[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 163 (Friday, October 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15401-S15407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles, 
        Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 1346. A bill to require the periodic review of Federal 
regulations; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                   THE REGULATORY REVIEW ACT OF 1995

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 
Regulatory Review Act of 1995, which I introduce today on behalf of 
myself and Senators Heflin, Lott, Nickles, Hutchison, Craig, and Kyl.
  It is only common sense that the utility of a rule may change as 
circumstances change. Under current law, however, a rule enjoys eternal 
life unless the agency that promulgated it takes affirmative steps to 
terminate it. And in fact agencies rarely choose to burden themselves 
with the task of reexamining the rules they have promulgated. As a 
result, our rulebooks are littered with rules that are obsolete, 
inconsistent with other rules, or just plain unnecessary.
  The weight of this heap of outdated rules rests most heavily on the 
small businesses of this country. Unlike larger firms, small businesses 
cannot spread the costs of regulation over a large quantity of output. 
Nor can they pass their regulatory headaches on to an accounting 
department, legal counsel, or human resources division. Instead, in 
case after case the entrepreneur himself must spend innumerable hours 
attempting to comply with the mandates of Federal regulators. It comes 
as no surprise, then, that problems relating to regulation and 
Government paperwork were the fastest growing areas of concern in a 
recent survey conducted by the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses.
  The Regulatory Review Act would solve the problems caused by 
unnecessary rules. Under the act, the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and 
Budget would coordinate and supervise agency reviews of covered rules, 
which largely would be rules that impose annual costs of $100 million 
or more. Covered rules not reviewed by the end of their review period 
would terminate. The duration of review periods under the act would be 
up to 7 years, plus a possible extension of 6 months. Finally, the act 
itself would sunset after 10 years.
  There are several reasons why OIRA should be given supervisory 
authority over the regulatory review process. Obviously, the review 
process will involve determinations as to whether the rules 

[[Page S15402]]
of one agency conflict with or duplicate those of another agency. Those 
determinations will require a global, interagency perspective that 
comes much more naturally to OIRA than to the individual agencies 
themselves. Additionally, vesting this authority in OIRA, rather than 
scattering it among the various agencies, will provide a timely 
reaffirmation of what Alexander Hamilton called the unity of the 
executive in Federalist No. 70.
  It is also worth noting that the act avoids two areas of contention 
that arose during debate on S. 343, the regulatory reform bill. First, 
the act contains no decisional criteria; instead, rules would be 
reviewed according to whatever criteria already exist under current 
law. Second, the act would not affect the availability of, or standards 
for, judicial review of final agency action. Thus, at bottom, the act 
stands for the commonsense principle that agencies should be required 
to review their rules periodically.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to address this issue without delay. 
The small businesses represented by the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses, which strongly supports the Regulatory Review 
Act, demand no less.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COATS:
  S. 1347. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for the 
vessel Captain Daryl, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


               certification of documentation legislation

 Mr. COATS. 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. 1347

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

     SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 
     (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 
     12105 through 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the 
     Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
     documentation with appropriate endorsement for the vessel 
     CAPTAIN DARYL, United States official number 64320.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COATS:
  S. 1348. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for the 
vessel Alpha Tango, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


               certification of documentation legislation

 Mr. COATS. 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. 1348

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

     SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 
     (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 
     12106 through 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the 
     Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
     documentation with appropriate endorsement for the vessel 
     ALPHA TANGO, United States official number 723340.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COATS:
  S. 1349. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for the 
vessel Old Hat, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


               certification of documentation legislation

 Mr. COATS. 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. 1349

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

     SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 
     (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 
     12106 through 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the 
     Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
     documentation with appropriate endorsement for the vessel OLD 
     HAT, United States official number 508299.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 1350. A bill to promote increased understanding of Federal 
regulations and increased voluntary compliance with such regulations by 
small entities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


