[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5764-S5773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would require schools participating in the National School Lunch 
Program to buy American beef. The bill would extend this requirement 
also to the School Breakfast Program and the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program [CACFP]. This is a simple bill. Further, given the current 
situation faced by American cattlemen, this bill should command 
bipartisan support.
  Currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] is bound by the 
Buy American Act, which requires USDA to purchase American beef for the 
commodities distribution portion of these programs. However, no similar 
requirement is placed on schools which purchase their own foodstuffs 
and then receive Federal reimbursement for the meals they serve 
students. Schools are encouraged to buy American, but are not bound to 
do so. My bill would provide consistency throughout these child 
nutrition programs. Simply put, if schools expect to be reimbursed, we 
expect schools to buy American beef.
  Why should this bill be passed? Plain and simple, immediate action 
must be taken to help our Nation's cattle industry. Cattle prices have 
plummeted to their lowest level in years. High grain prices and drought 
also have contributed to the economic crisis facing our ranchers. The 
result is that South Dakota's cattlemen are facing some very tough 
times. Some South Dakota producers soon may be forced to leave the 
cattle business altogether unless markets begin to improve. Their 
plight is spilling over to affect other businesses in the small towns 
and cities where they live. We should look at all possible ways to 
stimulate the American beef market. A requirement that schools purchase 
American beef will increase demand.
  This is just one advance in our battle to improve conditions for 
American cattlemen. As I have advocated, Congress and the 
administration should work actively on multiple fronts. I plan to 
introduce legislation that would require all beef sold to consumers be 
labeled, indicating in what country the beef was produced. This 
requirement would make it easier for schools and other consumers to buy 
American beef.
  I recently requested that the USDA prohibit formula or basis pricing 
on forward contracted cattle, require that forward contracts be offered 
in an open, public manner and require that packer-fed cattle be sold in 
an open, public market. I hope they will take action on this front 
soon. These are all actions the Clinton administration can take without 
congressional action.
  I also urged President Clinton to begin an investigation into cattle 
imports from Mexico. Many South Dakota producers have serious concerns 
that recent import surges may be due to Mexico transshipping cattle 
from other countries into the United States, which is a blatant 
violation of trade agreements. Again, the President need not wait for 
congressional action.
  Finally, and most important, the Clinton administration should begin 
an anti-trust action on the meatpacking industry. This is very 
important for our cattlemen. I have called on the administration time 
and again to enforce fully our anti-trust laws. I am still waiting for 
action.
  Mr. President, with a combined effort by Congress and the President, 
I am confident we can once again make our cattle industry healthy and 
competitive. I am proud to be an active voice for South Dakota's 
livestock producers. This issue requires immediate attention and I hope 
my colleagues will join me in addressing this serious problem.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1829

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

     SECTION 1. AMERICAN BEEF IN CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS.

       The National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 28. AMERICAN BEEF IN CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS.

       ``A school or service institution in the continental United 
     States participating in the school lunch program, the school 
     breakfast program under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act 
     of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), or the child care food program 
     under section 17 may not purchase beef or beef food-products 
     produced outside the United States for use in carrying out 
     the program.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BROWN (for Mr. Dole (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Roth, Mr. 
        Helms, Mr. McCain, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Santorum)):

  S. 1830. A bill to amend the NATO Participation Act of 1994 to 
expedite the transition to full membership in the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.


