[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4094-S4111]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. COATS (for himself, Mr. Grams, Mr. Craig, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Brown, Mr. McCain, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Gramm, and Mrs. 
        Hutchison):
  S. 568. A bill to provide a tax credit for families, to provide 
certain tax incentives to encourage investment and increase savings, 
and to place limitations on the growth of spending; to the Committee on 
Finance.


     THE FAMILY INVESTMENT RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND TAX FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this morning we rise to introduce 
legislation to put the American family first. Mr. President, I send to 
the desk legislation which will do just that and will explain its 
content.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately 
referred.
  Mr. COATS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol already have begun to 
take action on many of the reforms that I have laid out in this 
legislation. But now it is time for the Senate to deliver on a promise 
and give family tax relief to hard-working, overtaxed middle Americans.
  Over that past few years Americans have heard a lot of talk about tax 
relief 
[[Page S4095]] but they have yet to see Washington act on their 
promises. Today, Mr. President, we signal our intent to not just talk 
about, but to act upon tax relief for our citizens, especially our 
families.
  This legislation is a blueprint that shows that deficit reduction and 
tax relief can go hand-in-hand. These goals are not mutually exclusive 
if Congress is willing to make the hard choices necessary to put our 
fiscal house in order. We clearly need to restore fiscal integrity and 
economic soundness to the budget process. We need the kind of change 
that will force Congress to act differently by rewriting the ground 
rules of the game. For too long we have chosen to take the easy road by 
putting off or ignoring the frugal spending path that over and over we 
have laid out but failed to adhere to.
  This legislation we introduce today includes a real sequester 
provision so that if Congress once again cannot make the hard spending 
choices they will be made anyway. The Family, Investment, Retirement, 
Savings and Tax Fairness Act--families first--charts a different course 
and reorders our spending priorities.
  Last year's election proves that the American people are fed up with 
the status quo--they want action. Action taken to eliminate the deficit 
and the ever growing debt that we are burdening our children with and 
action to relieve them of the taxes that are stifling their quality of 
life and leaving them with less and less in every pay check.
  Families first recognizes three central principles.
  First, American families are overtaxed. High taxes rob families of 
the resources needed to care for children.
  Second, the private sector, not government creates jobs. We must 
reduce the cost of capital and encourage productive investment by 
reducing the tax on growth. We will find new jobs in a growing economy, 
not in a growing government.
  Third, the American people want deficit reduction upfront--obviously 
the President did not hear that message. His fiscal year 1996 budget 
just keeps reinventing the same spending cuts that will take place some 
time in the future. Is this any kind of leadership when the Nation's 
debt now stands at over $4.7 trillion? That is over $18,500 for every 
man, woman, and child in this Nation. This is a carefully planned, 
meticulously documented theft from our children.
  Specifically, the families first bill does the following:
  First, it provides relief to American families with children through 
a tax credit of $500 per child;
  Second, it provides incentives for businesses to create jobs, 
including a reduced capital gains tax rate, a neutral cost recovery 
plan for capital investments, and expanded IRA's;
  Third, it repeals the retirement earnings test on older Americans;
  Fourth, it places a 2 percent cap on the growth of Federal spending;
  Fifth, it creates a commission, modeled after the Base Closure 
Commission, to identify the legislative changes needed to meet the cap. 
If Congress fails to approve the commission's plan by a date certain, 
the cap would be enforced by sequester, holding Social Security 
harmless.
  The bill is not only entirely paid for by the spending cap--our plan 
cuts the deficit by half in 5-years, eliminating it altogether in less 
than 10 years.
  I would like to take a moment to discuss the family tax credit 
component of this plan which addresses an inequity that has been 
developing for decades.
  Families are finding it more and more difficult to bear the financial 
costs of raising children. According to Family Economics Review, the 
average American family it faces costs of between $4,000 and $5,000 per 
year, per child.
  This is because, over the last several decades, tax burdens have been 
radically redistributed, not from poor to rich or rich to poor, but 
directly on families with children.
  The facts are these. Adjusting for inflation, single people and 
married couples with no children pay about the same percentage of their 
income in taxes as they did at the end of World War II. In 1948, the 
typical family of four paid just 3 percent of its income to the Federal 
Government in direct taxes. In 1992, the equivalent family paid nearly 
24.5 percent of its income to the Federal Government. This is an 
increase of over 717 percent. It is time to restore fairness in the Tax 
Code.
  The reason is simple. The personal exemption--the way the Tax Code 
adjusts for family size--has been eroded by inflation and neglect. The 
exemption that once protected families with children has fallen 
significantly in the last six decades. Currently, the personal 
exemption is $2,450 if this had kept pace with inflation the personal 
exemption would be over $7,000.
  Many households now have two working parents who spend greater 
amounts of time away from their children out of simple necessity. 
Rising healthcare and education costs in particular place the family 
under great financial pressure.
  This tax burden translates into less time that families can spend 
together. Families have 40 percent less time to spend together today 
than they did 25 years ago. Families are clearly working harder, 
longer, for less.
  A $500-per-child tax credit would give a family of four over $80 a 
month extra for groceries, school clothes for the kids, or savings for 
education, et cetera. Our bill will reduce the tax burden, allowing 
families to keep more of their hard earned dollars. It will empower 
families to make their own choices and rely less on government; 50 
million children are eligible for this credit. In my own State of 
Indiana, 1.1 million children are eligible, enabling Hoosier families 
to keep $555 million of their hard earned money each year.
  Advocating family tax relief, President Clinton said, ``$400, people 
say it's not very much money. I think it is a lot of money. It is 
enough for a mortgage payment. It is enough for clothes for the kids, 
and enough to have a big, short-term impact on the economy.''
  No change is more urgent for average families than tax reform. 
Increased taxation on families with children is a tool of the bully, 
picking on the weak. For larger families it has meant a recession in 
both good times and bad, a recession that
 never seems to end. But for decades families have suffered quietly.

  There are many programs like the earned income tax credit designed 
specifically to help impoverished families--as there should be. This 
commitment is constant and important. But we must not forget that it is 
middle income families who have not only been forgotten, but given 
extra financial burdens. It is time to target this group for relief--as 
we have done in the past for others. Over 85 percent of the family tax 
relief provided by this credit goes to Americans with family incomes of 
less than $75,000. This relief is not a handout. It is a matter of 
simple justice. It is a return to tax fairness.
  This plan tackles the two great threats to the American family--the 
budget deficit and the ever growing tax burden. In addition, it 
recognizes that only a growing economy will provide jobs. It recognizes 
that high taxes bleed an economy of its productive power. They strip 
individuals of incentive and devalue their work.
  For too long we have dismissed their needs to answer the calls of 
other interests. I hope my colleagues will join us in this fight for 
the American family. We must give them the tax relief they deserve.


