[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.
     

                          ____________________