjustment program for any of the 
     1991 through 1995 crops of an agricultural commodity 
     established under a provision of law in effect immediately 
     before the effective date specified in subsection (a).
       (2) Liability.--A provision of this Act or an amendment 
     made by this Act shall not affect the liability of any person 
     under any provision of law as in effect before the 
     application of the provision in accordance with subsection 
     (a).
                                 ______

      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 1278. A bill to establish an education satellite loan guarantee 
program for communications among education, Federal, State, and local 
institutions and agencies and instructional and educational resource 
providers; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


          the educational satellite loan guarantee program act

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I introduced a bill to establish an 
education satellite loan guarantee program from communications among 
education, Federal, State, and local institutions and agencies and 
instructional and educational resource providers. Americans face many 
problems and challenges in education. From Montana to Maine, local 
school districts to large universities, educators are being asked to do 
more with less. There is overcrowding in urban areas and a lack of 
access to educational opportunities in many rural areas. We are being 
challenged as a nation, and we must react as a nation with unity of 
purpose. We must marshall our resources and save our children's future. 
Over this Nation's history, we have used good old American creativity 
to conquer many challenges and force new horizons. I believe that 
technology plays a key role in making us world leaders. In the areas of 
space and defense, our technological know-how has made us second to 
none.
  We should act now to apply our same know-how to education. Whether it 
be through copper wire, glass, or satellites, distance learning can 
provide access to the vast educational resources of our Nation, 
regardless of wealth or geographic location. There is a crisis facing 
America's distance education providers and users at all levels of 
schooling due to shortages and price increases in satellite capacity. 
This crisis in the distance education field has been noted and 
documented by the satellite and broadcasting industries and the 
National Education Telecommunications Organization [NETO]. The crisis 
facing the educators is a lack of availability of satellite capacity 
and dramatically escalating costs which puts an educational 
institution's ability to equitably transmit instructions at high risk. 
We must start right here, right now, by taking advantage of the 
satellite technology that exist today.
  More than 90 American college provide education and instruction to K-
12 school districts, colleges, libraries, and students in other distant 
education centers, nationwide and internationally. In my own State of 
Montana and throughout the country from Washington State through Texas 
to Maine, teaches and students are receiving word that they will not 
have access to instruction heretofore received in science, math, 
language, and other special events. Rural and urban school districts, 
family health centers in hard-to-reach areas and rural hospitals will 
be immediately impacted at the start-up of the fall 1995 semester. If 
nothing is done to ameliorate the crisis more than 200 small education 
entrepreneurial communications centers are at risk 

[[Page S 14412]]
by the fall of 1996. These are communications centers in America's 
colleges, school districts, and education consortia which include State 
education and television agencies who have invested State and local 
taxes to create cost-effective, equitable transmission using satellite, 
telephone, and cable to deliver instruction and training in classrooms 
throughout the Nation.
  For an interim solution to the crisis, Congresswoman Constance 
Morella, Congressman Ceorge E. Brown, Jr., and I have asked NASA to 
dedicate unused satellite capacity to the education sector as the prime 
users for a period up to 3 years. However, we must begin to create 
an adequate satellite system dedicated to education to meet the 
educational needs and demands of America's students, teachers, and 
workers for the future.

  The bill introduced today will facilitate the acquisition by an 
appropriate nonprofit, public corporation of a communications satellite 
system dedicated to the transmission of instructions, education, and 
training programming that is not subject to preemptive use by Federal 
Government for purposes of national security. The bill would authorize 
the Secretary of Interior to carry out a loan guarantee program under 
which a non-profit, public corporation could borrow funds to buy or 
lease satellites dedicated to instructional programming. A dedicated 
educational satellite will allow us to address two barriers faced by 
those involved in distance learning via satellite. First, it will 
insure instructional programmers that they will be able to obtain 
affordable satellite transmission time without risk of preemption by 
commercial users. Second, it will allow educators using the programming 
to have one dish focused on one satellite off which they can receive at 
least 24 channels of instructional programming--every hour of the 
school year.
  There is no doubt in my mind that distance learning is a growth area 
and that there is a role for the Federal Government in facilitating 
that growth. The Office of Technology Assessment's 1989 report, 
``Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education'' documents the 
recent growth of distance learning, calling the growth in the K-12 
sector dramatic. OTA anticipates this growth to continue. The National 
Governors' Association in 1988 found that while fewer than 10 States 
were promoting distance learning in 1987; 1 year later two-thirds of 
the States reported involvement. The NGA passed a resolution in 1988, 
and revised it in 1991, expressing their support for a dedicated 
education and public purpose satellite-based telecommunications 
network. Following their 1989 education summit in Charlottesville, VA 
where former Governor Wallace Wilkinson of Kentucky and other Governors 
raised with President Bush the proposal for this dedicated system, the 
EDSAT Institute was formed to analyze the proposal. In 1991, they 
issued a report entitled ``Analysis of a Proposal for an Education 
Satellite,'' and they found as did the OTA report, that individual 
States and consortiums of States are investing heavily in distance 
learning technologies and that the education sector is a significant 
market.
  The organization, the National Educations Telecommunications 
Organization [NETO], was formed after the EDSAT Institute held seven 
regional meetings during the summer of 1991. Through these meetings, 
they recognized the need to aggregate the education market for distance 
learning and concluded that an education programming users organization 
was needed. NETO has a distinguished board of educators, public policy 
officials, State education agencies, and telecommunications experts who 
are committed to the goal of developing an integrated 
telecommunications system dedicated to education. The first step is 
what we are facilitating through Federal loan guarantees.
  If this legislation passes, the Federal Government will be setting a 
national policy in support of a telecommunications infrastructure for 
distance learning. A policy that will cost the government relatively 
little compared to the benefits our Nation will receive through 
improved education and educational access. The risk to the Federal 
Government is minimal. The only risk the Government is assuming is the 
risk that the distance learning market will dissipate. I think the 
findings of the National Governors' Association, the OTA, and the EDSAT 
Institute prove highly unlikely. But I also believe that with distance 
learning, as with transportation and other infrastructure-dependent 
markets, once an infrastructure is in place the market will expand 
beyond our current expectations.

  A dedicated satellite system will bring instructional programming 
which is now scattered across 12 to 15 satellites into one place in the 
sky. This collocation will allow educators to receive a variety of 
instructional programs without having to constantly reorient their 
satellite dish. By making the investment in a dedicated system on the 
front end, we are reducing distance learning costs for educators on the 
State and local levels. The programmers will benefit because they will 
be able to market their programming to a wider audience and will be 
guaranteed reliable satellite time at an affordable rate. A rate that 
will be equal no matter how much time they buy. Programmers include 
public schools, colleges, universities, State agencies, private sector 
corporations and consortiums, such as the star schools consortiums, and 
independents. The users will benefit because their investment in 
equipment to receive instructional programming may be reduced because 
of the technological advantages of focusing on one point in the sky. 
Users include primary and secondary students, college, and university 
students, professionals interested in continuing education, community 
members, and government bodies. The benefits far outweigh the costs in 
my mind.
  A dedicated educational satellite will allow our kids to benefit from 
equal access to quality education. This is really just the first step. 
Both NETO and I believe that a telecommunications infrastructure for 
use by the educational sector should not be technology specific. I plan 
to continue pushing for passage of S. 1200 to make a national broadband 
fiber-optic network a reality. NETO's vision is for an integrated, 
nationwide telecommunications system, a transparent highway that 
encompasses land and space, over which educational and instructional 
resources can be delivered. They envision bringing together the land-
based systems that are already in place, not replacing them. This is an 
inclusive effort, not an exclusive one. I hope that my colleagues will 
join me in making this a reality.
  Technology has transformed every sector of our lives. It can 
transform education as well. It will not replace teachers, it will 
empower them with better teaching tools. It will inspire our young 
people to actively engage in their education. It will expose them to 
the world around them and broaden their horizons. Our Nation's children 
deserve no less.
  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. 1278

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

     SECTION 1. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act to facilitate the acquisition 
     of a dedicated communications satellite system on which 
     instruction, education, and training programming can be 
     collocated and free from preemption.