             THE SMALL BUSINESS FAIR TREATMENT ACT OF 1995

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the 
Small Business Fair Treatment Act of 1995, a measure designed not only 
to afford regularly relief to our Nation's small businesses, but also 
to begin to change the attitude of Government regulators who are often 
viewed by small business as adversaries rather than as sources of help 
and guidance.
  Mr. President, the regulatory structure that has developed over the 
years performs important safety, health, and consumer protection 
functions.
  Just 2 years ago, a cryptosporidium outbreak in the city of 
Milwaukee's water supply left 104 people dead and over 400,000 people 
seriously ill.
  That was a tragic reminder of how just one small crack in the 
regulatory process can have devastating consequences for a community 
that until then had never experienced any such problems.
  The need for strong, effective regulations is undeniable.
  At the same time, few would dispute that the current regulatory 
system needs meaningful reform.
  Mr. President, I have held over 175 listening sessions in my home 
State of Wisconsin during the 2\1/2\ years that I have been a Member of 
this body.
  Countless times I have had constituents stand up at these meetings 
and express their tremendous frustration and anger with a regulatory 
process that too often is impractical, impersonal, and needlessly 
burdensome.
  This body debated a regulatory reform proposal earlier this summer 
that sought to respond to this widespread frustration and anger.
  But many of the proposals that were offered on the floor of the 
Senate during that regulatory relief debate earlier this summer focused 
more on changes in the actual rulemaking process and featured solutions 
that if not entirely Washington-based at least took a Washington 
perspective in addressing the issue.
  The central devices that evolved in that debate as the tools by which 
the regulatory process would be improved, such as judicial review and 
the petition process, were approaches to regulatory relief that 
reflected a large corporation, Washington lobbyist, Washington law firm 
based approach to solutions.
  Mr. President, there certainly is a role for our Nation's larger 
corporate citizens to play in the regulatory climate of this country, 
but those interests do not always represent the interests of all 
businesses, and the solutions to the regulatory problems of large 
businesses are not always appropriate or effective for smaller 
businesses.
  While a multinational corporation with substantial resources might 
find it reasonable to devote funds to an enhanced petition process, 
that kind of solution might mean little for a small, family owned 
business with a fraction of the resources of a large firm, and little 
working knowledge of the rulemaking process.
  As well, Mr. President, solutions proposed during the regulatory 
relief debate did little to focus on the day-to-day, practical problems 
of regulation with which small businesses must contend.
  By contrast, this legislation focuses on small business, and on the 
practical problems of dealing with Government agencies and regulations.
  It contains a number of provisions that make it easier for small 
businesses to comply with Government regulations, including several 
that are similar to some excellent ideas offered as part of legislation 
sponsored by the chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, Mr. 
Bond, as well as others that have been implemented at the direction of 
President Clinton.

[[Page S15403]]

