[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7778-S7786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself and Mr. Sarbanes):
S. 883. A bill to amend the Federal Credit Union Act to enhance the
safety and soundness of federally insured credit unions, to protect the
National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
the credit union reform and enhancement act
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have always strongly supported credit
unions. But I am disturbed by the increasingly risky activities of some
of our Nation's largest credit unions. Speculative investments by these
large credit unions have already caused millions of dollars of losses--
losses that have been passed on to smaller credit unions.
Congress, the National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] and credit
unions must work together to preserve the safety and soundness of the
credit union industry--an industry primarily consisting of small,
healthy credit unions that avoid such speculative investments.
Therefore, with my distinguished ranking minority member--Senator
Sarbanes--I am introducing today the Credit Union Reform and
Enhancement Act. This bill would strengthen the credit union movement
by protecting smaller credit unions and the taxpayer-backed National
Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (``Share Insurance Fund'') from
losses caused by high risk activities.
Mr. President, let me explain why I have been--and remain--one of the
strongest supporters and defenders of the credit union movement.
Credit unions have a special character. Unlike banks and thrifts,
credit unions are cooperative not-for-profit associations in which
members, who are the owners, a common bond, deposit funds, and obtain
credit.
Credit unions also have a unique mission. Credit unions were created
in the early 20th century specifically to provide credit to people of
smaller means and to promote thrift among their members and the early
credit union philosophy was closely connected with moral and
humanitarian goals.
Today, many credit unions remain committed to these lofty goals. For
example, the Residents Community Development Credit Union in
Binghamton, NY provides vital financial services to the residents of
three low-income housing communities. In Manhattan, the Lower East Side
People's Federal Credit Union offers savings accounts and safety
deposit boxes to the homeless, in addition to providing more
traditional financial services to more than 2,000 lower income
residents.
Finally, credit unions generally have avoided high risk activities.
As a result, the financial health of most credit unions is very good.
Capital at the Nation's 12,000 federally insured credit unions is at a
record high of 10.4 percent, and the Share Insurance Fund has reached a
1.30 equity level--the maximum possible under the Federal Credit Union
Act.
Mr. President, because of my commitment to the credit union movement,
I am very disturbed by the increasingly risky activities of a few large
credit unions. High risk investments recently caused the largest
failure by a credit union in American history--the $1.5 billion failure
of Capital Corporate Federal Credit Union [Cap Corp].
Cap Corp invested almost 70 percent of its total assets--over $1
billion--in highly interest rate sensitive derivatives, called
collateralized mortgage obligations [OMOs]. As interest rates rose
during 1994, the market value of these CMO's dropped steeply. When Cap
Corp was finally taken over by the NCUA, the market value of its
investments had dropped by over $100 million.
The failure of Cap Corp is particularly disturbing because it was a
corporate credit union--a special type of credit union that serves
other credit unions, not individuals. Federally insured credit unions
invest a significant portion of their assets in large corporate credit
unions--over $24 billion as of December 31, 1994. The failure of a
corporate credit union can result in the loss of these funds and the
domino-like failure of many smaller credit unions. Due to Cap Corp's
failure, for example, over 250 credit unions will lose almost $25
million.
Mr. President, corporate credit unions were created to provide
liquidity and sound investment advice to smaller credit unions.
However, some corporate credit unions are increasingly investing
taxpayer-backed credit union funds in high risk securities, and the
potential losses are mounting. At the Senate Banking Committee's
hearings on the Cap Corp failure, for example, we learned that:
Corporate credit unions reported unrealized investment losses in 1994
totaling about $600 million.
While some of those unrealized losses were quite small, others
amounted to between 30 and 40 percent of total capital. One corporate
credit union had unrealized losses that were 77 percent of its total
capital.
Like Cap Corp, some other corporate credit unions have invested
heavily in CMO's that have declined in market value. As of December 31,
1994, 23 corporate credit unions reported aggregate CMO investments
with a book value of over $8 billion. That is equal to about 24 percent
of total corporate assets and 333 percent of total corporate capital.
Some of these corporate credit unions have much higher than average
concentrations of CMO's. For example, three corporate credit unions
held more than 40 percent of their assets in CMO's and four others held
between 20 and 32 percent of their assets in CMO's.
It is also clear from testimony at the Banking Committee's hearings
that the NCUA's supervision and regulation of corporate credit unions
is seriously deficient. The NCUA should have recognized sooner that a
problem existed at Cap Corp and should have taken prompt corrective
action. However, the NCUA reviewed Cap Corp's records in September
1994--just 4 months prior to its failure--and did not discover any
serious problems. Shockingly, after that review, Cap Corp's rating
remained a ``1''--the highest rating possible for credit unions.
Mr. President, these developments are very disturbing to Members of
Congress, particularly given our recent experience with the savings and
loan industry and Orange County. These developments endanger the health
of the credit union industry and the taxpayer-backed Share Insurance
Fund. These developments jeopardize the privileged status given to
credit unions.
To address the concerns raised by these developments, Senator
Sarbanes and I are introducing the Credit Union Reform and Enhancement
Act [CURE]. This bill would grant the NCUA limited powers to protect
smaller credit unions, the Share Insurance Fund and, ultimately, our
Nation's taxpayers from the increasingly risky investment practices of
a few large credit unions.
First, CURE would limit the ability of federally insured, State-
chartered credit unions to engage in certain high-risk activities that
are not permitted under Federal law. One important lesson of the
savings and loan debacle was that federally insured, State-chartered
institutions can, with broad and risky powers granted by State
legislatures and regulators, present enormous risks to a Federal
insurance fund.
Forty-three States currently grant credit unions broader and
potentially riskier powers than those granted to federally chartered
credit unions. For example, California allows credit unions to invest
in Mexican bonds, and Alabama has liberal requirements on credit union
investments in real estate, with no set limits on such investments or
purchases of real estate for rental income.
CURE would grant the NCUA the authority to limit such powers unless
it believes they pose no significant risk to the Share Insurance Fund
or unless the power was authorized pursuant to the laws of the
chartering State and being utilized by at least one credit union on May
1, 1995. CURE would put in place a tripwire against future high-risk
activities. It would allow the NCUA to prevent losses from such
activities--instead of reacting to those losses. [[Page S7779]]
Second, CURE would prohibit federally insured credit unions from
investing in nonfederally insured credit unions. Under current law,
federally insured credit unions can, and do, invest in nonfederally
insured credit unions that are not under the full authority of the
NCUA.
Five of the forty-five corporate credit unions--some of the largest
credit unions in the Nation--are outside the full supervisory and
regulatory authority of the NCUA because they are not federally
chartered or insured. A federally insured credit union can escape full
Federal regulation by investing in one of these nonfederally insured
credit unions.
CURE would bring all investments in corporate credit unions under the
jurisdiction of the NCUA and, thus, would reduce the potential for
inappropriately risky investing that may put the Share Insurance Fund
at risk.
Third, CURE would grant the NCUA the authority to close a federally
insured, State-chartered credit union that is insolvent or bankrupt,
after prior consultation with the State regulator. This bill would help
protect the Share Insurance Fund, which would ultimately be responsible
for any losses resulting from such a liquidation.
Under current law, the NCUA must wait until the State regulator
closes the credit union and appoints the NCUA as liquidating agent--an
often time consuming process. But the need for regulators to act
quickly to seize control of failed financial institutions is well
documented. During the savings and loan crisis, for example,
institutions attempted to avoid insolvency and bankruptcy by making
increasingly risky investments as losses from previous high-risk
investments mounted.