                        key facts on tax credit

  Fifty million children eligible for the credit.
  It eliminates the total tax burden for families making less than 
$23,000.
  Some 4.7 million families would have their tax liability eliminated.
  Mr. President, over the past few years Americans have heard a lot of 
campaign promises and a lot of talk about tax relief, but they have yet 
to see Washington act on these promises.
  Today, Mr. President, in sending this legislation to the desk for 
consideration, we signal our intent to not just talk about tax relief 
but to act upon it for our citizens, and especially for our families.
  I am pleased that this morning my new Senate colleague, Senator Grams 
from Minnesota, who joined with me in the last Congress as a Member of 
the House of Representatives in sponsoring this legislation, has joined 
us and will be joining me in advancing this legislation before this 
body.
  Already our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol have begun to 
take 
[[Page S4096]] action on many of the reforms that are laid out in this 
legislation. Now it is time for the Senate to deliver on a promise made 
by so many to give family tax relief to the hard-working, overtaxed, 
middle-income Americans.
  This legislation is a blueprint that shows that deficit reduction, 
which surely we must engage in, and tax relief can go hand in hand. 
These goals are not mutually exclusive, if we are willing to make the 
hard choices necessary to put our fiscal house in order but in doing so 
recognizing the impact on the average American family today and their 
need for substantive relief and deal with the burdens and expenses of 
raising children in today's society.
  Our efforts are incorporated in legislation with the acronym FIRST. 
FIRST stands for family, investment, retirement savings, and tax 
fairness. It combines efforts to address a glaring deficiency in our 
Tax Code, a deficiency that robs middle-income Americans of hard-earned 
dollars to spend as they see fit and as they see the need to raise 
their children, to pay the mortgage, to rent the apartment, to make the 
car payments, to buy the clothes, to save for the education, to meet 
the needs, the ever-growing needs, of their ever-growing children.
  It combines that relief with real, meaningful incentives for the 
business enterprises of America, to expand, to accumulate capital and 
to create the jobs which those children will be seeking as soon as they 
finish their education. And it adds to that relief for our senior 
citizens who are able and want to keep working beyond retirement age 
but whose income is severely eroded by the offsets that are required 
under the current law. We lift the earnings requirement so that those 
seniors that are willing and are able to continue working beyond 
retirement can do so without penalty.
  There are incentives for contributions to an IRA, an IRA designed to 
help with those burdens and those expenses of providing for education 
and providing for the purchase of a home and other needs.
  It does so with the recognition that we have to pay real attention to 
the ever-growing debt burden which is saddling this generation, and 
particularly future generations, with a debt and an interest cost that 
they may be unable to pay and that will surely limit their 
opportunities in the future.
  Deficit reduction is a serious effort that must be undertaken by this 
Congress and not future Congresses. So we are trying to reconcile two 
very important goals, and we think we have done that in this first 
legislation, because combined with these incentives for family relief 
and for business growth and for help for our seniors, combined with 
this is an effort to rein in the costs--excessive costs--of the 
spending of this Congress and of this Government, by placing a cap on 
the overall rate of growth.
  I want to stress that phrase ``rate of growth.'' Those who say that 
we need to drastically slash this and that, and take money away from 
this program or that program, are not recognizing the reality that if 
we simply limit the rate of growth of Government spending, we can free 
up money to provide significant deficit reduction, put us on a path to 
a balanced budget and, at the same time, reorder our priorities and 
direct funds into areas where they are needed the most.
  Our job as elected representatives is to wisely, efficiently, and 
effectively spend the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and make sure that 
those dollars spent at the Federal level are spent in a way that gives 
us the best results. We have been pointing to a whole number of 
programs that are marginal at best and, clearly, as we look at limiting 
the rate of growth of the Federal Government, we will need to look at 
our priorities.
  There are some programs that probably are not performing the service 
that was intended and they ought to be flat out eliminated. They no 
longer are needed or are not doing the job. Other programs have 
marginal benefit but do not rank high in the priority list. I suggest 
that those programs need to be reduced in the amount of expenditures 
and amount of budget they are given each year. Some may be 1 or 2 
years, some may be 5, 10, some 30--who knows. We need to look at the 
effectiveness of those programs and reduce that spending. Others ought 
to be frozen. They are providing an effective service, but we cannot 
afford to continue increasing them at the past rate, so let us freeze 
at the current level.
  Yes, Mr. President, there are probably some programs that ought to be 
increased because they are meeting necessary needs for Americans. They 
go to important programs and they deserve an increase. With the first 
bill, we are saying let us put an overall cap on the rate of growth at 
about 2 percent, and in doing so let us back it up with a spending 
commission that will recommend cuts and provide the mechanism, as we 
have done in base closing, to ensure that Congress lives up to its 
promise. If we do that, as I said, we can balance the budget over a 
number of outyears--roughly 8 years--we can balance the budget. We can 
also reprioritize our spending in the areas that I have talked about--
family relief, investment in new jobs, help for our seniors, and some 
other important programs.
  The core of this program is the family relief. Families today are 
struggling to meet ever-rising tax demands. American families are 
overtaxed, and they rob our families of the resources needed to care 
for children.
  In 1948, a typical family of four paid just 3 percent of its income 
to the Federal Government in direct taxes. In 1992, the equivalent 
family paid nearly 24\1/2\ percent of its income to the Federal 
Government--an increase of over 717 percent. At times, special-interest 
deductions have been granted to all types of special interests in our 
country under our Tax Code. But the most special of all special 
interests--the family--has been shorted. These other deductions have 
been at the families' expense. They are struggling to keep up.
  Personal exemption has not kept pace. Today, it is $2,450 per 
dependent. If it had kept pace with inflation, it would be well over 
$7,000. Today, families have 40 percent less time to spend with their 
children, partly because they are out working trying to make ends meet. 
They are clearly working harder, longer, for less.
  The $500 per child tax credit for children under 18 will provide real 
relief for families struggling to meet the needs of their family and to 
pay the bills. It is the central part of the package that we are 
introducing. Over 85 percent of this family tax relief provided by this 
credit will go to American families with incomes of less than $75,000. 
The relief is not a handout. It is a matter of simple fairness and 
simple justice. It is a return to tax fairness under the code.
  Surely, Mr. President, as we look at how we spend the taxpayers' 
dollars, as we look at how we reprioritize our spending--and that is 
the exercise we are going through here in this Congress--surely there 
will be room, or there should be room, for families. Surely, we can 
find a way to direct our expenditure of Federal dollars to help 
struggling families. And we are not giving them the money back. We are 
saying we are going to allow you to keep more of your hard-earned 
dollars; you are going to be able to send less of your paycheck to 
Washington, and you are going to be able to make the decisions which 
are in the best interests of your children and your family. Surely, in 
all of our debate as to where we spend the taxpayers' dollars and how 
we spend the taxpayers' dollars, we can make room for the family.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Grams and I are joined by a 
number of our colleagues as original cosponsors. I ask unanimous 
consent that Senators Grams, Craig, Lott, Brown, McCain, Kyl, and 
Inhofe be added as original cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. I also note, Mr. President, that last year, as part of the 
Republican alternative budget, every Republican Senator voted for that 
Republican alternative budget which, unfortunately, failed. We did not 
have enough votes to gain a majority. But the core of that alternative 
Republican budget was this first bill and the family tax relief, which 
is the heart of that.
  So I anticipate that most of our colleagues, if not all, will join 
Senator Grams and I. I am so pleased to have him join us in the U.S. 
Senate. He will 
[[Page S4097]] be carrying the ball with all of us, advancing what I 
think is an extraordinarily important concept and idea.
  We have terrific support in the House of Representatives. Just 2 days 
ago, the Ways and Means Committee reported out a bill with many of 
these features, the central part of that bill. So it is now time for 
the Senate, Mr. President, to act on its promises, to fulfill its 
commitment, and to put families at the centerpiece of the actions that 
we take this year.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield my time and yield whatever time the 
Senator from Minnesota wishes to consume.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
Senators from Indiana and Idaho this morning, and a number of the other 
Senators who will be joining us later this morning, to talk about this 
very important issue--tax cuts--and to help continue the leadership on 
this most important issue.
  I am proud to be a coauthor of this very important legislation, 
families first.
  Mr. President, today we begin a debate that has been too long in 
coming. The American people are in desperate need of relief from their 
own Government, a Government that thinks it can spend our money better 
than we can spend our money. It has spent the last four decades just 
trying to prove that point.
  In 1947, Americans paid just 22 percent of their personal income in 
the form of taxes--all taxes--to Federal, State, and local governments, 
including property taxes and the like.
  Today, 40 years and hundreds of tax increases later, nearly 50 cents 
of every dollar earned by middle-class Americans goes to the Government 
to feed Government priorities. ``We will solve all of our problems,'' 
says Washington, ``if you will just send us more of your money.'' So we 
do, year after year. We have reached the point now where most families 
pay more tax dollars to the Federal Government than they spend for 
food, clothing, transportation, insurance, and recreation combined.
  The 1993 Clinton tax bill did not help, either. As the largest tax 
increase in American history, it hit middle-class Americans right where 
it hurts the most--in their wallets.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is taxes are just too high. The tax 
burden falls too heavily on the middle class. And, Mr. President, the 
result is that more and more Americans are being forced out of the 
working class and being forced into the welfare class.
  But with their ballots last November, Americans called for tax 
relief. With the change in leadership in Washington, Congress is now 
finally in a position to deliver on that request.
  Mr. President, we are taking the first step today with the 
introduction of the families first act--legislation calling for a $500 
per child tax credit.
  The $500 per child tax credit is relief for middle-class America.
  And I would just like to show one of the few charts that we have out 
here this morning and talk about what this means.
  In my home State of Minnesota, families first, if enacted, would 
provide nearly $500 million every year in tax relief to families across 
the State of Minnesota--$500 million into the pockets of families and 
individuals who will decide best on how to spend on those important 
needs such as food, clothing, shelter, education, or health care. They 
will make those decisions rather than some bureaucrat 1,100 miles away 
from Minnesota in Washington.
  If you look at the home State of Senator Dan Coats in Indiana and 
what this would mean, it would mean for Indiana residents over $550 
million a year in tax relief--$550 million every year. You add this 
total, and for all States it would be a $25 billion-a-year tax cut that 
would go into the pockets of families to decide how to spend. It would 
take that decisionmaking process out of Washington and put it down 
where it really belongs, and that is with the individuals who know best 
how to handle the problems that their families are facing.
  As this chart clearly shows, our plan would return, as I said, $25 
billion every year to families nationwide. And that includes from $418 
million in Alabama every year to $61 million for the State of Wyoming 
residents. Again, $500 million a year would be dedicated to families in 
my home State of Minnesota.
  Fully more than 90 percent of the tax relief would go to working 
Americans making annual salaries of $60,000 or less. So this is a plan 
that is targeted. More than 90 percent of the tax relief goes right to 
the individuals that have felt the burden the most over the last 30 
years, and that is families making $60,000 or less.
  Most importantly, our $500 per child tax credit would let 53 million 
working families keep more of their own hard-earned tax dollars. And 
$500 per child adds up to a lot more than just some pocket change.
  I think, if you pick up the phone and ask many of the constituents in 
your districts if $500 or $1,000 for two children or $1,500 for three 
children would not make a big difference in their finances every year, 
for middle-income taxpayers, it may mean health insurance for their 
families where there was not any before, or maybe a better education 
for their children when before there were no other options. To lower 
income Americans, it may mean not having to pay any taxes at all.
  Mr. President, there is widespread support also for the $500 per 
child tax credit among Americans in every income range, in every age 
bracket, among those with children and those without. These are the 
people who feel the pain every April 15 when they pay their taxes and 
who think it is time for the Government to feel a little bit of that 
pain instead.
  But how can a government grappling with a $4.8 trillion national debt 
afford tax relief of any kind?
  Well, the families first bill, which became the centerpiece of the 
budget plans offered last year by both Senate and House Republicans, 
pays for the tax credit by cutting Government spending. Every single 
dollar in tax relief is offset by another dollar in spending cuts.
  I just want to refer again to the charts for the support that we have 
nationwide for a tax cut proposal. If you look at this one chart and 
you look at the different age groups, 18 to 25, 76 percent would 
approve of a tax cut. In the age group 26 to 40, 77 percent said, yes, 
let us have a tax cut. From 41 to 55, over 56 percent, and so on; 62 
percent for 55 to 65; and, 65 and older, 58 percent said, yes, they 
would favor tax relief.
  And if you look at income levels, people below $20,000, said, yes, 
they would like to have some more tax relief. And in all income groups 
it is either in the 60 or 70 percent range that say yes. So this is 
overwhelming support nationwide by every age group, every income group 
that really believes we are being taxed too much.
  And by putting the Federal Government on a strict diet by capping the 
growth of Federal spending at 2 percent, we can balance the budget by 
the year 2002, including the tax cuts. Our bill proves that we can 
afford tax relief at the same time that we begin to restore some fiscal 
sanity to Washington.
  During the debate ahead, we will hear calls to water down the $500 
per child tax credit. We will be asked to means test it or to even 
lower the dollar amount. Some will want to limit the ages of the 
children eligible, or duck out on real relief by substituting an 
increase in the personal deduction. Some may oppose tax relief 
completely.
  But that is not what the Americans were promised last year, or what 
the voters mandated in November. If we backtrack now, we will have to 
face an American public that is tired of being led on by politicians 
who promise one thing and then never deliver.
  We have to hold firm on behalf of every American taxpayer and deliver 
the tax relief that we promised.
  I want to commend our colleagues on the House Ways and Means 
Committee, who this week kept the covenant they made with the voters in 
the Contract With America and passed the $500 per-child tax credit. 
This was a victory for the taxpayers and a clear signal to the American 
people that they have not been forgotten by this Congress.
  Mr. President, I am proud that Senator Coats and our Senate 
colleagues-- 
[[Page S4098]] what we call the 500 club--will be following up on the 
House's good work and fighting for the promises made in November: the 
promises of lower taxes, smaller government, stronger families.
  Those are the principles embodied by the $500 tax credit--the 
principles that will once again put families first.
  I would like to now yield some time to my good friend and colleague 
from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of 
the families first legislation that our colleague, Senator Rod Grams, 
is introducing today. This important legislation would provide badly 
needed tax relief for American families. It would repeal the Social 
Security earnings limitation. It would cut capital gains taxes and 
provide other pro-growth economic incentives, while still putting the 
budget on track to balance by the year 2002. It does so by cutting 
spending.
  Balancing the budget does not mean that taxes have to be increased. 
Nor does it preclude consideration of tax cuts. The problem is not that 
the Federal Government is collecting too little in tax revenue. The 
Government is simply spending too much.
  As a result of the tax increase Congress approved in 1990, Americans 
paid over $20 billion in new taxes. They paid another $35 billion as a 
result of President Clinton's tax increase in 1993. Taxes increased, 
but so did Federal spending. It climbed from $1.2 trillion in 1990 to 
about $1.5 trillion this year, and it will rise to $1.6 trillion next 
year. That is a 33 percent increase in spending in just 6 years. 
Taxes--which are already too high--will never be high enough to satisfy 
Congress' appetite for spending.
  Since 1948, the average American family with children has seen its 
Federal tax bill rise from about 3 percent of income to about 24.5 
percent today. Combined with State and local taxes, that burden rises 
to a staggering 37.6 percent.
  Senior citizens have been hit hard by tax increases as well. The 
earnings limitation is bad enough, but combined with the 1993 Clinton 
tax increase on Social Security benefits, the marginal rate now 
experienced by some seniors amounts to 88 percent, twice the rate paid 
by millionaires. That is not taxation. It is confiscation.
  Mr. President, the American people know what it means to balance a 
budget--to struggle to make ends meet--and they know better than the 
Government how to provide for themselves and their children. Parents 
just want a chance to keep more of what they earn to put food on the 
table, a roof over their heads, and their kids through school. The $500 
per child tax credit in the families first bill is no panacea, but it 
is an important step in the right direction.
  In fact, about 35 million families across the nation would be 
eligible for the bill's $500 per child tax credit. Among those who 
would benefit the most are 4.7 million low-income families who would 
see their entire Federal tax burden eliminated--4.7 million families.
  As pointed out in a Heritage Foundation report last year, ``a $500 
per child tax credit would give a family of four earning $18,000 per 
year a 33-percent tax cut, and a family earning $40,000 per year a 10-
percent tax cut, while giving a family earning $200,000 per year a cut 
of only 1.5 percent.''
  So the families first credit is fair. It targets relief to those who 
need it most--low- and middle-income families across the Nation. The 
bill also repeals the Social Security earnings limitation which is 
inherently unfair to people who need and deserve their full Social 
Security benefits and who also want to work. Not only should the 
earnings test be repealed, the Clinton tax increase on Social Security 
should be repealed as well.
  I know there are those who will say that deficit reduction is more 
important than tax relief, and they may oppose the bill. I disagree. I 
have never understood how taking more money out of the pockets of the 
American people can make them better off. Taxing people too much makes 
them worse off, and it slows down the economy. If the goal is to 
maximize tax revenues, as opposed to tax rates, then tax relief is not 
inconsistent with the goal of deficit reduction. It is integral to the 
goal of reducing the deficit.
  As my colleagues have heard me point out on a number of occasions, 
revenues to the Treasury have fluctuated around a relatively narrow 
band of 18 to 20 percent of gross national product for the last 40 
years. That is despite tax increases and tax cuts, recessions and 
expansions, and economic policies pursued by Presidents of both 
parties.
  Since revenue as a share of the gross domestic product is virtually 
constant, the only way to raise revenue is to enact policies that 
foster economic growth and opportunity. In other words, 18 to 20 
percent of a larger GDP represents more revenue to the Treasury than 18 
to 20 percent of a smaller GDP.
  That is the basis for these Federal spending limits that I proposed 
in other legislation. It is the reason the tax cuts in the families 
first bill make good economic sense. Empower American families and they 
can do more for themselves and depend less on Government. Cut taxes and 
stimulate the economy and more people can go to work. There will 
actually be more economic activity to tax, more revenue to the 
Treasury, despite the lower tax rates.
  Last fall, the American people sent a loud and clear message to 
Congress: It is time to end business as usual. They want less 
Government, not more. They want tax relief and lower Government 
spending. Let Congress help President Clinton keep the promise he made 
in putting people first, to grant additional tax relief to families and 
children. Let Congress pass the families first bill.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COATS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas and reserve 
the last minute for the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my 
colleague, Senator Coats, who sponsored this bill last year. I was a 
willing and hopefully helpful cosponsor. Now we have Senator Grams, a 
new freshman, who did sponsor it on the House side last year and has 
come in to cosponsor it this year.
  This is a very important step that we must take. In 1930, we saw the 
beginning of the change in course in our country, the beginning of more 
Government, bigger Government, more spending, which also brought more 
encroachment on everyone's lives.
  I think in 1994, the people of America said, ``No, stop. Stop the big 
Government growth. Stop the encroachment on our lives. Stop the 
arrogance in Washington, DC. Enough is enough.'' They said, ``We want 
to go back to self-help and self-reliance. We want to go back to the 
basics, and we want the American family to be the strength that it has 
been, the fabric of society that it has been, that has brought us to 
this strong and great America that we have.''
  We have dissipated so much of the strength of our family through the 
dependence of Government. I remember the story of a woman who was in 
the grocery store line who said, ``I saw someone using food stamps, 
buying items of food that I had passed up because I was trying to save 
to buy something for my children, that I had to do as a little bit of 
an extra.''
  It was that frustration that I think people felt when they went to 
the polls in 1994 and said, ``We do not think that's right.'' The 
people who are pulling the wagon, the people who are saying, ``We are 
saving our money to raise our families, and we are having a hard time 
doing it,'' wanted a change.
  The families first legislation will bring about that change, and I 
have to say that I do admire the Ways and Means Committee and the 
chairman, Bill Archer, who did report a bill out that has many of the 
things in the families first bill that we are introducing today. 
Perhaps they will pass those in the House first.
  I will be proud, then, to come in and take some of those items from 
our families first legislation that we are reintroducing today. The 
$500 per child tax credit is something that will help those families 
make ends meet, the ones who are having a hard time. After 
[[Page S4099]] all, it is their money. It is their money that they have 
worked so hard to earn. Why should they not be able to keep it? Why 
should they not decide what is best for them, rather than having 
someone from Big Brother Government deciding what is best for them.
  I think if the American people believe that they can manage their own 
resources better than the Federal Government, that we should humor them 
and let them keep their money. That is what the families first 
legislation will do.
  I have been a proponent of increasing IRA's, because I think if we 
help people retire with security that that will be good for our 
country. It is self-help. It is allowing people to have that security 
in their old-age years by encouraging savings, which encourages 
investments, which encourages new jobs in this country, too.
  I have introduced a bill to give homemakers IRA's, and if we can get 
this families first bill to the floor, I know that Senator Coats and 
Senator Grams are going to support my amendment to have homemakers 
added to IRA's because that is a very important issue. It is important 
to say that the work done inside the home is every bit as important, if 
not more important, than the work done outside the home, because that 
is what keeps this country strong--the families, where the families are 
together. If the homemaker is staying home and raising children, I 
think we should reward her efforts, just as much as anyone who is 
working outside the home.
  I have seen my colleague, Senator Coverdell, come in, and I want to 
make sure everyone has a chance to weigh in on this legislation. I will 
just say, Mr. President, that this is families first.
  It is time to go back to basics, to appreciate how important the 
family unit is, that balancing the budget is for the future of our 
children and grandchildren. That is a commitment that I have, and all 
who are cosponsoring this legislation will work to try to make sure 
that we give to our children and grandchildren the same kind of strong 
America that we were able to grow up in and love. Thank you.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Hutchison as an original cosponsor of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to Senator 
Grams.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record copies of the tables we have presented here.
  There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in 
the Record.

