[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 120 (Monday, July 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10569-S10573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     STOP ARMING FELONS (SAFe) ACT

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today Senator Simon and I are 
introducing legislation, the Stop Arming Felons, or SAFe, Act, to close 
two loopholes in current law that allow convicted violent felons to 
possess and traffic in firearms.
  The legislation would repeal an existing provision that automatically 
restores the firearms privileges of convicted violent felons and drug 
offenders when States restore certain civil rights. In addition, the 
bill would abolish a procedure by which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms can waive Federal restrictions for individuals otherwise 
prohibited from possessing firearms or explosives.
  As a general matter, Mr. President, Federal law probibits any person 
convicted of a felony from possessing firearms or explosives. However, 
there are two gaping loopholes.
  I call the first the ``State guns for felons loophole.'' Under this 
provision, if a felon's criminal record has been expunged, or his basic 
civil rights have been restored under State law--that is, rights like 
the right to vote, the right to hold public office, and the right to 
sit on a jury--then the conviction is wiped out and all Federal firearm 
privileges are restored.
  Many States automatically expunge the records or restore the civil 
rights of even the most dangerous felons. Sometimes this happens 
immediately after the felon serves his or her sentence. Sometimes, the 
felon must wait a few years. The restoration of rights or expungement 
often is conferred automatically by statute--not based on any 
individualized determination that a given criminal has reformed.
  As a result of this loophole, which was added with little debate in 
1986, even persons convicted of horrible, violent crimes can legally 
obtain firearms.
  Mr. President, I think most Americans would agree that this guns for 
felons loophole makes no sense. Given the severity of our crime 
problem, we should be looking for ways to get tougher, not easier, on 
convicted felons. How can the government claim to be serious about 
crime, and then turn around and give convicted violent felons their 
firearms back?
  I recognize that, according to some theories, the criminal justice 
system is supposed to rehabilitate convicted criminals. But in reality, 
many of those released from prison soon go back to their violent ways. 
According to the Justice Department, of State prisoners released from 
prison in 1983, 62.5 percent were arrested within only 3 years. Knowing 
that, how many Americans would want convicted violent felons carrying 
firearms around their neighborhood?
  This guns for felons loophole also is creating a major obstacle for 
Federal law enforcement.
  The Justice Department reports that many hardened criminals are 
escaping 