             The NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a new bill for 
consideration by the Senate.
  In 1994, when the administration seemed reluctant to allow countries 
in Central Europe to join NATO, we drafted a bill titled the ``NATO 
Participation Act of 1994.'' That measure set forth in U.S. statute a 
policy, for the first time, that would ensure NATO expansion to include 
those countries in Central Europe that want to be free and want to join 
in a mutual pact for self-defense. The bill marked a significant change 
of course for the United States.
  The administration's reluctance to move forward with NATO expansion

[[Page S5765]]

brought back memories of the tragic events of World War II, of both the 
Soviet invasion of Poland and the German invasion of Poland and other 
countries in Central Europe. Indeed, that reluctance brought back the 
tragic memories of the post-World-War-II era, when at key times this 
country turned its back on people who had fought to be free and then 
found themselves enslaved by the Soviet Union.
  Mr. President, that NATO Participation Act had to be offered four 
times on the floor of the Senate before we finally got it adopted 
formally by Congress and signed into law by the President. It was 
opposed vehemently by the administration at every opportunity. But, in 
the end--and I might add, after much hard work of many fellow Americans 
who had insisted upon its passage--it passed both houses of Congress 
and was then embraced by the administration.
  Unfortunately, even though that measure had passed giving the 
President necessary authorities to establish a transition program for 
countries moving toward NATO membership, the administration failed to 
move ahead with a clear plan for expansion of NATO to those Central 
European countries that had not only exhibited an interest in it, but 
had specifically asked to become members.
  In response to that failure and to again move policy along, we 
drafted and introduced the NATO Participation Act II, officially titled 
the ``NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995.'' That measure went 
further than NATO Participation Act I. The NATO Participation Act I 
authorized the President to establish a transition program and plan for 
NATO expansion. NATO Participation Act II called on the President to 
evaluate those countries moving toward NATO membership and to name 
specific countries that would be determined eligible for NATO 
transition assistance, and it expanded our powers to work with them and 
to develop a mutual arms policy.
  That act, initially opposed by the administration, eventually was 
embraced by the administration as it moved toward passage. That 
expanded our ability to provide transition assistance to allow Central 
European countries to protect themselves and their independence. Alas, 
the administration with its discretionary power to name countries that 
they consider eligible to move forward toward NATO membership, has 
refused to act.
  Months ago, I specifically contacted the administration and asked 
what steps they were taking, as they had promised they would, to move 
toward this goal. According to the foreign relations committees, the 
administration can find no country in Central Europe it views as ready 
for transition assistance.
  Sadly, Mr. President, because of the administration's refusal to act, 
what has been done is to raise the question as to whether or not NATO 
will ever be expanded. To simply give it lip service and say--as the 
administration has done--that it is not a question of whether we expand 
NATO, it is a question of how and when, dodges the issue. The real 
issue is whether or not we will recognize other countries having a 
sphere of influence and control over Central Europe. The central issue 
is whether or not free men and women around the world will stand by 
idly if the security and independence of Central Europe is threatened.
  These are not hollow questions. These tragic questions were answered 
in World War II. Many historians believe that the failure of the free 
democracies to come forward and stand up for Central Europe was one of 
the reasons that Hitler rose to such heights and gained so much 
strength before the free world was mobilized to stop him. It is not an 
idle question when, at the end of World War II, the Soviet Union spread 
its influence and its armies over Central Europe, and free men and 
women failed to stand up for their freedom then.

