[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 131 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10055-S10067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BURNS:
S. 1223. A bill to protect personal employment information reported
to the National Directory of New Hires; to the Committee on Finance.
[[Page S10056]]
the employee information protection act of 1997
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Employee
Information Protection Act of 1997. This bill will correct a serious
problem with the 1996 welfare reform law that threatens the privacy of
every American.
I do not know how many of my colleagues are aware of the fact that
the new welfare reform law created a national new hire directory, which
requires States to collect the name, address, and Social Security
number of all newly hired employees and send this information to
Washington, DC. This new hire directory will be housed at the Social
Security Administration, under agreement with the Office of Child
Support Enforcement, and the data will be checked against a registry of
child support cases to detect overdue payments.
Concerns with this new hire directory nearly killed the welfare
reform bill in the Montana Legislature and in several other State
legislatures, but folks inside the Beltway do not seem too concerned.
But I am concerned, and I will tell you why.
I am all for tracking down deadbeat parents and recovering overdue
child support. But this new directory covers every new hire in every
State and does not distinguish between deadbeats and nondeadbeats.
What's more, the new law puts no limits on how long employee data may
remain in the national new hire directory, and the Office of Child
Support Enforcement has not developed any limits. It is especially
alarming to me that in addition to the Office of Child Support
Enforcement and the Social Security Administration, the Treasury
Department has access to the directory and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services has the discretion to provide researchers access to the
directory. With the revelations this week at the Finance Committee
hearings of abuse of taxpayer information at the IRS, it is urgent that
we take measures to protect personal information from abuse.
The Employee Information Protection Act is simple--in fact it is only
one sentence long, not counting the findings. That sentence reads:
``Information entered into such database shall be deleted 6 months
after the date of entry.'' That is it. This 6-month limit on retention
of new hire data would give the Child Support Office sufficient time to
check employee data against the child support case registry and start
collection efforts on the deadbeats. At the same time, it will provide
some protection for the personal information of the vast majority of
Americans who do not owe child support.
I urge my colleagues to take a good look at this situation and if you
have concerns as I do, join me in sponsoring the Employee Information
Protection Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that Monday's New York
Times article on the new hire directory be inserted into the Record.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1223
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 ``Employee Information
Protection Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat.
2105) requires Federal and State child support enforcement
agencies to implement new programs to collect overdue child
support payment, thereby reducing the burden on taxpayers by
lowering welfare payments.
(2) Among the new programs created under such Act and the
amendments made by such Act, is the National Directory of New
Hires, to be administered by the Social Security
Administration, under agreement with the Office of Child
Support Enforcement of the Department of Health and Human
Services. Under this program, States are required to develop
a reporting system whereby employers must report to their
respective States the name, address, and social security
number of all newly hired employees. States must forward the
new hire data within 3 days of receipt to the National
Directory of New Hires, where the data will be checked
against the Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders to
detect overdue child support.
(3) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 does not limit how long employee
data may remain in the National Directory of New Hires, and
the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the Department of
Health and Human Services has not developed any such limits
as of September 15, 1997. In addition to the Office of Child
Support Enforcement of the Department of Health and Human
Services and the Social Security Administration, the
Department of the Treasury has access to the directory and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the discretion
to provide researchers access to the directory.
(4) The overwhelming majority of newly hired individuals do
not have child support orders entered against them, yet their
personal data can be viewed by Federal agencies without such
individuals' knowledge or consent.
(5) Recent disclosures of unauthorized viewing of taxpayer
information by officials of the Internal Revenue Service
highlight the potential for abuse of such information and the
need for safeguarding measures.
(6) Several States with new hire reporting programs have
time limits on data retention ranging from 6 to 9 months.
(7) A 6-month limit on retention of new hire data in the
National Directory of New Hires, from the date such data is
entered, would allow sufficient time to check the data
against the Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders and
to initiate action against individuals with overdue child
support, and would reduce the potential for abuse and misuse
of the data.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to safeguard
personal information concerning employees who do not have
child support orders pending against them by placing a
reasonable time limit on the retention of new hire data
reported to the National Directory of New Hires.
SEC. 3. LIMIT ON NEW HIRE DATA RETENTION.
(a) Requirement To Delete Data After 6 Months.--Section
453(i)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653(i)(2)) is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``Information
entered into such database shall be deleted 6 months after
the date of entry.''.
[(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of title
III of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat.
2198).]
____
[From the New York Times, Sept. 22, 1997]
U.S. Inaugurating a Vast Database of All New Hires
(By Robert Pear)
Washington, Sept. 20.--Enforcement of child support
obligations enters a new era on Oct. 1, when the Federal
Government will start operating a computerized directory
showing every person newly hired by every employer in the
country so Federal and state investigators can track down
parents who owe money to their children.
States will be able to use the directory to locate parents
and dun them, typically by securing court orders to employers
to deduct child support from wages and salaries.
Keeping track of parents who move from state to state is
one of the most difficult tasks in collecting child support,
officials say. More than 30 percent of the 19 million child
support cases involve parents who do not live in the same
state as their children.
President Clinton will soon announce the National Directory
of New Hires, which is required by the 1996 welfare law. But
the director is not just for welfare recipients. It will
record basic information, including names, addresses, Social
Security numbers and wages, for everyone hired after Oct. 1
for a full- or part-time job by an employer of any size.
It will be one of the largest, most up-to-date files of
personal information kept by the Government. Michael Kharfen,
a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services,
said the Government expected to receive data on 60 million
newly hired employees a year. Wages must be reported every
three months; the Government expects to receive 160 million
wage reports each quarter.
The size and scope of the database have raised concerns
about the potential for intrusions on privacy.
Federal and state officials predict that the new Federal
directory, combined with similar directories in all states,
will produce billions of dollars in new child support
payments. States like New York, Virginia, Texas and Missouri,
which have required the reporting of newly hired workers in
the last few years, say the procedure has been extremely
helpful in locating absent parents.
In New York, Daniel D. Hogan, a spokesman for the state's
Department of Family Assistance, said that three million
people had been hired in the last year and that more than 5
percent of them had been found, through matching of computer
files, to owe child support.
When people change jobs, Mr. Hogan said, New York officials
inform the new employers of any child support obligations so
the money can immediately be withheld from wages.
``We don't give them an opportunity to become deadbeats,''
Mr. Hogan said. ``The biggest problem facing us in child
support enforcement is people who move out of state. The best
part of the Federal reform is that it will allow us to break
down barriers state to state.''
Health and Human Services will maintain a separate register
listing everyone who
[[Page S10057]]
owes or is owed child support. It will check each new
employee against the list of child support orders to see if
the worker owes any money.
Thomas D. Neal, a child support specialist in the Texas
Attorney General's office, said: ``The national directory
will tremendously enhance our ability to locate absent
parents and collect child support. Before now, we did not
have a good mechanism to know that another state was looking
for an individual who might be working in Texas.''
Virginia has required the reporting of all newly hired
employees since 1993. Patricia Addison, manager of operations
for the state's child support program, said, ``We've found it
an invaluable tool.''
The State of Virginia is routinely informed whenever a
person takes a new job. By contrast, Ms. Addison said, in the
past, ``the only way we found out that the father had changed
jobs is that the child support payments stopped.''
Despite the enthusiasm of state officials, Robert M.
Gellman, an expert on privacy and information policy,
expressed concern that the new data would be misused.
``The Government is creating a gigantic new database with
very broad uses and very little attention paid to the
protection of personal privacy,'' he said. ``Private
detectives will find a friend in the police department or a
child welfare office to give them access to information in
the directory of new hires. That already happens with
criminal, medical and credit records.''
Mr. Gellman predicted that Congress would increase the
number of people authorized to use the new directory, just as
it has expanded the list of officials with access to Federal
tax return information over the years.
Under Federal law, state welfare and child support
officials will have access to the new national directory. The
Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration
and the Justice Department will also have access for some
purposes.
A parent living with a child will be able to use the
directory to get information about an absent parent who owes
child support. For example, a mother with custody of a child
will be able to ascertain the father's home address, the name
and address of his employer and the amount of the father's
income, assets and debts. Using such information, the mother
may ask a local court to modify the child's support order if
the father's earnings have increased.
In Missouri, child support collections rose 17 percent, to
$279 million, in 1996 after the state required reporting of
newly hired workers. Teresa L. Kaiser, director of the
Missouri program, said, ``We had a big increase in
collections from `job jumpers,' parents who want work in one
place for a few months, then move to another job before we
could get a wage-withholding order.''
States say the reporting of new employees not only
increases child support collections, but also saves money in
other programs. State officials can often reduce or eliminate
payments for welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance and
Medicaid after learning that the recipients of such aid have
been hired.
Under Federal law, the hiring of a new employee must be
reported within 20 days to state authorities, who then have 8
days to send the data to Washington. States may establish
tighter deadlines for employers, and many have done so.
Collections through the Federal child support program
increased last year by 50 percent, to $12 billion, from $8
billion in 1992. But nationwide, only half of the families
with child support orders receive the full amount due, and
millions get nothing.
Here is how the new program will work:
Employers may file information by mail or magnetic tape.
States may also take the information over the telephone, by
fax or through the Internet.
An employer who fails to report new employees may be fined
$25 for each newly hired worker. An employer who conspires
with an employee to flout the reporting requirements may be
fined $500.
A multistate employer may file a report with one state
listing all of its hiring across the country. Or, it may file
a separate report for each new employee in the state where
the person works.
The Federal Government will require only six items of
information: the name, address and Social Security number of
each newly hired employee, the employer's name and address
and the identification number assigned to the employer by the
Government.
But many states are requiring employers to file additional
information, like telephone numbers, dates of birth, driver's
license number and details of health insurance coverage
provided to new employers.