[[Page S10570]]
prosecution under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which prescribes stiff 
penalties for repeat offenders, because the criminals' prior 
convictions have automatically been nullified by State law. It is a 
very serious problem. According to testimony before the House Judiciary 
Committee, for example, the U.S. Attorney in Montana believes that this 
provision has virtually gutted her ability to minimize violent crime by 
keeping guns out of the hands of known criminals in Montana.
  Concern about the guns for felons loophole is not limited to Federal 
law enforcement officials. State and local law enforcement officers 
also feel strongly about this. The Presidents of the Fraternal Order of 
Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers have written that the 
loophole is having ``terrible results'' around the country, and 
rearming people with long criminal records.
  Mr. President, the legislation that Senator Simon and I are offering 
today would close this State guns-for-felons loophole. Under the bill, 
persons convicted of violent felonies or serious drug offenses would be 
banned from possessing firearms, regardless of whether a State restores 
other rights, or expunges their record.
  In the case of those convicted of other, nonviolent felonies, a 
State's restoration of civil rights, or expungement, would not 
eliminate the Federal firearm prohibition unless the State makes an 
individualized determination that the person does not threaten public 
safety.
  As under current law, if a conviction is reversed or set aside based 
on a determination that it is invalid, or the person is pardoned 
unconditionally, the Federal firearm prohibition would not apply.
  Otherwise, though--and this is the essential message of the 
legislation--convicted violent felons and serious drug offenders would 
be strictly prohibited from possessing firearms. Not just for a year. 
Not just for a few years. But for the rest of their lives.
  Let me turn now to the second ``guns for felons loophole.''
  I think of this as the Federal guns for felons loophole. You could 
also call it the bombs for felons loophole.
  Even if a felon's civil rights have not been restored under State 
law, nor his records expunged, there is another way that a criminal can 
legally obtain guns or explosives. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms can simply issue a waiver.
  Under this second loophole, convicted felons of every stripe can 
apply to ATF, which then must perform a broad based field investigation 
and background check. If the Bureau believes that the applicant does 
not pose a threat to public safety, it can grant a waiver.
  Between 1981 and 1991, 5600 waivers were granted.
  Mr. President, this relief procedure has an interesting history. It 
was first established in 1965 not to permit common criminals to get 
access to guns, but to help out a particular firearm manufacturer, 
called Winchester. Winchester had pleaded guilty to felony counts in a 
kickback scheme. Because of the conviction, Winchester was forbidden to 
ship firearms in interstate commerce. The amendment was approved to 
allow Winchester to stay in business.
  Because it was drafted broadly, however, the waiver provision applied 
not only to corporations like Winchester, but to common criminals. 
Originally, waivers were not available to those convicted of firearms 
offenses. But the loophole was further expanded in 1986, when Congress 
allowed even persons convicted of firearms offenses, as well as those 
involuntarily committed to a mental institution, to apply for a waiver.
  Between 1981 and 1991, ATF processed well over 13,000 applications at 
taxpayer expense. Many of these have required a substantial amount of 
scarce time and resources. ATF investigations can last weeks, including 
interviews with family, friends, and the police.
  In the late 1980's, the cost of processing and investigating these 
petitions worked out to about $10,000 for each waiver granted. It is 
hard to imagine a more outrageous waste of taxpayer dollars.
  Of course, Mr. President, giving firearms to convicted violent felons 
is more than a problem of wasted taxpayer dollars and misallocated ATF 
resources. It also threatens public safety.
  The Violence Policy Center sampled 100 case files of those who had 
been granted relief. The study found that 41 percent had been convicted 
of a crime of violence, or a drug or firearms offense. The crimes of 
violence included several homicides, sexual assaults, and armed 
robberies.
  Under the relief procedure, ATF officials are required to guess 
whether criminals like these can be entrusted with deadly weapons. 
Needless to say, it is a difficult task. Even after Bureau 
investigators spend long hours investigating a particular criminal, 
there is no way to know with any certainty whether he or she is still 
dangerous.
  The law forces officials to make these types of guesses, knowing that 
a mistake could have tragic consequences for innocent Americans; 
consequences that could range from serious bodily injury to death.
  What happens when convicted felons get their firearms rights back? 
Well, some apparently go back to their violent ways. Those granted 
relief subsequently have been rearrested for crimes ranging from 
attempted murder to rape, kidnapping, and child molestation.
  Mr. President, this simply has got to stop.
  In fact, Senator Simon and I have been successful over the past three 
years in securing language in the Treasury, Postal Service and General 
Government Appropriations Bill that prohibits the use of appropriated 
funds to implement the ATF relief procedure with respect to firearms. 
However, a funding ban is merely a stop-gap measure effective for one 
fiscal year. This bill would eliminate the relief procedure 
permanently. As we see it, Federal taxpayers should never be forced to 
pay a single cent to arm a felon.
  I also would note that the existing funding ban applies only to 
firearm waivers. ATF still is allowed to provide waivers for convicted 
felons who want to possess or traffic in explosives. The waivers for 
explosives are not granted often, and seem to be less of a problem. But 
in light of the Oklahoma City bombing, how many Americans would want 
any of their tax dollars spent so that convicted felons can obtain 
explosives?
  Mr. President, there is broad support for closing the guns for felons 
loophole. In 1992, the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee held a hearing on this matter. At that hearing, the Fraternal 
Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and 
the International Brotherhood of Police Officers all testified that 
these loopholes must be closed. In addition, I would note that both the 
New York Times and the Washington Post have editorialized on this 
matter.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a moment and say a word to those 
who generally oppose gun control measures. I know that many Americans 
are very concerned about any effort that could lead to broad 
restrictions on guns. So I want to emphasize something: this is an 
anticriminal bill. And a pro-taxpayer bill. Law-abiding citizens have 
nothing to fear, and everything to gain from a prohibition on firearm 
possession by violent felons and serious drug offenders.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, firearm violence has reached epidemic 
proportions. We have a responsibility to the victims and prospective 
victims to take all reasonable steps to keep this violence to a 
minimum. Keeping firearms away from convicted violent felons and 
serious drug offenders is the least these innocent Americans should be 
able to expect.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the 
Record at this point, along with some related materials.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                S. 1068