Fourth, CURE would increase the NCUA's ability to institute a timely
conservatorship. Currently, the NCUA can be forced to wait 30 days
before placing a federally insured, State-chartered credit union into
conservator- ship, if the State regulator does not approve of the
conservatorship. This bill would eliminate the 30-day waiting period
and simply require the NCUA to carry out prior consultation with the
state regulator.
Because the health of a credit union can deteriorate rapidly, the
NCUA must have the power to act quickly to limit losses to the Share
Insurance Fund. Even brief delays in the implementation of Cap Corp's
conservator- ship, for example, could
have resulted in millions of dollars of additional losses. This bill
would help to limit such losses.
Finally, CURE would update the terminology concerning corporate
credit unions in the Federal Credit Union Act. It would remove outdated
references to central credit unions, which once performed functions
similar to corporate credit unions. CURE would also require the NCUA to
establish limits on loans to a single borrower and to set minimum
capital requirements. Since the NCUA has already set such standards by
regulations, CURE would simply prevent the NCUA from eliminating those
standards. Moreover, this legislation does not specify what these
standards should be, so the NCUA would be free to adjust its current
standards.
In sum, CURE would grant the NCUA limited powers to protect smaller
credit unions and the Share Insurance Fund from losses caused by high
risk activities. The powers granted to the NCUA are not extraordinary.
Indeed, they are much more limited than the powers already granted to
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] over federally
insured, State-chartered banks and thrifts. The FDIC, for example, can
close federally insured, State-chartered thrifts and banks even prior
to insolvency or bankruptcy--when their capital is less than 2 percent.
Nevertheless, some will argue that this legislation gives too much
authority to the NCUA at the expense of the States. It is important to
remember, however, that State-chartered credit unions are only subject
to this legislation if they voluntarily choose--or are required by
their State legislatures--to have Federal insurance. If the States want
broader powers for credit unions, they can establish their own
insurance funds and allow State taxpayers to pay for State credit union
excesses.
Most recognize that this legislation is a step in the right
direction. The NCUA and the Government Accounting Office [GAO] strongly
support this legislation, as does the Credit Union National Association
[CUNA] and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions [NAFCU].
Like Senator Sarbanes and I, they recognize that this legislation
would strengthen the credit union movement. It would protect credit
unions, the Share Insurance Fund and, ultimately, our Nation's
taxpayers from the high risk activities of a few large credit unions.
Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the full text of the
bill and the letters of support from the NCUA, the GAO, CUNA, and NAFCU
be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 883
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 ``Credit Union Reform and
Enhancement Act''.
SEC. 2. INSURED CREDIT UNION INVESTMENTS IN OTHER CREDIT
UNIONS.
(a) Amendments to Section 107.--Section 107(7) of the
Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1757(7)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (G); and
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (H) through (K) as
subparagraphs (G) through (J), respectively.
(b) Amendments to Section 205.--Section 205 of the Federal
Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1785) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(j) Insured Credit Union Investments in Other Credit
Unions.--An insured credit union may invest in shares,
deposits, notes, or other instruments of another credit union
only if such other credit union is also insured pursuant to
this title.''.
SEC. 3. ACTIVITIES OF INSURED STATE-CHARTERED CREDIT UNIONS.
Section 205 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C.
1785) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(k) Activities of Insured State-Chartered Credit
Unions.--
``(1) In general.--A State-chartered insured credit union
may not exercise asset powers of a type, or in an amount not
authorized for Federal credit unions, unless either--
``(A) the asset power was--
``(i) authorized pursuant to the laws of the State in which
the credit union is chartered; and
``(ii) being utilized by one or more credit unions in that
State on May 1, 1995; or
``(B) the Board determines that the exercise of the asset
power would pose no significant risk to the Fund.
``(2) Continued rulemaking authority.--Nothing in this
subsection shall restrict or limit in any way the general
rulemaking authority of the Board.
``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `asset powers' refers to any item or activity properly
reflected on the asset side of the financial statements of a
credit union, as may be more specifically defined by
regulation of the Board.''.
SEC. 4. CORPORATE CREDIT UNIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 120(a) of the Federal Credit Union
Act (12 U.S.C. 1766(a)) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence, by striking ``central credit
union'' and inserting ``corporate credit union''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``The Board shall,
by regulation, establish limits on loans and investment by a
corporate credit union to a single obligor and minimum
capital requirements for corporate credit unions.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 101 of the Federal Credit Union
Act (12 U.S.C. 1752) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(10) The term `corporate credit union' has the meaning
given to that term under the rules or regulations of the
Board.''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY OF THE NCUA BOARD TO PLACE FEDERALLY
INSURED STATE-CHARTERED CREDIT UNIONS INTO
LIQUIDATION.
Section 207(a)(1) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12
U.S.C. 1787(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
(2) in subparagraph (C), as redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'';
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or
other law, the Board may, after prior consultation with the
appropriate State credit union supervisory authority, appoint
itself as a liquidating agent for any State-chartered credit
union that is insured under this title, and may close such
credit union, if the Board determines that the credit union
is insolvent or bankrupt. In any such case, the Board shall
have all of the rights, privileges, powers, and duties
specified in this section as applicable to the liquidation of
Federal credit unions.''.
[[Page S7780]]
SEC. 6. CONSULTATION FOR CONSERVATORSHIPS OF FEDERALLY
INSURED STATE-CHARTERED CREDIT UNIONS.
Section 206(h)(2) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12
U.S.C. 1786(h)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) In the case of a State-chartered insured credit
union, the authority conferred by paragraph (1) shall not be
exercised without prior consultation with the appropriate
State credit union supervisory authority.''.
____
National Credit Union Administration,
Alexandria, VA, May 24, 1995.
Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato,
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman D'Amato: Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to comment on your proposed legislation, the
Credit Union Reform and Enhancement Act.
This bill will greatly strengthen NCUA's ability to
preserve the safety and soundness of federally-insured credit
unions. You have my full support for its speedy enactment.
I also want to express my sincere thanks for your
leadership in support of NCUA's efforts to improve and
strengthen both our supervision efforts and our regulation of
corporate credit unions. Your backing has been crucial to the
progress we are making toward insuring a healthy and safe
future for both corporate and natural person credit unions.
I look forward to continuing to work with you on this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Norman E. D'Amours,
Chairman.
____
U.S. General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC, May 24, 1995.
Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato,
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to your request for
our views on proposed legislation entitled the ``Credit Union
Reform and Enhancement Act.'' Overall, we believe that the
bill would enhance the safety and soundness of federally
insured credit unions and further the protection of the
National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance
Fund). Our specific comments follow.
Section 2 of the bill would confine federally insured
credit unions' investments in corporate credit unions to
those that are federally insured. This provision would bring
all investments in corporate credit unions under the
jurisdiction of the National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA) and, thus, could reduce the potential for
inappropriately risky investing that may put the Share
Insurance Fund at risk. In our 1991 report, Credit Unions:
Reforms for Ensuring Future Soundness (GAO/GGD-91-85. July
10, 1991), we made a similar recommendation, and we continue
to support it.