     SEC. 2. EDUCATIONAL SATELLITE LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce may carry out a 
     program to guarantee any lender against loss of principal or 
     interest on a loan described in subsection (b) made by such 
     lender to a nonprofit, public corporation that--
       (A) is recognized for expertise in governing and operating 
     educational and instructional telecommunications in schools, 
     colleges, libraries, State agencies, workplaces, and other 
     distant education centers;
       (B) was in existence as of January 1, 1992;
       (C) the charter of which is designed for affiliation with 
     Federal, State, and local educational and instructional 
     institutions and agencies, and other distant education and 
     instructional resource providers;
       (D) has a governing board that includes members 
     representing elementary and secondary education, community 
     and State colleges, universities, elected officials, and the 
     private sector; and

[[Page S 14413]]

       (E) has as its sole purpose the acquisition and operation 
     of an integrated communications satellite system and other 
     telecommunications facilities dedicated to transmitting 
     instruction, education, and training programming.
       (2) Interim acquisition of transponder capacity.--As an 
     interim measure to acquire a communications satellite system 
     dedicated to instruction, education, and training 
     programming, a corporation that meets the requirements of 
     paragraph (1) may acquire unused satellite transponder 
     capacity owned or leased by a department or agency of the 
     Federal Government or unused satellite transponder capacity 
     owned or leased by a non-Federal broadcast organization for 
     reuse by schools, colleges, community colleges, universities, 
     State agencies, libraries, and other distant education 
     centers at competitive, low costs, subject only to preemption 
     for national security purposes.
       (3) Encouragement of intercon-nectivity.--A corporation 
     that meets the requirements of paragraph (1) shall encourage 
     the interconnectivity of elementary and secondary schools, 
     colleges, and community colleges, universities, State 
     agencies, libraries, and other distant education centers with 
     ground facilities and services of United States domestic 
     common carriers and international common carriers and ground 
     facilities and services of satellite, cable, and other 
     private communications systems in order to ensure technical 
     compatibility and interconnectivity of the space segment with 
     existing communications facilities in the United States and 
     foreign countries to best serve United States education, 
     instruction, and training needs and to achieve cost-
     effective, interoperability for friendly end-user, ``last 
     mile'' access and use.
       (4) Technical and training needs.--A corporation that meets 
     the requirements of paragraph (1) shall determine the 
     technical and training needs of educations users and 
     providers to facilitate coordinated and efficient use of a 
     communications satellite system dedicated to instruction, 
     education, and training to further unlimited access for 
     schools, colleges, community colleges, universities, State 
     agencies, libraries, and other distant education centers.
       (b) Eligible Loans.--The Secretary of Commerce may 
     guarantee a loan under this section only if--
       (1) the corporation described in subsection (a)(1) has--
       (A) investigated all practical means of acquiring a 
     communications satellite system;
       (B) reported to the Secretary the findings of such 
     investigation; and
       (C) identified for acquisition the most cost-effective, 
     high-quality communications satellite system to meet the 
     purpose of this Act; and
       (2) the proceeds of such loan are used solely to acquire 
     and operate a communications satellite system dedicated to 
     transmitting instruction, education, and training 
     programming.
       (c) Loan Guarantee Limitations.--The Secretary of Commerce 
     may not guarantee more than $270,000,000 in loans under the 
     program under this section, of which--
       (1) not more than $250,000,000 shall be for the guarantee 
     of such loans the proceeds of which are used to acquire a 
     communications satellite system; and
       (2) not more than $20,000,000 shall be used for the 
     guarantee of such loans the proceeds of which are used to pay 
     the costs of not more than 4 years of operating and 
     management expenses associated with providing integrated 
     communications satellite system services through the 
     integrated communications satellite system referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1)(E).
       (d) Liquidation or Assignment.--
       (1) In general.--In order for a lender to receive a loan 
     guarantee under this section the lender shall agree to assign 
     to the United States any right or interest in the 
     communications satellite system or communications satellite 
     system services that such lender possesses upon payment by 
     the Secretary of Commerce on such loan guarantee.
       (2) Disposition.--The Secretary may exercise, retain, or 
     dispose of any right or interest acquired pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) in any manner that the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (e) Special Rule.--Any loan guarantee under this section 
     shall be guaranteed with full faith and credit of the United 
     States.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each 
     fiscal year to carry out this section.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``acquire'' includes acquisition through 
     lease, purchase, or donation.
       (2) The term ``communications satellite system'' means one 
     or more communications satellites capable of providing 
     service from space, including transponder capacity, on such 
     satellite or satellites.
       (3) The term ``national security preemption'' means 
     preemption by the Federal Government for national security 
     purposes.
                                 ______

      Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Reid, 
        Mr. Specter, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
        Bond, Mr. D'Amato, and Mr. Gramm):
  S. 1279. A bill to provide for appropriate remedies for prison 
condition lawsuits, to discourage frivolous and abusive prison 
lawsuits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my 
distinguished colleagues, Senators Hatch, Kyl, Abraham, Hutchison, 
Reid, Thurmond, Specter, Santorum, D'Amato, Gramm, and Bond, in 
introducing the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
  This legislation is a new and improved version of S. 866, which I 
introduced earlier this year to address the alarming explosion in the 
number of frivolous lawsuits filed by State and Federal prisoners. It 
also builds on the stop-turning-out-prisoners legislation, championed 
by Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Spencer Abraham, by making it much 
more difficult for Federal judges to issue orders directing the release 
of convicted criminals from prison custody.


                           inmate litigation

  Unfortunately, the litigation explosion now plaguing our country does 
not stop at the prison gate. According to Enterprise Institute scholar 
Walter Berns, the number of ``due-process and cruel and unusual 
punishment'' complaints filed by prisoners has grown astronomically--
from 6,600 in 1975 to more than 39,000 in 1994. These suits can involve 
such grievances as insufficient storage locker space, a defective 
haircut by a prison barber, the failure of prison officials to invite a 
prisoner to a pizza party for a departing prison employee, and yes, 
being served chunky peanut butter instead of the creamy variety. The 
list goes on and on.
  These legal claims may sound far-fetched, almost funny, but 
unfortunately, prisoner litigation does not operate in a vacuum. 
Frivolous lawsuits filed by prisoners tie up the courts, waste valuable 
legal resources, and affect the quality of justice enjoyed by law-
abiding citizens. The time and money spent defending these cases are 
clearly time and money better spent prosecuting violent criminals, 
fighting illegal drugs, or cracking down on consumer fraud.
  The National Association of Attorneys General estimates that inmate 
civil rights litigation costs the States more than $81 million each 
year. Of course, most of these costs are incurred defending lawsuits 
that have no merit whatsoever.
  Let me be more specific. According the Arizona Attorney General Grant 
Woods, a staggering 45 percent of the civil cases filed in Arizona's 
Federal courts last year were filed by State prisoners. That means that 
20,000 prisoners in Arizona filed almost as many cases as Arizona's 3.5 
million law-abiding citizens. And most of these prisoner lawsuits were 
filed free of charge. No court costs. No filing fees. This is 
outrageous and it must stop.