       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 ``Stop Arming Felons (SAFe) 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM CERTAIN FIREARMS AND 
                   EXPLOSIVES PROHIBITIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 925(c) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--

[[Page S10571]]

       (A) in the first sentence by inserting ``(other than a 
     natural person)'' before ``who is prohibited'';
       (B) in the fourth sentence--
       (i) by inserting ``person (other than a natural person) who 
     is a'' before ``licensed importer''; and
       (ii) by striking ``his'' and inserting ``the person's''; 
     and
       (C) in the fifth sentence, by inserting ``(i) the name of 
     the person, (ii) the disability with respect to which the 
     relief is granted, (iii) if the disability was imposed by 
     reason of a criminal conviction of the person, the crime for 
     which and the court in which the person was convicted, and 
     (iv)'' before ``the reasons therefor''.
       (2) Section 845(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in the first sentence by inserting ``(other than a 
     natural person)'' before ``may make application to the 
     Secretary''; and
       (B) in the second sentence by inserting ``(other than a 
     natural person)'' before ``who makes application for 
     relief''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to--
       (1) applications for administrative relief and actions for 
     judicial review that are pending on the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (2) applications for administrative relief filed, and 
     actions for judicial review brought, after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. PERMANENT FIREARM PROHIBITION FOR CONVICTED VIOLENT 
                   FELONS AND SERIOUS DRUG OFFENDERS.

       Section 921(a)(20) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(20)''; and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``What'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) What''; and
       (3) by striking the third sentence and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) A conviction shall not be considered to be a 
     conviction for purposes of this chapter if--
       ``(i) the conviction is reversed or set aside based on a 
     determination that the conviction is invalid;
       ``(ii) the person has been pardoned, unless the authority 
     that grants the pardon expressly states that the person may 
     not ship, transport, posses, or receive firearms; or
       ``(iii) the person has had civil rights restored, or the 
     conviction is expunged, and--
       ``(I) the authority that grants the restoration of civil 
     rights or expungement expressly authorizes the person to 
     ship, transport, receive, and possess firearms and expressly 
     determines that the circumstances regarding the conviction 
     and the person's record and reputation are such that the 
     person is not likely to act in a manner that is dangerous to 
     public safety, and that the granting of the relief is not 
     contrary to the public interest; and
       ``(II) the conviction was for an offense other than a 
     serious drug offense (as defined in section 924(e)(2)(A)) or 
     violent felony (as defined in section 924(e)(2)(B)).''.
                                                                    ____

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 27, 1991]

                   $4 Million a Year to Rearm Felons

       Congress, reluctant for so long to buck the National Rifle 
     Association, has come to understand the importance of 
     controlling firearms. Whether or not the measure becomes law 
     this year, both houses have now voted for a waiting period 
     before the purchase of a handgun, and the Senate was even 
     willing to prohibit the sale of certain kinds of 
     semiautomatic assault weapons. Another proposal to limit gun 
     possession, first suggested by the Washington-based Violence 
     Policy Center, was offered too late for inclusion in the 
     crime bill but will be introduced by its sponsors, Rep. 
     Edward Feighan (D-Ohio) and Rep. Lawrence Smith (D-Fla.), 
     when Congress returns in January.
       By statute, the Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
     Firearms is required to process applications submitted by 
     convicted felons seeking to have their right to own guns 
     restored. In general, such individuals are prohibited form 
     possessing, shipping, transporting or receiving firearms, but 
     a special exception was created to allow the federal 
     government to restore these rights in some circumstances. The 
     loophole was created to save the Winchester Firearms Co.--
     whose parent company had been convicted in a kickback 
     scheme--from bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the law is broad 
     enough to encompass individuals who are found ``not likely to 
     act in a manner dangerous to public safety,'' and because 
     special appellate rights have been granted to applicants who 
     are turned down, BATF must take every application seriously 
     and be able to justify every ruling.
       How does a federal agency go about deciding which felons, 
     of the 10,000 who have applied for restoration of gun rights, 
     would constitute a danger to society if allowed to own a 
     firearm? By full field investigations involving interviews 
     with family, friends, neighbors and business associates of 
     the applicant, by reviewing criminal records and parole 
     histories and by relying on the expert judgment of 
     professionals trained to assess an individuals's potential 
     for violence--if, indeed, that can be done. All this takes a 
     great deal of time and costs the taxpayer about $1 million a 
     year.
       The idea of the government's making a special effort to 
     rearm convicted felons is difficult to fathom. The continued 
     expenditure, in tight budget times, of millions of dollars to 
     implement this program is impossible to justify. Both 
     situations should be remedied by the passage of the Feighan-
     Smith bill early next year.
                                                                    ____

                [From The Washington Post, Jul. 5, 1995]

                     Out of Prison and Armed Again.