Section 3 limits the powers of state-chartered credit
unions, particularly in the area of so-called
``nonconforming'' investments, to those allowable to
federally chartered credit unions. The concern is that
certain investments, e.g. foreign bonds, could carry undue
risk. This provision would grant NCUA the authority to limit
investment activities unless it believes they pose no
significant risk to the Share Insurance Fund or unless the
power was authorized pursuant to the laws of the chartering
state and being utilized by at least one credit union. In our
1991 report, we recommended that NCUA should be authorized
and required to compel a state credit union to follow federal
regulations in any area in which powers go beyond those
permitted federal credit unions and are considered to
constitute a safety and soundness risk.
Section 4 updates terminology concerning corporate credit
unions in the Federal Credit Union Act by removing outdated
references to ``central credit unions'', which once performed
functions similar to those of corporate credit unions. The
section also requires NCUA to establish limits on loans to a
single obligor and to set minimum capital requirements. Our
1991 report made similar recommendations and we believe they
remain valid.
Section 5 grants NCUA authority to place a federally
insured, state-chartered credit union into liquidation after
consulting with the state regulator. Currently, NCUA must
wait until the state regulator closes the credit union and
appoints NCUA as the liquidating agent. This measure would
help protect the Share Insurance Fund, because the Fund would
ultimately be responsible for any losses resulting from such
a liquidation. We believe such powers are appropriate given
NCUA's responsibilities.
Section 6 increases NCUA's ability to institute a timely
conservatorship. It does this by eliminating the requirement
for NCUA to wait 30 days before placing a state-chartered
credit union into conservatorship in the event that the state
regulator does not approve of the conservatorship. This
requirement would be modified so that NCUA would need only to
carry out ``prior consultation'' with the state authority.
Because financial institutions' financial health can
deteriorate rapidly in some circumstances, NCUA needs to have
the power to act expeditiously to limit losses to the Share
Insurance Fund. This enhanced authority contributes to that
objective and we support the provision.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on
your proposed legislation. In the event you or your staff
have further questions, please contact me at 202-512-8678.
Sincerely yours,
James L. Bothwell,
Director, Financial Institutions
and Markets Issues.
____
Credit Union
National Association, Inc.,
Washington, DC, May 19, 1995.
Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato,
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman D'Amato: On behalf of the Credit Union
National Association (CUNA), I am writing to inform you that
CUNA supports your proposed legislation, the Credit Union
Reform and Enhancement Act. We would like to thank you and
your staff for addressing many of the concerns that we had
with the earlier draft.
We appreciate your efforts to improve the bill and hope
there will be an additional opportunity to further refine its
provisions after it is introduced. In the end, we are
confident that any credit union legislation reported by the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs will allow
credit unions to retain legitimate business activities that
do not threaten their safety and soundness.
I also thought you may be interested to know that we met
recently with representatives of the National Credit Union
Administration and the National Association of Federal Credit
Unions and jointly agreed upon several possible regulatory
relief amendments to the Federal Credit Union Act. Per our
discussion with you last week, we look forward to working
together on these amendments or others to relieve credit
unions of some of the unnecessary regulatory burden which
inhibits their ability to fully serve their members.
Thank you again for your support of the credit union
movement. We look forward to working together in the coming
weeks on these issues and in the years to come on many more.
Sincerely,
Charles O. Zuver,
Executive Vice President and Director,
Governmental Affairs.
____
National Association of
Federal Credit Unions,
Washington, DC, May 25, 1995.
Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato,
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator D'Amato: Thank you very much for taking the
time to sit down and discuss with us your thoughts on a
variety of issues of interest to credit unions. As you know,
the National Association of Federal Credit Unions recognizes
your long-standing commitment to credit unions and the
principles upon which credit unions were founded.
We have had an opportunity to review in detail a draft of
your proposed ``Credit Union Reform and Enhancement Act''.
Based upon our analysis, it is quite clear that your bill is
intended to enhance the safety and soundness of federally-
insured credit unions and to protect the National Credit
Union Share Insurance Fund. After consultation with the board
of directors of the National Association of Federal Credit
Unions, I am pleased to lend NAFCU's unqualified support to
your measure. Our Association would be pleased to stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with you in support of this sound and
rational proposal.
As you know, there are other areas which NAFCU believes
merit congressional review and reform--particularly in regard
to the regulatory burden to which our nation's member-owned
credit unions are subject. We look forward to working with
you and your staff to address these serious issues in the
weeks and months ahead as well. If I or my staff may be of
assistance to you or the Committee in any way please do not
hesitate to contact Bill Donovan, Vice President for
Government Affairs, at 703-522-4770, ext. 203.
Sincerely,
Kenneth L. Robinson,
President.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senator
D'Amato in cosponsoring the Credit Union Reform and Enhancement Act.
Earlier this year Capital Corporate Federal Credit Union of Lanham,
MD failed, the largest credit union failure in U.S. history. Cap Corp,
as it was known, had invested nearly 70 percent of its $1.5 billion in
assets in a form of derivative instrument called fixed-rate
collateralized mortgage obligations, CMO's. These highly interest rate
sensitive instruments experienced significant losses in value as
interest rates rose in 1994. The losses became so severe that the
National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] took over Cap Corp's
operation by placing it into conservatorship on January 31, and
ultimately placed it into liquidation.
On April 13, NCUA announced that the remaining assets, liabilities,
and field of membership of Cap Corp had
[[Page S7781]] been acquired by Mid-Atlantic Corporate Federal Credit
Union of Harrisburg, PA. Before its acquisition, Cap Corp had
experienced investment losses of $61 million, all of which were
absorbed by Cap Corp's capital. As a result, the National Credit Union
Share Insurance Fund itself did not incur losses as a result of Cap
Corp's failure.
The failure of Cap Corp raised serious questions about the adequacy
of the regulation of corporate credit unions. A corporate credit union
is a specialized form of credit union which accepts deposits only from
other credit unions rather than individuals. There are currently 44
corporate credit unions. Corporate credit unions were created in the
1970's principally to serve as a source of liquidity for their member
credit unions during periods when deposits were low. Over the years,
however, they also evolved into sources of investment and payment
services for their member credit unions.
Concern about the corporate credit union system had led the Chairman
of the National Credit Union Administration, Norman D'Amours, to
appoint early last year a corporate credit union study committee made
up of five independent financial experts to conduct a thorough review
of the regulation of corporate credit unions. That report, which was
released on July 26, 1994, provided a careful and critical evaluation
of the investment behavior and risk-taking of the corporate credit
union system. Among the findings of the report were: Corporate credit
unions are assuming more risk in their investment practices and in
their portfolios than in the past.
Corporate credit unions are becoming more complex and will continue
to become increasingly complex in the future.
Primary capital levels in the corporate credit unions are, on
average, inadequate given the investment activities of corporate credit
unions.
Credit analysis procedures in the corporate credit unions have not
kept pace with the increased volume of funds flowing into the system.
Corporate credit unions use derivative instruments to hedge interest
rate risk and create synthetic securities for other corporates and
natural person credit unions.
The General Accounting Office [GAO] in an extensive 1991 report on
the credit union industry, had raised particular concerns about the
status of corporate credit unions. The 1991 report stated: Changes are
needed to augment NCUA's currently incomplete regulatory and
supervisory authority over all corporates and provide for more
carefully defined asset and liability powers and higher capital
requirements.
Prompted by the failure of Cap Corp, the Senate Banking Committee
held hearings on February 28 and March 8 on the regulation of corporate
credit unions. In testimony presented to the committee, both NCUA
Chairman D'Amours and Comptroller General Charles Bowsher confirmed the
findings of the reports on corporate credit unions previously sponsored
by their agencies.