______
By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1224. A bill to amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to ensure full Federal
compliance with that Act; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
the facility superfund compliance act of 1997
Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, today, I am introducing, with the
Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden, legislation to ensure that Federal
agencies comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act.
This same legislation has been introduced in the House of
Representatives for several years by my home State colleague, Dan
Schaefer. His leadership in this area has been very important.
This legislation is very important to the country, but particularly
to Colorado, where we have had several problems with the Federal
Government applying one standard for themselves, and a different higher
standard on private parties. I think this is unfair and should be
changed. I've always believed that Superfund reform would be easier if
all parties were in the same bathtub with the same scrub brush.
I've tried to address Colorado's problems with EPA, but unfortunately
I've had little success in getting their attention. One example I have
brought to their attention was a former research institute at the
Colorado School of Mines in Golden, CO. The research institute at
Golden was shut down in the late 1980's after years of research had
been done by the School of Mines, private entities, and several
agencies of the Federal Government, including the Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA].
After the site ceased doing research various environmental
contaminants were found at the site and in 1992 there was an accident
that resulted in the contents of a holding pond spilling into Clear
Creek. While there was no contamination found in Clear Creek, the EPA
had an emergency response cleanup contractor remove approximately
22,000 cubic yards of material from the pond and had it placed in a
temporary stockpile. The EPA then issued a unilateral administrative
order [UAO] for its disposal. Despite the fact that EPA, the Department
of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Bureau of Mines did
research at the site none of them were the subject of the UAO, even
though the Bureau of Mines was identified as a potentially responsible
party [PRP]. Only the State of Colorado, the Colorado School of Mines,
and the private parties were subject to the UAO. To put it plainly, the
EPA stuck everyone but their sister agencies with a bill for millions
on cleanup.
In the case of the State of Colorado, they have appropriated a total
of $7.465 million for cleanup to cover their costs and the costs the
Federal Government should be paying. It's my view that this money could
be spent much better, or not spent at all. However, to have the State
spend it because EPA won't enforce and Federal agencies won't be
responsible is unacceptable. There is also another case in Colorado
involving a Superfund site in Leadville. Leadville is a small town that
was the home of Baby Doe Tabor and formerly was the site of a large
amount of mining. While there is still some mining that occurs in
Leadville, they are also beginning to rely more on tourism dollars.
Unfortunately, the city has a stigma attached to it; it is a
Superfund site. All the homes are a Superfund site, all the schools are
a Superfund site, all the restaurants are a Superfund site, all the
businesses on the main street are a Superfund site. They've been told
that because of various mounds of old tailings laying around, the
entire city has to be on the national priority list. It's interesting
to note though, that the safety concerns of EPA seem to stop short when
it comes to Federal responsibility. This story is one of two water
treatment plants, one Federal, one private. The private plant, because
it's on the Superfund site was built at much greater cost than the
Federal plant, which is conveniently just outside the Superfund site.
This is despite the fact that the level of contamination is basically
equal at both locations. While the EPA disputes this claim, the people
who live in Leadville and work at the cleanup site know the difference.
In case I'm accused of relying on anecdotes for this legislation let
me describe two documents that found their way into my office. Let me
describe them in reverse chronological order, the first is an August 2,
1996, memorandum which subject is, ``Documentation of Reason(s) for Not
Issuing CERCLA 106 UAO's to All Identified PRP's.'' I want to quote a
footnote in this document; it states that, ``Pursuant to the applicable
procedures, DOJ must concur with any EPA decision to issue a UAO under
CERCLA section 106
[[Page S10058]]
to a Federal agency.'' So if DOJ doesn't concur EPA won't act. So it is
revealing to note that a December 15, 1994, letter from a region VIII
attorney stated that, ``It is my understanding, however, that DOJ has
never approved of the issuance of a unilateral order to a Federal
agency.''
By the Federal Government's own admission they will not enforce
against a sister agency. Since there is no environmental ``cop on the
beat'' for Federal agencies, the Federal Government should be relieved
of their immunity against lawsuits and be treated the same as any
private party. That includes having to comply with laws that elected
State legislatures enact. This is what this legislation does. It is my
intention to see it enacted into law as quickly as possible.
I want to thank the Senator from Oregon for joining me in this
effort.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in 1992, Congress enacted the Federal
Facilities Compliance Act, which requires Federal facilities to obey
key environmental laws including the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and State hazardous waste laws.
However, subsequent Federal court decisions threaten to undermine the
important principle that Federal Government facilities must comply with
the same environmental laws that govern the private sector. In fact,
one court decision that covers the Hanford Nuclear Reservation would
allow Hanford to poison the water, pollute the air and contaminate the
soil for decades, and be immunized for any violations that occur before
the Hanford cleanup is completed sometime in the next century.
This court ruling allowed the interagency agreement among the Energy
Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington
Department of Ecology that governs the Hanford cleanup to be used as a
shield to block an enforcement action against the Energy Department for
violations of the Clean Water Act.
The Energy Department's use of interagency agreement to bar
enforcement of environmental laws not only undermines the Federal
Facilities Compliance Act but also puts at risk the health of citizens
who live downstream or downwind from Hanford, and near other Federal
facilities around the country.
Madam President, we also have a double standard here. The Superfund
law only authorizes interagency agreements for Federal facilities;
there is no comparable provision and no comparable immunity from
enforcement for private sector sites.
Today, Senator Allard and I are introducing the Federal Facilities
Superfund Compliance Act to put an end to this double standard. Our
legislation makes clear that Federal Government facilities are subject
to the same environmental cleanup laws that apply to the private
sector. And they are subject to the law now, not sometime off in the
future.
Under this legislation, an interagency agreement, such as the Hanford
Tri-Party Agreement, can no longer be used as a means to evade other
environmental requirements.
Our legislation also makes clear that if Federal facilities fail to
meet their obligations, States and affected citizens will be able to
enforce against the Federal Government for these violations just as
they would be able to enforce against private parties for violations of
environmental laws at a private sector Superfund site.
Our citizens who live in the shadow of contaminated Federal
facilities should not have to wait years or decades to obtain the
health and environmental protections our laws are supposed to provide.
I urge all our colleagues to support this important legislation to
provide citizens who live downwind or downstream from Federal
facilities equal protection under our environmental laws.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Allard, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Nickles, and Mr.
Gramm):
the department of commerce dismantling act
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, for 3 years now, the Department of
Commerce has been the target of critics in Congress and around the
country. With the completion of the Balanced Budget Act and the tight
discretionary budgets mandated by that law, I believe it is time once
again to raise the question of Commerce's ongoing existence.
Is it necessary to have our Nation's weather and mapping services
housed in the same department as our trade promotion activities, or
would the American people be better served by smaller, tighter agencies
with more clearly defined objectives? I suggest that through
comprehensive restructuring we can both better serve the American
people and help keep the budget within the spending targets that are
now law.
Why terminate the Department of Commerce? The debate over the past 3
years has provided us with a simple answer: It's the least defensible
department in a Government littered with wasteful, unnecessary
departments. Its bureaucracy is bloated, its infrastructure is in
disrepair, and its resources are strained to encompass numerous
activities that have absolutely nothing to do with commerce or trade.
Former Commerce Department officials, the General Accounting Office,
and the inspector general have repeatedly testified before Congress
that the Department of Commerce suffers from mismanagement,
duplication, and a general lack of accountability. Confronted with this
weight of evidence, I believe that the Commerce Department cannot be
reinvented. Instead, the only responsible action is dismantle the
Department to better serve the Congress and the American people.
Today, I am introducing a bill along with Senators Brownback, Kyl,
Faircloth, Gramm, Nickles, Allard, Hutchinson, and Hagel which targets
this waste and duplication. It transfers those functions that can be
better served elsewhere, consolidates duplicative agencies, and
eliminates the remaining unnecessary or wasteful programs. Preliminary
estimates indicate the bill will save about $2.5 billion over the next
5 years. How does it achieve these savings?
First, it eliminates unnecessary, duplicative and wasteful programs
such as the Minority Business Development Agency, the U.S. Travel and
Tourism Administration, the Technology Administration, and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Second, it takes NOAA--which comprises the lion's share of the
Department's activities--out from under the Department umbrella. Many
of the functions under NOAA, including the Nation's weather service,
are vital activities that all observers agree should be carried on. As
an independent agency, NOAA will have the opportunity to focus on these
core functions, free to achieve the savings necessary to fulfill its
responsibilities.
Third, it rationalizes U.S. trade policy by consolidating the
International Trade Administration, the Bureau of Export
Administration, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative within
the U.S. Trade Administration. Currently, 19 Federal agencies are
charged with promoting trade, but only 8 percent of total Federal
spending on trade promotion is directed by Commerce. The bill before us
takes a dramatic step toward consolidating our existing trade
activities, achieving the administrative savings necessary to
rationalize our trade promotion efforts and make them more effective.
Finally, the bill establishes a new Federal Statistical Service by
combining the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis
with the Bureau of Labor Statistics from the Department of Labor. It
also creates within the service a Federal Council on Statistical Policy
to advise the service and Congress on statistical issues. Once again,
the goal is to consolidate functions of the Federal Government that
have been dispersed across the Federal Government. It's a more
rational, efficient means of accomplishing these tasks.
Mr. President, some have argued that this effort will handicap
American businesses by depriving them of their chief advocate in
Washington. That's nonsense. Businessmen and women across this country
understand what's necessary to promote economic growth and jobs--and
it's not another Government handout.
As Jim Barrett, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce stated:
``Of all the priorities that the Congress can set to assist Michigan
business, keeping the Commerce Department is not even on the radar
screen.
[[Page S10059]]
* * * A balanced budget with lower interest rates will do much more
than the Department of Commerce as it is presently structured ever
could.''