  The bill requires agencies to publish compliance guides that provide 
a straightforward, plain language description of a rule or regulation 
with which a small business must comply.
  These guides would be required to be published and disseminated by 
the agency before any enforcement action was brought.
  Beyond the obvious help these guides could be for businesses affected 
by a Government regulation, requiring an agency to think out and 
describe a new regulation in a clear and understandable way will only 
enhance the ability of that agency to administer the regulation.
  The bill also requires agencies to establish procedures for the use 
of so-called no action letters. These are letters issued by an agency 
in response to a specific request of clarification from a small 
business trying to comply with that agency's regulations.
  The bill requires agencies to make a timely determination whether or 
not to issue such a no action letter, and if such a letter is issued, 
the bill establishes that the business could rely on it in an 
enforcement action related to matters laid out in the letter.
  In addition to providing specific direction to a small business in 
dealing with subjective interpretations of agency regulations, a no 
action letter also establishes a record to which other businesses can 
turn in seeking guidance on how a particular regulation should be 
interpreted.
  A body of no action letters also ensures consistency in the 
interpretation of regulations by an agency, something that can only 
further enhance compliance.
  Mr. President, the bill also allows small businesses to request an 
audit from a regulator without the fear that the findings of such an 
audit would be used in any enforcement action.
  The findings from such an audit would not be used in any enforcement 
action, if correction of any identified problem were made within 180 
days, except if the basis of the enforcement action were a violation of 
criminal law, or if the voluntary audit was requested for the purpose 
of avoiding disclosure of information required for an investigative, 
administrative, or judicial proceeding that, at the time of the audit, 
was imminent or in progress.
  In listening to small businessmen and women in Wisconsin, one of the 
most troubling complaints that is raised with respect to Government 
regulation is the feeling that Government agencies too often take a 
confrontational or adversarial approach in dealing with the business.
  Whether or not this feeling is justified in every instance, in many 
instances, or in only a few, it is honestly felt and reveals a problem 
that needs fixing.
  When the relationship between those who oversee and enforce 
regulations and those who must observe them deteriorates in this 
manner, it only hinders compliance.
  By allowing businesses to request a review of their operations, 
without fear that the results would be used against them, we can begin 
to improve that relationship, and change the way business perceives 
regulators from adversaries to sources of help.
  Mr. President, another provision in the bill allows small business a 
6-month grace period to correct violations of Environmental Protection 
Agency regulations after they have been identified, unless there is 
imminent risk to public health or worker safety.
  This proposal has already been implemented at the direction of 
President Clinton, and in my own State of Wisconsin, small businesses 
have informed me that this extra time has allowed them to work with EPA 
to develop a plan of action to deal with an identified problem.
  We should codify this directive, and this bill does just that.
  Another Presidential directive that we should codify is allowing 
regulators to waive up to 100 percent of the punitive fines on small 
businesses for first-time violations where the firm acts quickly and 
sincerely to correct the problem.
  While as a general rule, we should ensure that rules and regulations 
are enforced uniformly, it makes sense to provide regulators some 
flexibility in addressing the first-time regulatory infractions of a 
small business.
  Small businesses trying to comply with regulations should be allowed 
to devote scarce resources to correcting problems instead of paying 
fines.
  Here again the target of this measure is not only to provide 
regulatory relief to small business, it is to improve and enhance the 
relationship between small businesses and Government agencies.
  Though these last two provisions have been implemented by executive 
order, enacting them into law will give them permanence, and will 
prevent future Presidents from simply rescinding them through 
subsequent Executive order.
  An additional directive of the President's that merits the full force 
of Federal law is a prohibition against using personnel practices that 
reward agency employees, directly or indirectly, based on the number of 
contacts made with small entities in pursuit of enforcement actions, or 
on the amount of fines levied against small entities to enforce agency 
regulations.
  The section responds to comments made to my office by small business 
people who have reported that agency personnel have felt compelled to 
find something wrong, even if it is small, in order to justify their 
visit to the firm.
  This goes to the heart of what the role of a regular is. Personnel 
practices based on these kinds of performance incentives may quite 
naturally provoke adversarial relationships. Regulators need to remain 
independent from the entities they oversee, but unnecessary antagonism 
can actually hinder efforts to ensure compliance with the rules.
  Mr. President, I want to reiterate my sincere and spirited support 
for reforming the regulatory process that is currently in place.
  The current system is not acceptable; the need for reform is clear 
and imperative.
  And though the larger regulatory reform legislation has bogged down, 
I very much hope a compromise can be worked out and a meaningful reform 
package can be enacted into law.
  But, Mr. President, even if a compromise can be hammered out, it is 
likely that it will still reflect a process-oriented approach that may 
provide large corporate interests with avenues for relief, but does 
little to address the day-to-day problems facing small business.
  Nor does such legislation address the very real feeling of small 
businesses that Government regulators too often act as adversaries 
rather than to provide guidance in helping firms to comply with the 
law.
  Mr. President, the provisions of this bill are designed to help do 
just that.
  The provisions outlined in this measure both provide some practical 
regulatory relief and can improve the relationship between businesses 
and agencies. The process reforms of other regulatory reform measures 
merit our consideration, but I urge my colleagues not to allow that 
approach to dominate a debate which should rightly be focused on that 
portion of the business world that is most severely burdened by 
Government regulation--small business.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1350

       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 ``Small Business Fair 
     Treatment Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

      TITLE I--REGULATORY SIMPLIFICATION AND VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Compliance guides.
Sec. 103. No action letter.
Sec. 104. Voluntary self-audits.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Performance measures.
Sec. 202. Grace period for correction of violations of Environmental 
              Protection Agency regulations.
Sec. 203. Waiver of punitive fines for small entities.
      TITLE I--REGULATORY SIMPLIFICATION AND VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       (1) Compliance guide.--The term ``compliance guide'' means 
     a publication made by a covered agency under section 102(a).