                               [Chart 1]

         $500 PER-CHILD TAX CREDIT RETURNS MONEY TO THE TAXPAYER        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Number of   Amount State 
                    State                      children    could receive
                                               eligible      annually   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................................     836,486    $418,243,000
Alaska......................................     134,962      67,481,000
Arizona.....................................     744,524     372,262,000
Arkansas....................................     524,241     262,120,500
California..................................   6,625,012   3,312,506,000
Colorado....................................     737,544     368,772,000
Connecticut.................................     723,674     361,837,000
Delaware....................................     172,017      86,008,500
District of Columbia........................      81,195      40,597,500
Florida.....................................   2,233,271   1,116,635,000
Georgia.....................................   1,226,073     613,036,500
Hawaii......................................     295,346     147,673,000
Idaho.......................................     263,945     131,972,500
Illinois....................................   2,501,462   1,250,731,000
Indiana.....................................   1,110,887     555,443,500
Iowa........................................     641,094     320,547,000
Kansas......................................     651,174     325,587,000
Kentucky....................................     648,121     324,060,500
Louisiana...................................     868,702     434,351,000
Maine.......................................     223,255     111,627,500
Maryland....................................   1,038,365     519,182,500
Massachusetts...............................   1,110,453     555,226,500
Michigan....................................   1,866,891     933,445,500
Minnesota...................................     946,639     473,319,500
Mississippi.................................     540,359     270,179,500
Missouri....................................     981,008     490,504,000
Montana.....................................     197,938      98,969,000
Nebraska....................................     427,724     213,862,000
Nevada......................................     247,958     123,979,000
New Hampshire...............................     246,361     123,180,500
New Jersey..................................   1,522,756     761,378,000
New Mexico..................................     321,854     160,927,000
New York....................................   3,575,251   1,787,625,500
North Carolina..............................   1,359,138     679,569,000
North Dakota................................     146,786      73,393,000
Ohio........................................   2,392,172   1,196,086,000
Oklahoma....................................     644,733     322,366,500
Oregon......................................     607,615     303,807,500
Pennsylvania................................   2,507,260   1,253,630,000
Rhode Island................................     159,461      79,730,500
South Carolina..............................     777,909     388,954,500
South Dakota................................     158,309      79,154,500
Tennessee...................................     829,778     414,889,000
Texas.......................................   3,628,180   1,814,090,000
Utah........................................     473,448     236,724,000
Vermont.....................................     116,058      58,029,000
Virginia....................................   1,286,275     643,137,500
Washington..................................   1,141,341     570,670,500
West Virginia...............................     346,642     173,321,000
Wisconsin...................................   1,175,695     587,847,500
Wyoming.....................................     122,668      61,334,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


      DOLLARS RETURNED TO EACH STATE BY A $500 PER-CHILD TAX CREDIT     
           [Source: US Census, 1992 Current Population Survey]          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of  Number of    Amount each 
                         Number of   families   children    State could 
                          families     with     eligible      receive   
         State            in each    children    for a     annually from
                           State     in each    $500 tax  $500 per-child
                                      State      credit     tax credit  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................    984,846    607,775    836,486    $418,243,000
Alaska.................    131,801     83,770    134,962      67,481,000
Arizona................    901,059    472,805    744,524     372,262,000
Arkansas...............    572,309    366,520    524,241     262,120,500
California.............  6,864,996  4,444,459  6,625,012   3,312,506,000
Colorado...............    832,055    493,148    737,544     368,772,000
Connecticut............    835,801    466,951    723,674     361,837,000
Delaware...............    181,252    105,034    172,017      86,008,500
District of Columbia...    101,346     63,940     81,195      40,597,500
Florida................  3,410,974  1,698,710  2,233,271   1,116,635,500
Georgia................  1,555,254    909,966  1,226,073     613,036,500
Hawaii.................    293,296    167,417    295,346     147,673,000
Idaho..................    251,430    151,431    263,945     131,972,500
Illinois...............  2,873,440  1,622,908  2,501,462   1,250,731,000
Indiana................  1,454,936    851,840  1,110,887     555,443,500
Iowa...................    683,268    383,031    641,094     320,547,000
Kansas.................    637,247    393,479    651,174     325,587,000
Kentucky...............    901,634    536,468    648,121     324,060,500
Louisiana..............    996,911    646,684    868,702     434,351,000
Maine..................    298,512    156,799    223,255     111,627,500
Maryland...............  1,194,734    675,067  1,038,365     519,182,500
Massachusetts..........  1,437,080    750,685  1,110,453     555,226,500
Michigan...............  2,254,735  1,273,610  1,866,891     933,445,500
Minnesota..............  1,043,603    570,424    946,639     473,319,500
Mississippi............    572,963    425,312    540,359     270,179,500
Missouri...............  1,256,963    697,847    981,008     490,504,000
Montana................    205,770    124,551    197,938      98,969,000
Nebraska...............    414,899    237,460    427,724     213,862,000
Nevada.................    313,332    168,220    247,958     123,979,000
New Hampshire..........    307,359    158,319    246,361     123,180,500
New Jersey.............  1,893,615  1,006,496  1,522,756     761,378,000
New Mexico.............    365,776    239,867    321,854     160,927,000
New York...............  4,138,706  2,494,133  3,575,251   1,787,625,500
North Carolina.........  1,663,710    940,231  1,359,138     679,569,000
North Dakota...........    146,146     87,390    146,786      73,393,000
Ohio...................  2,650,194  1,577,405  2,392,172   1,196,086,000
Oklahoma...............    782,007    456,751    644,733     322,366,500
Oregon.................    745,406    422,519    607,615     303,807,500
Pennsylvania...........  3,057,172  1,568,632  2,507,260   1,253,630,000
Rhode Island...........    240,767    111,470    159,461      79,730,500
South Carolina.........    891,157    569,749    777,909     388,954,500
South Dakota...........    173,385     96,221    158,309      79,154,500
Tennessee..............  1,242,636    637,780    829,778     414,889,000
Texas..................  3,964,267  2,582,258  3,626,180   1,814,090,000
Utah...................    390,211    249,945    473,448     236,724,000
Vermont................    142,093     81,163    116,058      58,029,000
Virginia...............  1,528,524    859,620  1,286,275     643,137,500
Washington.............  1,252,277    737,136  1,141,341     570,670,500
West Virginia..........    452,953    266,844    346,642     173,321,000
Wisconsin..............  1,252,892    722,639  1,175,695     587,847,500
Wyoming................    117,117     69,514    122,668      61,334,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, these charts show strong support from every 
age and income group across the country, their support for a tax cut, 
and also for some information, how much it would mean to each.
  I say to the good Senator from Texas who just spoke, for families in 
Texas alone, it would be over $1.8 billion a year in tax relief.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senators from 
Indiana and Idaho, who I thank for their early and continued leadership 
on this most important issue.
  I thank my distinguished colleague from Indiana, and I am proud to be 
a coauthor of this important legislation to put families first.
  Mr. President, today we begin a debate that has been too long in 
coming.
  The American people are in desperate need of relief from their own 
Government--a Government that thinks it can spend our money better than 
we can, and has spent the last four decades trying to prove it.
  In 1947, Americans paid just 22 percent of their personal income in 
the form of taxes.
  Today, 40 years and hundreds of tax increases later, nearly 50 cents 
of every dollar earned by middle-class Americans goes to the 
Government, to feed the Government's priorities.
  ``We'll solve all your problems,'' says Washington, ``if you'll just 
send us more money.''
  So we do; year after year.
  We've now reached the point where most families pay more tax dollars 
to the Federal Government than they spend for food, clothing, 
transportation, insurance, and recreation combined.
  The 1993 Clinton tax bill didn't help, either. As the largest tax 
increase in American history, it hit middle-class Americans right where 
it hurt the most--their wallets.
  Mr. President, taxes are too high.
  The tax burden falls too heavily on the middle class.
  And, Mr. President, the result is that more and more Americans are 
being forced out of the working class and into the welfare class.
  But with their ballots in November, Americans called for tax relief. 
With 
[[Page S4100]] the change in leadership in Washington, Congress is 
finally in a position to deliver.
  Mr. President, we are taking the first step today with the 
introduction of the families first act--legislation calling for a $500 
per-child tax credit.
  The $500 per-child tax credit is relief for middle-class America.
  As this chart clearly shows, our plan would return $25 billion every 
year to families nationwide, from $418 million in Alabama to $61 
million in Wyoming.
  $500 million would be dedicated to families in my home State of 
Minnesota.
  Fully 90 percent of the tax relief goes to working Americans making 
annual salaries of $60,000 or less.
  Most importantly, our $500 per-child tax credit would let 53 million 
working families keep more of their own hard-earned tax dollars. And 
$500 per child adds up to a lot more than just pocket change.
  For middle-income taxpayers, it may mean health insurance for their 
families, where there wasn't any before, or a better education for 
their children, when before there were no options.
  For lower income Americans, it may mean not having to pay any taxes 
at all.
  Mr. President, there is widespread support for the $500 per-child tax 
credit among Americans in every income range and every age bracket--
among those with children and those without.
  These are the people who feel the pain every April 15 when they pay 
their taxes and who think it's time for the government to feel a little 
of the pain instead.
  But how can a government grappling with a $4.8 trillion national debt 
afford tax relief of any kind?
  The families first bill, which became the centerpiece of the budget 
plans offered last year by both Senate and House Republicans, pays for 
the tax credit by cutting government spending.
  Every single dollar in tax relief is offset by another dollar in 
spending cuts.
  And by putting the Federal Government on a strict diet by capping the 
growth of Federal spending at 2 percent, we'll balance the budget by 
the year 2002.
  Our bill proves that we can afford tax relief at the same time we're 
restoring fiscal sanity in Washington.
  During the debate ahead, we'll hear calls to water down the $500 per-
child tax credit.
  We'll be asked to means test it or lower the dollar amount.
  Some will want to limit the ages of the children eligible or duck out 
on real relief by substituting an increase in the personal deduction.
  Some may oppose tax relief completely.
  That's not what Americans were promised last year, or what the voters 
mandated in November.
  If we backtrack now, we'll have to face an American public that is 
tired of being led on by politicians who promise one thing and never 
deliver.
  We have to hold firm on behalf of every American taxpayer and deliver 
the tax relief we promised.
  I want to commend our colleagues on the House Ways and Means 
Committee, who this week kept the covenant they made with the voters in 
the Contract With America and passed the $500 per-child tax credit.
  This was a victory for the taxpayers and a clear signal to the 
American people that they have not been forgotten by this Congress.
  Mr. President, I'm proud that Senator Coats and our Senate 
colleagues--what we call the 500 Club--will be following up on the 
House's good work and fighting for the promises made in November: the 
promises of lower taxes, smaller government, stronger families.
  Those are the principles embodied by the $500 tax credit, the 
principles that will once again put families first.
  I would like to close by saying how important I feel about tax cuts 
for Americans, and American families specifically. We promised, we 
campaigned, we talked about tax relief for American families across the 
country during the 1994 elections, and the Americans spoke loud and 
clear at the polls in November that they agreed, because they know how 
hard it hits them in the wallet every year.
  My good friend from Wisconsin, the Senator from Wisconsin, is among 
those leading the charge on the Senate floor every day, talking about 
how we do not need tax cuts, how Government in Washington should 
continue to expect to receive these tax dollars, and that these 
Chambers can better make the decision on how to spend your money than 
you can spend it yourself.
  In Wisconsin, that means about $590 million a year in tax relief, 
something the Senator from Wisconsin does not think is important to the 
residents of Wisconsin. I ask him to call some of his residents to see 
how important they feel any form of tax relief would be in 1995 for 
them.
  I just wanted to wrap up again by thanking the Senator from Indiana 
and the other Senators who have spoken this morning on behalf of 
American taxpayers. I hope that we can rely on their support and the 
public support in making their calls and rallying behind this very, 
very, important issue of tax cuts and tax relief.
  We are to a point now where we assume that every dollar that 
Americans make belongs to Government in some form and that we will 
decide through tax cuts or tax credits or tax breaks how much they are 
going to keep and how much Washington is going to get. I think, as the 
Senator from Indiana pointed out very succinctly, it is their money and 
this will allow them to keep more of their hard-earned tax money in 
their pockets.
  So I wanted to thank the other Senators for helping this morning. I 
yield back my time.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 569. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare 
Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Budget and the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of 
August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one committee reports, the 
other committee have 30 days to report or be discharged.


                  the medicare protection act of 1995

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, 
the Medicare Protection Act of 1995, which would save taxpayers and 
senior citizens over $16 billion by the end of the decade by curbing 
waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare Program. I hope that the Senate 
will consider this important legislation as we work to reduce the 
Federal budget deficit and to improve Medicare.
  For 6 years, as chairman and now ranking Democrat of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education, I have targeted fraud, waste, and abuse in the programs 
under our jurisdiction. I have given particular attention to exposing 
and eliminating waste and abuse in Medicare. In hearing after hearing, 
our subcommittee has uncovered examples of lost Medicare funds due to 
fraud and poor program oversight. While some of the problems we have 
uncovered are due to weaknesses in Medicare law, billions of dollars 
are lost every year due to inadequate audits and other program 
safeguard activities. At least $2 billion of unallowable and sometimes 
fraudulent medical charges will be improperly paid by Medicare this 
year alone.
  The General Accounting Office [GAO], Office of Inspector General of 
the Department of Health and Human Services [HHSIG], and the Health 
Care Financing Administration [HCFA] have each documented the savings 
to the Medicare Program achieved through investments in program 
safeguard activities. They have testified that for every dollar spent 
on program safeguards, $13 to $16 are saved by stopping inappropriate 
Medicare payments. This is not some pie-in-the-sky-hoped-for return on 
investment, it is documented, and proven that this saves us significant 
sums. For the coming fiscal year, the administration estimates that the 
projected program safeguard investment will result in $6.16 billion in 
Medicare savings, a return on investment of 16 to 1.
  Yet funding for these cost saving activities is inadequate. While 
Medicare is an uncapped entitlement program, the funds to effectively 
administer Medicare are funded through discretionary outlays. They must 
compete with other important programs like Head Start, job training, 
childhood immunizations, and college loans. Because we have a cap on 
overall discretionary spending, at a time when the number and size of 
Medicare claims is 
[[Page S4101]] growing steadily, funding for audits and claims review 
have not kept up. This despite the fact that we know that for every 
dollar invested, Medicare saves from $13 to $16.
  For several years now I have been working to correct this 
shortsighted budget policy. Based on recommendations by the GAO, I have 
pushed legislation like that I am introducing today. The Medicare 
Protection Act would allow us to adequately fund critical Medicare 
antifraud and abuse activities without cutting other critical programs. 
This legislation allows for a 10-percent increase in support for these 
activities annually through fiscal year 2000 without violating the 
discretionary spending ceilings. The 10-percent increase is pegged to 
the rate of growth in Medicare claims in recent years.
  Mr. President, even assuming the most conservative estimates of 
savings--a 13-to-1 return on investment--the Medicare Protection Act 
would save taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries $2 billion this year 
and over $16 billion through the end of the decade. At a time when some 
in Congress are proposing major reductions in Medicare that could 
directly impact senior citizens and critical health providers, this 
legislation is just common sense. I am certain that my colleagues would 
agree that we need to cut the fat before the bone. Let's make war on 
waste, not our senior citizens.
  Mr. President, I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to try to gain approval of this common sense deficit reducing 
proposal. It is one change that we should be able--for which we should 
be able to achieve strong bipartisan support. So I commend this bill to 
my colleagues and urge that it be included in any package we consider 
to further reduce the Federal deficit.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 569