                              garnishment

  Mr. President, I happen to believe that prisons should be just that--
prisons, not law firms. That is why the Prison Litigation Reform Act 
proposes several important reforms that would dramatically reduce the 
number of meritless prisoner lawsuits.
  For starters, the act would require inmates who file lawsuits to pay 
the full amount of their court fees and other costs.
  Many prisoners filing lawsuits today in Federal court claim indigent 
status. As indigents, prisoners are generally not required to pay the 
fees that normally accompany the filing of a lawsuit. In other words, 
there is no economic disincentive to going to court.
  The Prison Litigation Reform Act would change this by establishing a 
garnishment procedure: If a prisoner is unable to fully pay court fees 
and other costs at the time of filing a lawsuit, 20 percent of the 
funds in his trust account would be garnished for this purpose. Every 
month thereafter, an additional 20 percent of the income credited to 
the prisoner's account would be garnished, until the full amount of the 
court fees and costs are paid-off.
  When average law-abiding citizens file a lawsuit, they recognize that 
there could be an economic downside to going to court. Convicted 
criminals should not get preferential treatment: If a law-abiding 
citizen has to pay the costs associated with a lawsuit, so too should a 
convicted criminal.
  In addition, when prisoners know that they will have to pay these 
costs--perhaps not at the time of filing, but 

[[Page S 14414]]
eventually--they will be less inclined to file a lawsuit in the first 
place.


                           judicial screening

  Another provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act would require 
judicial screening, before docketing, of any civil complaint filed by a 
prisoner seeking relief from the Government. This provision would allow 
a Federal judge to immediately dismiss a complaint if either of two 
conditions is met: First, the complaint does not state a claim upon 
which relief may be granted, or second, the defendant is immune from 
suit.


                             other reforms

  The Prison Litigation Reform Act would also allow Federal courts to 
revoke any good-time credits accumulated by a prisoner who files a 
frivolous suit. It requires State prisoners to exhaust all 
administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit in Federal court. And 
it prohibits prisoners from suing the Government for mental or 
emotional injury, absent a prior showing of physical injury.

  If enacted, all of these provisions would go a long way to take the 
frivolity out of frivolous inmate litigation.


                       stop turning out prisoners

  The second major section of the Prison Litigation Reform Act 
establishes some tough new guidelines for Federal courts when 
evaluating legal challenges to prison conditions. These guidelines will 
work to restrain liberal Federal judges who see violations on 
constitutional rights in every prisoner complaint and who have used 
these complaints to micromanage State and local prison systems.
  Perhaps the most pernicious form of judicial micromanagement is the 
so-called prison population cap.
  In 1993, for example, the State of Florida put 20,000 prisoners on 
early release because of a prison cap order issued by a Federal judge 
who thought the Florida system was overcrowded and thereby inflected 
cruel and unusual punishment on the State's prisoners.
  And, then, there's the case of Philadelphia, where a court-ordered 
prison cap has put thousands of violent criminals back on the city's 
streets, often with disastrous consequences. As Pro. John Diiulio has 
pointed out: ``Federal Judge Norma Shapiro has single-handedly 
decriminalized property and drug crimes in the City of Brotherly Love * 
* * Judge Shapiro has done what the city's organized crime bosses never 
could; namely, turn the town into a major drug smuggling port.''
  By establishing tough new conditions that a Federal court must meet 
before issuing a prison cap order, this bill will help slam-shut the 
revolving prison door.


                               conclusion

  Finally, Mr. President, I want to express my special thanks to 
Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods and to the National Association of 
Attorneys General. Their input these past several months has been 
invaluable as we have attempted to draft a better, more effective piece 
of legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
Prison Litigation Reform, as well as a letter from the National 
Association of Attorneys General and a section-by-section summary, be 
reprinted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1279

       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 ``Prison Litigation Reform Act 
     of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. APPROPRIATE REMEDIES FOR PRISON CONDITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3626 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 3626. Appropriate remedies with respect to prison 
       conditions

       ``(a) Requirements for Relief.--
       ``(1) Prospective relief.--(A) Prospective relief in any 
     civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend 
     no further than necessary to correct the violation of the 
     Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The 
     court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief 
     unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, 
     extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of 
     the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary 
     to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court 
     shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public 
     safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused 
     by the relief.
       ``(B) Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     authorize the courts, in exercising their remedial powers, to 
     order the construction of prisons or the raising of taxes, or 
     to repeal or detract from otherwise applicable limitations on 
     the remedial powers of the courts.
       ``(2) Preliminary injunctive relief.--In any civil action 
     with respect to prison conditions, to the extent otherwise 
     authorized by law, the court may enter a temporary 
     restraining order or an order for preliminary injunctive 
     relief. Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, 
     extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the 
     court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least 
     intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. Preliminary 
     injunctive relief shall automatically expire on the date that 
     is 90 days after its entry, unless the court makes the 
     findings required under subsection (a)(1) for the entry of 
     prospective relief and makes the order final before the 
     expiration of the 90-day period.
       ``(3) Prisoner release order.--(A) In any civil action with 
     respect to prison conditions, no prisoner release order shall 
     be entered unless--
       ``(i) a court has previously entered an order for less 
     intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation of 
     the Federal right sought to be remedied through the prisoner 
     release order; and
       ``(ii) the defendant has had a reasonable amount of time to 
     comply with the previous court orders.
       ``(B) In any civil action in Federal court with respect to 
     prison conditions, a prisoner release order shall be entered 
     only by a three-judge court in accordance with section 2284 
     of title 28, if the requirements of subparagraph (E) have 
     been met.
       ``(C) A party seeking a prisoner release order in Federal 
     court shall file with any request for such relief, a request 
     for a three-judge court and materials sufficient to 
     demonstrate that the requirements of subparagraph (A) have 
     been met.
       ``(D) If the requirements under subparagraph (A) have been 
     met, a Federal judge before whom a civil action with respect 
     to prison conditions is pending who believes that a prison 
     release order should be considered may sua sponte request the 
     convening of a three-judge court to determine whether a 
     prisoner release order should be entered.
       ``(E) The court shall enter a prisoner release order only 
     if the court finds--
       ``(i) by clear and convincing evidence--
       ``(I) that crowding is the primary cause of the violation 
     of a Federal right; and
       ``(II) that no other relief will remedy the violation of 
     the Federal right; and
       ``(ii) by a preponderance of the evidence--
       ``(I) that crowding has deprived a particular plaintiff or 
     plaintiffs of at least one essential, identifiable human 
     need; and
       ``(II) that prison officials have acted with obduracy and 
     wantonness in depriving the particular plaintiff or 
     plaintiffs of the one essential, identifiable human need 
     caused by the crowding.
       ``(F) Any State or local official or unit of government 
     whose jurisdiction or function includes the prosecution or 
     custody of persons who may be released from, or not admitted 
     to, a prison as a result of a prisoner release order shall 
     have standing to oppose the imposition or continuation in 
     effect of such relief and to seek termination of such relief, 
     and shall have the right to intervene in any proceeding 
     relating to such relief.
       ``(b) Termination of Relief.--
       ``(1) Termination of prospective relief.--(A) In any civil 
     action with respect to prison conditions in which prospective 
     relief is ordered, such relief shall be terminable upon the 
     motion of any party--
       ``(i) 2 years after the date the court granted or approved 
     the prospective relief;
       ``(ii) 1 year after the date the court has entered an order 
     denying termination of prospective relief under this 
     paragraph; or
       ``(iii) in the case of an order issued on or before the 
     date of enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 2 
     years after such date of enactment.
       ``(B) Nothing in this section shall prevent the parties 
     from agreeing to terminate or modify relief before the relief 
     is terminated under subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Immediate termination of prospective relief.--In any 
     civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant 
     or intervener shall be entitled to the immediate termination 
     of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or 
     granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the 
     relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary 
     to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the 
     least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 
     the Federal right.
       ``(3) Limitation.--Prospective relief shall not terminate 
     if the court makes written findings based on the record that 
     prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current or 
     ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further 
     than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, 
     and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the 
     least intrusive means to correct the violation.
       ``(4) Termination or modification of relief.--Nothing in 
     this section shall prevent any party from seeking 
     modification or termination before the relief is terminable 
     under paragraph (1) or (2), to the extent that modification 
     or termination would otherwise be legally permissible.