[[Page S15404]]

       (2) Covered agency.--The term ``covered agency'' means any 
     agency that, on the date of enactment of this Act, has 
     promulgated any rule for which a regulatory flexibility 
     analysis was required under section 605 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and any other agency that promulgates any such 
     rule, as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) No action letter.--The term ``no action letter'' means 
     a written determination from a covered agency stating that, 
     based on a no action request submitted to the agency by a 
     small entity, the agency will not take enforcement action 
     against the small entity under the rules of the covered 
     agency.
       (4) No action request.--The term ``no action request'' 
     means a written correspondence submitted by a small entity to 
     a covered agency--
       (A) stating a set of facts; and
       (B) requesting a determination by the agency of whether the 
     agency would take an enforcement action against the small 
     entity based on such facts and the application of any rule of 
     the agency.
       (5) Rule.--The term ``rule'' has the same meaning as in 
     section 601(2) of title 5, United States Code.
       (6) Small entity.--The term ``small entity'' has the same 
     meaning as in section 601(6) of title 5, United States Code.
       (7) Small business concern.--The term ``small business 
     concern'' has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Small 
     Business Act.
       (8) Voluntary self-audit.--The term ``voluntary self-
     audit'' means an audit, assessment, or review of any 
     operation, practice, or condition of a small entity that--
       (A) is initiated by an officer, employee, or agent of the 
     small entity; and
       (B) is not required by law.

     SEC. 102. COMPLIANCE GUIDES.

       (a) Compliance Guide.--
       (1) Publication.--If a covered agency is required to 
     prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule or group 
     of related rules under section 603 of title 5, United States 
     Code, the agency shall publish a compliance guide for such 
     rule or group of related rules.
       (2) Requirements.--Each compliance guide published under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) contain a summary description of the rule or group of 
     related rules;
       (B) contain a citation to the location of the complete rule 
     or group of related rules in the Federal Register;
       (C) provide notice to small entities of the requirements 
     under the rule or group of related rules and explain the 
     actions that a small entity is required to take to comply 
     with the rule or group of related rules;
       (D) be written in a manner to be understood by the average 
     owner or manager of a small entity; and
       (E) be updated as required to reflect changes in the rule.
       (b) Dissemination.--
       (1) In general.--Each covered agency shall establish a 
     system to ensure that compliance guides required under this 
     section are published, disseminated, and made easily 
     available to small entities.
       (2) Small business development centers.--In carrying out 
     this subsection, each covered agency shall provide sufficient 
     numbers of compliance guides to small business development 
     centers for distribution to small businesses concerns.
       (c) Limitation on Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--No covered agency may bring an enforcement 
     action in any Federal court or in any Federal administrative 
     proceeding against a small entity to enforce a rule for which 
     a compliance guide is not published and disseminated by the 
     covered agency as required under this section.
       (2) Effective dates.--This subsection shall take effect--
       (A) 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act with 
     regard to a final regulation in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (B) on the date of the enactment of this Act with regard to 
     a regulation that takes effect as a final regulation after 
     such date of enactment.

     SEC. 103. NO ACTION LETTER.

       (a) Application.--This section applies to all covered 
     agencies, except--
       (1) the Federal Trade Commission;
       (2) the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and
       (3) the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
       (b) Issuance of No Action Letter.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date on which a covered agency receives a no action 
     request, the agency shall--
       (1) make a determination regarding whether to grant the no 
     action request, deny the no action request, or seek further 
     information regarding the no action request; and
       (2) if the agency makes a determination under paragraph (1) 
     to grant the no action request, issue a no action letter and 
     transmit the letter to the requesting small entity.
       (c) Reliance on No Action Letter or Compliance Guide.--In 
     any enforcement action brought by a covered agency in any 
     Federal court or Federal administrative proceeding against a 
     small entity, the small entity shall have a complete defense 
     to any allegation of noncompliance or violation of a rule if 
     the small entity affirmatively pleads and proves by a 
     preponderance of the evidence that the act or omission 
     constituting the alleged noncompliance or violation was taken 
     in good faith with and in reliance on--
       (1) a no action letter from that agency; or
       (2) a compliance guide of the applicable rule published by 
     the agency under section 102(a).

     SEC. 104. VOLUNTARY SELF-AUDITS.

       (a) Procedures.--Each agency shall establish voluntary 
     self-audit procedures for small entities regulated by the 
     agency.
       (b) Inadmissibility of Evidence and Limitation on 
     Discovery.--If action to address a violation is taken not 
     later than 180 days after the date on which a voluntary self-
     audit is concluded, the evidence described in subsection 
     (c)--
       (1) shall not be admissible, unless agreed to by the small 
     entity, in any enforcement action brought against a small 
     entity by a Federal agency in any Federal--
       (A) court; or
       (B) administrative proceeding; and
       (2) may not be the subject of discovery in any enforcement 
     action brought against a small entity by a Federal agency in 
     any Federal--
       (A) court; or
       (B) administrative proceeding.
       (c) Application.--For purposes of subsection (b), the 
     evidence described in this subsection is--
       (1) a voluntary self-audit made in good faith; and
       (2) any report, finding, opinion, or any other oral or 
     written communication made in good faith relating to such 
     voluntary self-audit.
       (d) Exceptions.--Subsection (b) shall not apply if--
       (1) the act or omission that forms the basis of the 
     enforcement action is a violation of criminal law; or
       (2) the voluntary self-audit or the report, finding, 
     opinion, or other oral or written communication was prepared 
     for the purpose of avoiding disclosure of information 
     required for an investigative, administrative, or judicial 
     proceeding that, at the time of preparation, was imminent or 
     in progress.
                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. PERFORMANCE MEASURES.