A poll conducted by the Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce indicates
Mr. Barrett wasn't just speaking for himself. Forty-seven percent of
those polled support eliminating the Department of Commerce--while only
6 percent were opposed. That is a ratio of almost 8 to 1 in favor of
eliminating the Department of Commerce.
The lesson of the Commerce Department is simple. Absent clearly
defined responsibilities and goals, the Department has become the
resting place for the odds and ends of the Federal Government. In the
process, it has provided shelter for numerous programs that do not
serve the American people well.
This legislation targets those programs, unburdening the taxpayer
from being forced to continue their subsidy, while freeing the more
worthy programs to better accomplish their jobs. This legislation is an
exercise in good government, and I hope my colleagues will support it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Department of Commerce Dismantling Act--Highlights
Terminates unnecessary department agencies: Eliminates the
Technology Administration, the Minority Business Development
Administration, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, and the Economic Development
Administration.
Eliminates wasteful department programs: Eliminates the
Office of Technology Policy, the Advanced Technology Program,
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, the Federal
Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, the Metric
Program, the NOAA Corps, the NOAA Fleet, grant programs under
the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, and ocean and atmospheric grant programs.
Consolidates trade functions: Rationalizes U.S. trade
policy by consolidating the International Trade
Administration, the Bureau of Export Administration, the
Office of the United States Trade Representative, and
spectrum management within the United States Trade
Administration.
Consolidates oceanographic, atmospheric and scientific
functions within a newly independent National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration: Consolidates the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the National Bureau of
Standards (formerly the National Institute of Standards and
Technology), spectrum research and analysis functions of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
and the Office of Space Commerce. Core functions of NOAA,
such as fisheries management and the National Weather
Service, are preserved.
Consolidates statistical functions: Establishes a new
Federal Statistical Service by combining the Bureau of the
Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis with the Bureau of
Labor Statistics from the Department of Labor. Also creates
within the Service a Federal Council on Statistical Policy to
advise the Service and Congress on statistical issues.
Corporatizes the Patent and Trademark Office: Establishes a
fee-funded, wholly owned government corporation, based on
legislation reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee
this year.
summary
The terminations, transfers and consolidations called for
by this bill are to be completed over a thirty-six month
period under the direction of the Office of Management and
Budget.
Administrative functions
The office of the Secretary, General Counsel, Inspector
General, and other administrative functions are terminated
six months after enactment of this bill.
Economic Development Administration
The EDA provides grants and assistance to loosely-defined
``economically depressed'' regions. EDA's functions are
duplicated by numerous other federal agencies including the
Departments of Agriculture, HUD, and Interior, the Small
Business Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority and
the Appalachian Regional Commission. The parochial nature of
the program often targets EDA grants to locations with
healthy economies which do not need federal assistance. The
EDA is terminated within this bill.
National Technical Information Service
The National Technical Information Service is transferred
to the Office of Budget and Management for privatization. If
an appropriate arrangement for the privatization of functions
of the NTIS is not made within 18 months, then the Service is
transferred to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and OMB is directed to provide legislation to
Congress that would transform NTIS into a government-owned
corporation.
Bureaus of the Census and economic analysis
The Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis would
be transferred, along with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to
the newly created Federal Statistical Service, beginning the
process of consolidating the federal government's statistical
functions. The bill then requires the President to study and
propose legislation to further the consolidation of these
functions.
Minority Business Development Agency
Although MBDA has spent hundreds of millions on management
assistance--not capital assistance--since 1971, the program
has never been formally authorized by Congress. The MBDA's
stated mission, to help minority-owned businesses get
government contracts, is duplicated by such agencies and
programs as the Small Business Administration, and Small
Business Development Centers, along with the private sector.
The MBDA would be terminated.
Technology Administration
The Technology Administration currently works with industry
to promote the use and development of new technology. The
federal government is poorly equipped to ``pick winners and
losers'' in the marketplace. This agency is terminated,
including the Offices of Technology Policy, Technology
Commercialization, and Technology Evaluation and Assessment.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is
redesignated as the National Bureau of Standards and
transferred to the newly independent NOAA. The Advanced
Technology Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension
Partnerships are terminated; these programs are often cited
as prime examples of corporate welfare, wherein the federal
government invests in applied research and product
development programs which should be conducted in the private
sector.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
The NTIA, an advisory body on national telecommunications
policy, would be terminated, including its grant programs.
Federal spectrum research and analysis functions would be
transferred to the National Bureau of Standards while federal
spectrum management functions would be made an independent
arm of the Federal Communications Commission. Finally, NTIA's
laboratories would be moved to the OMB for privatization. If
a suitable arrangement is not made within 18 months, they
would be moved to NOAA.
Patent and Trademark Office
Providing for patents and trademarks is a constitutionally-
mandated government function. This bill would establish the
PTO as a government-owned corporation and require the PTO to
be supported completely through fee collection. This text is
the same as S. 507 reported by the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary earlier this year.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The bill establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration as an independent agency. Consolidated within
the newly independent National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration are the National Bureau of Standards (formerly
the National Institute of Standards and Technology), spectrum
research and analysis functions of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the
Office of Space Commerce.
Core functions of NOAA, such as fisheries management and
the National Weather Service, are preserved, while outdated
programs like the NOAA Corps, NOAA Fleet, and 30 other
atmospheric programs are terminated.
United States Trade Administration
The Department of Commerce claims to be the lead in U.S.
Trade policy, but actually only plays a small part. Five
percent of Commerce's budget is dedicated to trade promotion,
and it comprises only 8 percent of total federal spending on
trade promotion. Furthermore, nineteen different federal
agencies have trade responsibilities.
Our legislation would begin the process of consolidating
and rationalizing federal trade policy by combining the
Bureau of Export Administration, the International Trade
Administration, and the United States Trade Representative
under the same roof, the United States Trade Administration.
The U.S. Trade Representative would retain its current
Cabinet and Ambassador status.
In an additional attempt to make our trade policies more
coherent, the USTR would serve as a member of the Board of
Directors of the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation. Finally, the bill requires the
President to transmit a plan to Congress to consolidate other
federal export promotion activities and export financing
activities and how to transfer those functions to the USTA.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Department
of Commerce Dismantling Act as an original cosponsor. This legislation
continues the battle to do away with unneeded government and wasteful
spending. Over a 3-year period the Department of Commerce would be
dismantled. Certain programs would be transferred or consolidated into
agencies or departments that are better suited to handle them. Other
programs and agencies would be terminated altogether. Unnecessary
agencies and several tiers of bureaucracy would be
[[Page S10060]]
eliminated. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the
abolishment of the Department of Commerce would save taxpayers more
than $2 billion over 4 years. I commend Senator Brownback for his
leadership in crafting this legislation to abolish the Department of
Commerce.
Today the Department of Commerce is a 31,000 person department
costing American taxpayers $4 billion annually. Sixty of these
employees have the rank of deputy assistant secretary or higher and
have annual salaries of at least $96,000 each.
During my campaign, I ran on the ideals of less government, lower
taxes, fewer Federal regulations and more personal responsibility. To
obtain such goals, I called for the abolishment of four Federal
departments including the Departments of Commerce, and Energy. Earlier
this year I signed on as an original cosponsor to legislation to
abolish the Department of Energy, sponsored by Senator Rod Grams.
The Department of Commerce, as we know it today, was created in 1913
during the Woodrow Wilson administration to help promote American
businesses around the world. Today, only 5 percent of the Department's
nearly $4 billion budget is dedicated to trade promotion. By comparison
$2 billion is spent annually out of the Department's budget on the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Additionally, there
are 19 other Federal agencies that hold some jurisdiction over trade.
Trade is now a small part of the Department of Commerce.
America's future lies in trade, but the Department of Commerce's
bureaucracy is a relic of the past. This legislation attempts to
correct that by consolidating trade functions under a single agency,
the United States Trade Administration, and eliminating the waste,
bureaucracy, and duplication we have today in the Department of
Commerce.
The time has come to abolish the Department of Commerce. We cannot
continue to waste tax payers' dollars on outdated inefficient, and
redundant programs. Taxpayers deserve better.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Abraham in
introducing the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act. This
legislation was completed after months of research and hearings in
which we investigated the many costly structural, managerial, and
programmatic problems confronting the Department. We have concluded
that these problems are so severe and systemic that the department
cannot be reinvented. To provide American taxpayers with the services
they require at the level of efficiency and quality they demand, the
Department of Commerce must be dismantled.
The Department of Commerce is a hodgepodge of unrelated functions and
missions ranging from antidumping investigations to zebra mussel
research. It is comprised of 11 unrelated agencies, overseeing more
than 100 programs, catering to more than 1,000 customer bases, and
overlapping the work of 71 other Government offices and agencies. This
entire agglomeration is unmanageable, and diminishes the quality of
those Commerce functions which must be provided by the Federal
Government.
For example, historically, Secretaries of Commerce have focused their
attention almost exclusively on the Department's trade functions.
However, trade activities only account for 8 percent of the
Department's budget, and Commerce accounts for less than 6 percent of
total Federal spending on trade. Commerce is just one of 19 Federal
agencies involved in trade issues, and isn't even regarded as the lead
trade agency--the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is.
However, while Secretaries of Commerce travel abroad on foreign trade
missions, serious management problems have languished at Commerce
headquarters. For example, in 1992 the General Accounting Office
indicated that the National Weather Service modernization program and
the Decennial Census--two important functions--were both experiencing
severe management failures. Today, 5 years later, both of these
programs remain on GAO's list of high-risk government management
problems. This year, before the Governmental Affairs Committee,
Subcommittee on Government Management, which I chair, the Department of
Commerce's inspector general testified ``I think it is fair to say that
there is little Departmental leadership or oversight in key
administrative areas.''
