[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 207 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S19250-S19260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. COHEN (for himself and Mr. Nunn):
  S. 1501. A bill to amend part V of title 28, United States Code, to 
require that the Department of Justice and State attorneys general are 
provided notice of a class action certification or settlement, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


           the protecting class action plaintiffs act of 1995

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Protecting Class 
Action Plaintiffs Act of 1995. This legislation is necessary to address 
a troubling number of instances where class action lawsuits have been 
filed on behalf of thousands, and in some cases, millions of Americans, 
but the suits have been settled in ways that do not promote the best 
interest of the plaintiffs.
  A class action is a lawsuit in which an attorney not only represents 
an individual plaintiff, but in addition, the suit seeks relief for all 
those individuals who have suffered an injury similar to the plaintiff. 
For example, a suit brought against a pharmaceutical company by a 
person suffering from the side effects of a drug, can, if the court 
approves it as a class action, be expanded to cover all individuals who 
used that drug.
  More often than not, these suits are settled. Settlement agreements 
provide monetary and other relief to class Members, protect defendants 
from future lawsuits, and stipulate how the plaintiffs' attorneys will 
be paid.
  All class members are notified of the terms of the settlement and 
given the opportunity to exclude themselves from the class action if 
they do not want to be bound by the agreement. All class action 
settlements must be approved by a court.
  Although the class action is an important part of our civil justice 
system, it is fraught with difficulties. The primary problem is that 
the client in a class action is a diffuse group of thousands of 
individuals scattered across the country, that is incapable of 
exercising meaningful control over the litigation. While in theory the 
class action lawyers must be responsive to their clients, in practice, 
the lawyers control all aspects of the litigation.
  Moreover, when a class actions is settled, the amount of the 
attorneys' fee, is negotiated between the plaintiffs' lawyers and the 
defendants. Yet, in most cases, the fee is paid by the class members--
the only party that does not have a seat at the bargaining table.
  In addition, class actions are now being used by defendants as a tool 
to limit their future liabilities. Class actions are being settled that 
cover all individuals exposed to a particular substance but whose 
injuries have not yet manifest themselves. As Prof. John Coffee of the 
Columbia Law School has written, ``the class action is providing a 
means by which unsuspecting future 

[[Page S19251]]
claimants suffer the extinguishment of their claims even before they 
learn of their injury.''

  In light of the incentives that are driving the parties, it is easy 
to understand how class action settlements can be abused. Plaintiffs' 
attorneys and corporate defendants can reach agreements that satisfy 
their respective interests--limiting the defendants' liability and 
maximizing the attorneys' fee. But, because the plaintiffs themselves 
do not participate in the settlement negotiations, they are sometimes 
left out in the cold. Again, as Professor Coffee has concluded, ``if 
not actually collusive, settlements all too frequently have advanced 
the interests of plaintiffs' attorneys, not those of class members.''
  Presumably, judges would not approve settlements that were unfair to 
the plaintiffs. But, it is difficult for judges to adequately 
scrutinize such settlements. In most instances, the only parties 
appearing before them--the plaintiffs' lawyers and the defendants--
support the settlement. Without anyone providing adversarial scrutiny 
to reveal the flaws in class action settlements, judges are apt to 
approve them, especially since they result in the removal of complex 
cases from crowded court dockets.
  I am familiar with one particularly egregious case where this is 
exactly what transpired. A constituent of mine, Dexter Kamilewicz, of 
Yarmouth, ME was a member of a class action lawsuit filed in Alabama 
State Court against BancBoston Mortgage Corp. The suit alleged that the 
bank was availing itself of ``free money'' by requiring its mortgage 
holders to maintain an excessive balance in their mortgage escrow 
account. After the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on a 
preliminary motion, the parties settled the case.
  Under the settlement, the defendants agreed to refund the excess 
money they were holding in escrow and provide a small amount of 
compensation to the plaintiffs for lost interest.
  BancBoston offered to pay the entire fee for the lawyers representing 
the class based on a formula that had been used to settle a different 
case. But the plaintiffs' lawyers rejected this offer. Instead, they 
insisted that their fees be paid directly from their clients' escrow 
accounts based on a formula that would provide them a more lucrative 
return.
  The bank assented to this process and the State court judge approved 
the settlement.
  Pursuant to the settlement, Mr. Kamilewicz received a check for $2.19 
in back interest, but did not receive any other refund because his 
escrow account did not have an excessive balance. Then, about a year 
later, Mr. Kamilewicz noticed on his annual bank statement that $91.33 
had been withdrawn from his escrow account for miscellaneous 
disbursements. The bank told him that the money was used to pay the 
class action lawyers. In essence, Mr. Kamilewicz paid $91.33 to the 
lawyers for work on a lawsuit that provided him with only a $2.19 
benefit.
  The class action lawyers, however, did quite well. According to a 
recent New York Times article about the case, they received $8.5 
million--over 20 percent of the $40 million refunded by the bank to 
class members. Not only is this a large fee, but one must consider that 
the $40 million refund was, and always would have been the plaintiffs' 
money. The only benefit of the lawsuit to the class was that they 
received the money in 1994 instead of when they closed their mortgages. 
The attorney fee in this case, therefore, bore no relationship to the 
actual benefit that the lawsuit provided to the class.

  Since the New York Times article ran, I have learned a bit about the 
lawyers who were involved in this case. In an unrelated case from 
Chicago, a judge would not even permit these lawyers to maintain a 
class action based on his view that they would not adequately represent 
the class. The judge commented on the record that:

       For five and a half years . . . I have been witness to 
     their unparalleled and shocking abuse of process; their 
     blatant manipulation of the rules of Court; their disregard 
     for orderly processes and Court orders; their discourtesy and 
     hostility to opposing counsel; their subversion of their 
     clients' best interests; their preoccupation with slanderous 
     accusations; their disinclination to trial preparation; their 
     unfamiliarity with and disregard for case law precedent in 
     their path; and their unabashed utilization of class action 
     techniques as a weapon to heighten litigation costs and 
     bootstrap modest individual claims into handsome class fees.

  The judge concluded that he ``could think of no plague worse than to 
have a Court impose [these lawyers] on absent and unsuspecting members 
of a class.''
  There are other problematic cases from across the country. In 
Philadelphia, a group of lawyers settled a set of cases for clients of 
theirs against a consortium of asbestos companies. In exchange, these 
same lawyers agreed to a class action settlement covering all other 
individuals exposed to the companies' asbestos. The class action 
settlement, however, provided less money for the class members than had 
been provided for the lawyers' individual clients.
  To make matters worse, this class action--Georgine versus Amchem 
Products--covers individuals that have been exposed to asbestos but 
have not yet become sick. How can these individuals make a rational 
decision about the merits of the settlement when they do not know 
whether they will become ill and, if they do, how serious their 
illnesses will be?
  This month's American Bar Association Journal contains an article 
about two competing nationwide class actions currently pending in two 
different State courts. These cases both concern defective polybutelene 
pipe that is causing floods in people's homes across the country. The 
case in Tennessee has settled for $850 million. It may cover over 3 
million homeowners. The case in Alabama is going to trial. Lawyers in 
the Alabama case are trying to convince homeowners to opt-out of the 
Tennessee settlement and join their case. Homeowners are receiving 
conflicting notices from both cases and are confused. As one of them 
said, ``I don't know about all this legal stuff . . . all I want is my 
walls fixed.''
  So there are a wide range of legal and ethical issues concerning 
class actions that are deserving of some careful attention from 
Congress. My legislation is a first step in this direction. It attempts 
to address the problem of class action settlements in two ways:
  First, it would require class action lawyers to notify the attorney 
general of States in which class members reside whenever a class action 
is settled. Providing notice to the attorneys general will enable them 
to scrutinize class action settlements and object to the court if the 
settlements fail to promote the consumers' interests. In my view, the 
participation of the attorneys general is critical to improve the class 
action settlement process.