       The National Rifle Association showed its muscle last week 
     during a House Appropriations subcommittee markup. As a 
     result, Congress is now on track to restoring one of the most 
     senseless programs ever to be foisted on the executive 
     branch. It involves firearms and convicted felons, and 
     contrary to all reason, members of Congress have now taken 
     the first step toward putting the two together.
       Federal law rightly bars convicted felons from possessing, 
     shipping, transporting or receiving firearms or ammunition. 
     It's one of the penalties, like losing the right to vote or 
     run for office, imposed on people who commit serious crimes. 
     But in the '60s a loophole was created allowing the secretary 
     of the Treasury to lift this prohibition in cases in which 
     the criminal was ``not likely to act in a manner dangerous to 
     public safety.'' The change was made to save the Winchester 
     Firearms Co., whose parent corporation, Olin Mathieson, had 
     pleaded guilty to felony kickback charges. Without the 
     waiver, the gun company would have gone into bankruptcy. 
     Unfortunately, individuals began applying to have their 
     firearms rights restored, too. And nine years ago, the 
     problem was exacerbated when Congress gave every dissatisfied 
     applicant the right to challenge a denial in court.
       The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is charged with 
     implementing this program, and it was spending millions each 
     year and assigning 40 agents full-time to do background 
     checks on applicants. In 1992, however, Congress in effect 
     ended the program by prohibiting the use of appropriated 
     funds for that purpose. While the NRA likes to talk about the 
     otherwise law-abiding stockbroker caught in a financial 
     swindle and now cut off from his beloved hobby of deer 
     hunting, the truth is that the rights restoration program 
     regularly enabled violent offenders to rearm. A number were 
     convicted of new gun crimes after their rights were restored.
       Now the Treasury subcommittee of House Appropriations has 
     voted to resurrect the program. This is nonsense. Even if 
     felons are required to pay the cost of investigations 
     themselves, even if violent criminals and gun offenders are 
     excluded from the benefit, the whole idea of putting weapons 
     in the hands of men and women who are serious offenders is 
     irrational. It's hard enough these days to distinguish an 
     ordinary citizen from a potential killer with a grudge. But 
     people who have already been convicted of a felony are easy 
     to identify. Why spend the government's time and money to 
     restore such a person's right to arm himself to the teeth, 
     when his track record affords legitimate reason to keep him 
     away from weapons? The Appropriations subcommittee is off to 
     a very bad start in this direction, and responsible forces on 
     the Hill should see to it that the effort is deep-sixed.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I introduce the Stop Arming Felons 
Act [SAFe], a bill to correct dangerous Federal and State legislative 
loopholes which allow convicted felons to possess firearms.
  Until Senator Lautenberg and I shut down funding for the Federal 
loophole in 1992, millions of taxpayers' dollars had been spent 
rearming felons. This money was spent because a 1965 gun control 
statute has required the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [BATF] 
to process gun ownership applications submitted by convicted felons. 
While in general the 1968 Gun Control Act prohibits persons convicted 
of crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year from 
possessing a firearm, this 1965 loophole allowed convicted felons to 
apply to BATF and petition for a waiver on the ground that the felon 
``will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.''
  Certainly, this wasn't the intention of Congress when it passed the 
exemption in 1965. In fact, it was passed as a favor to the Winchester 
Firearms Co., whose parent organization had been found guilty of a 
kickback scheme. Without the amendment, the company would have gone 
bankrupt. In 1968, however, the language was expanded to allow 
individuals to apply.
  According to the Washington Post, some 22,000 such applications for 
exemption by individuals were processed by BATF from 1986-91--at a 
taxpayer cost of approximately $4 million a year. This means that from 
fiscal years 1985 to 1991, BATF spent well over $20 million to 
investigate gun possession applications submitted by felons. Not only 
is the process costly, it's also very laborious. Because the 
applicants' eligibility is dependent upon the laws of the State where 
they were convicted, BATF agents must be familiar with 50 