       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 ``Medicare Protection Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Adjustments.--Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E) Medicare administrative costs.--To the extent that 
     appropriations are enacted that provide additional new budget 
     authority (as compared with a base level of $1,609,671,000 
     for new budget authority) for the administration of the 
     medicare program by sections 1816 and 1842(a) of title XVIII 
     of the Social Security Act, the adjustment for that year 
     shall be that amount, but shall not exceed--
       ``(i) for fiscal year 1995, $161,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $161,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(ii) for fiscal year 1996, $177,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $177,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(iii) for fiscal year 1997, $195,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $195,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(iv) for fiscal year 1998, $214,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $214,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(v) for fiscal year 1999, $236,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $236,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(vi) for fiscal year 2000, $259,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $259,000,000 in outlays; and

     the prior-year outlays resulting from these appropriations of 
     budget authority and additional adjustments equal to the sum 
     of the maximum adjustments that could have been made in 
     preceding fiscal years under this subparagraph.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 603(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     (2 U.S.C. 655b(a)) is amended by striking ``section 
     251(b)(2)(E)(i)'' and inserting ``section 251(b)(2)(F)(i)''.
       (2) Section 606(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     (2 U.S.C. 665e(d)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``section 
     251(b)(2)(E)(i)'' and inserting ``section 251(b)(2)(F)(i)''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``251(b)(2)(E),'' after 
     ``251(b)(2)(D),''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 570. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to enter into 
privatization arrangements for activities carried out in connection 
with defense nuclear facilities, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.


           the department of energy privatization act of 1995

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that 
dramatically changes how we clean nuclear waste sites across the 
Nation. Clearly we have a window to address these profound national 
problems. My bill does just that.
  Mr. President, this legislation is designed to change how DOE manages 
the cleanup of its defense nuclear sites. This bill applies to all DOE 
nuclear defense sites, because the cleanup problems we are addressing 
are national concerns--not parochial.
  The bill's strengths rest in addressing how DOE compensates 
performance. Today we are cornered into agreements based on cost plus 
scenarios. The taxpayer reimburses the contractor for all costs related 
to overhead, salaries and other out-of-pocket expenses. On top of that 
sum comes a bonus which is a percentage of those direct costs. That 
means that higher overheads mean bigger bonuses. My bill dictates the 
opposite: You don't do the job, you don't get paid. Period.
  Mr. President, this bill makes good sense. I know that the American 
people are anxious for cleanup to happen at our nuclear defense sites. 
The people of Washington State are anxious too. This bill takes the DOE 
out of the managerial role and puts it into the role of client and 
consumer. It puts the burden of capital risk on investors eager to join 
the cleanup process, yet does not hold them responsible for a mess that 
is not theirs.
  Under this bill, the Secretary of Energy will have the authority to 
enter into long-term contracting arrangements--30 years plus two 10-
year renewals--for the treatment, management and disposition of nuclear 
waste and nuclear waste by-products.
  The contractor's facility must be within a 25-mile radius of the DOE 
site. Community development and site-worker preference are key to this 
bill. The Secretary is instructed to give preference to those 
contractors who intend to reinvest in the communities where their work 
is conducted. The Secretary must also give preference to contractors 
whose bids include employment for local workers, or workers with 
previous site experience.
  Indemnification and other legal protection is included to inoculate 
contractors from preexisting conditions that were not caused by the 
contractor. This bill places strict limits on contractor liability 
during cleanup, except in cases of negligence. This ensures that a 
contractor is not responsible for waste not created on their watch.
  Through commercialization, the bill will encourage innovation in 
cleanup. By permitting the contractor to use technologies developed at 
the site for commercial use and resale even while cleanup is taking 
place, the legislation rewards
 success instead of stifling it. In the past, DOE has frowned on 
similar allowances, primarily because of the Government's desire to 
keep new technology ``in house.'' Instead, the bill grants contractors 
immediate patent rights to new technologies developed in the cleanup 
process.

  Another important provision protects the contractor from subsequent 
rule changes by the Department of Energy or Congress that directly 
affect cleanup efforts. Language states that if the Department of 
Energy mandates new environmental regulations or laws which will 
adversely affect the cleanup schedule and performance, the contractor 
is entitled to renegotiate the contract without penalty. Likewise, if 
regulations are eased, the contractor is given the option of abiding by 
the rules in place, or opening discussions again to adjust for the less 
stringent requirements.
  This legislation also allows the Secretary to lease federally owned 
land to contractors at a negotiable rate. By leasing the land, the 
Government permits the contractor to undertake non-DOE site related 
activities. For example, a contractor may retain a non-DOE client who 
wants to vitrify waste at the DOE site. With this legislation the 
contractor could open its facility to such an endeavor.
  I urge that all of my colleagues, particularly those with similar 
interests in their States, support this bill and join as cosponsors.
  Mr.President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  [[Page S4102]] There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record as follows:
                                 S. 570

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

     SECTION 1. PRIVATIZATION OF WASTE CLEANUP AND MODERNIZATION 
                   ACTIVITIES OF DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES.

       (a) Contract Authority.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Secretary of Energy may enter into 1 or more long-term 
     contracts for the procurement, from a facility located within 
     25 miles of a current or former Department of Energy defense 
     nuclear facility, of products and services that are 
     determined by the Secretary to be necessary to support waste 
     cleanup and modernization activities at such facilities, 
     including the following services and related products:
       (1) Waste remediation and environmental restoration, 
     including treatment, storage, and disposal.
       (2) Technical services.
       (3) Energy production.
       (4) Utility services.
       (5) Effluent treatment.
       (6) General storage.
       (7) Fabrication and maintenance.
       (8) Research and testing.
       (b)  Contract Provisions.--A contract under subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) shall be for a term of not more than 30 years;
       (2) shall include options for 2 10-year extensions of the 
     contract;
       (3) when nuclear or hazardous material is involved, shall 
     include an agreement to--
       (A) provide indemnification pursuant to section 170d. of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d));
       (B) indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the contractor 
     from and against all liability, including liability for legal 
     costs, relating to any preexisting conditions at any part of 
     the defense nuclear facility managed under the contract;
       (C) indemnify, protect, and hold harmless the contractor 
     from and against all liability to third parties, including 
     liability for legal costs, relating to claims for personal 
     injury, illness, property damage, and consequential damages; 
     and
       (D) provide for indemnification of subcontractors as 
     described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C);
       (4) shall permit the contractor (in accordance with Federal 
     law) to obtain a patent for and use for commercial purposes a 
     technology developed by the contractor in the performance of 
     the contract;
       (5) shall not provide for payment to the contractor of cost 
     plus a percentage of cost or cost plus a fixed fee; and
       (6) shall include such other terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary of Energy considers appropriate to protect the 
     interests of the United States.
       (c) Preference for Local Residents.--In entering into 
     contracts under subsection (a), the Secretary of Energy shall 
     give preference, consistent with Federal, State, and local 
     law, to entities that plan to hire, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, residents of the vicinity of the Department of 
     Energy defense nuclear facility concerned and to persons who 
     have previously been employed by the Department of Energy or 
     its private contractor at the facility.
       (d) Subsequently Enacted Requirements.--
       (1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``applicable 
     requirement'' means a requirement in an Act of Congress or 
     regulation that applies specifically to activities described 
     in subsection (a).
       (2) Increased costs.--
       (A) In general.--A contractor under a contract under 
     subsection (a) shall be exempt from an applicable requirement 
     that would increase the cost of performing the contract that 
     is--
       (i) imposed by regulation by a Federal, State, or local 
     governmental agency after the date on which the contract is 
     entered into unless the regulation is issued under an Act of 
     Congress described in the exception stated in clause (ii); or
       (ii) imposed by an Act of Congress enacted after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, except an Act of Congress that 
     refers to this paragraph and explicitly states that it is the 
     intent of Congress to subject such a contractor to the 
     requirement.
       (B) Amendment of contract.--In the case of enactment of an 
     Act of Congress described in the exception stated in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary of Energy and the 
     contractor shall negotiate an amendment to a contract under 
     subsection (a) providing full compensation to the contractor 
     for the increased cost incurred in order to comply with any 
     additional requirement of law.
       (3) Reduced costs.--
       (A) In general.--A contractor under a contract under 
     subsection (a) may elect to be governed by a change in a 
     requirement that would reduce the cost of performing the 
     contract that is--
       (i) adopted by regulation by a Federal, State, or local 
     governmental agency after the date on which the contract is 
     entered into, unless the change is made pursuant to an Act of 
     Congress that refers to this paragraph and explicitly states 
     that it is the intent of Congress to continue to subject such 
     a contractor to that requirement, as in effect prior to the 
     date of enactment of that Act of Congress; or
       (ii) enacted by an Act of Congress enacted after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, except an Act of Congress that 
     refers to this paragraph and explicitly states that it is the 
     intent of Congress to continue to subject such a contractor 
     to that requirement, as in effect prior to the date of 
     enactment of that Act of Congress.
       (B) Amendment of contract.--In the case of a change in a 
     requirement that is to be applied to a contractor that will 
     reduce the cost of performing the contract, the Secretary of 
     Energy and the contractor shall negotiate an amendment to a 
     contract under subsection (a) providing for a reduction in 
     the amount of compensation to be paid to the contractor 
     commensurate with the amount of any reduction in costs 
     resulting from the change.
       (e) Payment of Balance of Unamortized Costs.--
       (1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``special 
     facility'' means land, a depreciable building, structure, or 
     utility, or depreciable machinery, equipment, or material 
     that is not supplied to a contractor by the Department of 
     Energy.
       (2) Contract term.--A contract under subsection (a) may 
     provide that if the contract is terminated for the 
     convenience of the Government, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     pay the unamortized balance of the cost of any special 
     facility acquired or constructed by the contractor for 
     performance of the contract.
       (3) Source of funds.--The Secretary of Energy may make a 
     payment under a contract term described in paragraph (2) and 
     pay any other costs assumed by the Secretary as a result of 
     the termination out of any appropriations that are available 
     to the Department of Energy for operating expenses for the 
     fiscal year in which the termination occurs or for any 
     subsequent fiscal year.
       (f) Lease of Federally Owned Land.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Energy may lease federally owned land 
     at a current or former Department of Energy defense nuclear 
     facility to a contractor in order to provide for or to 
     facilitate the construction of a facility in connection with 
     a contract under subsection (a).
       (2) Term.--The term of a lease under this paragraph shall 
     be the lesser of--
       (A) the expected useful life of the facility to be 
     constructed; or
       (B) the term of the contract.
       (3) Terms and conditions.--A lease under paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) require the contractor to pay rent in amounts that the 
     Secretary of Energy considers to be appropriate; and
       (B) include such other terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary of Energy considers to be appropriate.
       (g) Nuclear Standards.--The Secretary of Energy shall, 
     whenever practicable, consider applying commercial nuclear 
     standards to a facility used in the performance of a contract 
     under subsection (a).
       (h) Limitation On Liability.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms ``hazardous 
     substance'', ``pollutant or contaminant'', ``release'', and 
     ``response'' have the meanings stated in section 101 of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601).
       (2) In general.--A contractor under a contract under 
     subsection (a) or a subcontractor of the contractor shall not 
     be liable under Federal, State, or local law for any injury, 
     cost, damage, expense, or other relief on a claim by any 
     person for death, personal injury, illness, loss of or damage 
     to property, or economic loss caused by a release or 
     threatened release of a hazardous substance or pollutant or 
     contaminant during performance of the contract unless the 
     release or threatened release is caused by conduct of the 
     contractor or subcontractor that is negligent or that 
     constitutes intentional misconduct.
       (3) Repose.--No action (including an action for 
     contribution or indemnity) to recover for damage to real or 
     personal property, economic loss, personal injury, illness, 
     death, or other expense or cost arising out of the 
     performance under this section of a response action under a 
     contract under subsection (a) may be brought against the 
     contractor (or subcontractor of the contractor) under 
     Federal, State, or local law after the date that is 6 years 
     after the date of substantial completion of the response 
     action.