[[Page S 14415]]

       ``(c) Settlements.--
       ``(1) Consent decrees.--In any civil action with respect to 
     prison conditions, the court shall not enter or approve a 
     consent decree unless it complies with the limitations on 
     relief set forth in subsection (a).
       ``(2) Private settlement agreements.--(A) Nothing in this 
     section shall preclude parties from entering into a private 
     settlement agreement that does not comply with the 
     limitations on relief set forth in subsection (a), if the 
     terms of that agreement are not subject to court enforcement 
     other than the reinstatement of the civil proceeding that the 
     agreement settled.
       ``(B) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party 
     claiming that a private settlement agreement has been 
     breached from seeking in State court any remedy for breach of 
     contract available under State law.
       ``(d) State Law Remedies.--The limitations on remedies in 
     this section shall not apply to relief entered by a State 
     court based solely upon claims arising under State law.
       ``(e) Procedure for Motions Affecting Prospective Relief.--
       ``(1) Generally.--The court shall promptly rule on any 
     motion to modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil 
     action with respect to prison conditions.
       ``(2) Automatic stay.--Any prospective relief subject to a 
     pending motion shall be automatically stayed during the 
     period--
       ``(A)(i) beginning on the 30th day after such motion is 
     filed, in the case of a motion made under paragraph (1) or 
     (2) of subsection (b); or
       ``(ii) beginning on the 180th day after such motion is 
     filed, in the case of a motion made under subsection (b)(4); 
     and
       ``(B) ending on the date the court enters a final order 
     ruling on the motion.
       ``(f) Special Masters.--
       ``(1) In general.--(A) In any civil action in a Federal 
     court with respect to prison conditions, the court may 
     appoint a disinterested and objective special master, who 
     will give due regard to the public safety, to conduct 
     hearings on the record and prepare proposed findings of fact.
       ``(B) The court shall appoint a special master under this 
     subsection during the remedial phase of the action only upon 
     a finding that the remedial phase will be sufficiently 
     complex to warrant the appointment.
       ``(2) Appointment.--(A) If the court determines that the 
     appointment of a special master is necessary, the court shall 
     request that the defendant institution and the plaintiff each 
     submit a list of not more than 5 persons to serve as a 
     special master.
       ``(B) Each party shall have the opportunity to remove up to 
     3 persons from the opposing party's list.
       ``(C) The court shall select the master from the persons 
     remaining on the list after the operation of subparagraph 
     (B).
       ``(3) Interlocutory appeal.--Any party shall have the right 
     to an interlocutory appeal of the judge's selection of the 
     special master under this subsection, on the ground of 
     partiality.
       ``(4) Compensation.--The compensation to be allowed to a 
     special master under this section shall be based on an hourly 
     rate not greater than the hourly rate established under 
     section 3006A for payment of court-appointed counsel, plus 
     costs reasonably incurred by the special master. Such 
     compensation and costs shall be paid with funds appropriated 
     to the Federal Judiciary.
       ``(5) Regular review of appointment.--In any civil action 
     with respect to prison conditions in which a special master 
     is appointed under this subsection, the court shall review 
     the appointment of the special master every 6 months to 
     determine whether the services of the special master continue 
     to be required under paragraph (1). In no event shall the 
     appointment of a special master extend beyond the termination 
     of the relief.
       ``(6) Limitations on powers and duties.--A special master 
     appointed under this subsection--
       ``(A) shall make any findings based on the record as a 
     whole;
       ``(B) shall not make any findings or communications ex 
     parte; and
       ``(C) may be removed at any time, but shall be relieved of 
     the appointment upon the termination of relief.
       ``(g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `consent decree' means any relief entered by 
     the court that is based in whole or in part upon the consent 
     or acquiescence of the parties but dues not include private 
     settlements;
       ``(2) the term `civil action with respect to prison 
     conditions' means any civil proceeding arising under Federal 
     law with respect to the conditions of confinement or the 
     effects of actions by government officials on the lives of 
     persons confined in prison, but does not include habeas 
     corpus proceedings challenging the fact or duration of 
     confinement in prison;
       ``(3) the term `prisoner' means any person subject to 
     incarceration, detention, or admission to any facility who is 
     accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated 
     delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and 
     conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or 
     diversionary program;
       ``(4) the term `prisoner release order' includes any order, 
     including a temporary restraining order or preliminary 
     injunctive relief, that has the purpose or effect of reducing 
     or limiting the prison population, or that directs the 
     release from or nonadmission of prisoners to a prison;
       ``(5) the term `prison' means any Federal, State, or local 
     facility that incarcerates or detains juveniles or adults 
     accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated 
     delinquent for, violations of criminal law;
       ``(6) the term `private settlement agreement' means an 
     agreement entered into among the parties that is not subject 
     to judicial enforcement other than the reinstatement of the 
     civil proceeding that the agreement settled;
       ``(7) the term `prospective relief' means all relief other 
     than compensatory monetary damages; and
       ``(8) the term `relief' means all relief in any form that 
     may be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent 
     decrees but does not include private settlement 
     agreements.''.
       (b) Application of Amendment.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3626 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by this section, shall apply with respect to 
     all prospective relief whether such relief was originally 
     granted or approved before, on, or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Technical amendment.--Subsections (b) and (d) of 
     section 20409 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 are repealed.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter C of chapter 229 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``3626. Appropriate remedies with respect to prison conditions.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL RIGHTS OF INSTITUTIONALIZED 
                   PERSONS ACT.