Mr. President, in part as a result of this lack of leadership, the
Department has also initiated or continued to perform functions which
are not just mismanaged, but are unnecessary. In fact, in many
instances, the Department which professes to be the advocate for
America's business has gone into competition with them. In testimony
before the Subcommittee on Government Management, representatives from
the private mapping, weather forecasting and venture capital industries
stated that the Department of Commerce routinely competes with
companies in their fields. Because taxpayers unknowingly subsidize the
Departments commercial ventures, Commerce is a formidable competitor
for small businesses. By going into business, Commerce also misuses
taxpayer resources that should be devoted to truly governmental
functions.
Other functions performed in the Department of Commerce are just a
waste of taxpayer dollars. For example, the Advanced Technology Program
provides handouts to America's largest and wealthiest corporations to
do product development research. This program is corporate welfare,
plain and simple, and should be terminated. The Economic Development
Administration duplicates the efforts of dozens of other economic
development programs around the Federal Government.
And finally, the Department of Commerce has become entirely too
politicized. Most employees at Commerce are dedicated public servants.
However, too many of their leaders obtained their jobs when political
connections prevailed over the public good.
The Department of Commerce began in 1902 and has evolved over the
past 94 years into an agency which has no clear mission or
responsibility, and is too unmanageable to reform. I believe the
Department of Commerce Dismantling Act is the next necessary step in
that evolution. The Commerce Department Dismantling Act would retain
the important functions which are performed in Commerce, it
consolidates many important functions with those performed elsewhere in
the Federal Government, and it eliminates the waste. I urge my
colleagues to support this measure.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
S. 1228. A bill to provide for a 10-year circulating commemorative
coin program to commemorate each of the 50 States, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
THE 50 STATES COMMEMORATIVE COIN PROGRAM ACT
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce legislation
with Senator D'Amato, chairman of the Banking Committee, to create a
circulating commemorative quarter representing each of the 50 states.
Last year, legislation was enacted which instructed the Secretary of
the Treasury to study the feasibility of a circulating commemorative
coin. That study found that there is considerable public interest in
the circulating commemorative quarter and that collecting such coins
would produce significant earnings. The bill that I am introducing
today will implement this program. Identical legislation has been
introduced in the House.
As we all know, the circulating quarters in use today are Washington/
Eagle quarters, that is they have a bust of George Washington on one
side and an eagle on the reverse side. Under this legislation,
beginning in 1999, the Mint would strike only statehood quarters until
all 50 states were represented. Only the design on the back of quarters
would change. There would be no changes whatsoever to the physical
size, weight, or other specifications of quarters. This uniformity is
necessary to ensure that these new quarters will continue to work in
vending machines, telephones, parking meters, and for other similar
transactions.
This program would operate for 10 years, with the Mint producing five
different statehood coins per year. The order in which States will be
represented is based on the order in which States ratified the
Constitution and
[[Page S10061]]
joined the Union. If a new state joins the Union during the life of the
program, it will be extended in order to ensure that the new State is
represented.
The design for each State will be selected by the Secretary of the
Treasury in consultation with the Governor, the Commission on Fine
Arts, and the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee. Each
State will nominate a design to the Secretary.
It is my hope that this proposal will spark interest in every State
across our Nation. I hope that school children begin to study the
history of their States in search of an appropriate individual or
emblem to represent their States on the reverse side of these quarters.
I hope that artists, coin collectors, historians, and scholars debate
and ultimately join together to suggest an appropriate representation
for their State.
I know that there are a wide range of appealing options for my own
State of Rhode Island. Of course there is the founder of Rhode Island,
Roger Williams or Anne Hutchinson, who, like Roger Williams, dedicated
her life to the principle of religious freedom and tolerance. There is
the Anchor of Hope, which is our State motto and is represented on our
flag. Rhode Island is the Ocean State, so a seascape would be an
interesting proposal, as would be a lighthouse or a gull.
I am delighted to have Senator D'Amato's support in introducing this
bill. I am sure that he agrees that the point of this new program is to
honor all 50 States, and to encourage an interest in the unique history
of each State. This program creates a program through which we can
celebrate our diverse heritage.
I send a bill to the desk and ask for its appropriate referral.
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. 1228
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 ``50 States Commemorative Coin
Program Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) it is appropriate and timely--
(A) to honor the unique Federal republic of 50 States that
comprise the United States; and
(B) to promote the diffusion of knowledge among the youth
of the United States about the individual States, their
history and geography, and the rich diversity of the national
heritage;
(2) the circulating coinage of the United States has not
been modernized during the 25-year period preceding the date
of enactment of this Act;
(3) a circulating commemorative 25-cent coin program could
produce earnings of $110,000,000 from the sale of silver
proof coins and sets over the 10-year period of issuance, and
would produce indirect earnings of an estimated
$2,600,000,000 to $5,100,000,000 to the United States
Treasury, money that will replace borrowing to fund the
national debt to at least that extent; and
(4) it is appropriate to launch a commemorative circulating
coin program that encourages young people and their families
to collect memorable tokens of all of the States for the face
value of the coins.
SEC. 3. ISSUANCE OF REDESIGNED QUARTER DOLLARS OVER 10-YEAR
PERIOD COMMEMORATING EACH OF THE 50 STATES.
Section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after subsection (k) the following new subsection:
``(l) Redesign and Issuance of Quarter Dollar in
Commemoration of Each of the 50 States.--
``(1) Redesign beginning in 1999.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the fourth sentence of
subsection (d)(1) and subsection (d)(2), quarter dollar coins
issued during the 10-year period beginning in 1999, shall
have designs on the reverse side selected in accordance with
this subsection which are emblematic of the 50 States.
``(B) Transition provision.--Notwithstanding subparagraph
(A), the Secretary may continue to mint and issue quarter
dollars in 1999 which bear the design in effect before the
redesign required under this subsection and an inscription of
the year `1998' as required to ensure a smooth transition
into the 10-year program under this subsection.
``(2) Single state designs.--The design on the reverse side
of each quarter dollar issued during the 10-year period
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be emblematic of 1 of the
50 States.
``(3) Issuance of coins commemorating 5 states during each
of the 10 years.--
``(A) In general.--The designs for the quarter dollar coins
issued during each year of the 10-year period referred to in
paragraph (1) shall be emblematic of 5 States selected in the
order in which such States ratified the Constitution of the
United States or were admitted into the Union, as the case
may be.
``(B) Number of each of 5 coin designs in each year.--Of
the quarter dollar coins issued during each year of the 10-
year period referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary of
the Treasury shall prescribe, on the basis of such factors as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate, the number of
quarter dollars which shall be issued with each of the 5
designs selected for such year.
``(4) Selection of design.--
``(A) In general.--Each of the 50 designs required under
this subsection for quarter dollars shall be--
``(i) selected by the Secretary after consultation with--
``(I) the Governor of the State being commemorated, or such
other State officials or group as the State may designate for
such purpose; and
``(II) the Commission of Fine Arts; and
``(ii) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory
Committee.
``(B) Selection and approval process.--Designs for quarter
dollars may be submitted in accordance with the design
selection and approval process developed by the Secretary in
the sole discretion of the Secretary.
``(C) Participation.--The Secretary may include
participation by State officials, artists from the States,
engravers of the United States Mint, and members of the
general public.
``(D) Standards.--Because it is important that the Nation's
coinage and currency bear dignified designs of which the
citizens of the United States can be proud, the Secretary
shall not select any frivolous or inappropriate design for
any quarter dollar minted under this subsection.
``(E) Prohibition on certain representations.--No head and
shoulders portrait or bust of any person, living or dead, and
no portrait of a living person may be included in the design
of any quarter dollar under this subsection.
``(5) Treatment as numismatic items.--For purposes of
sections 5134 and 5136, all coins minted under this
subsection shall be considered to be numismatic items.
``(6) Issuance.--
``(A) Quality of coins.--The Secretary may mint and issue
such number of quarter dollars of each design selected under
paragraph (4) in uncirculated and proof qualities as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(B) Silver coins.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), the
Secretary may mint and issue such number of quarter dollars
of each design selected under paragraph (4) as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate, with a content of 90 percent
silver and 10 percent copper.
``(C) Sources of bullion.--The Secretary shall obtain
silver for minting coins under subparagraph (B) from
available resources, including stockpiles established under
the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.
``(7) Application in event of the admission of additional
states.--If any additional State is admitted into the Union
before the end of the 10-year period referred to in paragraph
(1), the Secretary of the Treasury may issue quarter dollar
coins, in accordance with this subsection, with a design
which is emblematic of such State during any 1 year of such
10-year period, in addition to the quarter dollar coins
issued during such year in accordance with paragraph
(3)(A).''.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from Rhode
Island, Senator Chafee, to introduce a bill which will authorize the 50
States Circulating Commemorative Coin Program.
This program, which allows for a temporary change to the reverse side
of our quarters starting in the year 1999, has my complete and
enthusiastic support.
Mr. President, I feel it is appropriate as we enter the new
millennium to embark on a decade-long celebration honoring each of our
50 States in the order in which they ratified the Constitution and
joined the Union. All States shall submit, for final selection by the
Secretary of the Treasury, a design befitting the motto or symbol of
each State.
The benefits of this program in promoting State pride on a national
level and educating our citizens about our States' unique character and
history are substantial.
In the year 1999, our Nation will be 223 years old. Before our next
big celebration marking the tricentennial in the year 2076, we should
take time to commemorate the attributes of every State in this Union.
Through this circulating coin program, we will be giving American
youth an opportunity to cultivate an interest in the rich history that
formed these United States. These coins will provide our teachers with
a tangible tool to instill this interest.
[[Page S10062]]
The educational advantage for our children will not only be achieved
in classrooms, but on playgrounds and in homes around the Nation.