  Mr. President, it speaks to the core issue, and the core issue is 
whether or not we will turn our backs on the free men and women of 
Central Europe once more. This bill, the third NATO Participation Act, 
the expansion facilitation act of NATO offered in 1996, speaks to that. 
It specifically names three countries--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Republic--as qualifying for the program; requires the President to name 
other countries meeting a series of additional criteria; and permits 
the President to name any other countries to the transition assistance 
program that meet the existing criteria of the NATO Participation Act.
  Mr. President, I am particularly proud to join with Senator Dole in 
introducing this bill. Bob Dole deserves a great deal of credit for his 
many efforts to expand NATO rapidly and to bring the nations of Central 
Europe into NATO. From the very first time that Senator Paul Simon and 
I introduced the NATO Participation Act as an amendment to the Foreign 
Operations Bill in July, 1994, Bob Dole has been a cosponsor. He has 
joined every effort to hasten NATO expansion, spoken out clearly and 
frequently against the foot-dragging of this administration and has 
been more than just a cosponsor of every NATO Participation Act that 
has been written. His frequent inputs and the keen insights of Mira 
Baratta and Randy Scheunemann of his staff have been invaluable to our 
efforts to put the United States back in the lead in expanding NATO.
  In January, 1994, when the issue of expanding NATO to include the 
Central European powers first became an issue at the NATO summit, Bob 
Dole stated, ``If NATO governments embrace this new role of ensuring 
stability and security in Europe, the logic of expanding NATO becomes 
increasingly clear . . . The Partnership for Peace should not be used 
as a means to dismiss the legitimate security concerns of the new 
democracies in Central Europe.''
  In 1995 he stated that, ``Russia continues to threaten prospective 
NATO members over alliance expansion, thereby confirming the need to 
enlarge NATO sooner rather than later.''
  Just recently, he reiterated his commitment to NATO expansion by 
stating ``the time has come to welcome Europe's new democracies into 
NATO. Only NATO expansion can guarantee another five decades of peace 
on the continent.''
  Mr. President, I strongly agree with our distinguished majority 
leader. It is time to take the countries of Central Europe off the 
table once and for all. America's dawdling will continue to create 
uncertainty and generate instability in the heart of Europe. The United 
States needs to take its rightful place as the world's leader and move 
quickly to expand the North Atlantic Alliance to the nations of Central 
Europe.
  Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk and ask unanimous consent 
it be printed in the Record and that Senator Santorum be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill will be received and appropriately referred.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1830

       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 ``NATO Enlargement 
     Facilitation Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) has played an essential role in guaranteeing the 
     security, freedom, and prosperity of the United States and 
     its partners in the Alliance.
       (2) The NATO Alliance is, and has been since its inception, 
     purely defensive in character, and it poses no threat to any 
     nation. The enlargement of the NATO Alliance to include as 
     full and equal members emerging democracies in Central and 
     Eastern Europe does not threaten any nation. America's 
     security, freedom, and prosperity remain linked to the 
     security of the countries of Europe.
       (3) The sustained commitment of the member countries of 
     NATO to a mutual defense has made possible the democratic 
     transformation of Eastern Europe. Members of the Alliance can 
     and should play a critical role in addressing the security 
     challenges of the post-Cold War era and in creating the 
     stable environment needed for those emerging democracies in 
     Central and Eastern Europe to successfully complete political 
     and economic transformation.
       (4) NATO has enlarged its membership on 3 different 
     occasions since 1949.
       (5) Congress has sought to facilitate the further 
     enlargement of NATO at an early date by enacting the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 
     U.S.C. 1928 note) and the NATO Participation Act Amendments 
     of 1995 (section 585 of Public Law 104-107).
       (6) As new members of NATO assume the responsibilities of 
     Alliance membership, the

[[Page S5766]]