       (a) Initiation of Civil Actions.--Section 3(c) of the Civil 
     Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997a(c)) 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Act'') is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(c) The Attorney General shall personally sign any 
     complaint filed pursuant to this section.''.
       (b) Certification Requirements.--Section 4 of the Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1997b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``he'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``the Attorney General''; and
       (B) by striking ``his'' and inserting ``the Attorney 
     General's''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) The Attorney General shall personally sign any 
     certification made pursuant to this section.''.
       (c) Intervention in Actions.--Section 5 of the Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1997c) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``he'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``the Attorney General''; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) The Attorney General shall personally sign any 
     certification made pursuant to this section.''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) The Attorney General shall personally sign any motion 
     to intervene made pursuant to this section.''.
       (d) Suits by Prisoners.--Section 7 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1997e) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 7. SUITS BY PRISONERS.

       ``(a) Applicability of Administrative Remedies.--No action 
     shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under 
     section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 
     U.S.C. 1983), or any other law, by a prisoner confined in any 
     jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such 
     administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
       ``(b) Failure of State To Adopt or Adhere to Administrative 
     Grievance Procedure.--The failure of a State to adopt or 
     adhere to an administrative grievance procedure shall not 
     constitute the basis for an action under section 3 or 5 of 
     this Act.
       ``(c) Dismissal.--(1) The court shall on its own motion or 
     on the motion of a party dismiss any action brought with 
     respect to prison conditions under section 1979 of the 
     Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983), or 
     any other law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or 
     other correctional facility if the court is satisfied that 
     the action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 
     granted or is frivolous or malicious.
       ``(2) In the event that a claim is, on its face, frivolous 
     or malicious, the court may dismiss the underlying claim 
     without first requiring the exhaustion of administrative 
     remedies.
       ``(d) Attorney's Fees.--(1) In any action brought by a 
     prisoner who is confined to any jail, prison, or other 
     correctional facility, in which attorney's fees are 
     authorized under section 2 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (42 U.S.C. 1988), such fees shall not be 
     awarded, except to the extent that--
       ``(A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in 
     proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights 
     protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded 
     under section 2 of the Revised Statutes; and
       ``(B) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to 
     the court ordered relief for the violation.
       ``(2) Whenever a monetary judgment is awarded in an action 
     described in paragraph (1), a portion of the judgment (not to 
     exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of 
     attorney's fees awarded against the defendant. If the award 
     of attorney's fees is greater than 25 percent of the 
     judgment, the excess shall be paid by the defendant.
       ``(3) No award of attorney's fees in an action described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be based 

[[Page S 14416]]
     on an hourly rate greater than the hourly rate established under 
     section 3006A of title 18, United States Code, for payment of 
     court-appointed counsel.
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a prisoner 
     from entering into an agreement to pay an attorney's fee in 
     an amount greater than the amount authorized under this 
     subsection, if the fee is paid by the individual rather than 
     by the defendant pursuant to section 2 of the Revised 
     Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988).
       ``(e) Limitation on Recovery.--No Federal civil action may 
     be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other 
     correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury 
     suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical 
     injury.
       ``(f) Hearing Location.--To the extent practicable, in any 
     action brought with respect to prison conditions in Federal 
     court pursuant to section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (42 U.S.C. 1983), or any other law, by a 
     prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional 
     facility, pretrial proceedings in which the prisoner's 
     participation is required or permitted shall be conducted--
       ``(1) at the facility; or
       ``(2) by telephone or video conference without removing the 
     prisoner from the facility in which the prisoner is confined.

     Any State may adopt a similar requirement regarding hearings 
     in such actions in that State's courts.
       ``(g) Waiver of Reply.--(1) Any defendant may waive the 
     right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined 
     in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under 
     section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 
     U.S.C. 1983) or any other law. Notwithstanding any other law 
     or rule of procedure, such waiver shall not constitute an 
     admission of the allegations contained in the complaint. No 
     relief shall be granted to the plaintiff unless a reply has 
     been filed.
       ``(2) The court may, in its discretion, require any 
     defendant to reply to a complaint commenced under this 
     section.
       ``(h) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `prisoner' means any person incarcerated or detained in any 
     facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or 
     adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the 
     terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, 
     or diversionary program.''.
       (e) Report to Congress.--Section 8 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1997f) is amended by striking ``his report'' and inserting 
     ``the report''.
       (f) Notice to Federal Departments.--Section 10 of the Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1997h) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``his action'' and inserting ``the 
     action''; and
       (2) by striking ``he is satisfied'' and inserting ``the 
     Attorney General is satisfied''.

     SEC. 4. PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS.

       (a) Filing Fees.--Section 1915 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``(a) Any'' and inserting ``(a)(1) Subject 
     to subsection (b), any'';
       (B) by striking ``and costs'';
       (C) by striking ``makes affidavit'' and inserting ``submits 
     an affidavit'';
       (D) by striking ``such costs'' and inserting ``such fees'';
       (E) by striking ``he'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``the person'';
       (F) by adding immediately after paragraph (1), the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(2) A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal 
     a judgment in a civil action or proceeding without prepayment 
     of fees or security therefor, in addition to filing the 
     affidavit filed under paragraph (1), shall submit a certified 
     copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional 
     equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period 
     immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice 
     of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each 
     prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.''; and
       (G) by striking ``An appeal'' and inserting ``(3) An 
     appeal'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), if a prisoner 
     brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, 
     the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a 
     filing fee. The court shall assess, and when funds exist, 
     collect, as a partial payment of any court fees required by 
     law, an initial partial filing fee of 20 percent of the 
     greater of--
       ``(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner's 
     account; or
       ``(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account 
     for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of 
     the complaint or notice of appeal.
       ``(2) After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the 
     prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 
     percent of the preceding month's income credited to the 
     prisoner's account. The agency having custody of the prisoner 
     shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the 
     clerk of the court each time the amount in the account 
     exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.
       ``(3) In no event shall the filing fee collected exceed the 
     amount of fees permitted by statute for the commencement of a 
     civil action or an appeal of a civil action or criminal 
     judgment.
       ``(4) In no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from 
     bringing a civil action or appealing a civil or criminal 
     judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and 
     no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.'';
       (4) in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by 
     striking ``subsection (a) of this section'' and inserting 
     ``subsections (a) and (b) and the prepayment of any partial 
     filing fee as may be required under subsection (b)''; and
       (5) by amending subsection (e), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2), to read as follows:
       ``(e)(1) The court may request an attorney to represent any 
     person unable to afford counsel.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee that may have been 
     paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the 
     court determines that--
       ``(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
       ``(B) the action or appeal--
       ``(i) is frivolous or malicious; or
       ``(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be 
     granted.''.
       (b) Costs.--Section 1915(f) of title 28, United States Code 
     (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2)), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(f) Judgment'' and inserting ``(f)(1) 
     Judgment'';
       (2) by striking ``cases'' and inserting ``proceedings''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) If the judgment against a prisoner includes the 
     payment of costs under this subsection, the prisoner shall be 
     required to pay the full amount of the costs ordered.
       ``(B) The prisoner shall be required to make payments for 
     costs under this subsection in the same manner as is provided 
     for filing fees under subsection (a)(2).
       ``(C) In no event shall the costs collected exceed the 
     amount of the costs ordered by the court.''.
       (c) Successive Claims.--Section 1915 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(g) In no event shall a prisoner in any prison bring a 
     civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or 
     proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or 
     more prior occasions, brought an action or appeal in a court 
     of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that 
     it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon 
     which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 
     imminent danger of serious bodily harm.''.
       (d) Definition.--Section 1915 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) As used in this section, the term `prisoner' means 
     any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is 
     accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated 
     delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and 
     conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or 
     diversionary program.''.