In addition, Mr. President, I feel that the excitement and
anticipation of the different coins in this program will also capture
the interest of adults. Just imagine, receiving a collectible memento
when you are handed your change.
And may I point out, Mr. President, while the entire set of 50
circulating quarters will cost only $12.50, this very affordable
collection will generate a minimum of $2.6 billion and conceivably as
much as $5 billion in additional earnings for the Treasury. These off-
budget earnings will be applied directly to reduce borrowing to fund
the national debt.
Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my
colleague, Congressman Michael Castle, who has worked tirelessly to
promote this great program. Identical legislation Mike Castle sponsored
passed the House on a record vote of 413 to 6. I am pleased that his
efforts to create this commemorative coin are about to be realized. His
outstanding leadership and dedication on this matter has been an
inspiration to all who have committed their support.
As chairman of the Banking Committee, I intend to press for prompt
passage of this broadly supported bill and I am pleased to be a
cosponsor.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 1229. A bill to provide for the conduct of a clinical trial
concerning digital mammography; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
THE DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY CLINICAL TRIAL CONDUCT ACT OF 1997
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will
provide for a much needed clinical trial for the benefit of women's
health. My bill would provide $20 million to the Nation's Office of
Women's Health to conduct a large-scale clinical trial of digital
mammography, involving 50,000 women and 20 sites, which could yield
hard data in as little as a year regarding the potential of this
technology.
Digital mammography is our best bet for bringing the fight against
breast cancer into the 21st century. This technology could answer the
question of what age a woman should begin seeking annual mammograms. It
could prevent unnecessary biopsies, as well as catch the countless
breast masses undetected by conventional mammography. Dr. Martin Yaffe,
a senior cancer-imaging researcher from Canada, is quoted in the Wall
Street Journal of March 20, 1997, as drawing this comparison, ``Using a
conventional x ray mammography to find a tumor in dense breast tissue
is like trying to find a cotton ball in a cloud. Digital technology
allows us to improve the quality of the image and avoid missing the
cancer.''
While conventional mammography invokes the usual procedure for x
rays, which views the film of a breast image on a light box, digital
mammography takes advantage of an advanced x ray source for digital
image capture, allowing image enhancement, feature recognition, and the
ability to adjust the display contrast to highlight shadows and
otherwise undetected signs of breast cancer. Mammography is the only
means for detecting breast micro-calcifications, typically the earliest
indicator of nonpalpable breast cancers.
Many of my Senate colleagues have taken a personal and avid interest
in combating breast cancer. With good reason. More than 40,000 women
will lose their battle with breast cancer this year alone, while
another 2.6 million will continue to live with the disease. Further,
the rate of diagnosis has been steadily increasing for the last 50
years. For women aged 40 to 45, breast cancer is the leading cause of
death. Given these staggering statistics and the fact that women are
literally defenseless against this disease, it is imperative that we do
everything possible to promote early detection and treatment.
On June 3 of this year, 62 U.S. Senators sent a letter to the
Appropriations Committee, urging funding for the Department of Defense
Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. This program is world
renowned and responsible for many of the most important advances in
breast cancer research. It has even facilitated several small-scale
trials in digital mammography.
However, this program has, to date, proven unable to conduct a large-
scale clinical trial of digital mammography. And yet, it is only a
large-scale trial that can determine definitively the efficacy of this
technology in saving women's lives. There are two bottom lines here.
First, the trial would tell women at what age and with what frequency
they should receive mammograms. Second, the trial would provide the
Health Care Financing Administration with the data it needs to set a
reasonable and appropriate cost for a digital mammography. We are all
familiar with the role HCFA plays in setting not just rates of
reimbursement but standards for reimbursement of healthcare services;
the private sector takes its lead from HCFA. Once HCFA acts to make
digital mammographies available to women, private pay insurers will
follow suit. Therefore, in the interest of public health, the onus is
on us to move these trials forward.
The NIH has an appropriation from the Senate for next year that
reflects almost a billion dollar boost. Rightly so. But despite that,
the National Cancer Institute simply does not have the resources to
fund a clinical trial of this size. Grant dollars are still scarce
relative to the number of compelling grant applications. The reality
that NCI is simply unable to dedicate the necessary resources to
conduct a large-scale trial of digital mammography is unfortunate yet
understandable. The Senate is aware of this dilemma, and shares the
frustration of the Nation's breast cancer victims. In explaining its
fiscal year 1998 allocation for the National Cancer Institute, the
Appropriations Committee report for Labor, Health and Human Services
and Education noted that ``the national investment in cancer research
remains the key to bringing down spiraling heath care costs, as
treatment, cures, and prevention remain much cheaper than chronic and
catastrophic diseases, like cancer.''
As Congress is well aware, the financial cost of breast cancer is
indeed staggering. We spend over $5 billion annually on healthcare for
women fighting breast cancer, a figure that is matched in the cost of
lost productivity to our overall economy. Further, the human cost of
this disease is felt tenfold by the families and communities whose
lives it touches.
I realize this bill breaks with convention, to a certain degree. I am
not assuming a level of scientific expertise that supplants that of the
true experts at NIH. I am a firm believer in letting science drive
where our research dollars are spent. However, I am willing to force
the issue for the sake of women's health. We have available to us
cutting edge technology that could yield us a remarkable return in the
form of women's lives. My bill provides a modest sum to ensure that a
large-scale clinical trial of digital mammography does not go unfunded
any longer.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 1230. A bill to amend the Small Reclamation Projects of 1956 to
provide for Federal cooperation in non-Federal reclamation projects and
for participation by non-Federal agencies in Federal projects; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the small reclamation projects act of 1956
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President. I send to the desk for appropriate
reference a measure to expand the use and availability of the Small
Reclamation Projects Act of 1956.
The Small Reclamation Projects Act has provided important benefits
throughout the Reclamation West in the 40 years since it was first
established. Over the past several years there have been various
discussions on ways to expand the benefits of the program. Last
Congress I introduced two measures that included some of the
suggestions that have been made. Neither of the measures would have
affected ongoing projects.
One of the measures, S. 1564, dealt with financing. At the present
time, the Secretary is limited to grants and loans to fulfill the
objectives of the act. That legislation would have expanded the
authority of the Secretary to include the use of loan guarantees as a
way of stretching the limited federal resources. The other measure, S.
1565,
[[Page S10063]]
revised existing law to expand the purposes for which assistance can be
received from the Federal Government. Irrigation would have remained an
authorized purpose, but it would no longer be a required component. The
purposes would now include the augmentation and management of local
water supplies, conservation of water and energy, fish and wildlife
conservation, supplemental water for existing supplies, water quality
improvements, and flood control. The legislation would have limited the
application of interest on any loans to those features which are
currently reimbursable with interest under reclamation law.
On September 5, 1996, I conducted a hearing on these, and several
other reclamation measures, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests
and Public Land Management. Based on the comments that I received at
the hearing, and subsequent conversations that I have had with
individuals and groups interested in the potential of the Small
Reclamation Program, I have combined the two measures and made several
changes in the sustance. I am introducing the measure today and plan to
request that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources add this measure to its scheduled hearing
on October 7, 1997.
Mr. President, I sincerely hope that once the administration has the
opportunity to read this measure and reflect on our hearing last year,
they will change their minds and support this legislation. Quite
frankly, I do not understand the reasons for the almost knee-jerk
opposition of the administration to this proposal or their persistent
efforts to terminate not only the Small Reclamation Project Act, but
programs such as the Rehabilitation and Betterment loan activity. An
administration that trumpets its concern for the environment should
understand that one of the best ways of providing additional water
supplies for instream uses, as well as for additional consumptive uses,
is to repair old leaky systems. It may simple be that these programs
either directly or indirectly help farmers, but I would submit, Mr.
President, that they also benefit the environment and the economy.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, and Mr.
Rockefeller):
S. 1231. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and
1999 for the United States Fire Administration, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the u.s. fire administration authorization for fiscal years 1998 and
1999
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the authorization bill
for the U.S. Fire Administration for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. I
would like to thank the cosponsors of this bill, Senator McCain,
Senator Hollings, and Senator Rockefeller, for their hard work and
dedication to making this bill a possibility.
The mission of the U.S. Fire Administration is to enhance the
Nation's fire prevention and control activities and thereby
significantly reduce the Nation's loss of life from fire while also
achieving a reduction in property loss and nonfatal injury due to fire.
The bill, which authorizes the Fire Administration for $29.6 million
in fiscal year 1998 and $30.5 million for fiscal year 1999, provides
for collection, analysis, and dissemination of fire incidence and loss
data; development and dissemination of public fire education materials;
development and dissemination of better hazardous materials response
information for first responders; and support for research and
development for fire safety technologies.
With this authorization, our local and State firefighters will
continue to have assess to the training from the National Fire Academy
necessary to allow them to better perform their jobs of saving lives
and protecting property.
Additionally, a number of amendments have been proposed to the
legislation that established the National Fallen Firefighters
Foundation. The Foundation was created by Congress in 1992 to assist
their families. These proposed amendments offer some major changes to
the structure of the Foundation. In order to allow for a more thorough
evaluation of the issues surrounding these amendments, we plan to
continue our review of these changes along with an examination of the
Foundation's relationships with the U.S. Fire Administration and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency next year.
Therefore, I along with my cosponsors, urge the Members of this body
to support this bill and allow the U.S. Fire Administration to continue
the fine job it has been performing for so many years.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1231
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 ``United States Fire
Administration Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1998 and
1999''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 17(g)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control
Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2216(g)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) $29,664,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1998; and
``(H) $30,554,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1999.''.
SEC. 3. SUCCESSOR FIRE SAFETY STANDARDS.