       No covered agency shall establish or enforce agency 
     personnel practices that reward agency employees, directly or 
     indirectly, based on the number of contacts made with small 
     entities in pursuit of enforcement actions or on the amount 
     of fines levied against small entities to enforce agency 
     regulations.

     SEC. 202. GRACE PERIOD FOR CORRECTION OF VIOLATIONS OF 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), for violations 
     of regulations identified on or after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall afford small entities 180 days after 
     the date on which the violation is identified to correct such 
     violation.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply--
       (1) if the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency determines that there is an imminent risk to public 
     health or worker safety; or
       (2) to a violation of a regulation for which criminal 
     liability may be imposed.

     SEC. 203. WAIVER OF PUNITIVE FINES FOR SMALL ENTITIES.

       Notwithstanding any other law, policy, or practice, a 
     covered agency may waive all or part of a punitive fine that 
     would otherwise be imposed on a small entity if--
       (1) the fine is for a first time violation of a law or 
     regulation; and
       (2) the small entity acts quickly and in good faith to 
     correct the violation.
                                 ______


                         By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN:

  S. 1351. A bill to encourage the furnishing of health care services 
to low-income individuals by exempting health care professionals from 
liability for negligence for certain health care services provided 
without charge except in cases of gross negligence or willful 
misconduct, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                the charitable medical care act of 1995

 Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce 
the Charitable Medical Care Act of 1995. This legislation is designed 
to ensure that licensed providers, who, in good faith, provide medical 
treatment without compensation, are not sued. Currently, because of 
malpractice concerns, health care professionals have a disincentive to 
volunteer their services. This act does not apply in situations of 
gross negligence or willful misconduct.
  Protection from liability for voluntarily providing uncompensated 
care is not a new idea. Currently, eight States, including my home 
State of Illinois, have laws in place that free doctors, who practice 
voluntarily and in good faith, from at least some part of malpractice 
liability. These States include: Virginia, Utah, North Carolina, 
Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Iowa, and Washington, DC.
  My legislation builds upon existing Good Samaritan laws. Good 
Samaritan laws prevent an individual who acted 

[[Page S15405]]
in good faith from liability in the event a mishap occurs. In 1959, 
California enacted the Nation's first Good Samaritan statute. Today, 
all 50 States, and Washington, DC, have adopted some form of a Good 
Samaritan statute. These statutes exempt the volunteers from tort 
liability for ordinary negligence in rendering emergency aid to an 
individual. The rationale for these laws is to encourage health 
professionals to aid persons in need of assistance.
  The need for free clinics and voluntarism by health professionals has 
never been more striking. There were 41 million uninsured Americans in 
this country last year. Voluntarism by health care professionals has 
been instrumental in providing health care to the uninsured. Free 
clinics have a preventative and primary care focus. They offer an 
alternative to emergency rooms, which have become family doctors to far 
too many. They also represent an enormous savings to the entire health 
care system. In the tradition of family doctors, these clinics offer a 
primary care continuum.
  Free clinics supplement community clinics that provide care to those 
without insurance as well as those on Medicaid. Together these clinics 
provide the majority of care in underserved communities. More than 
1,500 free and community clinics serve over 10 million individuals each 
year in this country. In my State of Illinois last year, 17,350 people 
were served and over $600,000 worth of care was provided. The potential 
impact of charitable care is not insignificant. It is estimated that 
charitable medical care provides care to 30 percent of the currently 
uninsured population.
  Free clinics have served a valuable service and will continue to 
provide vital access to health care to the poor. While I am a firm 
supporter of universal coverage, it appears that, at least for a while, 
millions of Americans will remain uncovered. The number of uninsured 
Americans increased from 37.4 million in 1993 to 41 million in 1994, an 
increase of nearly 4 million individuals. Proposed changes in Medicaid 
and Medicare will most certainly increase this number.
  The role of free clinics and voluntarism by professionals is, and 
will remain, an important part of the health care delivery system. This 
is particularly true in urban and rural underserved areas. Thus far, 
free clinics have been very successful in serving the community. Their 
success is due to their broad-based community support and the 
voluntarism of the medical community. Medical liability suits are very 
rare.
  Doctors and other medical personnel who voluntarily provide quality 
medical care to the poor are an essential component of free/community 
clinics. Free clinics can not provide services, however, if barriers to 
voluntarism remain. One of the best ways to increase voluntarism is 
through some protection from liability. It is critical that we 
encourage doctors to volunteer their services to those who cannot 
afford such care. I believe the legislation I am introducing today will 
go a long way toward achieving this goal.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important 
legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 1352. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to make 
technical corrections in maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources 
System; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