[[Page S10572]]
different statutes. Furthermore, many of the numerous applications for 
relief require a background check and an extensive investigation of the 
former felon. These time consuming, often tedious investigations are 
performed by agents who would otherwise be investigating violent 
crimes.
  Senator Lautenberg and I have successfully shut down funding for the 
BATF Program since 1992 through the appropriations process. This year, 
however, a House subcommittee voted to lift the funding prohibition on 
a partyline vote. Fortunately, Congressman Durbin and his Democratic 
colleagues successfully
 reinstated the prohibition at the full committee markup. It is time to 
put a permanent end to this program, or we risk getting into annual 
appropriations struggles over whether or not to spend money rearming 
felons. Indeed, when the House committee first agreed to revise the 
action of the subcommittee, they offered language which stated that 
there should be no assurance that the funding prohibition would be 
maintained in fiscal year 1997. Again, Congressman Durbin successfully 
offered an amendment to strike that language.

  When the House subcommittee voted to restore funding this year, 
Chairman Lightfoot stated: ``I don't see this as dangerous. Violent 
people won't apply in the first place.'' Similarly, an NRA spokesman 
claimed: ``We're talking about individuals who may have run afoul of 
Federal law but paid their debt to society.''
  These statements are simply untrue. Running ``afoul'' of Federal law 
would be a huge understatement to describe many of the crimes committed 
by the felons who not only apply for relief, but who are actually 
granted waivers by the BATF under this program. For example, according 
to a 1992 Violence Policy Center study, out of a random sample of 100 
applicants who were granted relief by the BATF, 11 originally were 
convicted of burglary, 17 were convicted of drug-related offenses, 8 
were convicted of firearm violations, 5 were convicted of robbery, 
including 1 who committed armed robbery with a handgun, and 5 were 
convicted of sexual assault, including aggravated rape, sodomy, and 
child molestation. Here are some of the stories behind the numbers:
  Jerome Sanford Brower was granted relief after pleading guilty to 
charges of conspiracy to transport explosives. He transported 
explosives to Libya and instructed Libyans in defusing explosive 
devices.
  An applicant was granted relief in 1989 after serving 24 months for 
voluntary manslaughter after killing his cousin with a 16-gauge 
shotgun.
  An applicant, granted relief in 1989, pleaded guilty to sexual abuse 
after assaulting his 14-year-old stepdaughter.
  An applicant, granted relief in 1989, was convicted of armed robbery 
and served 18 months for robbing a K-Mart with a loaded .38 caliber 
revolver.
  In addition to these examples, the numbers of applicants rejected 
also gives us insight into the types of felons who are applying to 
regain their right to carry a weapon. After conducting extensive 
investigations, the BATF may deny the applications of felons who will 
``be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.'' Under this 
standard, the BATF found it necessary to deny 3,498, or approximately 
one-third of all applications, between 1981-91. In other words, BATF 
determined that almost 3,500 applicants might pose a threat to public 
safety.
  Not only do violent felons apply to have their rights restored, but 
many commit crimes after their applications are approved by the BATF. 
Almost 5 percent of those felons granted relief in 1986 were rearrested 
by 1990. According to the Violence Policy Center's report, none of 
these recidivist crimes were white collar, but rather were violent 
crimes ranging from attempted murder, sexual assault, abduction-
kidnapping, child molestation, drug trafficking, and illegal firearms 
possession.
  Amazingly, an application for relief isn't always necessary: several 
States automatically restore gun privileges to felons upon the 
completion of their sentence. In other words, some States restore the 
civil rights, including their firearms rights, of convicted felons the 
minute they walk out of prison, or within several months of their 
release. Felons in these States need not even apply to BATF to get 
their firearms rights restored. This State loophole, in the words of a 
Justice Department official, is ``the biggest problem'' facing U.S. 
attorney's today.
  Perhaps the most disturbing case of this type has been that of Idaho 
felon Baldemar Gomez. He had been convicted of second-degree murder, 
voluntary manslaughter and battery on a correctional officer. However, 
because Idaho was one of the States that automatically restored 
convicts' civil rights upon their release from prison, in the words of 
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kim Lindquist, ``when Baldemar walked out of 
the penitentiary, someone could have been standing there and handed him 
a shotgun and it would have been entirely legal * * *''. In 1987, Gomez 
was rearrested during a drug raid and was convicted of violating the 
Gun Control Act by knowingly possessing a firearm after having been 
previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a period 
of more than 1 year. However, this conviction was overturned by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals because of Idaho's automatic relief provision.
  In response to the Gomez case, the Idaho legislature changed its law 
so that felons must wait 5 years after their sentence and then get 
State approval in order to own a firearm. Some States, however, still 
have laws which restore firearms rights to convicted felons without 
such review.
  Fortunately, we can eliminate these dangerous loopholes by passing 
the Stop Arming Felons Act [SAFe]. Our act can put a permanent end to 
the unnecessary expense of the BATF Program and put the agents at BATF 
back to work on the investigation of violent crimes--not convicted 
felons. Specifically, the bill would prohibit individuals, including 
felons and fugitives from Justice, from applying to BATF for firearms 
disability relief.
  Furthermore, the SAFe Act would address the State loophole by 
prohibiting States from restoring firearm privileges to violent felons. 
Nonviolent felons may be granted a waiver, but only after the State has 
made an individualized determination that the person would not pose a 
threat to public safety.
  How would this bill affect Illinois? Illinois law currently allows 
the State police to grant firearms privileges to nonviolent felons. 
Forcible--or violent--felons may not apply for relief. Because our 
proposed bill and the current Illinois firearm privilege restoration 
procedures are so similar, Illinois would benefit from this bill, 
because the residents of Illinois would no longer have to fund the BATF 
relief procedure through their taxes.
  I feel confident that most of my colleagues will support this 
measure. While many of us have differed in the past over issues such as 
controlling assault weapons and passing a handgun waiting period, I 
think we can all agree that convicted felons should not be applying to 
the Federal Government for firearms relief at the taxpayers' expense--
nor should violent felons be getting relief from the States. This is 
simply common sense. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in this 
effort.
                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 684