     SEC. 2. PREFERENCE AND ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION FOR 
                   COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL RESIDENTS.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``qualifying 
     Department of Energy site'' means a site that contains at 
     least 1 current or former Department of Energy defense 
     nuclear facility for which the Secretary of Energy is 
     required by section 3161 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7274h) to 
     develop a plan for restructuring the work force.
       (b) Preference.--In entering into a contract with a private 
     entity for products to be acquired or services to be 
     performed at a qualifying Department of Energy site, the 
     Secretary of Energy and contractors under the Secretary's 
     supervision shall, to the maximum extent practicable, give 
     preference to an entity that is otherwise qualified and 
     within the competitive range (as determined under section 
     15.609 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, or a 
     successor regulation, 
     [[Page S4103]] as in effect on the date of the determination) 
     that plans to--
       (1) provide products and services originating from 
     communities within 25 miles of the site;
       (2) hire residents living in the vicinity of the site, 
     especially dislocated site workers, to perform the contract; 
     and
       (3) invest in value-added activities in the vicinity of the 
     site to mitigate adverse economic development impacts 
     resulting from closure or restructuring of the site.
       (c) Applicability.--Preference shall be given under 
     subsection (b) only with respect to a contract for an 
     environmental management and restoration activity that is 
     entered into after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Termination.--This section shall expire on September 
     30, 1999.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kohl, 
        Mr. Bradley, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Roth, Mr. 
        Harkin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
        Simon, and Mr. Robb):
  S. 571. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to terminate 
entitlement of pay and allowances for members of the Armed Forces who 
are sentenced to confinement and a punitive discharge or dismissal, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.


                     violent criminals legislation

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will put an end to an outrageous waste of tax dollars and immediately 
stop a taxpayer-funded cash reward for violent criminals.
  Believe it or not, each month, the Pentagon pays the salaries of 
military personnel convicted of the most heinous crimes while their 
cases are appealed through the military court system--a process than 
often takes years. During that time, these violent criminals sit back 
in prison, read the Wall Street Journal, invest the money they get from 
the military, and watch their taxpayer-funded nest eggs grow.
  According to data provided by the Defense Finance Accounting Service 
and first published in the Dayton Daily News, the Department of Defense 
spent more than $1 million on the salaries of 680 convicts in the month 
of June 1994, alone. In that month, the Pentagon paid the salaries of 
58 rapists, 164 child molesters, and 7 murderers, among others.
  Just this morning, the Pentagon confirmed to me that at least 633 
military convicts remained on the payroll in December 1994, costing the 
Government more than $900,000.
  I can't think of a more reprehensible way to spend taxpayer dollars. 
No explanation could ever make me understand how the military could 
reward rapists, murderers, and child molesters--the lowest of the low--
with the hard earned tax dollars of law-abiding citizens. This policy 
thumbs its nose at taxpayers, slaps the faces of crime victims, and is 
one of the worst examples of Government waste I have seen in my 20 
years of public service.
  Congress must act now to end this practice.
  The individual stories of military criminals receiving full pay are 
shocking. In California, a marine lance corporal who beat his 13-month-
old daughter to death almost 2 years ago still receives $1,105 each 
month--about $25,000 since his conviction. He spends his days in the 
brig at Camp Pendleton and does not pay a dime of child support. This 
criminal has been paid $25,000 since his conviction.
  I spoke with the murdered child's grandmother who now has custody of 
a surviving 4-year-old grandson. She is a resident of northern 
California. She was outraged to learn that the murderer of her 
grandchild still receives full pay. She was understandably outraged to 
learn that the murderer of her daughter still receives a Government 
paycheck.
  Another Air Force sergeant who tried to kill his wife with a kitchen 
knife continues to receive full pay while serving time at Fort 
Leavenworth. He told the Dayton Daily News, ``I follow the stock market 
* * * I buy Double E bonds.''
  And believe it or not, Francisco Duran, who was arrested last October 
after firing 27 shots at the White House was paid by the military while 
in prison. According to DOD records, Duran was paid $17,537 after his 
conviction for deliberately driving his car into a crowd of people 
outside a Hawaii bowling alley in 1990. Some of that money may well 
have paid for the weapon he used to shoot at the White House.
  Since I began working on this issue, I have received letters of 
support from concerned citizens around the country. Recently, a woman 
from North Carolina wrote me. This woman's sister was murdered by her 
husband, a Navy chief stationed in South Carolina. He is now serving a 
24-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth. He receives full pay.
  This courageous woman is now raising her sisters' three children. The 
children's father, who murdered this woman's sister, agreed to send 
back his paychecks for child support, but he kept threatening to stop. 
Desperate, she asked the staff at Fort Leavenworth how she could ensure 
that his paychecks would continue to be sent to her. Finally, when she 
asked the staff of the Fort Leavenworth military prison for guidance, 
she was told that the only way she could receive guaranteed child 
support payments was to, ``kiss his butt'' and hope for the best.
  Imagine that. The only way to ensure that she will have the means to 
support her murdered sister's children is to ``kiss the butt'' of her 
murderer.
  This policy is crazy, and it has got to stop.
  In January, I introduced legislation, S. 205, which would terminate 
pay to members of the Armed Forces under confinement pending 
dishonorable discharge. This bill generated significant bipartisan 
support and was cosponsored by 10 Senators.
  Following the introduction of S. 205, several Senators, the DOD's 
Office of Legal Counsel, and the Undersecretary for Personnel and 
Readiness, offered suggestions for improvements. Many of these 
suggestions have been incorporated into the bill I am introducing 
today.
  I am very proud that this bill has 15 cosponsors. It has the support 
of Democrats and Republicans; liberals and conservatives. This is truly 
an issue that transcends political and ideological boundaries.
  In summary, this bill would terminate pay to any member of the Armed 
Forces sentenced by a court martial to confinement and dishonorable 
discharge, bad-conduct discharge, or dismissal. Pay would terminate 
immediately upon sentencing. If at any point in the appeals process the 
conviction were reversed or the sentence were otherwise set aside, full 
back pay would be awarded.
  This bill also authorizes the Secretary of Defense to establish a 
program to pay transitional compensation to the spouses and dependents 
of military personnel who lose their pay as a result of this pay 
termination. This compensation could be paid for a maximum of 1 year at 
a level not to exceed the amount that the member of the Armed Forces 
would have received had he been in pay status.
  The Department of Defense strongly supports changing the current 
policy. Shortly after I first wrote Secretary Perry about this issue 
late last year, a working group was established to study the issue and 
report to the Secretary no later than February 28. That date has 
passed, but we have still received no word from the Department.
  It has now been nearly 3 months since I first brought this issue to 
light. I believe strongly that we must act immediately to fix this 
problem. Each month that goes by, about $1 million is wasted. That 
money could be used to improve the quality of life for our military 
personnel. It could be used to enhance the readiness of our forces. It 
could even be used to reduce the budget deficit. But instead, the 
Pentagon is paying $1 million each month to vile, violent criminals.
  We do not have a moment to waste. Let us pass this important 
legislation quickly.
  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. 571

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

     SECTION 1. PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF MEMBERS SENTENCED BY A 
                   COURT-MARTIAL TO CONFINEMENT AND PUNITIVE 
                   DISCHARGE OR DISMISSAL.

       (a) Termination of Entitlement.--(1) Chapter 47 of title 
     10, United States Code 
     [[Page S4104]] (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is 
     amended by adding at the end of subchapter VIII the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 858b. Art. 58b. Sentences to confinement and punitive 
       discharge or dismissal: termination of pay and allowances

       ``(a) Termination of Entitlement.--A member of the armed 
     forces sentenced by a court-martial to confinement and to a 
     punishment named in subsection (c) is not entitled to pay and 
     allowances for any period after the sentence is adjudged by 
     the court-martial.
       ``(b) Restoration of Entitlement.--If, in the case of a 
     member sentenced as described in subsection (a), none of the 
     punishments named in subsection (c) are included in the 
     sentence as finally approved, or the sentence to such a 
     punishment is set aside or disapproved, then, effective upon 
     such final approval or upon the setting aside or disapproval 
     of such punishment, as the case may be, the termination of 
     entitlement of the member to pay and allowances under 
     subsection (a) by reason of the sentence adjudged in such 
     case ceases to apply to the member and the member is entitled 
     to the pay and allowances that, under subsection (a), were 
     not paid to the member by reason of that termination of 
     entitlement.
       ``(c) Covered Punishments.--The punishments referred to in 
     subsections (a) and (b) are as follows:
       ``(A) Dishonorable discharge.
       ``(B) Bad-conduct discharge.
       ``(C) Dismissal.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter 
     VIII of chapter 47 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 858a (article 58a) the 
     following:

``858b. 58b. Sentences to confinement and punitive discharge or 
              dismissal: termination of pay and allowances.''.

       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 857 of title 10, 
     United States Code (article 57 of the Uniform Code of 
     Military Justice), is amended by striking out ``(a) No'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``(a) Except as provided in section 
     858b of this title (article 58b), no''.
       (2)(A) Section 804 of title 37, United States Code, is 
     repealed.
       (B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of 
     such title is amended by striking out the item relating to 
     section 804.

     SEC. 2. TRANSITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR SPOUSES, DEPENDENT 
                   CHILDREN, AND FORMER SPOUSES OF MEMBERS 
                   SENTENCED TO CONFINEMENT AND PUNITIVE DISCHARGE 
                   OR DISMISSAL.

       (a) Authority To Pay Compensation.--Chapter 53 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     1059 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1059a. Members sentenced to confinement and punitive 
       discharge or dismissal: transitional compensation for 
       spouses, dependent children, and former spouses

       ``(a) Authority To Pay Compensation.--The Secretary of the 
     executive department concerned may establish a program to pay 
     transitional compensation in accordance with this section to 
     any spouse, dependent child, or former spouse of a member of 
     the armed forces during any period in which the member's 
     entitlement to pay and allowances is terminated under section 
     858b of this title (article 58b of the Uniform Code of 
     Military Justice).
       ``(b) Need Required.--(1) A person may be paid transitional 
     compensation under this section only if the person 
     demonstrates a need to receive such compensation, as 
     determined under regulations prescribed pursuant to 
     subsection (f).
       ``(2) Section 1059(g)(1) of this title shall apply to 
     eligibility for transitional compensation under this section.
       ``(c) Amount of Compensation.--(1) The amount of the 
     transitional compensation payable to a person under a program 
     established pursuant to this section shall be determined 
     under regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection (f).
       ``(2) The total amount of the transitional compensation 
     paid under this section in the case of a member may not 
     exceed the total amount of the pay and allowances which, 
     except for section 858b of this title (article 58b of the 
     Uniform Code of Military Justice), such member would be 
     entitled to receive during the one-year period beginning on 
     the date of the termination of such member's entitlement to 
     pay and allowances under such section.
       ``(d) Recipients of Payments.--Transitional compensation 
     payable to a person under this section shall be paid directly 
     to that person or to the legal guardian of the person, if 
     any.
       ``(e) Coordination of Benefits.--Transitional compensation 
     in the case of a member of the armed forces may not be paid 
     under this section to a person who is entitled to 
     transitional compensation under section 1059 or 1408(h) of 
     this title by reason of being a spouse, dependent child, or 
     former spouse of such member.
       ``(f) Emergency Transitional Assistance.--Under a program 
     established pursuant to this section, the Secretary of the 
     executive department concerned may pay emergency transitional 
     assistance to a person referred to in subsection (a) for not 
     more than 45 days while the person's application for 
     transitional assistance under the program is pending 
     approval. Subsections (b) and (d) do not apply to payment of 
     emergency transitional assistance.
       ``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary of the executive 
     department concerned shall prescribe regulations for carrying 
     out any program established by the Secretary under this 
     section.
       ``(h) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `Secretary of the executive department 
     concerned' means--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Defense, with respect to the armed 
     forces, other than the Coast Guard when it is not operating 
     as a service in the Navy; and
       ``(B) the Secretary of Transportation, with respect to the 
     Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the 
     Navy.
       ``(2) The term `dependent child' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 1059(l) of this title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1059 
     the following:

``1059a. Members sentenced to confinement and punitive discharge or 
              dismissal: transitional compensation for spouses, 
              dependent children, and former spouses.''.
     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.

       (a) Prospective Applicability.--Subject to subsection (b), 
     the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to 
     pay and allowances for periods after such date.
       (b) Savings Provision.--(1) If it is held unconstitutional 
     to apply section 858b of title 10, United States Code 
     (article 58b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), as 
     added by section 1(a), with respect to an act punishable 
     under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that was committed 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act, then--
       (A) with respect to acts punishable under the Uniform Code 
     of Military Justice that were committed before that date, the 
     amendments made by this Act shall be deemed not to have been 
     made; and
       (B) the amendments made by this Act shall apply with 
     respect to acts punishable under the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice that are committed on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ``Uniform Code 
     of Military Justice'' means the provisions of chapter 47 of 
     title 10, United States Code.

 Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original 
cosponsor of this bill to take violent criminals off the Pentagon's 
payroll. I was an original cosponsor of S. 205, the first bill to 
address this problem. I congratulate Senator Boxer on introducing this 
improved version that introduces an element of compassion for the 
families of those taken off the payroll.
  I was shocked to learn that our Government spends more than $1 
million per month on salaries and benefits for military personnel who 
have been convicted of violent crimes. This is morally wrong. This is 
an insult to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. And this is 
bad fiscal policy.
  Mr. President, it is morally wrong to pay salaries to murderers, 
rapists, child molesters, and other violent criminals. Imagine, the 
families of victims and, indeed, even victims themselves pay tax 
dollars that end up in the pockets and savings accounts of the very 
people who victimized them. In some cases, these violent criminals even 
continue to receive pay after they are released from prison.
  This situation is also an insult to the brave men and women who serve 
in our Armed Forces. They work hard and make many sacrifices to give us 
the best military in the world. Their efforts are degraded when we pay 
the same salaries to convicted felons that we pay to them.
  Finally, it is bad fiscal policy to waste taxpayer money in this way. 
How can we justify paying $1 million a month to convicted criminals 
when we are at the same time cutting back on payments to needy 
children? We just spent 5 weeks trying to one-up each other on our 
commitment to balance the Federal budget. How can we ever hope to do so 
if we squander millions of dollars not on incarcerating criminals, but 
rewarding them?
  As the Dallas Morning News stated in a February 5, 1995, editorial, 
``this change is a no-brainer. Congress should act quickly to end this 
travesty.'' I could not agree more.
                                 ______

           By Mr. COATS:
  S. 572. A bill to expand the authority for the export of devices, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


               the medical device exportation act of 1995

 Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medical 
Device Exportation Act of 1995. This bill will allow American companies 
to export 
[[Page S4105]] approved medical devices without forcing those companies 
to endure costly and unnecessary delays in the FDA approval process.
  Under current law, a company that seeks to export its drug overseas 
to Japan or Europe where that drug is already approved for marketing, 
must get the approval of the FDA before it may be exported. Approval is 
granted only after the FDA determines that exportation would not 
jeopardize public health and safety and that the country has approved 
the drug.
  Unfortunately, the FDA takes several weeks or even months to approve 
the exportation of devices that Japan or other advanced nations in 
Europe have already approved for marketing.
  This delay in approving the exportation of a device that is already 
approved for marketing by some of the most sophisticated device-
approval systems in the world can cost Americans millions in lost 
revenue and thousands of jobs. A recent survey of device company CEO's 
confirms the cost of this unnecessary delay. Forty percent of CEO's 
said that their companies had reduced the size of their work force as a 
result of regulatory delays. Twenty-two percent had already moved jobs 
offshore due to the delays.
  This bill is narrowly targeted to the problem. It simply eliminates 
one bureaucratic step that serves no public health function in light of 
other extensive controls. This bill changes the current law that 
requires the FDA to make an independent determination of safety and 
approval and simply directs that the FDA rely on approval by the 
sophisticated device approval systems in Japan or the European 
Community.
  Of course, any device that is banned in the United States would 
remain prohibited for export. And any country that would prohibit 
importation of the device retains that sovereign right.
  I am confident that this legislation is not controversial. In the 
House, Congressman Kim has introduced a virtually identical measure, 
H.R. 485, with 17 cosponsors. Moreover, the Department of Commerce has 
proposed a similar administrative fix.
  I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation that 
will help keep America competitive, retain American jobs and revenues, 
and serve the public health needs of nations worldwide.
    