              coastal barrier resources system legislation

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation with my 
friend and colleague, Senator Moynihan, which would correct a technical 
error that has prevented certain residents of my State from 
participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. Specifically, 
this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical 
corrections in the current maps of the Coastal Barrier Resources System 
[COBRA]. A companion to this bill, H.R. 2005, was introduced in the 
House of Representatives by Congressman Michael Forbes on July 11, 1995 
and was approved by the House Committee on Resources on September 27, 
1995. This necessary legislation is supported by the administration.
  In 1990, the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service 
made a technical error when it designated part of the Point O'Woods 
community on Fire Island in New York as part of an otherwise protected 
area [OPA]. As a result of this technical error, homeowners in this 
part of the country are restricted from protecting their properties 
through the purchase of Federal flood insurance.
  Mr. President, the Fish and Wildlife Service concedes that the 
designation of these residences as part of an OPA was erroneous. The 
administration testified in support of the House version of this 
legislation before the Oceans, Fisheries, and Wildlife Subcommittee of 
the House Committee on Resources. The inadvertent error in the COBRA 
map has greatly complicated community efforts to relocate houses away 
from high erosion zones and otherwise practice effective coastal 
barrier management. This legislation would allow the Point O'Woods 
community the opportunity, which other American homeowners in similar 
areas currently have, to participate in the Federal Flood Insurance 
Program. The Federal Government actively encourages participation in 
this important program in order to minimize taxpayer costs in the event 
of a natural disaster.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter 
written to me by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in support of this 
correction and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1352

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

     SECTION 1. CORRECTION TO MAP.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall, 
     before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, make such corrections to the map 
     described in subsection (b) as are necessary--
       (1) to move on that map the eastern boundary of the 
     excluded area covering Ocean Beach, Seaview, Ocean Bay Park, 
     and part of Point O'Woods to the western boundary of the 
     Sunken Forest Preserve; and
       (2) to ensure that on that map the depiction of areas as 
     ``otherwise protected areas'' does not include any area that 
     is owned by the Point O'Woods Association (a privately held 
     corporation under the laws of the State of New York).
       (b) Map Described.--The map described in this subsection is 
     the map that is included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal 
     Barrier Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990, that 
     relates to the unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources System 
     entitled Fire Island Unit NY-59P.
                                                                    ____

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                    Fish and Wildlife Service,

                                 Washington, DC, October 20, 1995.
     Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator D'Amato, At the request of staff on the Senate 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee 
     on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I am writing to 
     inform you of the position of the Department of the Interior 
     on legislation to modify unit NY59P of the Coastal Barrier 
     Resources System. This letter is consistent with testimony 
     before the House Committee on Resources, which I have 
     enclosed.
       The House Resources Committee is in the process of 
     reviewing H.R. 2005, a bill introduced by Congressman Forbes 
     making technical corrections to maps relating to the Coastal 
     Barrier Resources System. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
     supports passage of H.R. 2005 in its current form and agrees 
     with the removal of a portion of unit NY59P from the Coastal 
     Barrier System to correct a technical error. However, we 
     would oppose the addition of other provisions dealing with 
     any other units to this bill without full opportunity for 
     Service review.
       H.R. 2005 seeks to remove a portion of unit NY59P, Fire 
     Island, New York, from the Coastal Barrier System. This unit 
     is part of the Fire Island National seashore and is mapped as 
     an otherwise protected area. Otherwise protected areas are 
     defined by the CBRA as coastal barriers which are ``included 
     within the boundaries of an area established under Federal, 
     State, or local law, or held by a qualified organization as 
     defined in Section 170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1954, primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, 
     or natural resource conservation purposes.'' The Department 
     of the Interior recommended to Congress that otherwise 
     protected areas not be included in the System and therefore 
     no further refinement of the mapped boundaries were made. 
     However, with the passage of the 1990 legislation, Congress 
     prohibited the sale of Federal flood insurance within 
     otherwise protected areas thus retaining these units in the 
     System. The property owned by the Point O'Woods Association 
     in unit NY59P is not part of this otherwise protected area 
     and therefore, was mistakenly included in the System.