     costs of maintaining stability in Europe will be shared more 
     widely. Facilitation of the enlargement process will require 
     current members of NATO, and the United States in particular, 
     to demonstrate the political will needed to build on 
     successful ongoing programs such as the Warsaw Initiative and 
     the Partnership for Peace by making available the resources 
     necessary to supplement efforts prospective new members are 
     themselves undertaking.
       (7) New members will be full members of the Alliance, 
     enjoying all rights and assuming all the obligations under 
     the Washington Treaty.
       (8) Cooperative regional peacekeeping initiatives involving 
     emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe that have 
     expressed interest in joining NATO, such as the Baltic 
     Peacekeeping Battalion, the Polish-Lithuanian Joint 
     Peacekeeping Force, and the Polish-Ukrainian Peacekeeping 
     Force, can make an important contribution to European peace 
     and security and international peacekeeping efforts, assist 
     those countries preparing to assume the responsibilities of 
     possible NATO membership, and accordingly should receive 
     appropriate support from the United States.
       (9) The United States continues to regard the political 
     independence and territorial integrity of all emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe as vital to 
     European peace and security.
       (10) NATO remains the only multilateral security 
     organization capable of conducting effective military 
     operations and preserving security and stability of the Euro-
     Atlantic region.
       (11) NATO is an important diplomatic forum and has played a 
     positive role in defusing tensions between members of the 
     Alliance and, as a result, no military action has occurred 
     between two Alliance member states since the inception of 
     NATO in 1949.
       (12) The admission to NATO of emerging democracies in 
     Central and Eastern Europe that meet specific criteria for 
     NATO membership would contribute to international peace and 
     enhance the security of the region.
       (13) A number of Eastern European countries have expressed 
     interest in NATO membership, and have taken concrete steps to 
     demonstrate this commitment; including their participation in 
     Partnership for Peace activities.
       (14) In recognition that not all countries which have 
     requested membership in NATO will necessarily qualify at the 
     same pace, the accession date for each new member will vary.
       (15) The eventual membership of Austria, Finland, and 
     Sweden is fully expected and is not precluded by this Act.
       (16) The provision of additional NATO transition assistance 
     should include those emerging democracies most ready for 
     closer ties with NATO and should be designed to assist other 
     countries meeting specified criteria of eligibility to move 
     forward toward eventual NATO membership.
       (17) The Congress of the United States finds that Poland, 
     Hungary, and the Czech Republic have made the most progress 
     toward achieving the stated criteria and should be eligible 
     for the additional assistance described in this bill.
       (18) The evaluation of future membership in NATO for 
     emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should be 
     based on the progress of those nations in meeting criteria 
     for NATO membership, which require enhancement of NATO's 
     security and the approval of all NATO members.

     SEC. 3. UNITED STATES POLICY.

       It should be the policy of the United States--
       (1) to join with the NATO allies of the United States to 
     redefine the role of the NATO Alliance in the post-Cold War 
     world;
       (2) to actively assist the emerging democracies in Central 
     and Eastern Europe in their transition so that such countries 
     may eventually qualify for NATO membership; and
       (3) to work to define a constructive and cooperative 
     political and security relationship between an enlarged NATO 
     and the Russian Federation.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that in order to promote 
     economic stability and security in Estonia, Latvia, 
     Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, 
     Moldova, and Ukraine--
       (1) the United States should support the full and active 
     participation of these countries in activities appropriate 
     for qualifying for NATO membership;
       (2) the United States Government should use all diplomatic 
     means available to press the European Union to admit as soon 
     as possible any country which qualifies for membership; 
     and
       (3) the United States Government and the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization should support military exercises and 
     peacekeeping initiatives between and among these nations, 
     nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and 
     Russia.

     SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR NATO 
                   ENLARGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The following countries are designated as 
     eligible to receive assistance under the program established 
     under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994: 
     Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.
       (b) Designation of Other Countries.--The President shall 
     designate other emerging democracies in Central and Eastern 
     Europe as eligible to receive assistance under the program 
     established under section 203(a) of such Act if such 
     countries--
       (1) have expressed a clear desire to join NATO;
       (2) have begun an individualized dialogue with NATO in 
     preparation for accession;
       (3) are strategically significant to an effective NATO 
     defense; and
       (4) have met the other criteria outlined in section 203(d) 
     of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 
     103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note).
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Subsection (a) does not preclude 
     the designation by the President of Slovakia, Estonia, 
     Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, or any other emerging 
     democracy in Central and Eastern Europe pursuant to section 
     203(d) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 as eligible to 
     receive assistance under the program established under 
     section 203(a) of such Act.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATO ENLARGEMENT 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 for the program established 
     under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994.
       (b) Availability.--Of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by subsection (a)--
       (1) $20,000,000 shall be available for the subsidy cost, as 
     defined in section 502(5) of the Credit Reform Act of 1990, 
     of direct loans pursuant to the authority of section 
     203(c)(4) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 and section 
     23 of the Arms Export Control Act (relating to the ``Foreign 
     Military Financing Program'');
       (2) $30,000,000 shall be available for assistance on a 
     grant basis pursuant to the authority of section 203(c)(4) of 
     the NATO Participation Act of 1994 and section 23 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act (relating to the ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program''); and
       (3) $10,000,000 shall be available for assistance pursuant 
     to the authority of section 203(c)(3) of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994 and chapter 5 of part II of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to international 
     military education and training).
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under this section are authorized to be 
     appropriated in addition to such amounts as otherwise may be 
     available for such purposes.