  At the request of Mr. Hatfield, the names of the Senator from 
Virginia [Mr. Warner] and the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings] were added as cosponsors of S. 684, a bill to amend the 
Public Health Service Act to provide for programs of research regarding 
Parkinson's disease, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 770

  At the request of Mr. Dole, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Feingold] was added as a cosponsor of S. 770, a bill to provide 
for the relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, 
and for other purposes.


                                 S. 832

  At the request of Mr. Graham, the names of the Senator from Florida 
[Mr. Mack] and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] were added as 
cosponsors of S. 832, a bill to require the Prospective Payment 
Assessment Commission to develop separate applicable percentage 
increases to ensure that medicare beneficiaries who receive services 
from medicare dependent hospitals receive the same quality of care and 
access to services as medicare 

[[Page S10573]]
beneficiaries in other hospitals, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 942

  At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Minnesota 
[Mr. Grams] was added as a cosponsor of S. 942, a bill to promote 
increased understanding of Federal regulations and increased voluntary 
compliance with such regulations by small entities, to provide for the 
designation of regional ombudsmen and oversight boards to monitor the 
enforcement practices of certain Federal agencies with respect to small 
business concerns, to provide relief from excessive and arbitary 
regulatory enforcement actions against small entities, and for other 
purposes.


                                S. 1014

  At the request of Mr. Nickles, the name of the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Murkowski] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1014, a bill to improve 
the management of royalties from Federal and Outer Continental Shelf 
oil and gas leases, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1060

  At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from Arizona 
[Mr. McCain] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1060, a bill to provide for 
the disclosure of lobbying activities to influence the Federal 
Government, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1061

  At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from Arizona 
[Mr. McCain] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1061, a bill to provide for 
congressional gift reform.


                         Senate Resolution 149

  At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from California 
[Mrs. Feinstein] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 149, a 
resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the recent 
announcement by the Republic of France that it intends to conduct a 
series of underground nuclear test explosions despite the current 
international moratorium on nuclear testing.


                          ____________________