[[Page S15406]]

       The Service recommends that the boundary of NY59P be 
     modified to remove the Point O'Woods property from within the 
     boundary of NY59P, and we support H.R. 2005 in its current 
     form. Please feel free to contact me or our Office of 
     Congressional and Legislative Services if you have questions 
     or require further information.
           Sincerely,
                                             ------ ------ ------,

                     Assistant Director, External Affairs.

                                 ______

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. 
        Lautenberg):
  S. 1353. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to require the 
transfer of certain Federal highway funds to a State highway safety 
program if a State fails to prohibit open containers of alcoholic 
beverages and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the passenger area 
of motor vehicles, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


               The National Drunk Driving Prevention Act

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the National 
Drunk Driving Prevention Act which will put an end to our Nation' s 
policy of tolerating open alcoholic containers in vehicles. I am 
pleased that a strong bipartisan group of my colleagues are joining me 
in this effort as original cosponsors: Senator Boxer, Senator Bumpers, 
Senator Chafee, Senator DeWine, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Murray.
  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, it 
is still legal in 26 States in this country for passengers in a vehicle 
to have open containers of alcoholic beverages in vehicles while the 
vehicle is in operation. In six States it is perfectly legal for a 
driver of a car to put one hand on the steering wheel and with the 
other, grab a bottle of whisky and drive off drinking. In my judgment, 
this is unacceptable.
  It seems to me that we should make it a matter of national policy 
that there ought to be a strict separation between drinking and 
driving. By tolerating drinking of alcoholic beverages in cars we are 
ignoring one of the most deadly causes of traffic deaths in this 
country--people drinking while they drive.
  During the period 1982 through 1993, approximately 266,000 persons 
lost their lives in alcohol-related traffic accidents. In 1993, over 
17,000 people died on our Nation's roads in alcohol-related accidents--
that's an average of 1 every 30 minutes. That figure is about 40 
percent of the total number of traffic fatalities in the United States 
in 1993. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 
[NHTSA], estimates that over 1 million persons a year are injured in 
alcohol-related crashes--an average of 1 person every 26 seconds.
  Especially disturbing is the fact that drunk driving is a major 
killer of youths. According to the National Commission Against Drunk 
Driving, alcohol-related traffic fatalities hit the youth more than any 
other group. In 1993, youths were killed at a rate of 11 alcohol-
related traffic fatalities per 100,000 license drivers compared to 8 
per 100,000 for adult drivers. Traffic crashes are the greatest single 
cause of death for every age between the ages of 6 and 32--almost half 
of these crashes are alcohol-related.
  This legislation would make the roads throughout the Nation safer by 
requiring all States to enact open container laws. If a State does not 
comply within 4 years, 1.5 percent of its Federal highway construction 
funds would be transferred to its Federal allocation of highway safety 
funds.
  The 1991 ISTEA legislation--Intermodal Surface Transportation and 
Efficiency Act--authorized incentive grants to States which would allow 
States a 5-percent increase in highway traffic safety allocations if 
that State has enacted legislation prohibiting open containers. The 
fact is that incentive grants have not worked--over half of the States 
continue to permit open containers in vehicles. I think the results 
speak for themselves.
  It seems to me that stronger efforts must be made. Since half the 
States have not enacted open container laws, the Congress must do 
something at the Federal level to urge States to take action. Incentive 
grants have been available for some time and we seem to have not made 
much progress under that approach.
  Earlier this year, I offered an amendment to S. 440, the National 
Highways Systems Designation Act, which was very similar to this 
legislation. This bill differs in that it provides States with 2 more 
years to comply. Under this legislation, States would have until 1999 
to enact laws prohibiting open containers in vehicles.
  Drinking and driving cannot be seen as a personal moral decision. 
When someone decides to drink and drive, that person is not simply 
putting himself and others in danger. That person is a threat to 
innocent drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. The odds are that 2 out 
of every 5 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic 
accident, regardless of their drinking habits.
  The fact is that every third drunk driving fatality is an innocent 
victim--a nondrinking driver, passenger, or pedestrian. Under the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal 
Government is requiring States to enact laws requiring the use of seat 
belts and helmets, which are matters of personal safety, in the 
interest of traffic safety. Allowing individuals to mix drinking and 
driving is not just a matter of personal safety--it is a matter of 
public safety with serious public concerns. All the more reason, I 
believe, for the Congress to require States to address this concern.
  This legislation takes a positive step and makes good public policy. 
This bill provides a strong incentive for States to enact laws 
prohibiting the insane behavior of drinking in a moving vehicle. If 
States fail to comply, States would not lose any Federal funds. Rather, 
States would have 1.5 percent--in fiscal year 1999--or 3 percent--in 
any fiscal years thereafter--transferred to its Federal allocation of 
highway safety funds.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous 
consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1353

