```

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

          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

                         freedom to travel act

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

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom to Travel Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. TRAVEL TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     to the extent that any such activities, exchanges, 
     exhibitions, or performances are not otherwise controlled for 
     export under section 5 of the Export Administration Act of 
     1979 and to the extent that, with respect to such activities, 
     exchanges, exhibitions, or performances, no acts are 
     prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 4. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961.

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

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.

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

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

                  clean air act amendment legislation

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill that I believe 
will help States and municipalities in their efforts to comply with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, this bill will extend 
the deadline for sanctions under section 179 of the act that relate to 
State vehicle and inspection programs. Congressman Schiff has 
introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
  As you know, Mr. President, the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act 
set forth requirements for areas that are not in attainment for certain 
air pollutants. These requirements include submission and 
implementation by those nonattainment areas of extensive and detailed 
remediation plans. Since enactment of the 1990 amendments, many States 
and municipalities have made great strides in fulfilling these 
requirements.
  Under section 179 of the act, however, the Environmental Protection 
Agency can levy sanctions on those areas that fail to meet the 
requirements, sanctions which include the cutting off of highway 
funding. Unfortunately, implementation of some of the requirements has 
proven to be much more time-consuming than originally thought. Prime 
examples of this problem are the provisions for vehicle inspection and 
maintenance programs, also known as I/M programs. The EPA has 
promulgated very complex--and often controversial--rules for I/M 
programs. Although States and municipalities are trying very hard to 
implement the I/M rules, and although many are getting very close to 
compliance, it has become clear that in some cases they will simply 
need more time.
  This bill addresses this situation by delaying sanctions for failure 
to implement I/M programs by 12 months, thus allowing States and 
municipalities to finish coming into compliance with these Federal 
mandates without losing critically needed highway funds. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in this effort.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 767

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SANCTIONS DEADLINE.

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

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

                   endangered species act reform act

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

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

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

              pacific northwest as a test case for the esa

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

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

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

               administration's 10 esa reform principles

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

                       people must be considered

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

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

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

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

                      bankruptcy abuse reform act

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

[[Page S6345]]

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

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act 
     of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

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

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

            Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      surplus property legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO SMALL BUSINESS ACT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              Bill Summary

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

                             Arkansas Department of Education,

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

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

                  television violence report card act

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

                      the problem of tv violence:

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

      The Solution--Public Information and Free Market Regulation

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

                            Industry Actions

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

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

                               conclusion

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

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Television Violence Report 
     Card Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

     SEC. 3. TELEVISION VIOLENCE REPORT CARDS.

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

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

                      animal drug availability act

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

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

                         PENSION PROTECTION ACT

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

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

                            striped bass act

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

  The striped bass have proven once again that, given half a chance, 
nature will rebound and overcome tremendous setbacks. But, we must give 
it that half a chance. Reauthorization of the Atlantic Striped Bass 
Conservation Act will allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 
continue its coastwise tagging program, populations monitoring, and 
other data collection efforts to provide information that informs the 
management decisions essential to maintaining healthy populations of 
striped bass. The oversight authority shared by the Interior and 
Commerce Departments regarding the management of the striped bass 
fishery will ensure that States move cautiously as they reopen the 
harvest. I believe that a continued Federal involvement is important at 
this crucial time--a time to celebrate, and to monitor closely, the 
recovery of the Atlantic striped bass.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 776

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Striped Bass Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS CONSERVATION ACT

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

     SEC. 3. ANADROMOUS FISH CONSERVATION ACT.

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

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

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

                      labor relations legislation

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

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Labor Organizations Equal 
     Presentation Time Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS PRESENTATIONS.

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

                                 S. 778

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Labor Relations 
     Representative Amendment Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF SELECTED LABOR REPRESENTATIVE.

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

[[Page S6355]]

                                 S. 779

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Labor Relations First 
     Contract Negotiations Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. INITIAL CONTRACT DISPUTES.

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

                                 S. 780

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Contractor Labor 
     Relations Enforcement Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. DEBARMENT.

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

                     ``federal contracts debarment

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

                                 S. 781

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Contractor Safety 
     and Health Enforcement Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. DEBARMENT.

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

                     ``federal contracts debarment

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

                                 S. 782

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Labor Relations Remedies Act 
     of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. BOARD REMEDIES.

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

     SEC. 3. COURT REMEDIES.

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

                                 S. 783

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Labor Relations 
     Board Ruling Time Limit Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. BOARD RULING.

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

                                 S. 784

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Labor Relations 
     Penalty Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. PENALTIES.

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

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

                             Bill Summaries

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

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

                          medicare legislation

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

                                 S. 785

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

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

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

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

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

                          ____________________
```