Chairman D'Amours announced at the hearings that NCUA was in the
process of developing a new set of regulations that would raise capital
requirements, tighten investment authority, and raise management
standards for corporate credit unions. The stated objective was to
return corporate credit unions to their original mission of serving as
liquidity centers and safe havens for their members' funds. NCUA had
previously established a new Office of Corporate Credit Unions, hired
additional corporate examiner staff, and expanded training for
corporate examiners.
NCUA issued the new regulations on April 13 and they were published
in the Federal Register on April 26. The 60-day comment period ends on
June 26 and NCUA hopes to issue the final regulations by the end of
July.
Although the new regulations address many of the problems relating to
corporate credit unions identified by NCUA and GAO, there are a small
number of matters that require legislative action. The bill introduced
by Senator D'Amato and myself would make those changes, some of which
would apply to natural person credit unions as well as corporate credit
unions. Both NCUA and GAO have endorsed the bill.
First, the bill would permit federally insured credit unions to make
deposits only in other federally insured credit unions. The effect of
this provision would be to require the five corporate credit unions
which currently are not federally insured to obtain Federal insurance.
The purpose of the provision is to ensure that deposits of federally
insured credit unions are not put at risk by placing them in non-
federally insured credit unions. This change was recommended by the
GAO's 1991 report on credit unions.
Second, the bill would prohibit a State-chartered, federally insured
credit union from exercising asset powers of a type or in an amount not
permissible for a federally chartered credit union unless the NCUA
determines that the exercise of the asset power would pose no
significant risk to the credit union insurance fund. The bill provides
that if a State chartered, federally insured credit union was utilizing
an asset power pursuant to State law prior to May 1, 1995, it may
continue utilizing that power.
This authority is comparable to the authority the FDIC has to
constrain the asset powers of State chartered, federally insured
thrifts and banks. In fact, it is less restrictive than the constraint
placed on State chartered banks and thrifts, which imposes a flat
prohibition on State chartered banks and thrifts. This provision would
be prospective in purpose, to prevent future problems from developing
in credit unions. The GAO recommended this change in its 1991 report on
the credit union industry.
Third, the bill would authorize NCUA to serve as liquidating agent or
conservator of State chartered, federally insured credit unions after
prior consultation with the appropriate State credit union supervisory
authority.
Under current law, the NCUA has the authority to place a State
chartered, federally insured credit union into conservatorship, but
must obtain written approval from the State supervisor. If State
approval is not obtained in 30 days, NCUA may proceed to place the
credit union into conservatorship only by unanimous vote of the NCUA
board. Conservatorship means NCUA takes over the management of the
credit union. NCUA currently has no authority to liquidate a State
chartered, federally insured credit union.
This provision of the bill would give the NCUA conservatorship and
liquidation authority comparable to the authority the FDIC has over
State and federally chartered banks and thrifts. The FDIC has only an
obligation to consult with the State supervisor before placing a State
chartered bank or thrift into conservatorship or liquidation. The
purpose of this provision is to ensure that NCUA can act in an
expeditious manner if a federally insured, State chartered credit union
gets into difficulty. Delay in acting decisively in such cases can
result in larger losses to the deposit insurance fund.
The bill would also make two other changes of a technical nature to
the Federal Credit Union Act. It makes explicit NCUA's authority to
provide limits on loans and investments by a corporate credit union to
a single obligor, and to provide minimum capital standards for
corporate credit unions. The bill would provide NCUA such statutory
authority.
In addition, the bill would amend the Federal Credit Union Act to
replace the term ``central credit union'' with the term ``corporate
credit union.'' The purpose of this change is to avoid any confusion
between the 44 corporate credit unions and the single U.S. Central
Credit Union.
Mr. President, I believe this is a carefully crafted piece of
legislation that will bring greater safety and soundness to our credit
union system, and I am therefore pleased to be an original cosponsor.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Bennett):
S. 884. A bill to designate certain public lands in the State of Utah
as wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
THE PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1995
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, along with my colleague, Senator Bennett, I
rise today to introduce the Utah Public Lands Management Act of 1995.
This bill would designate approximately 1.8 million acres of land
managed by the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] in [[Page S7782]] Utah
as wilderness and release another approximately 1.4 million acres of
land as wilderness study areas [WSA] for nonwilderness multiple uses.
With this bill, the requirements of the BLM under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 to study and recommend to Congress
those lands worthy of wilderness designation, as defined by the
Wilderness Act of 1964, are met so far as it concerns the agency in our
State of Utah. Identical legislation is being introduced in the House
today by Representatives Jim Hansen and Enid Waldholtz. Utah Gov. Mike
Leavitt is supportive of this measure.
Some may find it surprising that I am recommending more wilderness
lands in Utah. The fact of the matter is that I am not antienvironment.
Like any grandparent, I want to preserve nature's legacy in Utah for my
15 grandchildren to experience, learn from, and glory in. I believe,
along with the English poet John Milton, that ``Beauty is Nature's
coin; must not be hoarded, but must be current. And the good thereof
consists in mutual and partaken bliss.''
I plan to fight for this new wilderness in Utah. I will also fight
for balance. Nature itself is balanced; ecosystems work in wonderous
ways to perpetuate life. Man is also a part of nature's grand scheme.
We have also had balance in our development of this legislation. This
bill is the culmination of five intensive months of time and effort
contributed by each member of the Utah congressional delegation, by
Governor Leavitt, and by the local officials in those counties where
these proposed wilderness areas are located. At the same time,
different groups representing concerns on all sides of this issue--
environmentalists, ranchers, conservationists, oil and gas developers,
and others--have provided comments and input that have been helpful in
fashioning this legislation.
Of course, this bill does not address all of the needs, the desires,
or the concerns of all of these interests, or even of the entire Utah
congressional delegation. But, in an attempt to
resolve this contentious issue once and for all and to bring finality
to a matter that has plagued Utahns and the management of our public
lands for nearly two decades, we have attempted to write a bill that
balances these divergent interests.
In 1978, the Utah State BLM Office began an exhaustive process to
develop a Utah BLM wilderness proposal. This was no small task since
more than 22 million acres of Utah land managed by the BLM were
available for the study. In total, BLM employees scrutinized over 40
percent of Utah's total land mass to assess each acre's eligibility for
wilderness classification. After this lengthy and tedious process, BLM
identified an inventory of 3.25 million acres that met every
classification requirement with no conflicts or de minimus conflicts.
Since that determination, these acres have been managed as wilderness
to preserve their natural character until Congress could formally
designate them. In other words, nonwilderness multiple use activities
have been prohibited to occur on these acres.
In 1991, BLM, after clearing all environmental and regulatory
hurdles, submitted a report to Congress recommending a final
designation total of 1,975,210 acres in 66 specific WSA's. Neither the
House nor Senate acted on this report. This is frustrating to many of
us who believe that, in this case, the work accomplished by BLM's
professional land managers on this matter, is being unjustifiably
ignored.
The Clinton administration has exacerbated the situation by adopting
a policy that directs those lands designated as wilderness in a bill
pending before Congress to be managed in the same manner as an
officially designated WSA. For several years now, a bill has been
introduced in the other body designating approximately 5.7 million
acres of BLM land in Utah as wilderness. Therefore, the BLM now manages
5.7 million acres of land in Utah as if it is already wilderness. This
is 2.45 million more acres than were originally studied by the BLM and
assessed for wilderness values, and 3.73 million more acres that BLM
actually recommended for wilderness designation in its report to
Congress.