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Drunk Driving 
     Prevention Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. OPEN CONTAINER LAWS.

       (a) Establishment.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     Sec. 161. Open container requirements

       ``(a) Penalty.--
       ``(1) General rule.--
       ``(A) Fiscal year 2000.--If, at any time in fiscal year 
     2000, a State does not have in effect a law described in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall transfer 1.5 percent of 
     the funds apportioned to the State for fiscal year 2001 under 
     each of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 104(b) to the 
     apportionment of the State under section 402.
       ``(B) Fiscal years thereafter.--If, at any time in a fiscal 
     year beginning after September 30, 2000, a State does not 
     have in effect a law described in subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall transfer 3 percent of the funds apportioned 
     to the State for the succeeding fiscal year under each of 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 104(b) to the 
     apportionment of the State under section 402.
       ``(b) Open Container Laws.--For the purposes of this 
     section, each State shall have in effect a law that prohibits 
     the possession of any open alcoholic beverage container, 
     or the consumption of any alcoholic beverage, in the 
     passenger area of any motor vehicle (including possession 
     or consumption by the driver of the vehicle) located on a 
     public highway, or the right-of-way of a public highway, 
     in the State. If a State has in effect a law that makes 
     the possession of any open alcoholic beverage container 
     unlawful in the passenger area by the driver (but not by a 
     passenger) of a motor vehicle designed to transport more 
     than 10 passengers (including the driver) while being used 
     to provide charter transportation of passengers, the State 
     shall be deemed in compliance with subsection (a) with 
     respect to the motor vehicle for each fiscal year during 
     which the law is in effect.
       ``(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of any 
     project carried out under section 402 with funds transferred 
     under subsection (a) to the apportionment of a State under 
     section 402 shall be 100 percent.
       ``(d) Transfer of Obligation Authority.--If the Secretary 
     transfers under subsection (a) any funds to the apportionment 
     of a State under section 402 for a fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall allocate an amount of obligation authority distributed 
     for the fiscal year to the State for Federal-aid highways and 
     highway safety construction programs for carrying out only 
     projects under section 402 that is determined by 
     multiplying--
       ``(1) the amount of funds transferred under subsection (a) 
     to the apportionment of the 

[[Page S15407]]
     State under section 402 for the fiscal year; and
       ``(2) the ratio of the amount of obligation authority 
     distributed for the fiscal year to the State for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs to the 
     total of the sums apportioned to the State for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction (excluding sums not 
     subject to any obligation limitation) for the fiscal year.
       ``(e) Limitation on Applicability of Highway Safety 
     Obligations.--Notwithstanding any other law, no limitation on 
     the total of obligations for highway safety programs carried 
     out by the Secretary under section 402 shall apply to funds 
     transferred under subsection (a) to the apportionment of a 
     State under section 402.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Alocoholic beverage.--The term `alcoholic beverage' 
     has the meaning provided in section 158(c).
       ``(2) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' has the 
     meaning provided in section 154(b).
       ``(3) Open alcoholic beverage container.--The term `open 
     alcoholic beverage container' has the meaning provided in 
     section 410.
       ``(4) Passenger area.--The term `passenger area' shall have 
     the meaning provided by the Secretary by regulation.''.
       ``(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following.

     ``161. Open container requirements''.

                          ____________________