  Second, the legislation would require that notices mailed to class 
members contain summaries written in plain, easily understandable 
language. Such summaries are necessary because most class action 
notices are lengthy and filled with legal jargon that the average 
citizen cannot understand. Anyone covered by a class action settlement 
should know the benefits they will obtain, the rights that they are 
sacrificing, and the way their attorneys will be paid, Today, most 
people simply throw away action notices like junk mail because they are 
too complicated and difficult to comprehend.
  In sum, the legislation will bring some sunlight into the class 
action process and, as we know, sunlight is the best disinfectant. It 
will enable State attorneys general to provide adversarial scrutiny to 
settlements and promote the interests of consumers when the plaintiffs' 
lawyers and corporate defendants are not. It will also give individual 
call members the information they need to make informed decisions about 
whether they wish to join a class action or be bound by a settlement 
agreement. This is a modest step, but one that I believe will be 
effective.
  Before closing, I want to make clear that I do not oppose class 
action lawsuits. Over the past three decades, class actions have been 
used to oppose racially segregated schools, obtain redress for victims 
of employment discrimination, and provide compensation for individuals 
exposed to toxic chemicals or injured by defective products. Class 
actions increase access to our civil justice system because they enable 
people to pursue claims collectively that otherwise would be too 
expensive to litigate.
  The difficulty of any litigation reform endeavor is finding ways to 
weed 

[[Page S19252]]
out the bad cases without closing the courthouse doors to those who 
have genuine grievances deserving of redress. Legislation that limits 
monetary recoveries or provides immunity for wrongdoers does not meet 
this litmus test. In an effort to deter frivolous lawsuits these 
measures have the perverse effect of limiting the remedies available to 
those with legitimate claims.
  The legislation I am introducing today is an example of the type of 
litigation reform that I believe will help to protect against unethical 
attorney behavior and curb abusive lawsuits. It will not limit the 
availability of judicial remedies for meritorious cases.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and I ask unanimous 
consent that a copy of the bill and the New York Times article about 
the Kamilewicz case be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1501

       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 ``Protecting Class Action 
     Plaintiffs Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT OF CLASS ACTION 
                   CERTIFICATION OR SETTLEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Part V of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after chapter 113 the following new 
     chapter:

                      ``CHAPTER 114--CLASS ACTIONS

``Sec.
``1711. Notification of class action certifications and settlements.

     ``Sec. 1711. Notification of class action certifications and 
       settlements

       ``(a) For purposes of this section, the term--
       ``(1) `class' means a group of similarly situated 
     individuals, defined by a class certification order, that 
     comprise a party in a class action lawsuit;
       ``(2) `class action' means a lawsuit filed pursuant to rule 
     23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State 
     rules of procedure authorizing a lawsuit to be brought by 1 
     or more representative individuals on behalf of a class;
       ``(3) `class certification order' means an order issued by 
     a court approving the treatment of a lawsuit as a class 
     action;
       ``(4) `class member' means a person that falls within the 
     definition of the class;
       ``(5) `class counsel' means the attorneys representing the 
     class in a class action;
       ``(6) `electronic legal databases' means computer services 
     available to subscribers containing text of judicial opinions 
     and other legal materials, such as LEXIS or WESTLAW;
       ``(7) `official court reporter' means a publicly available 
     compilation of published judicial opinions;
       ``(8) `plaintiff class action' means a class action in 
     which the plaintiff is a class; and
       ``(9) `proposed settlement' means a settlement agreement 
     between the parties in a class action that is subject to 
     court approval before it becomes binding on the parties.
       ``(b) This section shall apply to--
       ``(1) all plaintiff class actions filed in Federal court; 
     and
       ``(2) all plaintiff class actions filed in State court in 
     which--
       ``(A) any class member resides outside the State in which 
     the action is filed; and
       ``(B) the transaction or occurrence that gave rise to the 
     lawsuit occurred in more than 1 State.
       ``(c) No later than 10 days after a proposed settlement in 
     a class action is filed in court, class counsel shall serve 
     the State attorney general of each State in which a class 
     member resides and the Department of Justice as if they were 
     parties in the class action with--
       ``(1) a copy of the complaint and any materials filed with 
     the complaint;
       ``(2) notice of any scheduled judicial hearing in the class 
     action;
       ``(3) any proposed or final notification to class members 
     of--
       ``(A) their rights to request exclusion from the class 
     action; and
       ``(B) a proposed settlement of a class action;
       ``(4) any proposed or final class action settlement;
       ``(5) any settlement or other agreement contemporaneously 
     made between class counsel and counsel for the defendants;
       ``(6) any final judgment or notice of dismissal; and
       ``(7) any written judicial opinion relating to the 
     materials described under paragraphs (3) through (6).
       ``(d) A hearing to consider final approval of a proposed 
     settlement may not be held earlier than 120 days after the 
     date on which the State attorney generals and the Department 
     of Justice are served notice under subsection (c).
       ``(e) A class member may refuse to comply with and may 
     choose not be bound by a settlement agreement or consent 
     decree in a class action lawsuit if the class member resides 
     in a State where the State attorney general has not been 
     provided notice and materials under subsection (c). The 
     rights created by this subsection shall apply only to class 
     members or any person acting on their behalf.
       ``(f) Any court order certifying a class, approving a 
     proposed settlement in a class action, or entering a consent 
     decree in a class action, and any written opinions concerning 
     such court orders and decrees, shall be made available for 
     publication in official court reporters and electronic legal 
     databases.
       ``(g) Any court with jurisdiction over a plaintiff class 
     action shall require that--
       ``(1) any written notice provided to the class through the 
     mail or publication in printed media contain a short summary 
     written in plain, easily understood language, describing--
       ``(A) the subject matter of the class action;
       ``(B) the legal consequences of joining the class action;
       ``(C) if the notice is informing class members of a 
     proposed settlement agreement--
       ``(i) the benefits that will accrue to the class due to the 
     settlement;
       ``(ii) the rights that class members will lose or waive 
     through the settlement;
       ``(iii) obligations that will be imposed on the defendants 
     by the settlement;
       ``(iv) a good faith estimate of the dollar amount of any 
     attorney's fee if possible; and
       ``(v) an explanation of how any attorney's fee will be 
     calculated and funded; and
       ``(D) any other material matter; and
       ``(2) any notice provided through television or radio to 
     inform the class of its rights to be excluded from a class 
     action or a proposed settlement shall, in plain, easily 
     understood language--
       ``(A) describe the individuals that may potentially become 
     class members in the class action; and
       ``(B) explain that the failure of individuals falling 
     within the definition of the class to exercise their right to 
     be excluded from a class action will result in the 
     individual's inclusion in the class action.
       ``(h) Compliance with this section shall not immunize any 
     party from any legal action under Federal or State law, 
     including actions for malpractice or fraud.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     chapters for part V of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 113 
     the following:

``114. Class Actions........................................1711''.....

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
     all class action lawsuits filed after or pending on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
                                                                    ____


                       [From the New York Times]

       Math of a Class-Action Suit: `Winning' $2.19 costs $91.33

       Dexter J. Kamilewicz never wants to win a class-action 
     lawsuit again--at least not when it costs him more than he 
     wins.
       Mr. Kamilewicz, a real estate broker in Portland, Me., 
     found out this year that he was among the winners of a class-
     action suit against his mortgage bank, the Bank of Boston. He 
     learned of his victory only when he spotted a $91.33 
     ``miscellaneous deduction'' from his escrow account that 
     turned out be his payment for lawyers he never knew he had 
     hired. His winnings were apparently just $2.19 in back 
     interest.
       Many class actions end with plaintiffs winning meager 
     awards while their lawyers walk away with millions of dollars 
     in fees. But the suit against the Bank of Boston has taken 
     that difference to a new level.
       ``This is the only class action that I have heard about 
     where the consumers won and ended up paying money out of 
     their own pockets,'' said Will Lund, superintendent of the 
     Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection.
       The suit, which accused the bank of keeping excessive 
     amounts of its customers' money in escrow accounts, involved 
     a nationwide class of 715,000 current and former mortage 
     holders. The 300,000 current holders would up footing the 
     lawyers' bill for $8.5 million. Only after the case was 
     settled last year did some members of that group--just how 
     many is unclear--say they realized they ended up with a loss.
       Now the matter is back in court again and may soon be the 
     catalyst for Congressional action.
       Mr. Kamilewicz (pronounced CAM-eh-lev-itch); his wife, 
     Gretchen, and a third disgruntled plaintiff recently filed a 
     new lawsuit--which is itself seeking class-action status--
     that accuses the original plaintiffs' lawyers, as well as the 
     bank, of fraud. Both the bank and the lawyers say the 
     settlement was fair and deny doing anything wrong.
       Senator William S. Cohen, Republican of Maine, says he has 
     heard enough complaints about the settlement to propose a 
     corrective measure. His legislation, expected to be 
     introduced in the next month, would differ from other recent 
     efforts in Congress at tort reform in that it would protect 
     plaintiffs, rather than defendants, against the excesses of 
     lawyers.
       ``There is evidence from around the country that in many 
     instances class actions are benefiting lawyers to a much 
     greater extent than their clients,'' Senator Cohen said.
       Dozens of suits were filed in the early 1990's over escrow 
     accounts before Federal regulations were adopted to more 
     strictly limit the excess money that banks could hold in 
     the accounts. Scores of class actions of all sorts are 
     certified in Federal and state courts each year.
     