With this history in mind, my colleagues, especially those from
public lands States, can understand why after 17 years and more than
$10 million in taxpayer funds, 2,700 work months of employee time, and
a countless number of scoping meetings, public hearings, on-site
visits, and other related meetings, we are
eager to bring closure to this matter. The bill we are introducing
today is the next step toward that goal.
Last January, the Utah congressional delegation and Utah Governor
Leavitt outlined a process to develop this bill. Each of the 14
counties where the BLM WSA's are located were asked to conduct a public
review within their respective county and to submit a county
recommendation to the delegation by April 1. Each county utilized its
own process to arrive at a county-wide recommendation. Counties
examined the BLM's proposed inventory along with various other
proposals put forward over the years by Representative Hansen,
Representative Bill Orton, the Utah Wilderness Association, and the
Utah Wilderness Coalition. The amounts in these proposals ranged
between 1.4 million acres to 5.7 million acres.
I might add that one ground rule for this process was that a proposal
for zero additional acreage was not acceptable to the delegation and
that the delegation intended to propose a bill in June.
During the April recess, the delegation and the Governor held five
regional meetings throughout Utah to receive public comment on the
county recommendations, which totaled nearly 1 million acres, and the
other proposals. In addition, written comments have been received and
reviewed since April 1.
In total, more than 40 public meetings, including the regional
meetings, have been conducted at various levels since January. More
than 500 individuals have provided public testimony since the first of
the year, and over 22,000 written comments in one form or another have
been received by the Governor and the delegation on this issue. I
sincerely appreciate all those who have taken the time to share their
opinions regarding BLM wilderness in Utah.
Let me briefly explain the contents of the proposal we are
introducing today.
As I mentioned, the bill designates 1.8 million acres of Utah's BLM
land as wilderness contained in 50 specific areas. These areas include
what I consider to be the Crown Jewels of Utah's public lands--those
areas so rich in beauty and grandeur that there can be no question that
they meet the wilderness criteria.
Let's face it--not every acre of BLM land is deserving of protection
as wilderness. But, our bill captures those areas in wilderness that
are well known to Utahns and most Americans, and that are fast becoming
recognized by millions of international visitors every year.
Photographs of these areas are found in most nature books; and they
form the background for many commercial activities, such as TV
commercials, still photographs, and movies.
They are the Grand Gulch area of San Juan County; Desolation Canyon,
through which the Green River runs; and, the Little Grand Canyon, the
Black Box, and Sid's and Mexican Mountains of the San Rafael Swell.
They include the Escalante Canyons of Garfield County, once proposed to
be a national park; Westwater Canyon, through which the mighty Colorado
River flows; and the canyon area of the Dirty Devil River.
Numerous ecosystems are represented in this bill to be designated as
wilderness. These areas include the high mountain ranges of the Deep
Creek and Henry Mountains; river canyons through which the San Rafael
River, the Dirty Devil River, the Escalante River, and the East Fork of
the Virgin River flow; the desert regions of western Utah that
encompasses Notch Peak, Fish Springs, and the Ceder Mountains; Utah's
red rock region of Red Mountain, Canaan Mountain, and Crack Canyon; and
contiguous areas that constitute several large and dramatic blocks of
wilderness, such as Kane County's Fifty-Mile Mountain, the Escalante
Canyon region, and the Desolation Canyon/Book Cliffs complex, which in
itself would total more than 300,000 acres. [[Page S7783]]
These names may not be recognizable to my colleagues, but they are
truly the golden nuggets of Utah's public lands that are deserving of
being called wilderness. I certainly encourage my colleagues to visit
Utah and feast on these magnificent panoramas.
But, we have also tried to accomplish a balance in our legislation.
As Milton said, ``Nature's coin must not be hoarded.''
We do not recommend, for example, wilderness designation for those
Utah lands that are high in resource development potential, and these
are many. We are not interested in locking out these lands that someday
may provide the resources our State and this Nation will need to
maintain our economic stability. These
resources include deposits of oil and gas, coal, uranium, all kinds of
precious metals, and other natural elements found in abundance within
Utah's boundaries. While the specific boundaries of our proposed
wilderness areas may be modified through the legislative process, we
have attempted to craft boundaries that avoid any conflicts associated
with existing rights and intrusions.
While our bill will designate certain lands as wilderness, it also
contains language necessary to protect Utah's interests from the
ramifications of this designation. This is not an attempt to lessen the
validity of wilderness in anyway, or to erase with one hand what we are
writing with the other. The proposed language is simply a recognition
that wilderness designation can, and most likely will, affect valid
existing rights or the historic uses of an area, and which, if allowed
to occur unrestrained, would have a devastating impact on the economies
of many rural Utah communities.
Obviously, this is not our intent, which is why we have included
language that protects existing water rights with no express or implied
Federal reserved water right; allows grazing to continue in wilderness
areas without any diminution; prohibits the reclassification of an
airshed due to wilderness designation; and protects the practice of
native Americans to gather wood for personal use and to collect plants
or herbs for religious or medicinal purposes within a designated
wilderness areas. We have included other language that is appropriate
and necessary to address the unique situations existing throughout our
State associated with this effort to create more wilderness.
In addition, we have included language that releases all of BLM's
lands, with a few minor exceptions listed in the bill, from any further
study or management for wilderness character or values, and returns
them to the full range of nonwilderness multiple uses in accordance
with already approved management plans. Adoption of this language is
critical to passage of this bill. To me, it is the key to resolving
this issue. Without this provision, this bill would be very difficult
for me to support. Let us be clear about one point: if those acres now
being managed as wilderness are not returned to multiple use, it is not
the wilderness concept that would shunned, it is the concept of
representative and participatory democracy.
Finally, the bill contains language to effectuate an
exchange between the State of Utah and the Secretary of the Interior
of approximately 140,000 State school and institutional trust lands
that would be captured, in whole or in part, by the areas designated as
wilderness. These lands and their inherent economic value can only be
utilized to provide revenues to Utah's public education system, and the
only method of ensuring that our school children benefit from each acre
of these trust lands is to trade them to the Secretary for available
Federal lands located in Utah.
In 1993, Congress adopted, and President Clinton signed into law, my
legislation providing for an exchange of similar lands located within
Utah's forests, national parks, and Defense and native American
reservations. The process outlined in that bill has proven to be rather
cumbersome and frustrating, especially to Utah officials. We are
therefore attempting to learn from this prior experience by authorizing
a more sensible, reasonable, and quicker process for the exchange of
school inholdings in this legislation. Again, the inclusion of a
process for the direct, fair, and prompt exchange of captured school
trust lands is pivotal to many of us in Utah.
Mr. President, I realize this bill would not be satisfactory to
everyone in Utah or to those watching what we are doing from outside
our State. Our bill contains an acreage figure that is 80 percent
greater than the recommendation submitted by the affected counties, and
70 percent less than the proposal supported by one wilderness advocacy
group. Maybe with such a wide expanse between these proposals, the
acreage in our bill can be looked upon as a compromise proposal that
merits consideration.
I am aware that some advocate a total of 5.7 million BLM acres as
wilderness because they believe this generation should preserve and
protect at least 10 percent of Utah's approximately 55 million acres
for those generations to come. This message has been stated many times
in recent months, especially during our five regional meetings last
April.