                                 ______

           By Mr. PRYOR:
  S. 573. A bill to reduce spending in fiscal year 1996, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, 
with instructions, that if one Committee reports the other Committee 
have 30 days to report or be discharged.


                  THE SPENDING REDUCTIONS ACT OF 1995

  MR. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate on the 
question of where to cut Government spending and to offer some 
suggestions, if I might, on where we might cut spending due to the very 
intensive debate we have had over the last several weeks in this body.
  This issue has risen again and again during the debate over the 
balanced budget amendment. As we argue now over how to reach the 
desired goal of reducing the deficit to zero, I thought it might be a 
good time to come forward with a specific list, not major, but a 
specific list of spending cuts that I hope all of my colleagues will 
support and consider. In fact, if the speeches that have been made in 
the Chamber of the Senate are any indication or to be believed, then I 
think these proposals should receive widespread support. These spending 
reductions are contained in the Spending Reductions Act of 1995. This 
bill which I am introducing at this time will contain five sections 
that consist of areas I think can either be reduced or eliminated to 
provide the taxpayers with some long overdue relief. Mr. President, 
$5.6 billion in total savings would result from this bill for 1 year 
alone. If we continued basically down this track, we could save 
approximately $30 billion over the next 5 years.
  The first section of my bill involves a very modest reduction in 
Government spending for private contractors who do the work for the 
Federal Government. We have seen since 1980 alone the cost of 
Government contractors rise from $47.6 billion to 1994's high of $105 
billion.
  Today, I am not proposing to address all of the problems involved in 
the Federal Government's extensive reliance on outside workers. I 
simply want to address the concern expressed by the taxpayers and the 
voters in both the 1992 and 1994 elections giving us the mandate to 
shrink the size of Government.
  Congress has already partially responded to this mandate by voting to 
cut the number of civil servants by nearly 12 percent. However, the 
Congress has failed to order a corresponding reduction in the Federal 
Government's exploding contractor work force. If we cut civil servants 
and do nothing about the tremendous rise in the cost of outside 
contractors that the Government then employs, we are going to see 
basically no savings whatsoever.
   Mr. President, my proposal is so simple I am almost embarrassed to 
introduce it. It would reduce by $5 billion the 1996 budget the amount 
spent to hire Federal contractors. It is simple, it is clean, it is $5 
billion in savings.
  This modest reduction will still permit agencies to get their work 
done, but it will also reduce some of the waste that results when too 
much money is spent without adequate oversight.
  At my request, the Inspector General at the Pentagon has been looking 
at some of these contracts awarded by the Star Wars program. Listen to 
the problems that the IG said existed.
  First, cost overruns on the contracts totaled several million 
dollars.
  Second, the contractor awarded prohibited subcontracts worth several 
million dollars. These are contracts awarded to subcontractors in 
violation of Federal regulations but still cost millions of dollars of 
taxpayers' money. The contractor charged the Government for 588 hours 
of work that it actually did not perform. Again, this is from the 
report of the Inspector General at DOD to me.
  I hope a reduction in the spending on service contracts will force 
agencies to spend their money more wisely, and to eliminate some of the 
waste which has resulted.
  The second section of my bill will reduce the spending on federally 
funded research and development centers. These are called FFRDC's at 
the Department of Defense. That is pretty bureaucratic sounding. But 
these FFRDC's like Mitre, Rand, the Center for Naval Analysis, are 
actually private contractors who work solely for the Federal 
Government. They receive all of their contracts on a sole-source basis. 
There is no bidding procedure. The contractor simply states what they 
will charge to perform a particular service and then they find 
themselves being written a check. There is no competition whatsoever.
  These entities may provide a valuable service to the Federal 
Government, but again, in this time of concern over reducing the budget 
deficit, I think it is appropriate to question every item of spending. 
Since I am proposing a reduction in spending on outside workers, I say 
that we should also cut back a reasonable amount on these in-house 
consulting companies which have no competition for the taxpayers' 
dollars.
  Our taxpayers should not continue being billed at the very high 
salaries and overhead being charged by these Government-run consulting 
firms. For example, the head of Aerospace Corp., a FFRDC, or federally 
funded research and development center--was paid in 1991 $230,000 in 
salaries and who knows what else in expenses. We paid him, in 1992, 
$265,000 as a salary and no one knows how much for expenses. And, in 
both of these years this person, who is president of the Aerospace 
Corp., funded by the American taxpayer, made more money than the 
President of the United States.
  My proposal would reduce the spending on FFRDC's by $250 million in 
1996. This would leave over $10 billion to be spent on these 
organizations and I think that would be more than sufficient.
  The third item where I would cut spending is an issue I have worked 
on for a number of years with many of my colleagues. This is the 
exporting of arms to countries all over the world. I am not very proud 
of the fact that the United States is the leading exporter of arms in 
the world today. However, this proposal is not targeted, once again, at 
reforming this arms trade. That is a battle for another day. My 
proposal is 
[[Page S4106]] simply aimed at reducing the budget deficit. We are 
spending, today, $3.2 billion on financing arms sales to foreign 
governments. I think, as we contemplate reduction in Medicare and 
school lunches, we should also look at this area as well. I propose we 
reduce this spending by $200 million in 1996. It is a modest cut. It is 
a cut that makes common sense.
  I have a fourth proposal. That fourth proposal to cut spending would 
cut the United States funding to the International Development 
Association and the International Finance Corporation, two of the 
institutions which make up the World Bank Group, by approximately 15 
percent in cuts. This would save the American taxpayer some $200 
million. As my colleagues know, the World Bank has come under serious 
Congressional scrutiny in the past few years, due to administrative 
waste and flawed development policies.
  For example, salaries at the World Bank average today $123,000 -- all 
tax free. In recent years the Bank has spent approximately $30 million 
on first-class travel for its executives. As for the operational record 
of the World Bank, internal audits have estimated that nearly 40 
percent of the bank's loans and projects are failures.
  Unfortunately, although the World Bank admits to these problems, 
reform has been slow or nonexistent. In 1993 I called for the 
establishment of an inspector general function at the World Bank. 
Despite receiving support from both the Clinton administration and our 
colleagues in the Senate, the World Bank has, today, failed to 
establish an adequate internal oversight function.
  It is time once again for the Senate to address the issue of World 
Bank mismanagement. The funding cut which I propose is, once again, 
modest. But I think it will send a signal to the executives of the 
World Bank while at the same time saving taxpayers' dollars from 
further misuse.
  The final cut I am proposing, while it may be the smallest, in many 
ways provides the clearest example of our overall spending problem. In 
1995 we gave the Department of Defense $65 million for humanitarian 
assistance programs. That sounds reasonable enough until one stops to 
question the rationale of the Department of Defense's having a 
humanitarian assistance budget in the first place.
  Humanitarian programs are not the primary part of DOD's mission. The 
United States already has an agency solely dedicated to humanitarian 
and development programs, the Agency for International Development. In 
addition, we appropriate millions of dollars to multilateral 
institutions for humanitarian purposes.
  I believe the Department of Defense neither wants nor needs a growing 
humanitarian mission. I base this statement on the careless way in 
which humanitarian programs are run by the Department of Defense. In 
1993, the General Accounting Office took a close look at DOD's 
humanitarian and civic assistance projects, and GAO concluded that 
these projects--and I quote from the GAO report--``. . . were not 
designed to contribute to U.S. foreign policy objectives, did not 
appear to enhance U.S. military training, and either lacked the support 
of the host country or were not being used.''
  Let me highlight one example provided by the General Accounting 
Office on this program. A few years ago, some very well-meaning U.S. 
National Guard soldiers were asked to build a school in Honduras. 
Unfortunately, once completed this three-building complex was never 
used. That is because the Honduran Government had already built and was 
operating a school of this nature only a few hundred yards away.
  Unfortunately, it is probable that poorly coordinated projects like 
the Honduran school are continuing today. In a recent meeting with our 
staff, GAO analysts reported that the Department of Defense had done 
little or nothing to address the defects in its humanitarian programs. 
By cutting this program by 50 percent, saving $25 million in 1996, the 
Congress will force the agency to define its mission and concentrate 
where the military can play a useful role in overseas humanitarian 
programs.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting these very reasonable, very modest cuts that will save us 
$5.6 billion this year. Each spending reduction is designed to promote 
economy and efficiency in the operation of the Federal Government, and 
will save an enormous amount in dollars.
  I believe that this is what the American people certainly want, and 
that my constituents and our constituents are not as concerned with the 
Contract With America as they are concerned with our priorities. With 
or without a balanced budget amendment, Senators on both sides of the 
aisle were sent here with the mandate to make tough decisions. It is 
with that mandate in mind that I bring this legislation before the 
Senate today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Simpson):
  S. 574. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins 
in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the founding of the 
Smithsonian Institution; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.
           THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce the Smithsonian 
Institution Commemorative Coin Act of 1996. I introduce this 
legislation on behalf of my distinguished colleagues, Senators Cochran 
and Simpson, with whom I have the privilege to serve on the Smithsonian 
Institution's Board of Regents.
  August 10, 1996, will mark the 150th anniversary of the founding of 
the Smithsonian Institution, one of the Nation's finest examples of 
successful public-private partnership. This legislation provides for 
the minting of coins to commemorate this momentous occasion.
  Created as a Federal trusteeship by Congress in 1846, the Smithsonian 
Institution is today the largest research and museum complex on Earth. 
Its various museums were visited more than 26 million times last year, 
and unlike so many other museums, the Smithsonian remains free of 
charge to the public. In addition, thousands of Americans and foreign 
scholars have used the Institution's vast repository of knowledge and 
artifacts to assist in a variety of research activities.
  The Smithsonian's sesquicentennial commemoration provides us the 
opportunity to celebrate both the Institution's great accomplishments 
and its future role and mission. The central goal of the commemoration, 
however, will be to increase the sense of ownership of, and 
participation in, the Smithsonian by the American people.
  Throughout its 150th year, the Smithsonian will undertake a series of 
programs and stage a number of events to commemorate its founding and 
to explore new ways in which it can serve the public. These activities, 
while extensions of the existing framework of Smithsonian programs, 
will require significant financial resources.
  In light of the existing budget constraints under which the Federal 
Government must operate, the Smithsonian's Board of Regents concluded 
it would not seek any additional appropriated funds to support 
sesquicentennial programming. Rather, the Smithsonian will concentrate 
its efforts to raise support for the anniversary programming from non-
Federal sources. The commemorative coins would be one such effort.
  The coins would be issued on August 10, 1996, exactly 150 years from 
the actual date of the act of Congress which established the 
Smithsonian Institution. The issuance of Smithsonian sesquicentennial 
commemorative coins will provide an opportunity for the American public 
to obtain a valued memento and support the Institution's mandate to 
preserve our Nation's cultural and historical heritage. In addition, 
the fund derived from the sale of these commemorative coins will not 
only enable the Smithsonian to showcase its 150-year service to the 
Nation, but will also transfer the financial responsibility for the 
sesquicentennial activities from the American taxpayer to voluntary 
contributions.
  Further, the legislation provides that 15 percent of the total 
proceeds remitted to the Institution would be designated to support the 
numismatic collection at the National Museum of American History. This 
component of the legislation is strongly supported by the numismatic 
community and in a very tangible way demonstrates our appreciation for 
their support of all 
[[Page S4107]] congressionally authorized commemorative coin programs.
  Without exception, every Senator has constituents who visit, 
communicate with, and otherwise benefit from the Smithsonian. From 
eager first-graders to learned scholars and researchers, the public is 
consistently served by the vast resources and expertise of the 
Smithsonian and its staff. Enactment of this legislation will give the 
American people the opportunity to celebrate the Smithsonian's unique 
contributions to American culture and learning over the last 150 years.
  Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this 
bill to celebrate and honor the 150th anniversary of the Smithsonian 
Institution.
  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. 574

       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 ``Smithsonian Institution 
     Sesquicentennial Commemorative Coin Act''.

     SEC. 2. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

       (a) Denominations.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall mint and issue the following coins:
       (1) $5 gold coins.--Not more than 100,000 $5 coins, which 
     shall--
       (A) weigh 8.359 grams;
       (B) have a diameter of 0.850 inches; and
       (C) contain 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy.
       (2) $1 silver coins.--Not more than 800,000 $1 coins, which 
     shall--
       (A) weigh 26.73 grams;
       (B) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
       (C) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
       (b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be 
     legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of 
     title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under this Act 
     shall be considered to be numismatic items.

     SEC. 3. SOURCES OF BULLION.

       (a) Gold.--The Secretary shall obtain gold for minting 
     coins under this Act pursuant to the authority of the 
     Secretary under other provisions of law.
       (b) Silver.--The Secretary shall obtain silver for minting 
     coins under this Act only from stockpiles established under 
     the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.

     SEC. 4. DESIGN OF COINS.

       (a) Design Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be emblematic of the scientific, educational, and 
     cultural significance and importance of the Smithsonian 
     Institution and shall include the following words from the 
     original bequest of James Smithson: ``for the increase and 
     diffusion of knowledge''.
       (2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted 
     under this Act there shall be--
       (A) a designation of the value of the coin;
       (B) an inscription of the year ``1996''; and
       (C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We 
     Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus 
     Unum''.
       (b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be--
       (1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with the 
     Smithsonian Institution and the Commission of Fine Arts; and
       (2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory 
     Committee.

     SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF COINS.

       (a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be 
     issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
       (b) Mint Facility.--Only 1 facility of the United States 
     Mint may be used to strike any particular combination of 
     denomination and quality of the coins minted under this Act.
       (c) Period for Issuance.--The Secretary may issue coins 
     minted under this Act only during the period beginning on 
     August 10, 1996, and ending on August 9, 1997.

     SEC. 6. SALE OF COINS.

       (a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be 
     sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
       (1) the face value of the coins;
       (2) the surcharge provided in subsection (d) with respect 
     to such coins; and
       (3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including 
     labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, 
     marketing, and shipping).
       (b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the 
     coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
       (c) Prepaid Orders.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders 
     for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of 
     such coins.
       (2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders 
     under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
       (d) Surcharges.--All sales shall include a surcharge of--
       (1) $35 per coin for the $5 coin; and
       (2) $10 per coin for the $1 coin.