[[Page S19253]]

       In the Bank of Boston case, critics of the settlement note, 
     the lawyers' fees took the form of an assessment against the 
     escrow accounts that sometimes dwarfed the modest awards. 
     What is more, apart from a few dollars in back interest, the 
     ``awards'' were simply refunds of the plaintiffs' own money, 
     which would have been returned sooner or later even without 
     the suit. Mr. Kamilewicz and others who apparently had no 
     excessive amounts of money in their accounts were hit hardest 
     because they got no refund but still had to pay legal fees.
       Finally, the fees were larger than they should have been, 
     the critics say, because they were based not on the current 
     value of the refunds but on unrealistic projections of their 
     future worth.
       ``Lawyers' fees are often a problem in these kinds of 
     cases,'' said Jerome Hoffman, a former top official with the 
     Florida Attorney General's office, which had tried to block 
     the settlement. ``But this is probably the most egregious 
     case I have ever seen.''
       For their part, the plaintiffs' lawyers and a bank 
     spokesman noted that the settlement had been approved by a 
     state judge in Alabama, where the suit was filed.
       In the settlement itself, the bank denied doing anything 
     improper in handling the escrow. Money held in escrow is used 
     to pay real estate taxes and property insurance. Banks are 
     allowed to maintain a cushion of extra money to cover 
     increases in those costs, but the Bank of Boston was accused 
     of using a formula that often resulted in an excessively 
     large cushion.
       Ed Russell, the bank spokesman, declined to comment on the 
     new suit, filed this month in federal court in Chicago. But 
     several of the lawyers now being sued described it as 
     groundless. The lawyers are with Ezell & Sharbrough of 
     Mobile, Ala., and two Chicago firms, Edelman & Combs and 
     Lawrence Walner & Associates.
       One of the lawyers, Daniel A. Edelman, called the new suit 
     ``the most frivolous I have even seen.''
       But legal experts say that the dispute highlights the 
     problems associated with class actions. Consumers and 
     investors are often made parties without realizing it or 
     understanding that they may receive trivial amounts while 
     their lawyers make millions.
       Information in legal notices is often shrouded in dense 
     jargon. In some cases, lawyers for both sides may 
     intentionally cloud that information to mislead plaintiffs 
     about important issues, the experts said.
       ``It is not designed to be good communication,'' said John 
     Coffee, a professor at the Columbia University School of Law. 
     ``It is designed to convince a judge who can wave his magic 
     wand and approve a settlement.'' Stephen Gardner, a lawyer in 
     Dallas who has handled many consumer cases, added, ``A lot of 
     settlement notices are engineered by the parties to keep 
     class members in the dark about how much money the lawyers 
     are making versus how many dollars they are going to get.''
       To address that problem, Senator Cohen said his legislation 
     would, among other things, require the parties to disclose 
     proposed settlements to the attorneys general in all states 
     which plaintiffs reside.
       In settling its case, the Bank of Boston agreed to pay a 
     maximum of $8.76 in back interest to individual mortgage 
     holders. The bank also agreed to change its future escrow 
     accounting methods and refund about $30 million in excess 
     escrow payments. Normally, any extra money is returned when a 
     mortgage ends or is refinanced. All told, plaintiffs' lawyers 
     say, the settlement conferred about $40 million in benefits, 
     including estimated savings from the accounting change.
       ``Nothing fraudulent or improper took place,'' Mr. Edelman 
     said. ``There was an economic benefit in excess of $40 
     million and the lawyers received $8.5 million, and that is a 
     low-end number.''
       Even critics acknowledged that the plaintiffs' lawyers 
     helped their clients by getting the bank to change its escrow 
     practices. Still, they said the plaintiffs ended up with a 
     questionable deal on two fronts.
       For one, fees were assessed even against people like Mr. 
     Kamilewicz, who apparently did not have excessive amounts of 
     money in escrow, or not enough extra to produce a refund to 
     fully cover the fees.
       The fees were levied as a percentage of the balance in each 
     escrow account, court papers indicate. Mr. Russell, the 
     bank's spokesman, declined to comment when asked if the bank 
     knew how many accounts might not have had excessive amounts. 
     He also declined to discuss Mr. Kamilewicz's case.
       Speaking generally, Mr. Gardner, the Dallas lawyer, said 
     that in an escrow case of this size, at least several 
     thousand people would have no cushion at all in their 
     accounts.
       The other problem for the plaintiffs was the way the fee 
     was set, critics of the settlement said.
       After the plaintiffs won a partial summary judgment in 
     1993, negotiations to resolve the case began. Initially, the 
     bank offered to change its escrow accounting procedures and 
     to pay lawyers' fees of $500,000, court papers indicate. The 
     bank said that to take such money out of the escrow accounts 
     would result in a ``net out-of-pocket loss' to many 
     customers, the new lawsuit contends.
       Mr. Russell, the bank spokesman, declined to make the 
     bank's lawyers available. But one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, 
     John W. Sharbrough 3d, said the $500,000 offer did not even 
     cover the lawyers' expenses, and to negotiate fees with the 
     bank would have been unethical.
       In any event, the lawyers requested as their fee a third of 
     the $42 million in excess escrow that was then held by the 
     bank, a court transcript shows.
       A one-third award to plaintiffs' lawyers would not be 
     unusual in a typical contingency-fee case, like a personal 
     injury suit, where the settlement comes out of a defendant's 
     pocket. But since an escrow case involves the return of the 
     plaintiffs' own money, banks have frequently paid the 
     plaintiffs' legal bill using a fixed figure for each account.
       To justify a far larger fee, the plaintiffs' firms offered 
     expert testimony suggesting that consumers would realize a 
     significant windfall by getting their money back now rather 
     than later.
       For example, E.W. McKean, an accountant in Mobile testified 
     that if a consumer used a hypothetical $100 refund to reduce 
     the principal on a 20-year, $10,000 loan at 8.6 percent 
     interest, the benefit over time in lower interest payments 
     would be nearly $400 in current dollars.
       But consumer lawyers like Mr. Gardner said it was 
     unrealistic to place too much future value on small sums that 
     are recovered.
       ``This is like winning a scratch card,'' he said. ``People 
     are not going to invest this money.''
       Mr. Edelman, the plaintiffs' lawyer, disagreed, saying that 
     the future benefit of a recovery is a common yardstick for 
     determining fees.
       The judge in the case eventually awarded the plaintiffs' 
     lawyers 28 percent of the excess escrow, a pie that totaled 
     about $30 million when the fees were actually set.
       Mr. Sharbrough said that while some class members who got 
     in touch with him were initially confused about the 
     settlement, they were all pleased once it was explained to 
     them. Mr. Edelman said banks were probably behind the new 
     lawsuit because he had represented consumers in other class-
     action claims against financial institutions.
       Such an assertion would no doubt surprise Mr. Kamilewicz, 
     who said he started the ball rolling because he was so angry. 
     ``The issue isn't the $91,'' he said. ``The issue is behavior 
     standards.''
       Some lawyers are wishing him luck. ``Somebody ought to give 
     him a gold medal,'' said Peter Antonacci, the Deputy Attorney 
     General of Florida. ``This thing was begging to be done.''
                                 ______

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 1502. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the 
requirements relating to marking imported articles and containers not 
apply to spice products, coffee, or tea; to the Committee on Finance.


              the tariff act of 1930 amendment act of 1995

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
correct several inadvertent results from recent rulings by the U.S. 
Treasury Department changing over 50 years of law and practice in the 
U.S. regarding spices. This legislation will exempt these products, as 
well as coffee and tea, from proposed new regulations that would 
needlessly and inadvertently require their containers to be 
individually marked with country of origin.
  These labeling requirements are unnecessary because the coffee, tea 
and spices under consideration, with one exception, are not 
manufactured in the United States and therefore do not offer consumers 
the option to purchase domestically-grown alternatives. The one 
exception is not processed in such a way as to fall under the new 
regulations, so it will be unaffected by this legislation.
  This bill, supported by the House Ways and Means Committee, was 
included in the House's version of the budget reconciliation bill, but 
was excluded under Senate rules. The legislation is also supported by 
the U.S. Treasury Department, which issued the regulations but requires 
legislative language to except these three areas.
  Finally, my bill is supported by coffee, tea, and spice importers. 
Without this legislation, regulations calling for country of origin 
markings ultimately would require extremely costly record keeping and 
marking of individual jars and canisters of products which are often 
mixes of nearly identical products from different countries and 
different parts of the world. The countries of origin vary quite often 
due to market prices and availability. Marking requirements under the 
new regulations would ultimately cost consumers millions of dollars in 
higher coffee, tea and spice prices while providing no useful 
information.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass 
this important and bipartisan technical correction.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ABRAHAM:
      
[[Page S19254]]

  S. 1504. A bill to control crime by mandatory victim restitution; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     victim restitution legislation