An ad published in the Salt Lake Tribune on May 29 stated that
``protecting 10 percent [of Utah's land] won't cost a single job in
southern Utah,'' and that ``90 percent of the land will be left for
houses, roads, farming, mining, logging, tourist facilities, and the
host of activities already there and yet to come.''
If the proponents of this position are serious about preserving 10
percent of Utah's land mass from the laundry list of activities
mentioned in the ad, then they should support our bill and rally behind
it. Utah already has approximately 800,000 acres of wilderness managed
by the U.S. Forest Service, which is ironically almost 10 percent of
the total forest lands in Utah, and approximately 2 million acres of
land in the form of national parks, monuments, and recreation areas
that are restrictively managed by the National Park Service. The large
majority of the activities listed in the ad are already prohibited for
these lands. These two figures, added to the amount of acreage to be
designated in our bill--1.8 million, or roughly 8.2 percent of the BLM
land in Utah--would mean that approximately 4.6 million acres of land
in Utah, or 8.36 percent of Utah's total land mass, will be preserved,
protected, and managed by one Federal land agency or another from any
future intrusions or conflicts.
We have heard the voices of those advocating this position who truly
want to pay back, or tithe, to God for the beauty He has created in
Utah's rural country by setting one-tenth of Utah's land. That is why
our bill would add BLM's Crown Jewels in Utah to the Crown Jewels
already designated by the Forest Service and the National Park Service.
I do not accept the argument that this gesture must be made entirely
with only BLM land when there is so much splendor and natural peace
contained in Utah's other 33 million acres.
Mr. President, during the Memorial Day recess I visited several of
the sites to be designated as wilderness in our bill. It was a
magnificent journey through Utah's backcountry, and the trip helped me
appreciate even more the beauty of our great State. I also came to a
better understanding of the areas listed in our bill and why I can
affirmatively state today that they are worthy and deserving of
wilderness designation.
At the same time, I came to a clearer understanding of the conflicts
that will arise once this designation becomes final, and why we need to
take reasonable steps to remediate, if not completely avoid, these
potential conflicts. Our bill is an attempt to take these justifiable,
yet reasonable, steps.
I recognize that some modifications in our bill may occur during the
upcoming legislative review of this bill. I also recognize that changes
are inevitable if this bill is to pass the Senate, pass the House, and
eventually be singed by the President. But, I need to clearly and
emphatically state that despite my strong desire to create this new
wilderness and to close this issue in Utah, I am not willing to accept
any concession that is not in the best interests, both short- and long-
term, for my State. This bill represents a consensus package of ideas
and proposals arrived at through a painstaking process. These ideas
should be built upon during the legislative process.
I urge my colleagues to consider this bill carefully, and I look
forward to [[Page S7784]] working with them toward passage of this bill
by the Senate this year.
I also want to pay tribute to my colleague from Utah, Senator
Bennett.
Since he has come to the Senate he has worked long and hard on these
types of pieces of legislation. He served on the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. He did a terrific job and is doing a good job
working with his former colleagues on that committee, at this point, on
this bill. He understands these issues. He has worked hard on them. He
has done a terrific job. I have a lot of admiration and respect for the
hard efforts he has put forth.
I also want to compliment my dear colleagues in the House,
Congresspeople Jim Hansen and Enid Waldholtz.
Jim is chairman of one of the crucial committees over there in this
area. Much of the weight of this falls on his shoulders in the House.
Enid Waldholtz, our freshman Member of Congress, is standing right
there beside him trying to do the best she can to help Utah to
designate the appropriate wilderness areas. We appreciate the work they
have done, and give them a lot of the credit for what has been done.
I would also like to say in closing that Congressman Orton has
expressed a desire to work with the Senate. I hope that he will. We are
disappointed he has not come on the bill at this time.
I think it does make it easier if every Member of our congressional
delegation agrees, but a majority of our State legislature, our
Governor, and all Republican Members of the delegation do agree.
Congressman Orton, to his credit, has said that he believes that it
is pretty likely that he will support this in the end. He wants to
present at least an alternative point of view as well through a bill
that he will file for the purpose of debate. I respect that. I do hope
that sometime in the future he can get on this bill and help to pass it
through both Houses of Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill of
Senator Bennett and myself be printed in the Record.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership shown on the
wilderness issue by my senior colleague, Senator Hatch. He carries
tremendous responsibility in this body by virtue of his elevation to
the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, and there are some
political opponents who would have suggested that by virtue of that
responsibility he might be less attentive to Utah issues than he might
otherwise be.
I assure the people of the State and the people of the Nation that
that is not true. He is very attentive to Utah issues and he has
demonstrated that in his leadership in this matter. All Members are
grateful to him and to our Governor, Michael O. Leavitt, for the work
they have done on this issue.
Senator Hatch has outlined the details of this proposal. I would like
to make a few additional points for those that may not understand some
of the factors relating to the Utah wilderness question.
Some groups have said that the Utah wilderness issue is the premier
environmental issue of this Congress, and they are prepared to fight to
the last possible breath in order to set aside 10 percent of the State
in BLM wilderness. They say we must do at least 10 percent for our
children. Those who are unfamiliar with the State of Utah might be
impressed by this argument, because after all, 10 percent seems like a
relatively small amount to set aside for future generations for some
kind of preservation.
I have a map here, Mr. President, that I think will put this argument
in its proper perspective. If we look at the portion in the map that is
in green, it amounts to approximately 8 million acres. This is land in
the National Forest Service. That which is in dark green has already
been designated as wilderness in Forest Service land, but 8 million
acres have been set aside for future generations. There will be no
McDonald's hamburger stands. There will be no strip malls. There will
be no Marriott hotels built in these 8 million acres.
During the hearings, we were threatened with all of those things. If
we do not set this aside as wilderness we will have McDonald's
hamburger stands and strip malls all over the State. Here are 8 million
acres that will not get that.
In addition, we see this dark purple area in various places on the
map. Those are national parks and recreation areas with set-asides for
fish and wildlife preservation, comprising over 2 million acres. So
when we add those to that in green we get a 10 million acre set-aside.
Now, if we add the additional 1.8 million that Senator Hatch's and my
bill calls for in BLM wilderness, that is shown here in the green area,
the total comes to approximately 12 million acres.
That, Mr. President, is not 10 percent of the State, it is 20 percent
of the State set aside for the future generations, making sure that
there will be on these 12 million acres no economic development other
than that which is already permitted in the Wilderness Act, which is to
say, grazing, minerals, and other multiple uses of the public licenses.
The additional land that is shown in yellow, Mr. President, is BLM
land. Once again, the BLM will not allow the building of a strip mall
or a McDonald's hamburger stand or a hotel on these 22 million acres.
The amount of acreage left to private hands, when we take the
military reservations--that is what this is--and the Indian
reservations--that is what this is--the amount left to private hands in
the State of Utah is shown in white.
In the demagoguery around this issue, some people have said can we
not set aside 10 percent of the land? Is not 90 percent enough for the
developers? I show this chart, and just say that which is in white is
what is available to developers. Frankly, it is located upon the
corridors of highways that are already in place.
What we have proposed, Senator Hatch and I, is perfectly proper,
legitimate, wilderness use. However, it will not freeze out the
multiple use that could take place in this BLM land.
People say that wilderness calls for multiple use. Wilderness calls
for grazing if it is already established. Wilderness calls for mineral
exploration if the leases have already been signed.