     SEC. 5. JUDICIAL SCREENING.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 123 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1915 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1915A. Screening

       ``(a) Screening.--The court shall review, before docketing, 
     if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after 
     docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner 
     seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or 
     employee of a governmental entity.
       ``(b) Grounds for Dismissal.--On review, the court shall 
     dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if 
     the complaint--
       ``(1) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 
     granted; or
       ``(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 
     from such relief.
       ``(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `prisoner' means any person incarcerated or detained in any 
     facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or 
     adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the 
     terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, 
     or diversionary program.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 123 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 1915 the following new item:

``1915A. Screening.''.

     SEC. 6. FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS.

       Section 1346(b) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b)'' and inserting ``(b)(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) No person convicted of a felony who is incarcerated 
     while awaiting sentencing or while serving a sentence may 
     bring a civil action against the United States or an agency, 
     officer, or employee of the Government, for mental or 
     emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior 
     showing of physical injury.''.

     SEC. 7. EARNED RELEASE CREDIT OR GOOD TIME CREDIT REVOCATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 123 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 1932. Revocation of earned release credit

       ``In any civil action brought by an adult convicted of a 
     crime and confined in a Federal correctional facility, the 
     court may order the revocation of such earned good time 
     credit under section 3624(b) of title 18, 

[[Page S 14417]]

     United States Code, that has not yet vested, if, on its own 
     motion or the motion of any party, the court finds that--
       ``(1) the claim was filed for a malicious purpose;
       ``(2) the claim was filed solely to harass the party 
     against which it was filed; or
       ``(3) the claimant testifies falsely or otherwise knowingly 
     presents false evidence or information to the court.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 123 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 1931 the following:

``1932. Revocation of earned release credit.''.
       (c) Amendment of Section 3624 of Title 18.--Section 3624(b) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking the first sentence;
       (B) in the second sentence--
       (i) by striking ``A prisoner'' and inserting ``Subject to 
     paragraph (2), a prisoner'';
       (ii) by striking ``for a crime of violence,''; and
       (iii) by striking ``such'';
       (C) in the third sentence, by striking ``If the Bureau'' 
     and inserting ``Subject to paragraph (2), if the Bureau'';
       (D) by striking the fourth sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``In awarding credit under this section, the 
     Bureau shall consider whether the prisoner, during the 
     relevant period, has earned, or is making satisfactory 
     progress toward earning, a high school diploma or an 
     equivalent degree.''; and
       (E) in the sixth sentence, by striking ``Credit for the 
     last'' and inserting ``Subject to paragraph (2), credit for 
     the last''; and
       (2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other law, credit awarded under 
     this subsection after the date of enactment of the Prison 
     Litigation Reform Act shall vest on the date the prisoner is 
     released from custody.''.
                                                                    ____


         Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995--Section Summary

       Section 1: Short Title:
       Entitles the Act as the ``Prison Litigation Reform Act of 
     1995.''
       Section 2: Appropriate Remedies for Prison Conditions:
       This section limits the remedies available to federal 
     courts in suits challenging conditions of confinement and 
     defines the procedures for seeking, enforcing, and 
     terminating remedial relief in these cases. Highlights 
     include appointment of a special 3-judge panel to consider 
     any order that would impose a population cap on a prison or 
     jail.
       Prospective relief in prison conditions cases would not be 
     allowed to extend any further than necessary to correct the 
     violation of a federal right of an identifiable plaintiff. 
     Federal courts would have to ensure that the relief is 
     narrowly drawn and that it is the least intrusive means of 
     correcting the violation, giving substantial weight to any 
     adverse impact the relief might have on public safety.
       Preliminary injunctive relief would expire after 90 days, 
     unless made final before that date.
       No prison population cap could be imposed unless:
       (a) the court had previously entered an order for a less 
     intrusive remedy that, after sufficient time for 
     implementation, failed to correct the violation of the 
     federal right; and
       (b) a 3-judge panel finds by clear and convincing evidence 
     that crowding is the primary cause of the violation and no 
     other relief will remedy it, and finds by a preponderance of 
     the evidence that crowding has deprived an identifiable 
     plaintiff of an essential human need.
       Public officials whose function includes the prosecution or 
     custody of persons who could be released from, or not 
     admitted to, a prison or jail as a result of a population cap 
     would have standing to challenge the imposition or 
     continuation of such a cap.
       Prosective relief granted in conditions of confinement 
     cases may be terminated on the motion of either party 
     unless the court finds, based on the record, that the 
     relief remains necessary to correct a current, ongoing 
     violation of a federal right, and that the relief extends 
     no further than necessary, is narrowly drawn, and is the 
     least intrusive means to correct the violation of the 
     right.
       Federal court approval of consent decrees would be subject 
     to the same limitations. Private settlements and remedies 
     under state law would be unaffected.
       The court would be required to rule promptly on any motion 
     to modify or terminate prospective relief. After 30 days, an 
     automatic stay on the prospective relief would apply during 
     the pendency of the motion.
       Courts would be authorized to employ an impartial special 
     master for the preparation of proposed findings of fact in 
     the remedial phase of complex prison conditions cases. The 
     special master would be appointed from lists submitted by 
     both parties, and would be compensated at a rate no higher 
     than that for federal court-appointed counsel. The 
     appointment would be reviewed every 6 months, and would lapse 
     at the termination of the prospective relief. The special 
     master's findings would be required to be on the record, and 
     no ex parte findings or communications would be permitted.
       Section 3: Amendments to Civil Rights of Institutionalized 
     Persons Act (CRIPA):
       Subsections (a) through (c): Technical amendments 
     concerning references to the Attorney General.
       Subsection (d): Suits by Prisoners.
       This subsection rewrites Section 7 of CRIPA (42 U.S.C. 
     1997e), which is currently limited to provisions related to 
     administrative remedies in connection with inmate lawsuits, 
     to establish broader standards to govern suits filed by 
     prisoners.
       Requires inmates' administrative remedies be exhausted 
     prior to the filing of a suit in federal court; removes 
     requirement that state administrative remedies be certified 
     by the Attorney General of the United States. Retains 
     provision of current law stating that the absence of 
     administrative remedies by itself does not provide the 
     Attorney General with grounds to bring or intervene in a suit 
     against a state or local prison.
       Permits the court to dismiss, without hearing, inmate suits 
     that are frivolous or malicious.
       Limits attorney's fees that may be awarded to successful 
     inmate plaintiffs. Fees must be directly and reasonably 
     incurred in proving an actual violation of a plaintiff's 
     rights, and would be based on an hourly rate no higher than 
     that for other federal court appointed counsel. Also requires 
     that up to 25% of a plaintiff's monetary judgement be applied 
     towards attorney's fees.
       Limits prisoner suits in federal court for mental or 
     emotional injury to instances where the plaintiff shows 
     physical injury as well.
       Provides that in civil suits brought by a prisoner, any 
     pretrial proceedings in which the prisoner must or may 
     participate may be conducted at the prison or jail, by 
     teleconference, or by videoconference whenever practicable.
       Permits the defendant in a prisoner-initiated suit to waive 
     reply without default, unless the reply is required by the 
     court.
       Subsections (e) and (f): Technical amendments concerning 
     references to the Attorney General.
       Section 4: Proceedings In Forma Pauperis:
       This section reforms the filing of suits in forma pauperis 
     by prisoners.
       Requires an inmate seeking to file in forma pauperis to 
     submit to the court a certified copy of the inmate's prison 
     trust fund account.
       Requires prisoners seeking to file in forma pauperis to 
     pay, in installments, the full amount of filing fees, unless 
     the prisoner has absolutely no assets.
       Provides for appointed counsel for indigent in forma 
     pauperis litigants, and requires the court to dismiss a suit 
     filed in forma pauperis if the allegation of poverty is 
     untrue, or if the suit is frivolous or malicious.
       Requires payment of costs by unsuccessful prisoner 
     litigants in the same manner as filing fees, if the judgment 
     against the prisoner includes costs.
       Prohibits, except in narrow circumstances, the filing of an 
     in forma pauperis suit by a prisoner, who, on at least 3 
     prior occasions, has brought a suit that was dismissed 
     because it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state 
     a claim upon which relief could be granted.
       Section 5: Judicial Screening:
       Requires judicial pre-screening of prisoner suits against 
     government entities or employees; requires dismissal of suits 
     which fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 
     or which seek monetary damages from an immune defendant.
       Section 6: Federal Tort Claims:
       Limits prisoner suits against the federal government for 
     mental or emotional injury under the Federal Tort Claims Act 
     to instances where the plaintiff shows physical injury as 
     well.
       Section 7: Earned Release Credit or Good Time Credit 
     Revocation:
       Reforms provisions governing the awarding of ``good time'' 
     credit in the federal prison system.
       Subsections (a) and (b): Permits a federal court to order 
     the revocation of a federal prisoner's good time credit as a 
     sanction for the filing of malicious or harassing claims, or 
     for the knowing presentation of false evidence to the court.
       Subsection (c): Revises present ``good time'' statute.
       Requires exemplary adherence to prison rules by all 
     prisoners in order to qualify for good time credit and 
     permits Bureau of Prisons to award partial credit at its 
     option.
       Provides that progress toward a high school equivalency 
     degree should be a factor for consideration in awarding good 
     time credit.
       Provides that future awards of good time credit will not 
     vest prior to the prisoner's actual release date. Returns to 
     the standard that applied prior to the enactment of the 
     Sentencing Reform Act of 1986.
                                                                    ____