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1504, the 
Victims Restitution Enforcement Act of 1995. I do so because I am 
convinced that justice demands we devise an effective mechanism for 
enforcing orders of restitution owed by criminals to the victims of 
their crimes.
  We take an important step today with the adoption of H.R. 665. This 
bill makes restitution mandatory and thereby sends a clear message to 
criminals that they will be made to pay for their crimes. I also 
believe it is critical that we let victims know that at last they will 
be entitled to some relief.
  In order to help realize the promise of H.R. 665's mandatory victim 
restitution, however, I believe further steps are needed. To that end, 
the bill I am introducing today will bring important and needed changes 
to the enforcement mechanisms covering orders of restitution in Federal 
court. This bill will further ensure that restitution payments from 
criminals to their victims become a reality.
  S. 1504 will provide four major advantages to victims named in 
criminal restitution orders.
  First, restitution orders would be enforceable as a civil debt and 
payable immediately.
  Right now, most restitution is collected entirely through the 
criminal justice system. It is frequently paid as directed by the 
probation officer, which means restitution payments can't begin until 
the prisoner is released. This bill makes restitution orders payable 
immediately, as a civil debt, speeding recovery and impeding attempts 
to avoid payment.
  Without this provision, it will remain easier for the Government to 
go after students who have defaulted on their student loans than it is 
for the Government to enforce an order of restitution against convicted 
criminals. Of course, this provision will impose no criminal penalties 
on those unable to pay. It will simply allow civil collection against 
those who have assets.
  Second, this bill will add a whole new arsenal of weapons for 
collecting victim restitution payments. If the debt is payable 
immediately all normal civil collection procedures--principally the 
Federal Debt Collection Act--can be used. This bill also explicitly 
gives victims access to other extensive civil procedures already in 
place for the collection of debts.
  We want to make criminals pay, not burden our courts or our Federal 
criminal prosecutors. Thus we should not be unilaterally deciding to 
place enforcement of all victim restitution within the criminal 
process, but should permit the Attorney General to place responsibility 
for collecting restitution payments on Government attorneys charged 
with collecting other civil debts.

  Third, this bill will make restitution judgments subject to criminal 
enforcement for 5 years.
  Current law only allows enforcement of an order of restitution by the 
United States in the same manner as fines are enforced, permitting the 
limited use of some criminal sanctions. Presently, for example, the 
court will be permitted to resentence a criminal who wilfully refuses 
to make restitution payments--but nothing short of that.
  This bill will add a variety of less draconian criminal sanctions to 
the court's arsenal, such as modification of the terms or conditions of 
parole, extension of the defendant's probation or supervised release, 
or revocation of probation or supervised release.
  The bill will thus retain the fines mechanism, and improve on the 
criminal sanctions, as well as add a number of purely civil methods of 
debt collection.
  Fourth, this legislation will give the courts power to impose 
presentence restraints on defendant's use of their assets in 
appropriate cases. This will prevent well-heeled defendants from 
dissipating assets prior to sentencing.
  Without this provision the whole victim restitution law may well be 
useless in many cases. Even in those rare cases in which a defendant 
has the means to pay full restitution at once, if the court has no 
capacity to prevent the defendant from spending ill-gotten gains prior 
to the sentencing phase, frequently there will be nothing left for the 
victim by the time the restitution order is entered.
  The provisions permitting pre-sentence restraints are similar to 
other such provisions that already exist in the law for private civil 
actions and asset forfeiture cases. For example, they require a court 
hearing and place a preponderance of the evidence burden on the 
Government.
  Finally, this bill will prevent the defendant from denying the 
essential findings underlying a criminal restitution judgment in any 
future civil action brought by the victim.
  All victims named in a restitution order will be able to bring a 
civil action to enforce the order in State court without having to 
relitigate the essential findings of the criminal judgment against the 
defendant.
  This provision merely corrects an aberration in the law.
  Currently the United States and some--but not all--victims are 
permitted to use the criminal judgment in subsequent civil proceedings.
  Indeed, under current law, the only victims who absolutely cannot use 
the essential findings of a criminal judgment in a subsequent civil 
action are victims who happen to live in states with mutuality 
requirements for collateral estoppel, and who have been victims of 
crimes in which the defendant did not plead guilty.
  This makes no sense. In such instances there has already been a full 
criminal trial in Federal court convicting the defendant under a higher 
burden of proof than is required in a civil action.
  Ordinarily, the victim would be able to take advantage of the 
criminal conviction, just as the United States can. And in fact, 
victims are often able to use anything the criminal has agreed to in a 
plea bargain because those statements constitute judicial admissions.
  But because of a clause in the law that limits the effect of criminal 
judgments in subsequent civil actions to the extent that would be 
permitted by state law, these Federal criminal judgments are, in some 
cases, not accorded the effect they are due. For the sake of judicial 
economy alone, this should be corrected.
  If we are willing to take the step of making some crimes subject to 
mandatory restitution, as we do in the victim restitution bill today, I 
believe we should take the additional step of making those mandatorily-
issued orders easily enforceable.
  This is why I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these 
further steps to make victim restitution work that are contained in my 
victim restitution bill.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Breaux and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 1505. A bill to reduce risk to public safety and the environment 
associated with pipeline transportation of natural gas and hazardous 
liquids, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.


          THE ACCOUNTABLE PIPELINE SAFETY AND PARTNERSHIP ACT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today as chairman of the Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee to introduce the Accountable Pipeline 
Safety and Partnership Act. It is the necessary reauthorization 
legislation for the Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] in the Department 
of Transportation.
  This is important legislation because it will reauthorize the Federal 
program with regulatory authority for approximately 2 million miles of 
natural gas pipelines and nearly 200,000 miles of hazardous liquid 
pipelines. In the lower 48 States and Hawaii, there are 700 different 
operators who manage these pipelines. This bill does not affect the 
Federal statute that regulates the Alaskan pipeline.
  The goal of my legislation is accurately reflected in three words 
from the title--accountable, safety, and partnership. The bill gives 
the Office of Pipeline Safety the necessary tools to shift the program 
away from a very prescriptive, command-and-control approach to a 
responsible risk-based management partnership which continues to ensure 
industry's accountability and the public's safety.
  According to the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], 
transportation of natural gas and liquids by pipelines is by far the 
safest mode of 

[[Page S19255]]
conveyance. NTSB's 1994 transportation safety data highlight this fact. 
Out of 43,134 transportation facilities, only 22--just 0.05 percent--
were related to pipelines.
  Let me be absolutely clear: I want to send an unambiguous signal here 
today on the Senate floor and through the text of this bill that 
pipeline safety will not be jeopardized.
  In fact, I would assert that the public's safety will be enhanced 
through a more effective Government and industry pipeline safety 
partnership that is proposed by this bill.
  Through this legislation, Congress will recognize and appreciate this 
relationship. Pipeline operators, who are responsible for day-to-day 
safe operations, experience many adverse consequences from accidents on 
their systems. Therefore, pipeline operators have a direct and 
compelling reason to work hard to keep their system and the public 
safe.
  There is another partnership role which must be acknowledged and that 
is the active and positive involvement of States which also direct 
resources at pipeline monitoring.
  The governmental role is two-tiered: OPS for the Federal Government 
and State agencies. Together their mission is to inspect, audit, and 
enforce pipeline compliance and safety activities.
  Historically, the regulations governing safety for transmission and 
utility pipelines have been modeled or based upon industry-developed 
standards and practices. The most effective procedures have formed the 
core of today's pipeline safety regulations.
  However, recent legislative proposals would, in effect, add 
unnecessary layers of regulations in direct response to specific 
atypical incidents. This has diverted resources. This is what this 
legislation will address using the same three words from the bill's 
title as my philosophical underpinning--accountable, safety, 
partnership.
  For the past 2\1/2\ years, OPS has worked with natural gas and 
hazardous liquid pipeline operators and other interested parties to 
find better ways to address the issues inherent to pipeline safety. 
Their goal is to promulgate new reasonable, effective and cost 
efficient regulations. OPS is currently analyzing the actual risks 
juxtaposed to existing regulations to determine what is useful and what 
is unnecessary.
  This process develops a regulatory approach which provides companies 
with greater flexibility in protecting both their systems and the 
public's safety. I built upon this activity, and it served as the 
starting point for a legislative approach which is incorporated into 
this reauthorization.
  It is worthwhile to note that the major provisions of this bill were 
drafted through a genuine bipartisan effort. This bill reflects real 
input and informal consultation with the regulated industry, national 
associations representing personnel who are actively involved in 
pipeline safety, and Administration officials. Technical assistance was 
also provided throughout the drafting process from the Congressional 
Research Service. I appreciate all of the invaluable suggestions during 
the development of this legislation.
  There are four major provisions within the legislation.
  First, it establishes a new risk assessment combined with a detailed 
cost-benefit analysis followed by an independently verified peer review 
for all future regulations. The process is streamlined and meets the 
American common sense test. President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 
provided the framework for this bill's new regulatory approach. It also 
takes advantage of risk models being developed by OPS.
  Second, it authorizes a 4-year demonstration project under which 
companies can voluntarily develop individually tailored risk management 
plans. These plans must be approved by the Department of 
Transportation. OPS will monitor the plans to ensure that operations 
will provide equal or greater safety protection than existing 
regulations.
  Third, it authorizes funding for the OPS in such a manner that money 
will be double the projected inflation rate through the end of this 
century. Each year the funding will increase by 6-percent. Because OPS 
is funded entirely by user fees assessed on pipelines, these funds must 
be concentrated on OPS's primary mission of monitoring pipeline safety 
on the public's behalf.
  Fourth, it clarifies the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992. This will 
remove confusions which have hampered finalizing several rules.
  My intention is straightforward: to focus OPS regulatory resources on 
areas where there are significant nationwide pipeline safety risks, and 
to identify and develop cost-effective regulatory means for addressing 
these risks.
  The bill will ensure that America's taxpayers get the maximum safety 
value from their OPS investment. It will lead to a responsible 
allocation of limited resources to increase public safety.
  It will prevent a hidden tax on natural gas consumers resulting from 
an excessive increase in user fees to duplicate ongoing industry 
research.
  It also means that rules will be clarified to accommodate changes 
affecting issues like smart pig retrofitting and explicit definitions 
for unusually sensitive environmental areas.
  There will always be some who will argue that the Government must 
spend more and more money for safety concerns. My response is that 
safety is not just a function of how much the government spends. I 
believe the critical factor is how the money is spent--not how much. 
This bill deals with how. The NTSB Safety data makes the case that the 
excellent safety record for pipelines does not indicate that increased 
funding is needed.
  This legislation is both responsible and balanced.
  Amercian taxpayers win.
  Government regulators win.
  Regulatory reform wins.
  I want to thank my colleagues who are my initial cosponsors, and I 
look forward to other Senators joining me as cosponsors of this 
important reauthorization bill.
  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. 1505