The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15
U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 29(a)(1), by inserting ``or any successor
standard to that standard'' after ``Association Standard
74'';
(2) in section 29(a)(2), by inserting ``, or any successor
standard to that standard'' before ``, whichever is
appropriate,'';
(3) in section 29(b)(2), by inserting ``, or any successor
standard to that standard'' after ``Association Standard 13
or 13-R'';
(4) in section 31(c)(2)(B)(i), by inserting ``or any
successor standard to that standard'' after ``Life Safety
Code)''; and
(5) in section 31(c)(2)(B)(ii), by inserting ``or any
successor standard to that standard'' after ``Association
Standard 101''.
SEC. 4. TERMINATION OR PRIVATIZATION OF FUNCTIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days before the
termination or transfer to a private sector person or entity
of any significant function of the United States Fire
Administration, as described in subsection (b), the
Administrator of the United States Fire Administration shall
transmit to Congress a report providing notice of that
termination or transfer.
(b) Covered Terminations and Transfers.--For purposes of
subsection (a), a termination or transfer to a person or
entity described in that subsection shall be considered to be
a termination or transfer of a significant function of the
United States Fire Administration if the termination or
transfer--
(1) relates to a function of the Administration that
requires the expenditure of more than 5 percent of the total
amount of funds made available by appropriations to the
Administration; or
(2) involves the termination of more than 5 percent of the
employees of the Administration.
SEC. 5. NOTICE.
(a) Major Reorganization Defined.--With respect to the
United States Fire Administration, the term ``major
reorganization'' means any reorganization of the
Administration that involves the reassignment of more than 25
percent of the employees of the Administration.
(b) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds appropriated
pursuant to the amendments made by this Act are subject to a
reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives, notice of that action shall concurrently
be provided to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science of
the House of Representatives.
(c) Notice of Reorganization.--Not later than 15 days
before any major reorganization of any program, project, or
activity of the United States Fire Administration, the
Administrator of the United States Fire Administration shall
provide notice to the Committees on Science and
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
Appropriations of the Senate.
SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM.
With the year 2000 rapidly approaching, it is the sense of
Congress that the Administrator of the United States Fire
Administration should--
(1) give high priority to correcting all 2-digit date-
related problems in the computer systems of the United States
Fire Administration to ensure that those systems continue to
operate effectively in the year 2000 and in subsequent years;
(2) as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of
this Act, assess the extent of the risk to the operations of
the United
[[Page S10064]]
States Fire Administration posed by the problems referred to
in paragraph (1), and plan and budget for achieving
compliance for all of the mission-critical systems of the
system by the year 2000; and
(3) develop contingency plans for those systems that the
United States Fire Administration is unable to correct by the
year 2000.
SEC. 7. ENHANCEMENT OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the United States Fire Administration.
(2) Educationally useful federal equipment.--The term
``educationally useful Federal equipment'' means computers
and related peripheral tools and research equipment that is
appropriate for use in schools.
(3) School.--The term ``school'' means a public or private
educational institution that serves any of the grades of
kindergarten through grade 12.
(b) Sense of Congress.--
(1) In general.--It is the sense of Congress that the
Administrator should, to the greatest extent practicable and
in a manner consistent with applicable Federal law (including
Executive Order No. 12999), donate educationally useful
Federal equipment to schools in order to enhance the science
and mathematics programs of those schools.
(2) Reports.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Administrator shall prepare and submit to the President a
report that meets the requirements of this paragraph. The
President shall submit that report to Congress at the same
time as the President submits a budget request to Congress
under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.
(B) Contents of report.--The report prepared by the
Administrator under this paragraph shall describe any
donations of educationally useful Federal equipment to
schools made during the period covered by the report.
SEC. 8. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the United States
Fire Administration (referred to in this section as the
``Administrator'') shall prepare and submit to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and
the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives a
report that meets the requirements of this section.
(b) Contents of Report.--The report under this section
shall--
(1) examine the risks to firefighters in suppressing fires
caused by burning tires;
(2) address any risks that are uniquely attributable to
fires described in paragraph (1), including any risks
relating to--
(A) exposure to toxic substances (as that term is defined
by the Administrator);
(B) personal protection;
(C) the duration of those fires; and
(D) site hazards associated with those fires;
(3) identify any special training that may be necessary for
firefighters to suppress those fires; and
(4) assess how the training referred to in paragraph (3)
may be provided by the United States Fire Administration.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Frist's
authorization bill for the U.S. Fire Administration for fiscal years
1997 and 1998. I would also like to thank the additional cosponsors,
Senator Hollings and Senator Rockefeller, for their support of this
very important legislation.
As chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, I
am very pleased to see that the bill represents the bipartisan support
that is so necessary to move this and other science and technology
bills before the committee. It would be my hope that this bipartisan
support would be continued for the many actions before this body, the
U.S. Senate.
The United States has one of the highest fire death rates in the
industrialized world. Fires account for approximately 4,500 deaths and
30,000 injuries annually. The extent of this problem covers all sectors
of society and costs American taxpayers approximately $50 billion per
year.
With these huge losses, the work of the U.S. Fire Administration
plays a key role in reducing these numbers. Their work with the
firefighters, those who are on the front lines in fighting these
problems, should be commended. Their efforts in collecting data and
other relevant information play a key role in the prevention of future
fires.
The U.S. Fire Administration should continue to educate the public
against the dangers of fire and how to safely protect ourselves and our
property against such dangers.
I, along with my cosponsors, urge the Members of this body to support
this bill.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague,
Senator Frist, in introducing legislation to reauthorize the programs
of the U.S. Fire Administration [USFA].
The United States currently has one of the worst fire records of any
country in the industrial world. More than 2 million fires are reported
in the United States every year. Annually, these fires result in
approximately 4,500 deaths, 30,000 civilian injuries, more than $8
billion in direct property losses, and more than $50 billion in costs
to taxpayers. In my State of South Carolina, in 1995, the most recent
year in which data are available, 12,776 fires were reported resulting
in 12 deaths, 103 injuries, and over $40 million in property losses.
Even more disheartening is the fact that over 80 percent of the annual
deaths and injuries from fires occur in residential fires. In South
Carolina, while only 3,196 of the fires were residential, those fires
claimed 8 lives and caused 74 injuries.
As terrible as these statistics are, they would reflect a far more
tragic picture were it not for the USFA. The USFA was created under the
1974 act, pursuant to the recommendation of the National Commission on
Fire and Control. The USFA is a part of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and its responsibilities are to administer programs,
research, and applied engineering projects to assist State and local
governments in fire prevention and control. The USFA works with State
and local governments specifically to educate the public in fire safety
and prevention, control arson, collect and analyze data related to
fire, conduct research and development in fire suppression, promote
firefighter health and safety, and conduct fire service training.
The USFA assists our Nation's fire service which comprises of
approximately 1.2 million members, 80 percent of whom are volunteers.
The fire service is one of the most hazardous professions in the
country. Firefighters not only confront daily the dangers of fire; they
also are required to respond to other natural disasters, such as
earthquakes, floods, medical emergencies, and hazardous materials
spills. The USFA administers the National Fire Academy, which sponsors
off-campus and on-campus training and management programs for members
of the fire and rescue services, and allied professionals.
The effort of the USFA is focused in four areas: First, public
education and awareness and arson control; second, data collection and
analysis; third, fire service training; and fourth, technology and
research and firefighter health and safety.
Through public education and awareness the USFA seeks to identify and
educate the groups for whom fire presents the greatest menace. Efforts
are focused to increase safety and reduce losses. For example, whether
by accident or on purpose, children start over 100,000 fires per years.
About 25 percent of the fires that kill young children are started by
children playing with fire. The USFA through public-private
partnerships had educated children with initiatives such as the
``Sesame Street Fire Safety Activity Book for Preschoolers,'' National
Safe Kids, and various guides for parents and teachers.
Senior citizens are at the highest risk of being killed in a fire.
The USFA has targeted this group through public service announcements
with added focus on the importance of buying and maintaining
residential smoke detectors.
Arsonists are responsible for over 500,000 fires every year. Arson is
the No. 1 cause of all fires. Even though it is the leading cause of
fire, only 15 percent of arson cases result in arrests with juveniles
accounting for 55 percent of arrests, and only 2 percent result in
convictions. It is the second leading cause of fire deaths in
residences and the leading cause of dollar loss due to fire. In 1994,
the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available, the
total number of arson fires in the United States was estimated at
548,500--accounting for an estimated 560 fire deaths, 3,440 fire
injuries, and $3.6 billion in property damage.
Of greater concern are investigators reports that more people are
choosing to use fire as a weapon. According to the USFA's ``Arson in
the United
[[Page S10065]]
States'' report, ``Investigators are becoming more aware of Molotov
cocktails and pipe bombs being used as incendiary devices. Fires caused
by explosives or motivated by spite and revenge tend to be more deadly
because they often target residential structures, in keeping with the
desire to inflict personal harm.'' In my own State of South Carolina,
we suffer from the worst record for church burnings--over 30 since
1991. I visited with Rev. Lester Grant of Shiloh Baptist Church in
Townville, SC, last month, and we discussed the recent trend of
targeting churches with this new weapon of hatred and violence. I was
impressed with how our church communities are rallying and growing
stronger in the rubble of fires. Church burnings, whether acts of
hatred or vandalism, have to stop.
We must do more to assist our church communities in stopping these
vile efforts. The USFA has initiated several measures to combat this
crime, including: community grants in high risk areas to hire part-time
law enforcement officers, and to pay for law enforcement overtime and
other church arson prevention activities; National Fire Academy
training courses; additional training and education for arson
investigators with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; arson
prevention information for the general public; and juvenile arson
prevention workshops. Although the President's budget request for
fiscal year 1997 for arson-fighting activities was reduced, this bill
restores that funding at last year's level.