     SEC. 7. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES.

       (a) Priority Delivery.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the provision and delivery of excess defense articles 
     under the authority of section 203(c)(1) and (2) of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994 and section 516 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 shall be given priority to the maximum 
     extend feasible over the provision and delivery of such 
     excess defense articles to all other countries except those 
     countries referred to in section 541 of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-306; 108 Stat. 
     1640).
       (b) Cooperative Regional Peacekeeping Initiatives.--The 
     Congress encourages the President to provide excess defense 
     articles and other appropriate assistance to cooperative 
     regional peacekeeping initiatives involving emerging 
     democracies in Central and Eastern Europe that have expressed 
     an interest in joining NATO in order to enhance their ability 
     to contribute to European peace and security and 
     international peacekeeping efforts.

     SEC. 8. MODERNIZATION OF DEFENSE CAPABILITY.

       The Congress endorses effort by the United States to 
     modernize the defense capability of Poland, Hungary, the 
     Czech Republic, and any other countries designed by the 
     President pursuant to section 203(d) of the NATO 
     Participation Act of 1994, by exploring with such countries 
     options for the sale or lease of such countries of weapons 
     systems compatible with those used by NATO members, including 
     air defense systems, advanced fighter aircraft, and 
     telecommunications infrastructure.

     SEC. 9. TERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 203(f) of the NATO Participation 
     Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 103-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 
     note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Termination of Eligibility.--(1) The eligibility of a 
     country designated under subsection (d) for the program 
     established in subsection (a) shall terminate 60 days after 
     the President makes a certification under paragraph (2) 
     unless, within the 60-day period, the Congress enacts a joint 
     resolution disapproving the termination of eligibility.
       ``(2) Whenever the President determines that the government 
     of a country designated under subsection (d)--
       ``(A) no longer meets the criteria set forth in subsection 
     (d)(2)(A);
       ``(B) is hostile to the NATO Alliance; or
       ``(C) poses a national security threat to the United 
     States.

     then the President shall so certify to the appropriate 
     congressional committees.
       ``(3) Nothing in this Act affects the eligibility of 
     countries to participate under other provisions of law in 
     programs described in this Act.''.
       (b) Congressional Priority Procedures.--Section 203 of such 
     Act is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Congressional Priority Procedures.--
       ``(1) Applicable procedures.--A joint resolution described 
     in paragraph (2) which is

[[Page S5767]]

     introduced in a House of Congress shall be considered in 
     accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs (3) 
     through (7) of section 8066(c) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1985 (as contained in Public Law 98-473; 
     98 Stat. 1936), except that--
       ``(A) references to the `resolution described in paragraph 
     (1)' shall be deemed to be references to the joint 
     resolution; and
       ``(B) references to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the Senate shall be deemed to be references to the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate, respectively.
       ``(2) Text of joint resolution.--A joint resolution under 
     this paragraph is a joint resolution the matter after the 
     resolving clause of which is as follows: `That the Congress 
     disapproves the certification submitted by the President on 
     ________ pursuant to section 203(f) of the NATO Participation 
     Act of 1994.'.''.

     SEC. 10. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATO PARTICIPATION ACT.

       (a) Conforming Amendment.--The NATO Participation Act of 
     1994 (title II of Public Law 193-447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is 
     amended in sections 203(a), 203(d)(1), and 203(d)(2) by 
     striking ``countries emerging from communist domination'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``emerging democracies in 
     Central and Eastern Europe''.
       (b) Definitions.--The NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title 
     II of Public Law 103-446; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 206. DEFINITIONS.