I close with this example of what has happened to that truth. That
is, it is true the wilderness bill calls for this multiple use on
wilderness land if it has already been established. We have a prime
example of what the 1964 Wilderness Act had in mind down in southern
Utah on the Kaiparowits Plateau. On the Kaiparowits there are close to
300,000 acres that would be considered part of a wilderness activity,
and we have set aside a good portion of that in our bill.
In that acreage, there is an existing mineral lease, a coal lease. It
is owned by a company called Andalex, named after the two children of
the owner of the company, Andrew and Alexander. The company is named
Andalex. The Andalex coal leases have existed for years.
Under the Wilderness Act, a careful reading of it, they can continue
to exist, and Andalex can extract coal from that area. Those people who
are insisting on heavier acreage have said over their dead bodies will
they allow Andalex to rape the wilderness for the sake of the coal.
That is the kind of rhetoric that has surrounded this debate.
Mr. President, over the last week, during the recess, I went to the
Andalex coal facility. What did I find? Out of the roughly 300,000
acres of the Kaiparowits, the Andalex coal mine would require 40 acres.
Not 40,000--40. Four-zero, with no zeros after.
The 40 acres, by happy coincidence, happen to be at the bottom of a
circular canyon, so if you are not standing on the edge of the canyon
looking down, you cannot see it from anywhere in this entire area.
If the Wilderness Act of 1964 says anything, it says that the Andalex
proposal should go forward. Yet the people who are saying that Senator
Hatch and I are not taking care of future generations are turning
around and putting the Wilderness Act on its head by saying we will not
permit a coal operation on 40 acres because somehow it would destroy
the wilderness experience the surrounding 300,000 acres.
Mr. President, I focus on that because it demonstrates the degree to
which we have gotten away from reality in this debate. I hope the
Congress in its wisdom will come back to reality and intelligence on
this issue.
[[Page S7785]]
By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Thomas, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Chafee, and Mr.
Robb):
S. 885. A bill to establish United States commemorative coin
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
u.s. commemorative coin act of 1995
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Commemorative
Coin Act of 1995. This bill authorizes the striking of six coins in the
next 2 years. The subjects to be commemorated are: the 200th year of
gold coinage, the 50th anniversary of the United Nations and the
Presidency of Harry Truman, the 150th anniversary of the Smithsonian,
the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial in Washington, DC, the 125th
anniversary of Yellowstone National Park, and the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial, also in Washington.
This past November, the congressionally established Citizens
Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee published in its first annual
report to Congress, which recommended a 5-year plan of coin programs.
The committee concluded that the serious decline in commemorative coin
sales necessitated a reduction in the number and amount of coins to be
minted. Otherwise, the success of each individual coin program is
threatened and the Mint runs the risk of losing money on them.
This bill includes the coins recommended by the advisory committee
and no others. It has the committee's full endorsement. It is a
sensible package of commemoratives for deserving occasions and topics,
limited in scope so that the numismatic market can absorb them all.
As a Smithsonian regent I am delighted to offer a coin for the
Institution. As a New Yorker I am equally pleased to offer one for the
United Nations and one for President Roosevelt. Yellowstone, the Law
Enforcement Memorial, and gold coinage will also make popular and
worthy coins. I urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan support we
have for the bill, and I ask that its text be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 885
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``United States Commemorative
Coin Act of 1995''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``Fund'' means the National Law Enforcement
Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund established under section
201;
(2) the term ``recipient organization'' means an
organization described in section 101 to which surcharges
received by the Secretary from the sale of coins issued under
this Act are paid; and
(3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Treasury.
TITLE I--COMMEMORATIVE COIN PROGRAMS
SEC. 101. COMMEMORATIVE COIN PROGRAMS.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Citizens
Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, the Secretary shall
mint and issue the following coins:
(1) Bicentennial of united states.--On or before December
31, 1995, the Secretary shall mint not more than 25,000 $10
gold coins with specifications to be determined by the
Secretary.
(2) United nations and president truman.--
(A) In general.--To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the
founding of the United Nations and the role of President
Harry S. Truman in the founding of the United Nations, during
a 1-year period beginning in 1996, the Secretary shall
issue--
(i) not more than 75,000 $5 coins, each of which shall--
(I) weigh 8.359 grams;
(II) have a diameter of 0.850 inches; and
(III) contain 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy; and
(ii) not more than 350,000 $1 coins, each of which shall--
(I) weigh 26.73 grams;
(II) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(III) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent alloy.
(B) Surcharges.--All sales of the coins issued under this
subsection shall include a surcharge of $35 per coin for each
$5 coin, and a surcharge of $10 per coin for each $1 coin.
(C) Distribution of surcharges.--All surcharges received by
the Secretary from the sale of coins issued under this
subsection shall be promptly paid by the Secretary in
accordance with the following:
(i) Fifty percent of the surcharges received shall be paid
to the Harry S. Truman Library Foundation.
(ii) Fifty percent of the surcharges received shall be paid
to the United Nations Association.
(3) Smithsonian institution.--
(A) In general.--To commemorate the 150th anniversary of
the founding of the Smithsonian Institution, during a 1-year
period beginning in August 1996, the Secretary shall issue--
(i) not more than 100,000 $5 coins, each of which shall--
(I) weigh 8.359 grams;
(II) have a diameter of 0.850 inches; and
(III) contain 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy; and
(ii) not more than 800,000 $1 coins, each of which shall--
(I) weigh 26.73 grams;
(II) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(III) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent alloy.
(B) Surcharges.--All sales of the coins issued under this
subsection shall include a surcharge of $35 per coin for each
$5 coin, and a surcharge of $10 per coin for each $1 coin.
(C) Distribution of surcharges.--All surcharges received by
the Secretary from the sale of coins issued under this
subsection shall be promptly paid by the Secretary to the
Smithsonian Institution to be used to support the National
Numismatic Collection at the National Museum of American
History.
(D) Design.--The design of the coins issued under this
subsection shall be emblematic of the scientific,
educational, and cultural significance and importance of the
Smithsonian Institution. Each coin issued under this
subsection shall include an inscription of the following
words from the original bequest of James Smithson: ``for the
increase and diffusion of knowledge''.
(4) Franklin delano roosevelt.--
(A) In general.--To commemorate the public opening of the
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in Washington, D.C., which
will honor President Roosevelt's leadership and legacy,
during a 1-year period beginning in 1997, the Secretary shall
issue not more than 100,000 $5 coins, each of which shall--
(i) weigh 8.359 grams;
(ii) have a diameter of 0.850 inches; and
(iii) contain 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy.
(B) Surcharges.--All sales of the coins issued under this
subsection shall include a surcharge of $35 per coin.
(C) Distribution of surcharges.--All surcharges received by
the Secretary from the sale of coins issued under this
subsection shall be promptly paid by the Secretary to the
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission.
(5) Yellowstone national park.--
(A) In general.--To commemorate the 125th anniversary of
the establishment of Yellowstone National Park as the first
national park in the United States, and the birth of the
national park idea, during a 1-year period beginning in 1997,
the Secretary shall issue not more than 500,000 $1 coins,
each of which shall--
(i) weigh 26.73 grams;
(ii) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(iii) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent alloy.
(B) Surcharges.--All sales of the coins issued under this
subsection shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.
(C) Distribution of surcharges.--All surcharges received by
the Secretary from the sale of coins issued under this
subsection shall be promptly paid by the Secretary in
accordance with the following:
(i) Fifty percent of the surcharges received shall be paid
to the National Park Foundation to be used for the support of
national parks.