USFA's emphasis on data collection and analysis provides it with the
necessary tools for identifying problems and forecasting trends. USFA
use this data to focus efforts in the areas that will most
significantly reduce casualties and property losses caused by fire.
National Fire data are published through USFA's National Fire Incident
Reporting System, the only centralized and uniform collection of fire
data in the United States.
Regarding fire service training, Mr. President, and the National Fire
Academy provides national leadership for fire and emergency medical
services personnel through education and training. The Academy offers
training and educational programs at the Emmitsburg campus and at other
sites throughout the country. The Academy trained 83,000 students in
1996 and plans to increase this number to 300,000 per year in the
future. There now are four applicants for each available slot for many
of the Academy's courses.
Finally, the USFA conducts research on technology to improve the
occupational health and safety of firefighters including improvements
to protective clothing and equipment, lifesaving operational
technologies and equipment like liquid fire extinguishing agents, and
equipment used in vehicle extrication and complex rescues.
Mr. President, the efforts of our Nation's 1.2 million firefighters
are invaluable; they risk their lives every day to save the lives and
property of others. The USFA provides the necessary education, data
analysis, training, and technology needed to ensure that these brave
individuals do their job as efficiently and safely as possible. We in
Congress need to do our job: We need to enact this legislation to
ensure that both firefighters and the USFA get the financial resources
they need to serve the public. I encourage my colleagues to support
this bill.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues,
Senator Frist, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings in introducing
legislation to reauthorize the programs of the U.S. Fire Administration
[USFA].
I just want to say a few quick words about this program. The USFA has
a tough and rewarding mission. As I am sure my colleagues have noted,
the statistics relating to fires in this country are staggering:
Approximately 4,500 people die annually, and over 30,000 people are
injured. In West Virginia, there were over 9,000 fires in 1995 causing
28 fatalities and 160 injuries. The fact is, Mr. President, these
numbers would be worse if it were not for the brave men and women
firefighters who put their lives on the line to save and protect
others.
I want to take this moment to commend the 1.2 million members of the
Nation's fire service of whom 80 percent are volunteers. In 1995, 163
firefighters were injured in West Virginia in the line of duty. They
deserve the best training, assistance, and technology available to do
their job. The USFA provides these invaluable services to these men and
women in an effort to ensure their safety, their health, and to improve
their ability to fight fires with the best available technology.
If there is a Federal program that is worth its value in dollars, it
is this one--an ounce of prevention is clearly worth a pound of cure.
In addition to the services the USFA provides firefighters, I want to
commend this agency for its education and awareness programs,
particularly those that target young children, and for their use of the
Internet. Children start over 100,000 fires a year from just playing.
The USFA has developed an interactive homepage and guide for parents
clearly demonstrating their awareness of today's tools needed to reach
today's youth.
In closing, Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague, the
chairman of the Science Subcommittee, Senator Frist, for his efforts to
move legislation in a bipartisan manner. This bill is a fine example of
his efforts to work with Members of both parties to move good
legislation that benefits the public as a whole. I encourage my
colleagues to support this bill.
______
By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 1232. A bill to provide for the declassification of the journal
kept by Glenn T. Seaborg while serving as Chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
DECLASSIFICATION LEGISLATION
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Glenn T. Seaborg is a truly great
American who for 14 years has suffered outrageous treatment from
bureaucrats and is in need of our assistance. Dr. Seaborg, codiscoverer
of plutonium, kept a journal whilst chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission from 1961 to 1971. The journal consisted of a diary written
at home each evening, correspondence, announcements, minutes, and the
like. He was careful about classified matters; nothing was included
that could not be made public. Even as he was chairman the portions
relating to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were microfilmed
for public access in their respective Presidential libraries. Before
leaving the AEC, Dr. Seaborg got it all cleared virtually without
deletion. Then lunacy descended. Or rather, the Atomic Energy
Commission became the Department of Energy and bureaucracy got going.
Seaborg writes of all this in an article ``Secrecy Runs Amok''
published in Science in 1994. It seems that in 1983 the chief historian
of the Department asked to borrow one of two sets of the journal, some
26 volumes in all, for work on a history of the Commission. By the time
the author got his journal back passage after passage was redacted,
much of it explicitly public information, such as the published code
names of nuclear weapons tests, some of it purely personal, as for
example his description of accompanying his children on a trick or
treat outing on a Halloween evening. The 26 volumes, ``in expurgated
form'' as Seaborg puts it, are now available in the Manuscript Division
of the Library of Congress. But where does one go for sanity? Seaborg
writes: ``With the beginning of the Reagan administration, the
government had begun to take a much more severe and rigid position with
regard to secrecy.'' The balance between the ``right of the public to
know'' and the ``right of the nation to protect itself'' was simply
lost as, often apologetic, investigators poured over the papers of the
great Americans of the time.
Dr. Seaborg recently came to my office seeking assistance in cutting
through the bureaucracy. At this stage in his career he should not be
forced to expend valuable time and energy trying to get back what he
lent the Department of Energy. I immediately agreed to offer what
assistance I could, having had experience of such matters as chairman
of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy.
Last week, with the energy and water appropriations bill nearly ready
for conference, I thought there might be a chance to include a
provision that would require the return of the unedited journal to Dr.
Seaborg. I wrote to
[[Page S10066]]
the chairman and ranking members of the subcommittee, asking for their
help. On Tuesday, September 23, the clerk for Senator Reid, the ranking
member of the subcommittee, reported to my staff that there had been a
long staff discussion on the matter, that it was agreed the Department
of Energy had acted inappropriately, that the journal was a valuable
historical document, and that things looked promising for including the
provision in the conference report.
The report was filed today with no mention of the Seaborg journal.
This afternoon the clerk for Senator Domenici, the chairman, reported
that the Department of Energy had been consulted and that they had
raised objections to the return of the unexpurgated journal. And so,
absent the opportunity for a hearing, the provision was dropped. I
suppose doing the right thing for Dr. Seaborg in a simple, expedient
manner was too much to expect. I suppose it was wishful thinking that
the Department would do its part to rectify the situation. So, Mr.
President, I am introducing the same provision as a free-standing bill.
I look forward to a hearing on the matter, which the appropriations
staff advocates, so that at least this one egregious example of the
regulation and control of valuable public information can be brought to
light and, I trust, remedied.
I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Seaborg's article in Science be
included in the Record at this point. I send to the desk a bill
requiring the return of Dr. Seaborg's journal in the original,
unredacted form in which it was lent to the Department of Energy, and
ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record and referred to
the appropriate committee.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1232
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
(1) Whereas Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg is a truly great American
who has made indispensable contributions in the development
of nuclear energy.
(2) Whereas Dr. Seaborg is the co-discoverer of plutonium
and eight other elements and as a result of these discoveries
was awarded the 1951 Nobel Prize for chemistry.
(3) Whereas while serving as Chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC), Dr. Seaborg maintained a journal consisting
of a diary, correspondence, announcements, minutes of
meetings, and other documents of historical value.
(4) Whereas in preparing the journal, Dr. Seaborg took care
to include only information which was not classified and
could be made public.
(5) Whereas before leaving the Atomic Energy Commission,
Dr. Seaborg submitted the journal to the AEC's Division of
Classification for review.
(6) Whereas Dr. Seaborg's journal was cleared by the
Division of Classification, virtually without deletion.
(7) Whereas twelve years later, in 1983, the chief
historian at the Department of Energy asked to borrow a copy
of Dr. Seaborg's journal in order to write a history of the
AEC.
(8) Whereas when the journal was returned to Dr. Seaborg
three years later, passage after passage was redacted,
including explicitly public information, such as the
published code names of nuclear weapons tests, and purely
personal material, such as his description of accompanying
his children on a ``trick or treat'' outing one Halloween
evening.
SEC. 2. DECLASSIFICATION OF SEABORG JOURNAL.
The Secretary of Energy shall return to Dr. Glenn T.
Seaborg his journal which he prepared while serving as
Chairman of the AEC. The journal shall be returned in the
original, unredacted form in which it was lent to the
Department of Energy in 1983.
____
Secrecy Runs Amok
(By Glenn T. Seaborg)
Publishing information on scientific projects related to
national security requires resolution of the conflicts
between the ``right of the public to know'' and the ``right
of the nation to protect itself.'' A recent experience of
mine in regard to the declassification of historical material
may illuminate the problems that can arise.
During my years as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) (1961 to 1971), I maintained a daily journal. The core
of the journal was a diary, much of which I wrote at home
each evening. (This continued a habit I had started at the
age of 14.) The diary was supplemented by copies of
correspondence, announcements, minutes of meetings, and other
relevant documents that crossed my desk each day. Both in the
diary and the supporting documents rigorous attention was
given to excluding any subject matter that could be
considered classified information under standards of the day.
My purpose was to provide for historians and other scholars a
record that might not be available elsewhere of what occurred
at high levels of government regarding the AEC's important
areas of activity.
Illustrative of the general recognition that my journal was
unclassified was the fact that in 1965 the AEC historian
microfilmed for public access in the John F. Kennedy and
Lyndon B. Johnson libraries portions that correspond to those
presidencies. To assure myself further that the journal
contained no classified material I had it checked by the AEC
Division of Classification during the summer and fall of
1971, just before my departure from the AEC. It was cleared,
virtually without deletions. (Unfortunately, I received no
written confirmation of this action which is perhaps
understandable because of the obvious unclassified origin of
the material.) A copy, which I will refer to as copy #1, was
then transmitted by the AEC to my office at the University of
California in Berkeley. Also, at about this time, the AEC
tansferrd another copy of the journal, referred to
hereinafter as copy #2, first to my Berkeley office, then to
the Livermore laboratory, and, soon thereafter, to my home in
Lafayette, California. It was known that neither my Berkeley
office nor my home had any provision for the protection of
classified material, and the fact that the AEC saws fit to
ship the journal to those places is a clear indication
that the AEC regarded the journal as an unclassified
document.