                                           National Association of


                                            Attorneys General,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 1995.
     Re Frivolous Inmate Litigation: Proposed Amendment to the 
         Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill.
     Hon. Bob Dole,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: We write on behalf of the Inmate 
     Litigation Task Force of the National Association of 
     Attorneys General to express our strong support for the 
     Prison Litigation Reform Act, which we understand you intend 
     to offer as an amendment to the Appropriations Bill for 
     Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies. As you know, 
     the issue of frivolous inmate litigation has been a major 
     priority of this Association for a number of years. Although 
     a number of states--including our own--have enacted 

[[Page S 14418]]

     state legislation to address this issue, the states alone 
     cannot solve this problem because the vast majority of these 
     suits are brought in federal courts under federal laws. We 
     thank you for recognizing the importance of federal 
     legislation to curb the epidemic of frivolous inmate 
     litigation that is plaguing this country.
       Although numbers are not available for all of the states, 
     33 states have estimated that together inmate civil rights 
     suits cost them at least $54.5 million annually. 
     Extrapolating this figure to all 50 states, we estimate that 
     inmate civil rights suits cost states at least $81.3 million 
     per year. Experience at both the federal and state level 
     suggests that, while all of these cases are not frivolous, 
     more than 95 percent of inmate civil rights suits are 
     dismissed without the inmate receiving anything. Although 
     occasional meritorious claims absorb state resources, 
     nonetheless, we believe the vast majority of the $81.3 
     million figure is attributable to the non-meritorious cases.
       We have not had an opportunity to discuss the specifics of 
     the amendment with every Attorney General, however, we are 
     confident that they would concur in our view that this 
     amendment will take us a long way toward curing the vexatious 
     and expensive problem of frivolous inmate lawsuits. Thank you 
     again for championing this important issue, along with 
     Senators Hatch, Kyl, Reid and others, as it is a top priority 
     for virtually every Attorney General. Your leadership on this 
     issue and your continued commitment to this common sense 
     legal reform is very important to us and our colleagues.
           Sincerely,
     Frankie Sue Del Papa,
       Attorney General of Nevada, Chair, NAAG Inmate Litigation 
     Task Force.
     Daniel E. Lungren,
       Attorney General of California, Chair, NAAG Criminal Law 
     Committee,
     Grant Woods,
       Attorney General of Arizona, Vice-Chair, NAAG Inmate 
     Litigation Task Force,
     Jeremiah W. Nixon,
       Attorney General of Missouri, Vice-Chair, NAAG Criminal Law 
     Committee.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by the majority 
leader and Senators Kyl, Abraham, Reid, Thurmond, Specter, Hutchison, 
D'Amato, Santorum, and Gramm in introducing the Prison Litigation 
Reform Act of 1995. This landmark legislation will help bring relief to 
a civil justice system overburdened by frivolous prisoner lawsuits. 
Jailhouse lawyers with little else to do are tying our courts in knots 
with an endless flood of frivolous litigation.
  Our legislation will also help restore balance to prison conditions 
litigation and will ensure that Federal court orders are limited to 
remedying actual violations of prisoners' rights, not letting prisoners 
out of jail. It is past time to slam shut the revolving door on the 
prison gate and to put the key safely out of reach of overzealous 
Federal courts.
  As of January 1994, 24 corrections agencies reported having court-
mandated population caps. Nearly every day we hear of vicious crimes 
committed by individuals who should have been locked up. Not all of 
these tragedies are the result of court-ordered population caps, of 
course, but such caps are a part of the problem. While prison 
conditions that actually violate the Constitution should not be allowed 
to persist, I believe that the courts have gone too far in 
micromanaging our Nation's prisons.
  Our legislation also addresses the flood of frivolous lawsuits 
brought by inmates. In 1994, over 39,000 lawsuits were filed by inmates 
in Federal courts, a staggering 15 percent increase over the number 
filed the previous year. The vast majority of these suits are 
completely without merit. Indeed, roughly 94.7 percent are dismissed 
before the pretrial phase, and only a scant 3.1 percent have enough 
validity to reach trial. In my State of Utah, 297 inmate suits were 
filed in Federal courts during 1994, which accounted for 22 percent of 
all Federal civil cases filed in Utah last year. I should emphasize 
that these numbers do not include habeas corpus petitions or other 
cases challenging the inmate's conviction or sentence. The crushing 
burden of these frivolous suits makes it difficult for courts to 
consider meritorious claims.
  In one frivolous case in Utah, an inmate sued demanding that he be 
issued Reebok or L.A. Gear brand shoes instead of the Converse brand 
being issued. In another case, an inmate deliberately flooded his cell, 
and then sued the officers who cleaned up the mess because they got his 
Pinochle cards wet.
  It is time to stop this ridiculous waste of the taxpayers' money. The 
huge costs imposed on State governments to defend against these 
meritless suits is another kind of crime committed against law-abiding 
citizens.
  Mr. President, this legislation enjoys broad, bipartisan support from 
State attorneys general across the Nation. We believe with them that it 
is time to wrest control of our prisons from the lawyers and the 
inmates and return that control to competent administrators appointed 
to look out for society's interests as well as the legitimate needs of 
prisoners. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and look forward 
to securing its quick passage by the Senate.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, special masters, who are supposed to assist 
judges as factfinders in complex litigation, have all too often been 
improperly used in prison condition cases. In Arizona, special masters 
have micromanaged the department of corrections, and have performed all 
manner of services in behalf of convicted felons, from maintaining 
lavish law libraries to distributing up to 750 tons of Christmas 
packages each year. Special masters appointed to oversee prison 
litigation have cost Arizona taxpayers more than $320,000 since 1992. 
One special master was even allowed to hire a chauffeur, at taxpayers' 
expense, because he said he had a bad back.
  The Prison Litigation Reform Act, introduced as an amendment to the 
Commerce/Justice/State appropriations bill, requires the Federal 
judiciary, not the States, to foot the bill for special masters in 
prison litigation cases. Last July the Arizona legislature and Governor 
Symington cut off funds to special masters. It's time we take the 
Arizona model to the rest of the States.
  The amendment also addresses prison litigation reform. Many people 
think of prison inmates as spending their free time in the weight room 
or the television lounge. But the most crowded place in today's prisons 
may be the law library. Federal prison lawsuits have risen from 2,000 
in 1970 to 39,000 in 1994. In the words of the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals, suing has because, recreational activity for long-term 
residents of our prisons.
  Today's system seems to encourage prisoners to file with impunity. 
After all, it's free. And a courtroom is certainly a more hospitable 
place to spend an afternoon than a prison cell. Prisoners file free 
lawsuits in response to almost any perceived slight or inconvenience--
being served chunky instead of creamy peanut butter, for instance, or 
being denied the use of a Gameboy video game--a case which prompted a 
lawsuit in my home State of Arizona.
  These prisoners are victimizing society twice--first when they commit 
the crime that put them in prison, and second when they waste our hard-
earned tax dollars while cases based on serious grievances languish on 
the court calendar.
  In Arizona, Attorney General Grant Woods, who is here with us today, 
used to spend well over $1 million a year processing and defending 
against frivolous inmate lawsuits. But Grant successfully championed a 
reform bill, which went into effect last year, and the number of prison 
lawsuits was cut in half. Arizona prisoners still have the right to 
seek legal redress for meritorious claims, but the time and money once 
spent defending frivolous suits is now used to settle legitimate claims 
in a timely manner.
  But the States alone cannot solve this problem. The vast majority of 
frivolous suits are brought in Federal courts under Federal laws--which 
is why I introduced the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 last may 
with Senators Dole and Hatch. We are incorporating that legislation 
into the Commerce/Justice/State amendment.
  Federal prisoners are churning out lawsuits with no regard to this 
cost to the taxpayers or their legal merit. We can no longer ignore 
this abuse of our court system and taxpayers' funds. With the support 
of attorneys general around the country, I am confident that we will 
see real reform on this issue.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today 