     SEC. 7. GENERAL WAIVER OF PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     provision of law governing procurement or public contracts 
     shall be applicable to the procurement of goods and services 
     necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
       (b) Equal Employment Opportunity.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     relieve any person entering into a contract under the 
     authority of this Act from complying with any law relating to 
     equal employment opportunity.

     SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), all 
     surcharges received by the Secretary from the sale of coins 
     issued under this Act shall be promptly paid by the Secretary 
     to the Smithsonian Institution for the purpose of supporting 
     programming related to the 150th anniversary and general 
     activities of the Smithsonian Institution.
       (b) National Numismatic Collection.--Not less than 15 
     percent of the total amount paid to the Smithsonian 
     Institution under subsection (a) shall be dedicated to 
     supporting the operation and activities of the National 
     Numismatic Collection at the National Museum of American 
     History.
       (c) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall have the right to examine such books, records, 
     documents, and other data of the Smithsonian Institution as 
     may be related to the expenditures of amounts paid under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 9. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.

       (a) No Net Cost to the Government.--The Secretary shall 
     take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that minting 
     and issuing coins under this Act will not result in any net 
     cost to the United States Government.
       (b) Payment for Coins.--A coin shall not be issued under 
     this Act unless the Secretary has received--
       (1) full payment for the coin;
       (2) security satisfactory to the Secretary to indemnify the 
     United States for full payment; or
       (3) a guarantee of full payment satisfactory to the 
     Secretary from a depository institution whose deposits are 
     insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the 
     National Credit Union Administration Board.
                                 ______

      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. 
        Breaux):
  S. 575. A bill to provide Outer Continental Shelf Impact Assistance 
to State and local governments, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          ocs impact assistance to state and local governments

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Murkowski and I are introducing a 
bill today which we believe to be of importance to the Nation's 
domestic energy supply and our precious coastal resources. We are 
pleased to have Senators Johnston and Breaux as cosponsors.
  The Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] impact assistance legislation is 
similar to legislation we introduced in the 102d Congress and have 
worked on for the past two decades. It is intended to stimulate oil and 
gas exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf and provide funds from 
revenues generated by oil and gas production on the OCS to coastal 
States and communities which share the burdens of exploration and 
production off their coastlines.
  OCS impact assistance is an avenue for States and communities to be 
in full partnership with the Federal Government in the development of 
OCS energy by investing a small portion of new OCS revenue back into 
the coastal States.
  This legislation establishes a fund for impact assistance from leased 
tracts for distribution to coastal States within 200 miles of such 
tracts. The funds will benefit States and local governments directly 
and indirectly impacted by OCS leasing activities. The bill would 
allocate 27 percent of new revenues generated from oil and natural gas 
development into the trust. These funds would be shared on a 50-50 
basis among States and the eligible counties and coastal jurisdictions.
  The impact assistance provided under this legislation will be 
distributed to counties, and in Alaska, borough governments, located no 
more than 60 miles from a State's coastline. The premise of sharing 
revenues derived from the development of resources in a specific locale 
with those that are primarily affected is a wise objective.
  [[Page S4108]] The funds would be used to assist coastal regions in 
projects and activities that OCS activities may impact, such as air and 
water quality, fish and wildlife, wetlands, or other coastal resources. 
In addition, the receiving governments could use their funds for much-
needed public health and safety services, infrastructure construction, 
cultural activities, and other government services.
  The Commerce Department recently reported that our national security 
is at risk because we now import more than 50 percent of our domestic 
petroleum requirements. OCS development has played an important role in 
offsetting even greater dependence on foreign energy. The OCS accounts 
for 23 percent of our Nation's natural gas production and 14 percent of 
its oil production. We need to ensure that the OCS plays an important 
role in meeting our future domestic energy needs.
  The States and communities that bear the responsibilities should now 
share the benefits of the program.
  The Senate in the past has passed my legislation to provide OCS 
impact assistance but we have not been successful in getting this 
enacted into law. I hope the administration will support this bill, 
which shows a State and Federal cooperation and partnership consistent 
with some past programs that exist in mineral, grazing, and forest 
resource revenue sharing. I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to provide our coastal States and communities the funds they need and 
deserve.
  I want to thank Mike Poling and Greg Renkes of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, who were invaluable in drafting this legislation. 
And I am also grateful to my assistant, Anne McInerney, for her work on 
this legislation.
  I state again that the revenue sharing will be only from new 
production under this bill.
  I also want to express my gratitude to my colleague from Alaska, 
Senator Murkowski, for his leadership as chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee and for his personal efforts on this 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 575

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

     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act only, the term--
       (1) ``coastline'' has the same meaning that it has in the 
     Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.);
       (2) ``county'' means a unit of general government 
     constituting the local jurisdiction immediately below the 
     level of State government. This term includes, but is not 
     limited to, counties, parishes, villages and tribal 
     governments which function in lieu of and are not within a 
     county, and in Alaska, borough governments. If State law 
     recognizes an entity of general government that functions in 
     lieu of and is not within a county, the Secretary may 
     recognize such other entities of general government as 
     counties;
       (3) ``coastal State'' means any State of the United States 
     bordering on the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the 
     Arctic Ocean, the Bering Sea or the Gulf of Mexico;
       (4) ``distance'' means minimum great circle distance, 
     measured in statute miles;
       (5) ``leased tract'' means a tract, leased under section 8 
     of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) for 
     the purpose of drilling for, developing and producing oil or 
     natural gas resources, which is a unit consisting of either a 
     block, a portion of a block, a combination of blocks and/or 
     portions of blocks, as specified in the lease, and as 
     depicted in an Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction 
     Diagram;
       (6) ``new revenues'' means monies received by the United 
     States as royalties (including payments for royalty taken in 
     kind and sold pursuant to section 27 of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1353)), net profit share payments, 
     and related late-payment interest from natural gas and oil 
     leases issued pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act, but only from leased tracts from which such revenues are 
     first received by the United States after the date of 
     enactment of this Act;
       (7) ``Outer Continental Shelf'' means all submerged lands 
     lying seaward and outside of an area of ``lands beneath 
     navigable waters'' as defined in section 2(a) of the 
     Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301(a)), and of which the 
     subsoil and
      seabed appertain to the United States and are subject to its 
     jurisdiction and control; and
       (8) ``Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary's designee.

     SEC. 2. IMPACT ASSISTANCE FORMULA AND PAYMENTS.

       (a) There is established a fund in the Treasury of the 
     United States, which shall be known as the ``Outer 
     Continental Shelf Impact Assistance Fund'' (hereinafter 
     referred to in this Act as ``the Fund''). Allocable new 
     revenues determined under subsection (c) shall be deposited 
     in the Fund.
       (b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest excess 
     monies in the Fund, at the written request of the Secretary, 
     in public debt securities with maturities suitable to the 
     needs of the Fund, as determined by the Secretary, and 
     bearing interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, taking into consideration current market yields on 
     outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of 
     comparable maturity.
       (c) Notwithstanding section 9 of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338), amounts in the Fund, 
     together with interest earned from investment thereof, shall 
     be paid at the direction of the Secretary as follows:
       (1) The Secretary shall determine the new revenues from any 
     leased tract or portion of a leased tract lying seaward of 
     the zone defined and governed by section 8(g) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)), or lying 
     within such zone but to which section 8(g) does not apply, 
     the geographic center of which lies within a distance of 200 
     miles from any part of the coastline of any coastal State 
     (hereinafter referred to as an ``eligible coastal State'').
       (2) The Secretary shall determine the allocable share of 
     new revenues determined under paragraph (1) by multiplying 
     such revenues by 27 percent.
       (3) The Secretary shall determine the portion of the 
     allocable share of new revenues attributable to each eligible 
     coastal State (hereinafter referred to as the ``eligible 
     coastal State's attributable share'') based on a fraction 
     which is inversely proportional to the distance between the 
     nearest point on the coastline of the eligible coastal State 
     and the geographic center of the leased tract or portion of 
     the leased tract (to the nearest whole mile). Further, the 
     ratio of an eligible State's attributable share to any other 
     eligible State's attributable share shall be equal to the 
     inverse of the ratio of the distances between the geographic 
     center of the leased tract or portion of the leased tract and 
     the coastlines of the respective eligible coastal States. The 
     sum of the eligible coastal States' attributable shares shall 
     be equal to the allocable share of new revenues determined 
     under paragraph (2).
       (4) The Secretary shall pay from the Fund 50 percent of 
     each eligible coastal State's attributable share, together 
     with the portion of interest earned from investment of the 
     funds which corresponds to that amount, to that State.
       (5) Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the governor 
     of each eligible coastal State shall provide the Secretary 
     with a list of all counties, as defined herein, that are to 
     be considered for eligibility to receive impact assistance 
     payments. This list must include all counties with borders 
     along the State's coastline and may also include counties 
     which are at the closest point no more than 60 miles from the 
     State's coastline and which are certified by the Governor to 
     have significant impacts from Outer Continental Shelf-related 
     activities. For any such county that does not have a border 
     along the coastline, the Governor shall designate the 
     coastline of the nearest county that does have a border along 
     the coastline to serve as the former county's coastline for 
     the purposes of this section. The governor of any eligible 
     coastal State may modify this list whenever significant 
     changes in Outer Continental Shelf activities require a 
     change, but no more frequently than once each year.
       (6) The Secretary shall determine, for each county within 
     the eligible coastal State identified by the Governor 
     according to paragraph (5) for which any part of the county's 
     coastline lies within a distance of 200 miles of the 
     geographic center of the leased tract or portion of the 
     leased tract (hereinafter referred to as in ``eligible 
     county'') 50 percent of the eligible coastal State's 
     attributable share which is attributable to such county 
     (hereinafter referred to as the ``eligible county's 
     attributable share'') based on a fraction which is inversely 
     proportional to the distance between the nearest point on the 
     coastline of the eligible county and the geographic center of 
     the leased tract or portion of the leased tract (to the 
     nearest whole mile). Further, the ratio of any eligible 
     county's attributable share to any other eligible county's 
     attributable share shall be equal to the inverse of the ratio 
     of the distance between the geographic center of the leased 
     tract or portion of the leased tract and the coastlines of 
     the respective eligible counties. The sum of the eligible 
     counties' attributable shares for all eligible counties 
     within each State shall be equal to 50 percent of the 
     eligible coastal State's attributable share determined under 
     paragraph (3).
       (7) The Secretary shall pay from the Fund the eligible 
     county's attributable share, together with the portion of 
     interest earned from investment of the Fund which corresponds 
     to that mount, to that county.
       (8) Payments to eligible coastal States and eligible 
     counties under this section shall be made not later than 
     December 31 of each year from new revenues received and 
     interest earned thereon during the immediately preceding 
     fiscal year, but not earlier than one year following the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (9) The remainder of new revenues and interest earned in 
     the Fund not paid to an eligible State or an eligible county 
     under this 
     [[Page S4109]] section shall be disposed of according to
      the law otherwise applicable to receipts from leases on the 
     Outer Continental Shelf.

     SEC. 3. USES OF FUNDS.

       Funds receive pursuant to this Act shall be used by the 
     eligible coastal States and eligible counties for--
       (a) projects and activities related to all impacts of Outer 
     Continental Shelf-related activities including but not 
     limited to--
       (1) air quality, water quality, fish and wildlife, 
     wetlands, or other coastal resources;
       (2) other activities of such State or county, authorized by 
     the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et 
     seq.), the provisions of subtitle B of title IV of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 523), or the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); and
       (3) administrative costs of complying with the provisions 
     of this subtitle.

     SEC. 4. OBLIGATIONS OF ELIGIBLE COUNTIES AND STATES.

       (a) Project Submission.--Prior to the receipt of funds 
     pursuant to this Act for any fiscal year, an eligible county 
     must submit to the Governor of the State in which it is 
     located a plan setting forth the projects and activities for 
     which the eligible county proposes to expend such funds. Such 
     plan shall state the amounts proposed to be expended for each 
     project or activity during the upcoming fiscal year.
       (b) Project Approval.--Prior to the payment of funds 
     pursuant to this Act to any eligible county for any fiscal 
     year, the Governor must approve the plan submitted by the 
     eligible county pursuant to subsection (a) and notify the 
     Secretary of such approval. State approval of any such plan 
     shall be consistent with all applicable State and federal 
     law. In the event the Governor disapproves any such plan, the 
     funds that would otherwise be paid to the eligible county 
     shall be placed in escrow by the Secretary pending 
     modification and approval of such plan, at which time such 
     funds together with interest thereon shall be paid to the 
     eligible county.
       (c) Certification.--No later than 60 days after the end of 
     the fiscal year, any eligible county receiving funds under 
     this Act must certify to the Governor: (1) the amount of such 
     funds expended by the county during the previous fiscal year; 
     (2) the amounts expended on each project or activity; and (3) 
     the status of each project or activity.

     SEC. 5. ANNUAL REPORT, REFUNDS.

       (a) On June 15 of each fiscal year, the Governor of each 
     State receiving monies from the Fund shall account for all 
     monies so received for the previous fiscal year in a written 
     report to Congress.
       (b) In those instances where through judicial decision, 
     administrative review, arbitration or other means there are 
     royalty refunds owed to entities generating new revenues 
     under this Act, repayment of such refunds in the same 
     proportion as monies were received under section 2 shall be 
     the responsibility of the governmental entities receiving 
     distributions under the Fund.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor legislation 
to provide Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] impact assistance to State and 
local governments. I am pleased to be joining my colleague from Alaska, 
Senator Stevens, the ranking minority member of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, Senator Johnston, and Senator Breaux in the 
introduction of this important legislation.
  Mr. President, there are two important aspects of the legislation we 
offer today. First, it is intended to stimulate oil and gas exploration 
and production on the Outer Continental Shelf, create jobs, protect our 
national energy security, and reduce our trade deficit. Second, it is 
intended to provide funds from revenues generated by oil and gas 
production on the OCS to States and eligible counties who shoulder the 
responsibility for energy development activity off their coastlines.
  A recent report by the Commerce Department suggests that our national 
security is at risk because we now import more than 50 percent of our 
domestic petroleum requirements. The Clinton administration's response 
to that report seems to be to not respond. I am aware of no specific 
proposals offered by the Clinton Administration to increase domestic 
production and reduce foreign imports of crude oil. As chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and a member of the Finance 
Committee, I intend to hold hearings on this legislation and other 
measures to stimulate oil and gas production, create jobs in the energy 
and support industries, and generate badly needed revenues. Over the 
last 10 years there have been 500,000 jobs lost in the oil and gas 
industry, and billions of dollars in investment capital are fleeing the 
country because domestic energy companies are not being given access to 
public lands to drill for new oil and gas reserves, are being 
frustrated by government rules and regulations, and are being hounded 
by activists who do not want the public lands utilized for natural 
resource development.
  I don't think that is right, and I intend to do something about it. 
The bill we are introducing today is a small step, but a step in the 
right direction. Over the coming months I will hold hearings and 
introduce legislation to provide additional stimulus to our energy 
industry and our economy.
  On the matter of impact assistance, Mr. President, our bill 
recognizes that there are burdens associated with offshore oil and gas 
activities--from environmental planning and analysis, to public safety 
and health considerations, to new infrastructure requirements. This 
legislation would, for the first time, share the
 benefits of economic revenues generated by OCS oil and gas activities 
with those governmental entities who assume those burdens.