       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 ``Accountable Pipeline Safety 
     and Partnership Act of 1995''.

      SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of title 49, United States Code.

      SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 60101(a) is amended--
       (1) in each of paragraphs (1) through (22), by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting a semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (21), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) does not include the gathering of gas, other than 
     gathering through regulated gathering lines, in those rural 
     locations that are located outside the limits of any 
     incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village, or any 
     other designated residential or commercial area (including a 
     subdivision, business, shopping center, or community 
     development) or any similar populated area that the Secretary 
     of Transportation determines to be a nonrural area, except 
     that the term `transporting gas' includes the movement of gas 
     through regulated gathering lines;''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(23) `benefits' means the reasonably identifiable or 
     estimated safety, environmental, and economic benefits that 
     are reasonably expected to result directly or indirectly from 
     the implementation of a standard, regulatory requirement, or 
     option;
       ``(24) `costs' means, with respect to the implementation 
     of, or compliance with, a standard, regulatory requirement, 
     or option, the estimated or actual direct and indirect costs 
     of that implementation or compliance;
       ``(25) `incremental benefit' or `incremental cost' means 
     the additional estimated benefit or cost that--
       ``(A) would be caused by a particular action (whether 
     regulatory or nonregulatory) in comparison with other options 
     that may be taken in lieu of that action; and
       ``(B) is based on quantifiable or qualifiable assessments 
     that use generally available and reasonably obtainable 
     scientific or economic data;
       ``(26) `risk management' means the systematic application, 
     by the owner or operator of a pipeline facility, of 
     management policies, procedures, finite resources, and 
     practices to the tasks of analyzing, assessing, and 
     minimizing risk in order to protect employees, the general 
     public, the environment, and pipeline facilities;
     
[[Page S19256]]

       ``(27) `risk management plan' means a management plan 
     utilized by a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility owner 
     or operator that encompasses risk management; and
       ``(28) `Secretary' means--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Transportation; or
       ``(B) if applicable, any person to whom the Secretary of 
     Transportation delegates authority with respect to a matter 
     concerned.''.
       (b) Gathering Lines.--Section 60101(b)(2) is amended by 
     inserting ``, if appropriate,'' after ``Secretary'' the first 
     place it appears.

      SEC. 4. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

       (a) Minimum Safety Standards.--Section 60102(a) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) shall include a requirement that all individuals who 
     operate and maintain pipeline facilities shall be qualified 
     to operate and maintain the pipeline facilities.''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) The qualifications applicable to an individual who 
     operates and maintains a pipeline facility shall address the 
     ability to recognize and react appropriately to abnormal 
     operating conditions that may indicate a dangerous situation 
     or a condition exceeding design limits. The operator of a 
     pipeline facility shall ensure that employees who operate and 
     maintain the facility are qualified to operate and maintain 
     the pipeline facilities.''.
       (b) Practicability and Safety Needs Standards.--Section 
     60102(b) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Practicability and Safety Needs.--
       ``(1) In general.--A standard prescribed under subsection 
     (a) shall be--
       ``(A) practicable; and
       ``(B) designed to meet the need for--
       ``(i) gas pipeline safety;
       ``(ii) safely transporting hazardous liquids; and
       ``(iii) protecting the environment.
       ``(2) Factors for consideration.--Except as provided in 
     section 60112, when prescribing a standard under this section 
     or section 60101(b), 60103, 60108, 60109, 60110, or 60113, 
     the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) relevant available--
       ``(i) gas pipeline safety information; or
       ``(ii) hazardous liquid pipeline safety and environmental 
     protection information;
       ``(B) the appropriateness of the standard for the 
     particular type of pipeline transportation or facility;
       ``(C) the reasonableness of the standard;
       ``(D) based on a risk assessment, the extent to which the 
     standard will benefit public safety and the protection of the 
     environment;
       ``(E) the costs of compliance with the standard;
       ``(F) comments and information received from the public; 
     and
       ``(G) the comments and recommendations of the Technical 
     Pipeline Safety Standards Committee described in section 
     60115 and the Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 
     described in section 60115.
       ``(3) Risk assessment document.--In prescribing a standard 
     referred to in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall prepare a 
     risk assessment document that--
       ``(A) identifies the regulatory and nonregulatory options 
     that the Secretary considered in prescribing a proposed 
     standard;
       ``(B) identifies the incremental costs and incremental 
     benefits with respect to public safety and the protection of 
     the environment that are associated with the proposed 
     standard;
       ``(C) includes--
       ``(i) an explanation of the reasons for the selection of 
     the proposed standard in lieu of the other options 
     identified; and
       ``(ii) with respect to each of those other options, a brief 
     explanation of the reasons that the Secretary found that 
     option to be less cost-effective or flexible than the 
     proposed standard; and
       ``(D) provides any technical data or other information upon 
     which the risk assessment document and proposed standard is 
     based.
       ``(4) Review.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) submit each risk assessment document prepared under 
     this section to the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 
     Committee described in section 60115 or the Hazardous Liquid 
     Pipeline Safety Standards Committee described in section 
     60115, or both, as appropriate; and
       ``(ii) make that document available to the general public.
       ``(B) Peer review panels.--The committees referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) shall serve as peer review panels to review 
     risk assessment documents prepared under this section. Not 
     later than 90 days after receiving a risk assessment document 
     for review pursuant to subparagraph (A), each committee that 
     receives that document shall prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary a report that includes--
       ``(i) an evaluation of the merit of the data and methods 
     used in that document; and
       ``(ii) any recommended options relating to that document 
     and the associated standard or regulatory requirement that 
     the committee determines to be appropriate.
       ``(C) Review by secretary.--Not later than 90 days after 
     receiving a report submitted by a committee under 
     subparagraph (B), the Secretary--
       ``(i) shall review the report;
       ``(ii) shall provide a written response to the committee 
     that is the author of the report concerning all significant 
     peer review comments and recommended alternatives contained 
     in the report; and
       ``(iii) may revise the risk assessment and the proposed 
     standard or regulatory requirement before promulgating the 
     final standard or requirement.
       ``(5) Incremental benefits and costs.--Before issuing a 
     final standard that is subject to the requirements contained 
     in paragraphs (1) and (2), the Secretary shall certify that 
     the incremental benefits of the final standard will likely 
     justify, and be reasonably related to, the incremental costs 
     incurred by the Federal Government and State, local, and 
     tribal governments and any other public entity, and the 
     private sector.
       ``(6) Emergencies.--In the case of an emergency that meets 
     the criteria described in section 60112(e), the Secretary may 
     suspend the application of this section for the duration of 
     the emergency.
       ``(7) Report.--Not later than March 31, 1999, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the Congress a report that--
       ``(A) describes the implementation of the risk assessment 
     requirements of this section, including the extent to which 
     those requirements have improved regulatory decision making; 
     and
       ``(B) includes any recommendations that the Secretary 
     determines would make the risk assessments conducted pursuant 
     to the requirements under this chapter a more effective means 
     of assessing the benefits and costs associated with 
     alternative regulatory and nonregulatory options in 
     prescribing standards under the Federal pipeline safety 
     regulatory program under this chapter.''.
       (c) Facility Operation Information Standards.--The first 
     sentence of section 60102(d) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``as required by the standards prescribed 
     under this chapter'' after ``operating the facility'';
       (2) by striking ``to provide the information'' and 
     inserting ``to make the information available''; and
       (3) by inserting ``as determined by the Secretary'' after 
     ``to the Secretary and an appropriate State official''.
       (d) Pipe Inventory Standards.--The first sentence of 
     section 60102(e) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and, to the extent the Secretary 
     considers necessary, an operator of a gathering line that is 
     not a regulated gathering line (as defined under section 
     60101(b)(2) of this title),''; and
       (2) by striking ``transmission'' and inserting 
     ``transportation''.
       (e) Smart Pigs.--
       (1) Minimum safety standards.--Section 60102(f) is amended 
     by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Minimum safety standards.--The Secretary shall 
     prescribe minimum safety standards requiring that the design 
     and construction of a new gas or hazardous liquid pipeline 
     transmission facility be carried out, to the extent 
     practicable, in a way that accommodates the passage through 
     the facility of an instrumented internal inspection device 
     (commonly referred to as a `smart pig'). The Secretary shall 
     also prescribe minimum safety standards that require that 
     when a segment of an existing gas or hazardous liquid 
     pipeline transmission facility is replaced, to the extent 
     practicable, the replacement segment can accommodate the 
     passage of an instrumented internal inspection device. The 
     Secretary may apply the standards to an existing gas or 
     hazardous liquid facility and require that the facility be 
     changed to allow the facility to be inspected with an 
     instrumented internal inspection device if the basic 
     construction of the facility will accommodate the device.''.
       (2) Periodic inspections.--Section 60102(f)(2) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(2) Not later than'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Periodic inspections.--Not later than''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, if necessary, additional'' after ``the 
     Secretary shall prescribe''.
       (f) Updating Standards.--Section 60102 is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Updating Standards.--The Secretary shall, to the 
     extent appropriate and practicable, update incorporated 
     industry standards that have been adopted as part of the 
     Federal pipeline safety regulatory program under this 
     chapter.''.