       ``The term `emerging democracies in Central and Eastern 
     Europe' includes, but is not limited to, Albania, Bulgaria, 
     the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, 
     Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.''.

     SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Emerging democracies in central and eastern europe.--
     The term ``emerging democracies in Central and Eastern 
     Europe'' includes, but is not limited to, Albania, Bulgaria, 
     the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, 
     Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.
       (2) NATO.--The term ``NATO'' means the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for his 
continued leadership on this and other issues. He and I just left a 
press availability conducted by the majority leader, Senator Dole, 
along with the former President of Poland, Lech Walesa. I must say that 
former President Walesa was both compelling and enlightening in his 
remarks.
  Mr. President, I support the bill introduced by the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Each year, the Senate debates the issue of NATO expansion and each 
year the President reassures the American people and our new friends in 
Eastern Europe that he has every intention of extending the NATO 
umbrella. Once again, this year, on the eve of another historic Russian 
election, we find ourselves debating the issue of NATO expansion, and 
still, although the President will proclaim his support for expansion, 
NATO membership remains reserved to the states which comprised it 
before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  A few circumstances have changed. President Yeltsin, whose fate our 
own President has made the centerpiece of United States policies toward 
the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, is much less secure. With 
the Russian elections only weeks away, Eastern Europe may again be 
faced with a communist Russia--a Russia which proudly extols the 
virtues of a failed philosophy. But even if President Yeltsin 
ultimately prevails in the elections, he, himself, has given the West 
sufficient cause for concern. He has not always succeeded in ensuring 
Russian compliance with treaty obligations. And yielding to industry 
pressures, he has apparently ignored American warnings in crucial areas 
of nonproliferation. Perhaps most alarming, until the most recent 
ceasefire agreement, the brutal war in Chechnya persisted unabated 
despite President Yeltsin's orders that it stop.
  President Yeltsin has also made disturbing changes in the composition 
of his cabinet. He has displaced all the major economic reformers 
associated with his government, and has replaced his widely respected 
foreign minister, Andrea Kozyrev, with Yevgeny Primakov, a figure with 
strong ties to the not so distant Soviet past.
  It is far too early to declare Russian economic and political reforms 
failures. I have always supported assistance to the Newly Independent 
States of the Soviet Union and I will continue to support Russian 
reform efforts. The situation we face in Russia today bears almost no 
comparison to the situation the United States and its allies in Europe 
faced in 1947. Just the same, however, in evaluating President Yeltsin 
let us not forget that his is no longer the government of Gaidar, 
Yavlinsky, Fedorov, and Kozyrev.
  This is not to say that the United States has an interest in seeing 
President Yeltsin defeated in the upcoming election. On the contrary, 
if, despite what I hope is election year maneuvering, he remains 
committed to economic and political reform and the peaceful resolution 
of disputes with his neighbors, and if he demonstrates his commitment 
to international treaties, his reelection is very much in our interest.
  The sponsors of this bill do not seek NATO expansion in response to 
the policies and political agendas of any Russian leader. We seek NATO 
expansion as a part of a larger European strategic order that will 
provide the nations of Central and Eastern Europe with the sort of 
political and economic security that Western Europe enjoyed following 
World War II. We seek a European security structure which can endure 
changes in national leadership and governing philosophies.
  The United States and its NATO allies must depend for their security 
on a stable balance of power, not character assessments of various 
national leaders.
  Expanding NATO and, as the bill calls for, defining a security 
relationship between an enlarged NATO and Russia will also stabilize 
Russia's security situation. Like any peaceful democratic nation, it 
thrives on security and predictability. The perpetuation of the current 
security vacuum in the middle of Europe is no more in its interest than 
in ours.
  As in the past, the administration will respond to new calls for NATO 
enlargement by preaching caution. It will cite the upcoming elections 
as a particularly sensitive moment. After the elections, it will cite 
the fragile nature of the Russian electorate and upcoming government. 
Then, no doubt, it will cite another critical NATO meeting where 
consensus is to be sought on expansion.
  In the meantime, we will have lost the window of opportunity that was 
created by the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia's preoccupation 
with its domestic concerns. Three and a half years have already been 
squandered.
  It is time now to begin NATO expansion. No more temporizing. No more 
excuses. This is why I have joined with my colleagues, Senators Dole, 
Brown, Helms, and others in introducing the NATO Enlargement 
Facilitation Act of 1996.
  The bill before us identifies Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic 
as those countries first in line for NATO membership and proposes to 
give them the assistance they need to rapidly become members. To date 
and to no avail, Congress has left it up to the President to determine 
whether these countries were eligible for such assistance. Now we are 
telling the President that vacation time is over. These three countries 
meet the criteria. We should start preparing them to enter NATO. Under 
this legislation, each country will be eligible to receive, as a part 
of the targeted program to assist its transition to full NATO 
membership, transfers to excess defense articles, foreign military 
financing [FMF], economic assistance, IMET, and other assistance.
  As for other emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe which 
desire NATO membership, but do not yet meet its standards, the bill 
requires the President to provide them the same assistance at such time 
as they meet a number of clear criteria, including progress toward the 
establishment of democracy, free markets, and civilian control of the 
military. There are a number of other requirements for aspiring new 
members, but they are reasonable, and they are explicit.