  Under this legislation, Mr. President, counties, parishes and 
boroughs--the local governmental entities most directly affected--and 
State governments will share in revenues derived from OCS oil and gas 
production. A total of 27 percent of all new revenues resulting from 
production royalties from leases lying seaward of the so-called 8(g) 
zone, the area 3 to 6 miles offshore and extending out to 200 miles, 
would be shared on a 50-50 basis by States and counties. In other 
words, States would get half of the 27 percent share and the coastal 
counties would get the other half.
  The impact assistance provided under this legislation would be 
distributed to counties located no more than 60 miles from a State's 
coastline, based on a fraction that is inversely proportional to the 
distance between the nearest point on the eligible county's coastline 
and the geographic center of a leased tract. The legislation provides a 
formula for sharing with affected States as well.
  Recognizing that local governmental entities differ from State to 
State, the legislation defines county as including parishes, villages, 
and, in Alaska, borough governments.
  Impact assistance payments must be used for mitigation of effects 
relating to OCS-related activities, such as air and water quality, fish 
and wildlife, wetlands, or other coastal resources. In addition, such 
funds could be used for public safety and health activities, zoning, 
infrastructure construction, or other similar measures. To ensure that 
impact assistance monies are properly used, the bill requires counties 
to submit a description of the purposes for which such funds will be 
disbursed, and governors to submit an annual report accounting for the 
use of impact monies during the prior year.
  To ensure that the funds are used for the purposes intended by this 
legislation, coastal counties are required to submit a list of proposed 
projects for approval of the Governor of the State in which the county 
is located. Counties must certify each year the amount of funds spent 
on particular projects or activities and the status of each. The bill 
also requires the Governor of each State receiving funds to account for 
monies received each year in a report to Congress.
  Finally, Mr. President, the legislation allows for refunds where, 
because of litigation, an arbitration award, or administrative review, 
there has been an overpayment. In such cases, the responsible State and 
county governments would be required to refund monies overpaid in 
direct proportion to the amount that they shared such funds.
  Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue. It has been passed 
twice on previous occasions only to be opposed by the Executive Branch. 
This legislation is needed to ensure that State and local governments 
have the funds necessary to address onshore activities and effects 
relating to production occurring off their shorelines, activities which 
generate jobs and taxes, as well as the very funds from which OCS 
impact assistance will be paid.
  Historically, oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf has 
generated more than $100 billion in Federal revenues. The OCS accounts 
for 23 percent of our Nation's natural gas and 14 percent of the 
country's oil production. We need to assure that the OCS continues to 
play an important role in contributing to our domestic energy needs, 
and to take steps to facilitate exploration and production activities 
[[Page S4110]] on the OCS. It also is time to spread the benefits of 
the program among those who share the burdens. I urge my colleagues to 
move swiftly in enacting this legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 576. A bill to prohibit the provision of certain trade assistance 
to United States subsidiaries of foreign corporations that lack 
effective prohibitions on bribery.


                        antibribery legislation

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we in Congress continue to 
define our role in helping promote United States exports in this 
fiercely competitive international environment, I rise today to 
introduce two measures dealing with a more surreptitious aspect of 
foreign trade which is hurting U.S. companies: bribery and corruption 
by our foreign competitors.
  This is a subject I became interested in last session when I learned 
of a rather outrageous practice in the world of offsets which involved 
a kickback from one U.S. company to another to facilitate the purchase 
of foreign goods. In that case, a U.S. defense corporation offered an 
American civilian contractor a sizable amount of money if that company 
would choose a foreign bidder over an American bidder so that the 
defense contractor could earn credit against its offset agreement for a 
weapons sale a few years earlier. After researching the law on this, I 
learned that cash payments between domestic concerns--or what many 
called outright bribes--were not outlawed in offset deals. I authored 
legislation, which was enacted in Public Law 103-236, to close the 
loophole in the law, and to outlaw kickback payments in the conduct of 
offsets.
  My legislation today picks up on the same theme. As we seek to expand 
and develop markets for U.S. exports; as we work to protect every 
opportunity for fair competition for our companies; as we try to 
strengthen our small and medium-sized companies, we must address the 
rampant, global problem of corruption and bribery--both as a good 
governance issue in our development strategies, and as a competitive 
issue with industrialized nations who permit bribery of foreign 
officials.
  As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I expect to 
work on this problem as we look at foreign aid reform and our trade 
export promotion programs. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
African Affairs, I want to work with our African partners to begin to 
clean up corruption, and remove this barrier to sound development. In 
the State of Wisconsin, I have already raised the issue with a State 
trade promotion commission, the Lucey Commission, as a barrier to free 
and fair trade for our companies. The commission released its report in 
January 1995. Indeed, this is an unfair trading practice that must be 
addressed as U.S.
 companies gear up for more fervent international export activity.
  Bribery and corruption in the international arena are subjects which 
we have not focused on recently, but they have seriously skewed 
international markets and destabilized the trading environment 
throughout the world. It is a multifaceted problem, found at many 
layers of government, throughout the international corporate hierarchy, 
and in many components of an international business transaction. It 
infects and distorts the global business environment by inflating costs 
which must factor in payoffs, and offers prices which, in reflecting 
the bribe, are in excess of value. It also undermines structural 
development in transitioning countries, and when it comes to foreign 
assistance, it can diminish the amount of actual aid delivered as 
bribes are siphoned off from aid packages.
  Bribery allows the dishonest to prosper, while the honest pay the 
price. What's more, it only feeds on itself because a bribed person 
never stays bribed; he or she will always sell themself to the highest 
bidder. Most importantly, though, it is an inappropriate way to do 
business--not only because it is unethical and morally unacceptable, 
but also because it is inefficient.
  This was in large part why Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act of 1977, which, I am proud to say, was sponsored by one 
of Wisconsin's most respected elected officials, Senator William 
Proxmire. The FCPA was introduced when policymakers became concerned by 
discoveries that some American businesses maintained secret slush funds 
for making questionable or illegal payments to foreign government 
officials for enhanced business opportunities that would adversely 
affect U.S. foreign policy, harm the image of American democracy 
abroad, and undermine public confidence in the integrity of U.S. 
businesses.
  By establishing extensive bookkeeping requirements to ensure 
transparency, and by criminalizing the bribery of foreign officials to 
obtain or retain business, the FCPA has succeeded at curbing corporate 
bribery by U.S. firms. These two very important principles do not 
simply define an American sense of morality in business. They also 
strengthen America's trade policy, foster faith in American democracy, 
and protect our interests in requiring an open environment for U.S. 
investment.
  Certainly, these are principles and guidelines in everyone's best 
interest, and as such, are worth promoting worldwide.
  Though at the time of passage, there was some criticism of the FCPA, 
it is generally welcomed by the business community today for exactly 
those reasons. The biggest objection to it is that in some instances it 
does disadvantage our businesses. Our trade competitors, the other 
industrialized countries, are allowed--and are usually willing--to pay 
bribes, and thus have been able to gain an unfair and harmful edge over 
U.S. businesses. In some countries, like Germany, a bribe in a foreign 
country is even eligible for a tax write-off. As the international 
trade market continues to expand, it is time to get this problem under 
control.
  Although some talk of amending or repealing the FCPA to help American 
business in their competitive race, it makes far better business sense 
to raise the international standards against bribery, and work for 
universal acceptance of the principles of the FCPA. This would help 
level the playing field for U.S. businesses and exports, and it is a 
sound economic move.
  One of the most effective ways to do that is to work with other 
governments to implement the same strict regulations and penalties 
against bribery in international business by which U.S. entities have 
to live.
  The Clinton administration has done a laudable job in advancing this 
agenda as part of its aggressive export strategy. They have 
consistently raised this issue with other governments, both in public 
and private. They have pursued it in places such as the Organization on 
Economic Cooperation and Development, and President Clinton raised it 
at the Summit of the Americas in Miami last year. I know the Ambassador 
to India, Ambassador Frank Wisner, has identified it as a major issue, 
and, as India develops its codes for international investment, he has 
pledged to help ensure a level playing field for United States 
companies. The administration has also dedicated itself to promoting 
anticorruption as a basic principle of ``good governance'' within our 
assistance programs.
  We took a good first step when the Organization on Economic 
Cooperation and Development passed a strong resolution in May 1994 
recommending that member countries, which includes most of Europe, 
Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand, ``take effective measures to 
deter, prevent, and combat bribery of foreign public officials.'' This 
was a very helpful measure in that all the OECD countries recognized 
bribery as a destabilizing factor in international trade, and pledged 
to cooperate on revisions of domestic laws and creation of 
international agreements. This recommendation has served as a launching 
pad for international efforts against bribery, and has inspired some 
other successes in the first year since it was passed.
  For example, in Ecuador, where the Government has tendered a contract 
for a $170 million refinery project, bidders are required to sign a no-
bribery pledge, and agreed that all third-party commissions would be 
disclosed in the final contract. In Ukraine, top officials in the 
Ministry of International Economic Affairs are going to trial for 
accepting bribes from foreign and Ukranian corporations in exchange for 
assistance in export licenses.
  [[Page S4111]] Domestically, several Governments have been rocked by 
corruption scandals in recent months that have put the issue of bribery 
on the front pages in France, Italy, and the United Kingdom. NATO is 
investigating its Secretary General for possibly accepting a kickback 
payment on a helicopter sale when he was Belgium's Economics Minister. 
In Taiwan, there is an elaborate investigation into a murder of a 
military officer who may have known of payoff in an arms deal. Even 
China recently passed a law to restrict undue influence on judges, 
prosecutors, and police.
  Bribery and corruption are finally emerging as a topic for public 
discussion, and, I
  believe, that as more sunshine is cast on such practices, governments 
will be under domestic pressure to pass anti-corruption legislation and 
reform. I am also confident that these movements will lead to scrutiny 
of how business is conducted overseas. In the meantime, we need to do 
all we can to ensure that American companies are playing on a level 
field.

  Today many small and medium-sized companies depend upon the 
assistance of our trade promotion agencies. These agencies offer 
different kinds of financing, but all serve to promote American 
products for export, and balance out government subsidized programs 
offered by our trade competitors for their companies.
  The legislation I am introducing today would guarantee that U.S. 
export financing would benefit only those companies which do not have 
the unfair advantage of bribery by prohibiting the Trade and 
Development Agency, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Export-
Import Bank, and the Agency for International Development from 
providing support for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations which 
have not adopted and enforced an anti-bribery code.
  While U.S. subsidiaries are subject to the FCPA, their foreign parent 
companies are not, which may offer them an unfair advantage over wholly 
U.S.-owned firms. I do not think that U.S. taxpayer funds should be 
used to support further a corporation which may have the benefit of 
bribery--particularly if it hurts a wholly-owned American company. My 
legislation is also intended to give a further incentive to foreign 
corporations to adopt, on their own, restrictions against bribery. My 
bill is intended to support the work of both U.S. exporters and U.S. 
trade promotion agencies in combating this terrible inequity.
  I am also introducing a resolution that would express the sense of 
the Senate that bribery is indeed a morally unacceptable business 
practice, and has destabilizing consequences for the international 
trade environment. It commends the Clinton administration for their 
solid efforts; encourages the administration to work toward universal 
acceptance of the principles set forth in the FCPA; and says the U.S. 
Government should enter into negotiations in order to establish 
regulations for international financial institutions and international 
organizations that prohibit bribery of foreign public officials and 
impose sanctions for such bribery.
  By no means can we resolve this issue in 1 year, or simply with a 
couple of laws. Rather, we need to promote meaningful change in the 
business culture worldwide, and we need to do that on a multilateral, 
if not global, basis. Large companies can afford to wait as the problem 
begins to improve, but our small and medium-sized businesses--the 
backbone of the U.S. economy--are, in some cases, being fatally wounded 
now by competitors' bribery.
  Bribery is nobody's preferred way to do business, yet it is standard 
play in many parts of the world. We need to begin to address it 
seriously as a global problem. As recent events have shown, citizens of 
many other countries--in both the industrialized and developing 
worlds--feel the same way. I hope my proposals will contribute to the 
debate.
  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. 576

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

     SECTION. 1. PROHIBITION ON TRADE ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an agency referred to in subsection (b) may not provide 
     economic support (including export assistance, subsidization, 
     financing, financial assistance, or trade advocacy) to or for 
     any foreign corporation or any United States subsidiary of a 
     foreign corporation unless the head of such agency certifies 
     to Congress that the foreign corporation has adopted and 
     enforces a corporate-wide policy that prohibits the bribery 
     of foreign public officials in connection with international 
     business transactions of the corporations and its 
     subsidiaries.
       (b) Covered Agencies.--Subsection (a) applies to assistance 
     provided by the following agencies:
       (1) The Trade and Development Agency.
       (2) The Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
       (3) The Export-Import Bank.
       (4) The Agency for International Development.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``bribery'', in the case of a corporation, 
     means the direct or indirect offer or provision by the 
     corporation of any undue pecuniary or other advantage to or 
     for an individual in order to procure business and business 
     contracts for the corporation or its subsidiaries.
       (2) The term ``foreign corporation'' means any corporation 
     created or organized under the laws of a foreign country.
       (3) The term ``United States subsidiary'' means any 
     subsidiary of a foreign corporation which subsidiary has its 
     principal place of business in the United States or which is 
     organized under the laws of a State.
     

                          ____________________