      SEC. 5. RISK MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 601 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 60126. Risk management

       ``(a) Risk Management Program Demonstration Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish risk 
     management demonstration projects--
       ``(A) to demonstrate, through the voluntary participation 
     by owners and operators of gas pipeline facilities and 
     hazardous liquid pipeline facilities, the applications of 
     risk management; and
       ``(B) to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of the 
     applications referred to in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Waivers.--In carrying out a demonstration project 
     under this subsection, the Secretary--
       ``(A) may waive, with respect to the owner or operator of 
     any pipeline facility covered under the project (referred to 
     in this subsection as a `covered pipeline facility'), the 

[[Page S19257]]
     applicability of all or a portion of the requirements under this 
     chapter that would otherwise apply to that owner or operator 
     with respect to the pipeline facility; and
       ``(B) shall waive, for the period of the project, with 
     respect to the owner or operator that participates in the 
     project, the applicability of any new standard or regulatory 
     requirement that the Secretary promulgates under this chapter 
     during the period of that participation, if the Secretary 
     determines that the risk management plan applicable to the 
     demonstration project provides an overall level of safety 
     that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety 
     provided by requiring the application of that standard or 
     regulatory requirement.
       ``(b) Requirements.--In carrying out a demonstration 
     project under this section, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) invite owners and operators of pipeline facilities to 
     submit risk management plans for timely approval by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(2) require, as a condition of approval, that a risk 
     management plan submitted under this subsection contain 
     measures that are designed to achieve an equivalent or 
     greater overall level of safety than would otherwise be 
     achieved through compliance with the standards and regulatory 
     requirements contained in this chapter or promulgated by the 
     Secretary under this chapter;
       ``(3) provide for--
       ``(A) collaborative government and industry training;
       ``(B) methods to measure the safety performance of risk 
     management plans;
       ``(C) the development and application of new technologies;
       ``(D) the promotion of community awareness concerning how 
     the overall level of safety will be enhanced by the 
     demonstration project;
       ``(E) the development of a model that categorizes the risks 
     inherent to each covered pipeline facility, taking into 
     consideration the location, volume, pressure, and material 
     transported or stored by that pipeline facility;
       ``(F) the application of risk assessment and risk 
     management methodologies that are suitable to the inherent 
     risks that are determined to exist through the use of the 
     model developed under subparagraph (E);
       ``(G) the development of project elements that are 
     necessary to ensure that--
       ``(i) the owners and operators that participate in the 
     demonstration project demonstrate that they are effectively 
     managing the risks referred to in subparagraph (E); and
       ``(ii) the risk management plans carried out under the 
     demonstration project under this subsection can be audited;
       ``(H) a process whereby an owner or operator of a pipeline 
     facility is able to amend, modify, or otherwise adjust a risk 
     management plan referred to in paragraph (1) that has been 
     approved by the Secretary pursuant to that paragraph to 
     respond to--
       ``(i) changed circumstances; or
       ``(ii) a determination by the Secretary that the owner or 
     operator is not achieving an overall level of safety that is 
     at least equivalent to the level that would otherwise be 
     achieved through compliance with the standards and regulatory 
     requirements contained in this chapter or promulgated by the 
     Secretary under this chapter; and
       ``(I) such other elements as the Secretary, with the 
     agreement of the owners and operators that participate in the 
     demonstration project under this section, determines to 
     further the purposes of this section; and
       ``(4) in selecting participants for the demonstration 
     project, take into consideration the past safety and 
     regulatory performance of each applicant who submits a risk 
     management plan pursuant to paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Emergencies.--In the case of an emergency that meets 
     the criteria described in section 60112(e), the Secretary may 
     suspend or revoke the participation of an owner or operator 
     in the demonstration project under this section.
       ``(d) Participation by State Authority.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this chapter, in carrying out the 
     demonstration project under this section, the Secretary may 
     provide for the participation in the demonstration project by 
     a State that has in effect a certification that has been 
     approved by the Secretary under section 60105.
       ``(e) Report.--Not later than March 31, 1999, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the Congress a report on the results of the 
     demonstration projects carried out under this section that 
     includes--
       ``(1) an evaluation of each such demonstration project, 
     including an evaluation of the performance of each 
     participant in that project with respect to safety and 
     environmental protection; and
       ``(2) recommendations concerning whether the applications 
     of risk management demonstrated under the demonstration 
     project should be incorporated into the Federal pipeline 
     safety program under this chapter on a permanent basis.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``60126. Risk management.''.

     SEC. 6. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE.

       Section 60108 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``transporting gas or 
     hazardous liquid or'' each place it appears;
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking the second sentence;
       (3) in the heading to subsection (c), by striking 
     ``Navigable Waters'' and inserting ``Other Waters''; and
       (4) by striking clause (ii) of subsection (c)(2)(A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(ii) any other pipeline facility crossing under, over, or 
     through waters where a substantial likelihood of commercial 
     navigation exists, if the Secretary decides that the location 
     of the facility in those waters could pose a hazard to 
     navigation or public safety.''.

      SEC. 7. HIGH-DENSITY POPULATION AREAS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY 
                   SENSITIVE AREAS.

       (a) Identification.--Section 60109(a)(1)(B)(i) is amended 
     by striking ``a navigable waterway (as the Secretary defines 
     by regulation)'' and inserting ``waters where a substantial 
     likelihood of commercial navigation exists''.
       (b) Unusually Sensitive Areas.--Section 60109(b) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Areas To Be Included as Unusually Sensitive.--When 
     describing areas that are unusually sensitive to 
     environmental damage if there is a hazardous liquid pipeline 
     accident, the Secretary shall consider areas where a pipeline 
     rupture would likely cause permanent or long-term 
     environmental damage, including--
       ``(1) locations near pipeline rights-of-way that are 
     critical to drinking water, including intake locations for 
     community water systems and critical sole source aquifer 
     protection areas; and
       ``(2) locations near pipeline rights-of-way that have been 
     identified as critical wetlands, riverine or estuarine 
     systems, national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife 
     preservation areas or refuges, wild and scenic rivers, or 
     critical habitat areas for threatened and endangered 
     species.''.

     SEC. 8. EXCESS FLOW VALUES.