(ii) Fifty percent of the surcharges received shall be paid
to Yellowstone National Park.
(6) National law enforcement officers memorial.--
(A) In general.--To recognize the sacrifice of law
enforcement officers and their families in preserving public
safety, during a 1-year period beginning in 1997, the
Secretary shall issue not more than 500,000 $1 coins, each of
which shall--
(i) weigh 26.73 grams;
(ii) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(iii) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent alloy.
(B) Surcharges.--All sales of the coins issued under this
subsection shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.
(C) Distribution of surcharges.--After receiving surcharges
from the sale of the coins issued under this subsection, the
Secretary shall transfer to the Secretary of the Interior an
amount equal to the surcharges received from the sale of the
coins issued under this subsection, which amount shall be
deposited in the Fund established under section 201.
(D) Availability.--The coins issued under this subsection
shall be available for issuance not later than May 1997.
SEC. 102. DESIGN.
(a) Selection.--The design for each coin issued under this
Act shall be--
(1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with the
appropriate recipient organization or organizations and the
Commission of Fine Arts; and
(2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory
Committee.
(b) Designation and Inscriptions.--On each coin issued
under this Act there shall be-- [[Page S7786]]
(1) a designation of the value of the coin;
(2) an inscription of the year; and
(3) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We
Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus
Unum''.
SEC. 103. LEGAL TENDER.
The coins issued under this Act shall be legal tender, as
provided in section 5103 of title 31, United States Code.
SEC. 104. 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 from sources the Secretary determines to
be appropriate, including stockpiles established under the
Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.
SEC. 105. SALE PRICE.
Each coin issued under this Act shall be sold by the
Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
(1) the face value of the coin;
(2) the surcharge provided in section 101 with respect to
the coin;
(3) the cost of designing and issuing the coin (including
labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses,
marketing, and shipping); and
(4) the estimated profit determined under section 106(b)
with respect to the coin.
SEC. 106. DETERMINATION OF COSTS AND PROFIT.
(a) Determination of Costs.--With respect to the coins
issued under this Act, the Secretary shall, on an ongoing
basis, determine--
(1) the costs incurred in carrying out each coin program
authorized under this Act; and
(2) the allocation of overhead costs among all coin
programs authorized under this Act.
(b) Determination of Profit.--Prior to the sale of each
coin issued under this Act, the Secretary shall calculate the
estimated profit to be included in the sale price of the coin
under section 105(4).
SEC. 107. GENERAL WAIVER OF PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.
Section 5112(j) of title 31, United States Code, shall
apply to the procurement of goods or services necessary to
carrying out the programs and operations of the United States
Mint under this Act.
SEC. 108. PROHIBITION ON JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Each determination made by the Secretary in implementing a
commemorative coin program under this Act shall be made in
the sole discretion of the Secretary and shall not be subject
to judicial review.
SEC. 109. AUDITS.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall have the
right to examine such books, records, documents, and other
data of each recipient organization as may be related to the
expenditures of amounts paid under section 101.
SEC. 110. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.
It is the sense of the Congress that each coin program
authorized under this Act should be self-sustaining and
should be administered so as not to result in any net cost to
the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund.
TITLE II--NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MEMORIAL MAINTENANCE FUND
SEC. 201. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MEMORIAL
MAINTENANCE FUND.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund, which shall
be a revolving fund administered by the Secretary of the
Interior (or the designee of the Secretary of the Interior).
(2) Funding.--Amounts in the Fund shall include--
(A) amounts deposited in the Fund under section 101(6); and
(B) any donations received under paragraph (3).
(3) Donations.--The Secretary of the Interior may accept
donations to the Fund.
(4) Interest-bearing account.--The Fund shall be maintained
in an interest-bearing account within the Treasury of the
United States.
(b) Purposes.--The Fund shall be used--
(1) for the maintenance and repair of the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C.;
(2) to periodically add the names of law enforcement
officers who have died in the line of duty to the National
Law Enforcement Officers Memorial;
(3) for the security of the National Law Enforcement
Officers Memorial site, including the posting of National
Park Service rangers and United States Park Police, as
appropriate;
(4) at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and
in consultation with the Secretary and the Attorney General
of the United States, who shall establish an equitable
procedure between the Fund and such other organizations as
may be appropriate, to provide educational scholarships to
the immediate family members of law enforcement officers
killed in the line of duty whose names appear on the National
Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, the total annual amount of
such scholarships not to exceed 10 percent of the annual
income of the Fund;
(5) for the dissemination of information regarding the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial to the general
public;
(6) to administer the Fund, including contracting for
necessary services, in an amount not to exceed the lesser
of--
(A) 10 percent of the annual income of the Fund; or
(B) $200,000 during any 1-year period; and
(7) at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Fund, for appropriate purposes in the
event of an emergency affecting the operation of the National
Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, except that, during any 1-
year period, not more than $200,000 of the principal of the
Fund may be used to carry out this paragraph.
(c) Budget and Audit Treatment.--The Fund shall be subject
to the budget and audit provisions of chapter 91 of title 31,
United States Code.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 886. A bill to provide for the conveyance of the radar bomb
scoring site, Forsyth, MT; to the Committee on Armed Services.
RADAR BOMB SCORING SITE LAND CONVEYANCE
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill which
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to convey to the city of
Forsyth, MT, the radar bomb scoring site operated by USAF Detachment 18
at Forsyth. The purpose of the legislation is to allow the land,
housing units, and facilities supporting detachment 18 to be turned
into housing units for the elderly.
The Air Force has decided to close its facility at Forsyth. Because
of the base's small size, the closure is not part of the Base
Realignment and Closure Commission process. The city of Forsyth is
eager to acquire the facility as soon as possible to help alleviate an
elderly housing shortage.
This bill contains special procedures for turning the facility over
to the city of Forsyth because we believe it offers the best solution.
If the normal process is followed, continued maintenance and upkeep of
the facility could be a serious burden. Inattentive maintenance could
result in serious deterioration of the facility by the time the normal
property disposal process finally ends. Obviously, this would not
benefit the U.S. Government or the elderly who will live there. The
city of Forsyth is prepared to accept the responsibility for the
detachment 18 facility and rapidly transform it into much needed
housing for the elderly.
I urge my colleagues to incorporate this language into the fiscal
year 1996 Defense authorization bill without delay. And I ask unanimous
consent that the full text of my bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 886
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, RADAR BOMB SCORING SITE, FORSYTH,
MONTANA.
(a) Conveyance Required.--Subject to subsection (b), the
Secretary of the Air Force shall convey, without
consideration, to the City of Forsyth, Montana (in this
section referred to as the ``City''), all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the parcel of
property (including any improvements thereon) consisting of
approximately -- acres located in Forsyth, Montana, which has
served as a support complex and recreational facilities for
the Radar Bomb Scoring Site, Forsyth, Montana.
(b) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance under
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the
City--
(1) utilize the property and recreational facilities
conveyed under that subsection for housing and recreation
purposes; or
(2) enter into an agreement with an appropriate public or
private entity to lease such property and facilities to that
entity for such purposes.
(c) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines at any time
that the property conveyed under subsection (a) is not being
utilized in accordance with paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) of
subsection (b), all right, title, and interest in and to the
conveyed property, including any improvements thereon, shall
revert to the United States and the United States shall have
the right of immediate entry onto the property.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the property conveyed under this section shall
be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The
cost of such survey shall be borne by the City.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under this section as the Secretary
determines appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
____________________