  Equally important as mandating assistance to NATO aspirants, the bill 
authorizes the necessary spending. Critics will no longer be able to 
charge that proponents of a more comprehensive and strategically 
relevant NATO are unwilling to pay the costs associated with expansion. 
This bill authorizes a total of $60 million in fiscal year 1997 for the 
explicit purpose of expanding NATO.
  If there is any doubt of the necessity for Congress to take the 
initiative

[[Page S5768]]

today, consider the following statement made by President Clinton in 
Prague almost 3 years ago:

       Let me be absolutely clear: the security of your states is 
     important to the security of the United States . . . the 
     question is no longer whether NATO will take on new members 
     but when and how.

  How else can one explain the vast difference between the President's 
rhetoric and the lack of actual movement than that he lacks a clear 
idea of how to move from rhetoric to action? Not only has NATO not 
admitted new members, the President has still not identified to former 
Warsaw Pact countries the when and how of expansion. The other 
explanation is that the President has never intended to expand NATO and 
all his protests to the contrary are simply efforts to outmaneuver the 
critics of his foreign policy. Granted the President has a record of 
this sort of cleverness. But I trust that the President would not take 
the security of Europe so lightly as to play politics with its future.
  A more charitable explanation for the disconnect between the 
President's rhetoric and action is that the rationale for NATO 
expansion is genuinely lost on him. He may truly believe in a European 
security structure which, like the Partnership for Peace, stretches 
from the Atlantic to the borders of China. Perhaps he truly believes 
that a security structure can be created which is so far flung as to 
have no apparent strategic coherence.
  Instead of going about the difficult diplomacy of creating a viable 
European security structure, the administration has preoccupied itself 
with the fears of drawing new lines. Perhaps the President and his 
chief adviser on Russia, Strobe Talbott, are real visionaries. They see 
a world where there are no lines separating countries, alliances, or 
even countinents--a world where concepts such like security, strategic 
alliance, and geopolitics have no relevance.
  In fairness to the President, I freely admit that the logic of this 
reasoning eludes me. I do not want to underestimate the lasting impact 
of the Russian democratic revolution. It was certainly monumental and 
it lifted the spirits of a world weary of superpower confrontation. But 
the Russian revolution, as great as it was, did not presage a radical 
change in the nature of man or the way in which the world guarantees 
peace.
  I, for one, will forgo putting all my faith in visionary ideas of a 
new Europe free of historical tensions. Twice in this century, Europe 
has been convulsed by nationalism and militarism--this despite the 
efforts of far greater visionaries than President Clinton.
  The sponsors of the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act take their 
guidance from history. The cause of all recent European conflicts has 
been a security vacuum in the center of Europe. Today, although the 
borders of Western Europe are secured, it remains the advantage of a 
NATO security guarantee. On the other hand, Eastern Europe, which is in 
a more precarious situation, remains without such guarantees. By all 
accounts, this amounts to a security vacuum, and unless we act to fill 
it, I fear history will repeat itself.
  Lech Walesa, who knows better than most the history of Russia's 
involvement in Eastern Europe, has warned that a failure to expand NATO 
may result in a major tragedy. A combination of economic and strategic 
insecurity has already driven this hero of the cold war from power. All 
the more reason to remember his words, ``We kept crying and shouting in 
1939, but they only believed us when the war reached Paris and London. 
The situation is similar today.'' In that the political atmosphere in 
Europe is once again clouded with what President Vaclav Havel, has 
described as ``a mentality marked by caution, hesitation, delayed 
decision-making, and a tendency to look for the most convenient 
solutions,'' the times do seem eerily similar.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lott, and Mr. 
        Ford):
  S. 1831. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 for the National 
Transportation Safety Board, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