The office and home copies of the journal remained
accessible to scholars for the ensuing 12 years. Then the
problems began. In July 1983 the chief historian of the
Department of Energy (DOE) asked to borrow a copy for use in
the next phase of the History Division's long-term project,
the writing of A History of the United States Atomic Energy
Commission. Volume IV of the History was to be devoted
largely to the years of my chairmanship. The historian
promised to return the journal within 3 weeks as soon as
copies had been made. I sent him copy #1, the one in my
Berkeley office. When the University of California historian,
John Heilbron, learned of this transaction, he warned me that
the DOE was likely to find classified material in the journal
and to hold it indefinitely pending a complete classification
review. Relying on past history during which the journal had
been treated by the AEC as a wholly unclassified document, I
told him I was not worried that this would happen. But, as
Heilbron may have been aware from his own experience, times
had changed. With the beginning of the Reagan administration,
the government had begun to take a new, much more severe and
rigid position with regard to secrecy.
Despite my repeated entreaties, the historian's office did
not return the journal in 3 weeks, nor in 3 months, nor in a
year-and-a-half. Nor was any explanation ever offered to me
for the delay. Finally, just as Heilbron had predicted, I was
informed in February 1985 that the journal had indeed been
found to contain classified information. Accordingly, DOE
ordered its San Francisco Area Office to pick up copy #2, the
one that I kept at home, so that it also could be subjected
to a classification review. At first I said I would not allow
this. But then I was told that, legally, the journal could be
seized and that I could be subject to arrest if I resisted.
Faced with this disagreeable prospect, I acceded to a
compromise plan (the best of several unsatisfactory
alternatives) whereby DOE provided me with a locked storage
safe, complete with burglar alarm, so that I could continue
to have access to the journal, which I was at that time
preparing for publication. It was no longer, however, to be
available for use by scholars.
Then in May 1985 I was contacted by DOE's San Francisco
Area Manager. He said that he had been instructed by DOE
headquarters to institute a classification review of copy
#2 at my home. He added that the consequence of my not
agreeing to this would be that the FBI would seize the
papers under court order. He said that the weakness of my
case, if I chose to resist, was that there was no record
of the journal ever having been declassified by the AEC.
Thus, I could be accused of having illegally removed
classified material when I left the AEC. He noted that if
legal proceedings were instituted, I could, of course,
hire a lawyer to defend myself, but that he knew of no
case like this where the government, with all its
resources, had lost.
Under this ultimatum, I agreed to the classification review
with the understanding that it would be completed within 10
days. The reviewer started work in my home on 9 May 1985,
kept at it for several weeks (not the promised 10 days), and
came up with 162 deletions of words, phrases, sentences, or
paragraphs, affecting 137 documents.
Then in May 1986 I learned that copy #1, the one borrowed
by the DOE historian, was also undergoing a classification
review. This review was complete in October 1986 and led to
deletions from 327 documents. In addition, 530 documents were
removed from the journal entirely pending further review by
DOE or by other government agencies.
At the same time as reviews of my complete journal were
being undertaken in DOE and in my home, a further review was
taking place in the Bethesda, Maryland, home of Benjamin S.
Loeb, who was then collaborating with me in preparation of
the book, Stemming the Tide: Arms Control in the Johnson
Years, which was to be published in 1987 (1). Copies had been
sent to Loeb of just those portions of the journal that
related to
[[Page S10067]]
arms control. Beginning 10 July 1986, as many as six DOE
Division of Classification staff members sat around his
dining room table for a few days, selecting a large number of
documents which they then took with them back to DOE
headquarters in Germantown, Maryland. In due course, most of
these were returned with deletions, except that a number of
documents that required review by U.S. government agencies
other than DOE, or by the United Kingdom, were not returned
until August 1990.
But there was more. In October 1986 I was informed that the
DOE classification people wanted to perform another review of
copy #2, the one in my home, in order to ``sanitize'' it, a
euphemism for a further classification review of the already
reviewed journal. I was informed that the sanitization
procedure would take place at Livermore, that it would last 3
to 6 weeks, and that it would involve from 8 to 12 people.
Copy #2 was duly picked up at my home and delivered to
Livermore on 22 October 1986. When the sanitized version
was returned almost 2 months later, it had been subjected,
including the prior review, to about 1000 classification
actions. These included the entire removal of about 500
documents for review by other U.S. agencies or, in a few
cases, by the British. Over my objection, an unsightly
declassification stamp was placed on every surviving
document.
Finally, the DOE sent to the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory a
team of about 12 people to begin a ``catalog,'' that is, an
itemized listing, of all the personal correspondence I had
brought from the AEC and of the contents of my journal and
files for the prior 25 years of my working life before I
became AEC chairman. Beginning on 29 April 1987, the team
spent about 2 weeks at this task. In March 1988 another DOE
group visited me for about a month in order to complete the
catalog. The motives of DOE in undertaking this task were not
clear. They may well have intended to be helpful to me.
Before they finished, however, the two groups uncovered some
additional ``secret'' material.
My grammar and high school and university student papers
stored in another part of my home, overlooked by the DOE
classification teams, have so far escaped a security review.
My journal was finally reproduced in January 1989 (2) in 25
volumes, averaging about 700 pages each, many of them defaced
with classification markings and containing large gaps where
deletions had been made. In June 1992 a 26th volume was
added. It contained a batch of documents initially taken away
for classification review and subsequently returned to me,
with many deletions, after the production of the other 25
volumes in January 1989. (Many other removed documents have
still not been returned.). All 26 volumes are now publicly
available in the expurgated form in the Manuscript Division
of the Library of Congress.
This, then, is a summary narrative of the rocky voyage of
my daily journal amid the shoals of multiple classification
reviews. Those interested in a more detailed account can find
it among the daily entries in my journal for the period after
I left the AEC. This is available in the Manuscript Division
of the Library of Congress, and has fortunately not yet been
subjected to classification review.
What is to be concluded about this sorry tale? One
conclusion I have reached is that the security classification
of information became in the 1980s an arbitrary, capricious,
and frivolous process, almost devoid of objective criteria.
Witness the fact that the successive reviews of my journal at
different places and by different people resulted in widely
varying results in the types and number of deletions made or
documents removed. Furthermore, some of the individual
classification actions seem utterly ludicrous. These include
my description of one of the occasions when I accompanied my
children on a ``trick or treat'' outing on a Halloween
evening, and my account of my wife Helen's visit to the Lake
Country in England. One would have to ask how publication of
these bits of family lore would adversely affect the security
of the United States. A particular specialty of the reviewers
was to delete from the journal many items that were already
part of the public record. These included material published
in my 1981 book (with Benjamin S. Loeb), ``Kennedy,
Khrushchev, and the Test Ban'' (3). Another example concerned
the code names of previously conducted nuclear weapons tests.
These were deleted almost everywhere they appeared regardless
of the fact that in January 1985 the DOE had issued a report
listing, with their code names, all ``Announced United States
Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through December 1984'' (4). A third
category of deletions concerned entries that might have been
politically or personally embarrassing to individuals or
groups but whose publication would not in any way threaten
U.S. national security. In fact, I would go so far as to
contend that hardly any of the approximately 1,000
classification actions (removals of documents or deletions
within document) taken so randomly by the various reviewers
could be justified on legitimate national security grounds.
Consistent with this belief, I have requested repeatedly
throughout this difficult time that a copy of my journal as
originally prepared, that is, before all the classification
reviews, be kept on file somewhere. I had in mind that there
might come a day when a more rational approach to secrecy
might prevail and permit wider access, especially to
historians, of the complete record. There are indications
that, especially with the end of the Cold War, such an era
may be at hand or rapidly approaching. While the DOE has made
no commitment to honor my request. I am informed that DOE's
History Division does maintain an unexpurgated copy for
its own use. Perforce, it is handled as a classified
document.
I would like to emphasize that I received fine and
sympathetic treatment from many in the DOE who made it clear
to me that they were not in agreement with the treatment
accorded me and my journal during the process recounted
above. In fact, more than one person in DOE has told me
informally that evidence does indeed exist verifying that my
journal did indeed receive a clearance before my departure
from the AEC in 1971.
The problems posed by classification and declassification
of sensitive materials are major ones and require wise people
who must make sophisticated decisions. It requires a range of
individuals who, on the one hand, have vision in regard to
the whole range of scientific and national security policies,
and on the other hand, have the time to read pages of
detailed descriptions in a wide range of areas. Sometimes
this complex goal gets derailed by those who see the trees
and not the forest. Those in charge of classification should
have an appreciation of the need, in our open society, to
publish all scientific and political information that has no
adverse national security effect (realistically defined).
Although I have in general received sympathetic treatment,
I cannot help but note that this treatment has produced quite
different conclusions at different periods in the country's
history. Actually, the AEC, from its beginning in 1947,
initiated and executed an excellent progressive program of
declassification with an enlightened regard for the need of
such information in an open, increasingly scientific society.
By the 1960s, this program was serving our country well.
Unfortunately, during the 1980s the program had retrogressed
to the extent of reversing many earlier declassification
actions. Fortunately, the present situation is very much
improved so we can look forward to the future with
considerable optimism.
references
1. G.T. Seaborg and B.S. Loeb. Stemming the Tide: Arms
Control in the Johnson Years (Free Press, New York, 1987).
2. G.T. Seaborg. Lawr. Bork, Lab. Tech. Inf. Dep. Publ.
PUB-625 (1989).
3. G.T. Seaborg and B.S. Loeb. Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the
Test Ban (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 1981).
4. U.S. Dep. Energy Rep. NVO-209 (revision 5) (1985).
____________________