       Section 60110 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, if any,'' after 
     ``circumstances''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, operating, and 
     maintaining'' after ``cost of installing'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)(C), by inserting ``, maintenance, 
     and replacement'' after ``installation''; and
       (3) in subsection (e), by inserting after the first 
     sentence the following: ``The Secretary may adopt industry 
     accepted performance standards in order to comply with the 
     requirement under the preceding sentence.''.

      SEC. 9. CUSTOMER-OWNED NATURAL GAS SERVICE LINES.

       Section 60113 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) Maintenance Information.--''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b).

      SEC. 10. UNDERGROUND FACILITY DAMAGE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Application.--Section 60114(a) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``one-call notification system'' and inserting ``underground 
     facility damage prevention program (hereafter in this 
     subsection referred to as a `program')'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``the system apply to''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``be 
     covered by the program'';
       (3) in each of paragraphs (2), (4), (5), (6), and (8), by 
     striking ``system'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``program'';
       (4) in paragraph (3), by striking ``appropriate one-call 
     notification system'' and inserting ``appropriate program'';
       (5) in paragraph (4), by striking ``qualifications'' and 
     inserting ``Qualifications'';
       (6) in paragraph (5), by striking ``procedures'' and 
     inserting ``Procedures''; and
       (7) in each of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), and 
     (9), by striking ``a'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``A''.
       (b) Sanctions.--Section 60114(a)(9), as amended by 
     subsection (a)(7), is further amended by striking ``60120, 
     60122, and 60123'' and inserting ``60120 and 60122''.
       (c) Grants.--Section 60114(b) is amended by striking ``one-
     call notification system'' and inserting ``underground 
     facility damage prevention program''.
       (d) Apportionment.--Section 60114(d) is amended by striking 
     ``one-call notification system'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``underground facility damage prevention program''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section heading.--The heading to section 60114 is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 60114. Underground facility damage prevention 
       programs''.

       (2) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for chapter 601 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 60114 and 
     inserting the following item:

``60114. Underground facility damage prevention programs.''.

      SEC. 11. TECHNICAL SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEES.

       (a) Peer Review.--Section 60115(a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following: ``The committees referred to in the 
     preceding sentence shall serve as peer review committees for 
     carrying out this chapter. Peer reviews conducted by the 
     committees shall be treated for purposes of all Federal laws 
     relating to risk assessment and peer review (including laws 
     that take effect after the date of the enactment of the 
     Pipeline Safety Act of 1995) as meeting any peer review 
     requirements of such laws.''.
       (b) Composition and Appointment.--Section 60115(b) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or risk management'' 
     before the period at the end of the last sentence;
     
[[Page S19258]]

       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or risk management'' 
     before the period at the end of the last sentence;
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``4'' and inserting 
     ``5''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``6'' and inserting 
     ``5''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``At least 1 of the individuals selected for each 
     committee under paragraph (3)(A) shall have relevant 
     scientific education, background, or experience.'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``At least 1 of the individuals selected for each 
     committee under paragraph (3)(B) shall have education, 
     background, or experience in risk assessment and cost-benefit 
     analysis. The Secretary shall consult with the national 
     organizations representing the owners and operators of 
     pipeline facilities before selecting individuals under 
     paragraph (3)(B).''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C), by inserting after the first 
     sentence the following: ``At least 1 of the individuals 
     selected for each committee under paragraph (3)(C) shall have 
     education, background, or experience in risk assessment and 
     cost-benefit analysis.''.
       (c) Committee Reports.--Section 60115(c) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or regulatory requirement'' after 
     ``standard'' each place it appears in paragraphs (1), (2), 
     and (3);
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, including the 
     risk assessment document and other analyses supporting each 
     proposed standard or regulatory requirement'' before the 
     semicolon; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, including the 
     risk assessment document and other analyses supporting each 
     proposed standard or regulatory requirement'' before the 
     period; and
       (3) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the first sentence--
       (i) by inserting ``and supporting analyses'' before the 
     first comma;
       (ii) by inserting ``and submit to the Secretary'' after 
     ``prepare'';
       (iii) by inserting ``cost-effectiveness,'' after 
     ``reasonableness,''; and
       (iv) by inserting ``and include in the report recommended 
     actions'' before the period at the end; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by inserting ``any recommended 
     actions and'' after ``including''.
       (d) Proposed Committee Standards and Regulatory 
     Requirements.--Section 60115(d)(1) is amended by inserting 
     ``or regulatory requirement'' after ``standard'' each place 
     it appears;
       (e) Meetings.--Section 60115(e) is amended by striking 
     ``twice'' and inserting ``4 times''.
       (f) Expenses.--Section 60115(f) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Pay and'';
       (2) by striking the first 2 sentences; and
       (3) by inserting ``of a committee under this section'' 
     after ``A member''.

     SEC. 12. PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       Section 60116 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``person transporting gas'' and inserting 
     ``owner or operator of a gas pipeline facility'';
       (2) by inserting ``the use of an underground facility 
     damage prevention program prior to excavation,'' after 
     ``educate the public on''; and
       (3) by inserting a comma after ``gas leaks''.

     SEC. 13. ADMINISTRATIVE.

       Section 60117 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(k) Authority for Cooperative Agreements.--To carry out 
     this chapter, the Secretary may enter into grants, 
     cooperative agreements, and other transactions with any 
     person, agency, or instrumentality of the United States, any 
     unit of State or local government, any educational 
     institution, or any other entity to further the objectives of 
     this chapter. The objectives of this chapter include the 
     development, improvement, and promotion of one-call damage 
     prevention programs, research, risk assessment, and 
     mapping.''.

      SEC. 14. COMPLIANCE AND WAIVERS.

       Section 60118 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(e) Compliance With Risk Management Plans.--The owners 
     and operators of pipeline facilities that participate in the 
     demonstration project under section 60126 shall, during the 
     applicable period of participation in the program, be 
     considered to be in compliance with any prescribed safety 
     standard or regulatory requirement that is covered by a plan 
     that is approved by the Secretary under section 60126.''.

     SEC. 15. DAMAGE REPORTING.

       Section 60123(d)(2) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) a pipeline facility and does not report the damage 
     promptly to the operator of the pipeline facility and to 
     other appropriate authorities; or''.

      SEC. 16. BIANNUAL REPORTS.

       (a) Biannual Reports.--
       (1) Section heading.--The section heading of section 60124 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 60124. Biannual reports''.

       (2) Reports.--Section 60124(a) is amended by striking the 
     first sentence and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Submission and Comments.--Not later than August 15, 
     1997, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall submit to Congress a report on carrying 
     out this chapter for the 2 immediately preceding calendar 
     years for gas and a report on carrying out this chapter for 
     such period for hazardous liquid.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 60124 and 
     inserting the following:

``60124. Biannual reports.''.

     SEC. 17. POPULATION ENCROACHMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 601, as amended by section 5, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 60127. Population encroachment

       ``(a) Land Use Recommendations.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall make available to an appropriate 
     official of each State, as determined by the Secretary, the 
     land use recommendations of the special report numbered 219 
     of the Transportation Research Board, entitled `Pipelines and 
     Public Safety'.
       ``(b) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) evaluate the recommendations in the report referred 
     to in subsection (a);
       ``(2) determine to what extent the recommendations are 
     being implemented;
       ``(3) consider ways to improve the implementation of the 
     recommendations; and
       ``(4) consider other initiatives to further improve 
     awareness of local planning and zoning entities regarding 
     issues involved with population encroachment in proximity to 
     the rights-of-way of any interstate gas pipeline facility or 
     interstate hazardous liquid pipeline facility.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 601 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 60126 
     the following:

``60127. Population encroachment.''.

     SEC. 18. USER FEES.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to 
     the Congress a report analyzing the assessment of pipeline 
     safety user fees solely on the basis of mileage to determine 
     whether--
       (1) that measure of the resources of the Department of 
     Transportation is the most appropriate measure of the 
     resources used by the Department of Transportation in the 
     regulation of pipeline transportation; or
       (2) another basis of assessment would be a more appropriate 
     measure of those resources.

     SEC. 19. DUMPING WITHIN PIPELINE RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

       (a) Amendment.--Chapter 601, as amended by section 17, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 60128. Dumping within pipeline rights-of-way

       ``(a) Prohibition.--No person shall excavate for the 
     purpose of unauthorized disposal within the right-of-way of 
     an interstate gas pipeline facility or interstate hazardous 
     liquid pipeline facility, or any other limited area in the 
     vicinity of any such interstate pipeline facility established 
     by the Secretary of Transportation, and dispose solid waste 
     therein.
       ``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `solid waste' has the meaning given that term in section 
     1004(27) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6903(27)).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Cross-reference.--Sections 60122 and 60123 are each 
     amended by striking ``or 60118(a)'' and inserting ``, 
     60118(a), or 60128''.
       (2) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for chapter 601 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``60128. Dumping within pipeline rights-of-way.''.