[[Page S 14419]]
  will play a critical role in restoring public confidence in 
government's ability to protect the public safety. Moreover, it will 
accomplish this important purpose not by spending more taxpayer money 
but by saving it.
  I would like to focus my remarks on the provisions addressing the 
proper scope of court-ordered remedies in prison conditions cases.
  In many jurisdictions, including my own State of Michigan, judicial 
orders entered under Federal law have effectively turned control of the 
prison system away from elected officials accountable to the taxpayer, 
and over to the courts. The courts, in turn, raise the costs of running 
prisons far beyond what is necessary. In the process, they also 
undermine the legitimacy and punitive and deterrent effect of prison 
sentences.
  Let me tell you a little bit about how this works.
  Under a series of judicial decrees resulting from Justice Department 
suits against the Michigan Department of Corrections, the Federal 
courts now monitor our State prisons to determine.
  First, how warm the food is; second, how bright the lights are; 
third, whether there are electrical outlets in each cell; fourth, 
whether windows are inspected and up to code; fifth, whether prisoners' 
hair is cut only by licensed barbers; and sixth, and whether air and 
water temperatures are comfortable.
  This would be bad enough if a court had ever found that Michigan's 
prison system was at some point in violation of the Constitution, or if 
conditions there had been inhumane. But that is not the case.
  To the contrary, nearly all of Michigan's facilities are fully 
accredited by the American Corrections Association. We have what may be 
the most extensive training program in the Nation for corrections 
officers. Our rate of prison violence is among the lowest of any State. 
And we spend an average of $4,000 a year per prisoner for health care, 
including nearly $1,700 for mental health services.

  Rather, the judicial intervention is the result of a consent decree 
that Michigan entered into in 1982--13 years ago--that was supposed to 
end a lawsuit filed at the same time. Instead, the decree has been a 
source of continuous litigation and intervention by the court into the 
minutia of prison operations.
  I think this is all wrong. People deserve to keep their tax dollars 
or have them spent on projects they approve. They deserve better than 
to have their money spent, on keeping prisoners in conditions some 
Federal judge feels are desirable, although not required by any 
provision of the Constitution or any law. And they certainly don't need 
it spent on defending against endless prisoner lawsuits.
  Meanwhile, criminals, while they must be accorded their 
constitutional rights, deserve to be punished. Obviously, they should 
not be tortured or treated cruelly. At the same time, they also should 
not have all the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy. Rather, 
their lives should, on the whole, be describable by the old concept 
known as ``hard time.''
  By interfering with the fulfillment of this punitive function, the 
courts are effectively seriously undermining the entire criminal 
justice system. The legislation we are introducing today will return 
sanity and State control to our prison systems.
  Our bill forbids courts from entering orders for prospective relief 
(such as regulating food temperatures) unless the order is necessary to 
correct violations of individual plaintiffs' Federal rights. It also 
requires that the relief be narrowly drawn and be the least intrusive 
means of protecting the Federal rights. And it directs courts to give 
substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the 
operation of the criminal justice system caused by the relief.
  It also provides that any party can seek to have a court decree ended 
after 2 years, and that the court will order it ended unless there is 
still a constitutional violation that needs to be corrected.
  As a result, no longer will prison administration be turned over to 
Federal judges for the indefinite future for the slightest reason. 
Instead, the States will be able to run prisons as they see fit unless 
there is a constitutional violation, in which case a narrowly tailored 
order to correct the violation may be entered.
  This is a balanced bill that allows the courts to step in where they 
are needed, but puts an end to unnecessary judicial intervention and 
micromanagement. I thank all my colleagues for their interest in this 
matter and hope we will be able to get something enacted soon.

                          ____________________