     SEC. 20. PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PIPELINE FACILITIES.

       Section 60117(a) is amended by inserting after ``and 
     training activities'' the following: ``and promotional 
     activities relating to prevention of damage to pipeline 
     facilities''.

     SEC. 21. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Section 60105.--The heading to section 60105 is amended 
     by inserting ``pipeline safety program'' after ``State''.
       (b) Section 60106.--The heading to section 60106 is amended 
     by inserting ``pipeline safety'' after ``State''.
       (c) Section 60107.--The heading to section 60107 is amended 
     by inserting ``pipeline safety'' after ``State''.
       (d) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 601 is 
     amended--
       (1) in the item relating to section 60105, by inserting 
     ``pipeline safety program'' after ``State'';
       (2) in the item relating to section 60106, by inserting 
     ``pipeline safety'' after ``State''; and
       (3) in the item relating to section 60107, by inserting 
     ``pipeline safety'' after ``State''.

      SEC. 22. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--Section 60125 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--To carry out this chapter 
     (except for sections 60107 and 60114(b)) related to gas and 
     hazardous 

[[Page S19259]]
     liquid, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of 
     Transportation--
       ``(1) $9,936,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(2) $10,512,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(3) $11,088,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       ``(4) $11,664,000 for fiscal year 1999.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b).
       (b) State Grants.--Section 60125(c)(1) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(D) $10,764,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       ``(E) $11,388,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       ``(F) $12,012,000 for fiscal year 1998.
       ``(G) $12,636,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S.J. Res. 45. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States in order to ensure that private 
persons and groups are not denied benefits or otherwise discriminated 
against by the United States or any of the several States on account of 
religious expression, belief, or identity; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


              religious equality constitutional amendment

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, religious liberty is the first freedom 
mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Today, I am introducing a religious 
equality constitutional amendment to restore that freedom to its 
intended and proper place in American society. This amendment is 
intended to rescue the first amendment's requirement that Congress 
``shall make no law * * * prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] * 
* *'' from a misguided Supreme Court jurisprudence and the hostility 
that jurisprudence has spawned among local, State, and Federal 
Governments toward the participation of religious institutions in the 
public square. This is the same amendment introduced by Congressman 
Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. In my view, our 
Nation benefits greatly from the participation of religious 
institutions in the public square. Religious values and influences are 
important components in addressing the social problems facing our 
country. These problems include the breakdown of the family, loss of 
respect for the values of human life, honesty, and hard work, the 
growing problem of juvenile crime, and the worsening drug problem.
  We can provide public support to private religious institutions in 
carrying out vital social welfare functions whenever public support is 
provided to private secular institutions without establishing a 
religion or group of religions.
  The amendment embodies two key principles. First, if public benefits 
are dispensed to private secular entities, Government cannot deny such 
benefits to private religious entities. Second, in dispensing such 
benefits among private religious entities, the Government may not 
discriminate among them based on religious beliefs.
  Mr. President, I introduce this amendment after careful personal 
consideration and considerable public debate. I revere the Constitution 
and do not take lightly the proposal of new amendments to it. But after 
long study and discussion, and a series of hearings in the Judiciary 
Committee which I chair, I believe that a constitutional amendment is 
necessary to protect the rights of believing Americans. These rights 
are now often denied as a result of a confused and often erroneous 
constitutional jurisprudence in the courts and discrimination against 
religious groups and individuals by administrative agencies.
  In our Judiciary Committee hearings this past autumn, we heard 
stories of individuals who were denied access to government benefits 
simply because of their religious beliefs. Surely no one who has not 
been schooled in the intricate confusions of first amendment 
jurisprudence would think that the cases we heard were fairly resolved.
  We heard from the station manager of the Fordham University public 
radio station, which was denied construction funds available to all 
other public radio stations by the Clinton administration's Commerce 
Department because it broadcasts the Catholic mass 1 hour a week.
  Arguments that the religious broadcast was a very small part of a 
very diverse programming schedule or that it was a practice going back 
more than 50 years were unavailing. Even the fact that the station was 
responding to community needs, as public stations are supposed to, by 
providing this religious programming to the elderly and disabled shut-
ins did not move the bureaucrats at the Commerce Department. Given that 
the station needed the funds to comply with government facility 
requirements, but were told that the station would receive no money as 
long as the offending program was broadcast, the Clinton administration 
was virtually saying, ``stop broadcasting Catholic mass or stop 
broadcasting at all.''
  This is appalling enough as an administrative abuse, but is has been 
abetted by a lower Federal court, and now awaits an appeals court 
decision. I should note that the statutory remedy provided by the 
landmark Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which I was proud to 
cosponsor and which President Clinton was proud to sign, was held 
unavailing in this case.
  Two Supreme Court cases that were much discussed at our hearings by 
constitutional experts point up the human costs of discrimination by 
the government in dispensing public benefits. In Aguilar versus Felton, 
the Supreme Court held that remedial English and math could not be 
provided to economically deprived children on the premises of their 
school, if the school is religious. Similarly, in the case of Witters 
versus Dept. of Services for the Blind, Larry Witters, and otherwise 
eligible applicant for Government assistance to blind students, was 
ultimately denied that assistance because his chosen course of study 
was religious. The Supreme Court held that the first amendment did not 
require that he be denied funding, but it was not prepared to hold that 
the First Amendment prohibited antireligious discrimination. On remand, 
the State supreme court of Washington found that the State constitution 
required the denial of benefits and the U.S. Supreme Court denied 
further review of the case. Mr. President, does it make sense that 
people with disabilities who are otherwise entitled to Government 
assistance are denied that help because they also choose to exercise 
their rights of conscience?
  Even when a religious person wins a case, it often takes so long that 
the help is no longer needed, or the case is decided on such narrow 
grounds or with such narrow vote margins that future parties have no 
comfort in ordering their conduct based on Supreme Court precedent. In 
the case of Zobrest versus Catalina Foothills School District, a deaf 
student's right to a deaf interpreter at school was not vindicated 
until well after he had graduated. And in the important case of 
Rosenberger versus University of Virginia, decided earlier this year, a 
Christian student group's right to funding of publishing activities on 
par with other student groups, including Jewish and Muslim groups, was 
upheld on a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice O'Connor, one of the five-vote 
majority, explicitly stating that the case was decided on its 
particular facts and that no broad principle upon which anyone can rely 
was announced in that case.
  Mr. President, more must be done to safeguard the right of conscience 
of religious Americans. Many of us have tried to help with statutory 
safeguards like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But statutory 
solutions are not wholly adequate to correcting the erroneous 
interpretations of first amendment law by the courts. Only a 
constitutional amendment can do that. And that is why I am proposing 
one today.
  The proposed amendment does not seek to bring back school-sponsored 
or state-sponsored prayer; it does not seek to create a nationally 
established theology. It merely seeks to require that the government 
act neutrally among beneficiaries of generally available resources. At 
a time when social values are eroding and family structures are 
collapsing why should we actively discriminate against religious 
entities and drive them out of the public square? At a time when all 
types of groups and viewpoints can receive Federal funds, why do we 
shut out or seriously hamper religious groups? At a time when we wish 
to make our Federal dollars go farther, why should we not take 
advantage of religious charities, day care, educational, or other 
social services? We should not be cutting ourselves off from their help 
simply because they have a partly religious mission. Nor should we be 
turning away otherwise qualified Americans from Government assistance 
simply because they seek to enjoy their rights as religious believers.

[[Page S19260]]

  On a more personal note, Mr. President, I come from a religious 
tradition which has known the heavy hand of government. People of my 
faith know what it is like to be a minority religion subject to 
persecution by other religions and by the State and Federal 
Governments. In the middle of the last century, the Mormons were driven 
from State to State, and ultimately out of the then-United States 
altogether, and even then they were still molested by the Federal 
Government. I am concerned that government not drive religion out of 
the public square and from our public dialog on issues confronting our 
people. And I am concerned that the Government not single out persons 
of faith for worse treatment than their fellow Americans when it comes 
to enjoying the benefits of public resources.
  Rather than upset the fine balance between religious beliefs and 
other philosophies in our pluralistic society, the proposed amendment 
seeks to restore it. No group should be disenfranchised by government 
fiat--and we should be especially careful that no group be 
disenfranchised for exercise of religious faith. Their rights were to 
be protected by the First particular among our Bill of Rights. It is 
sad that we must revisit so basic an issue in this way at this late 
hour because of recent aberrations in our Government's understanding of 
those rights.
  Mr. President, I realize that this is an important issue and that 
amending the Constitution is a serious step. I am confident that this 
amendment will generate useful discussion and debate about the issue, 
and I think that will be good for the country. I commend this amendment 
to my colleagues, scholars, and fair-minded people throughout our 
country, and hope it will find their support.

                          ____________________