      The National Transportation Safety Board Amendments of 1996

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National 
Transportation Safety Board Amendments of 1996. I am pleased to be 
joined in this effort by Senator Hollings, ranking member of the Senate 
Commerce Committee, Senator Lott, chairman of the Senate Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee, and Senator Ford, ranking member of the 
Senate Aviation Subcommittee. This is a bipartisan reauthorization bill 
and I urge its swift passage.
  The National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], an independent 
agency, is charged with determining the probable cause of 
transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety. 
Specifically, the NTSB investigates all forms of transportation 
accidents, conducts safety studies, and evaluates the effectiveness of 
other Government agencies' programs for preventing transportation 
accidents. It also reviews appeals of adverse certificate and civil 
penalty actions by the administrators of agencies of the Department of 
Transportation involving airman and seaman licenses. Sadly, its work is 
never done.
  Mr. President, the tireless work of the NTSB is too often overlooked. 
Since its inception in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 
100,000 aviation accidents and thousands of accidents in the other 
surface modes--rail, highway, marine, and pipeline. NTSB investigators 
are on call 24 hours a day and work around the world investigating 
significant transportation accidents in order to obtain facts to enable 
development of solutions designed to prevent future accidents.
  Indeed, the NTSB is considered the world's premier accident 
investigation agency. It has achieved that distinction through its 
thorough investigations and professional approach to meeting its 
statutory responsibilities. In total, the NTSB has issued almost 10,000 
safety recommendations to improve the safety of the traveling public.
  Sadly, during the past few months, the NTSB has been extremely busy. 
We are all aware the NTSB is investigating the devastating crash of 
ValuJet near Miami, FL. At the same time, major on-going investigations 
continue for the USAir accident near Pittsburgh, PA, the school bus/
train collision in Fox River Grove, IL, and the MARC commuter train/
Amtrak collision near Silver Spring, MD, to name just a few.
  I want to point out the NTSB has no authority to regulate the 
transportation industry. Therefore, its effectiveness depends on its 
reputation for timely and accurate determinations of accident causation 
and for issuing realistic and feasible safety recommendations.
  The NTSB's reputation for impartiality and thoroughness has enabled 
it to achieve such success in shaping transportation safety 
improvements that more than 80 percent of its recommendations have been 
implemented. Examples of implemented recommendations include fire 
resistant materials and floor-level escape lighting in aircraft cabins, 
child safety seats in automobiles, improved school bus construction 
standards, Amtrak passenger car safety improvements, new recreational 
boating safety and commercial fishing vessel regulations, the 
development of one-call notification systems in all 50 States and 
improved regulations for buried pipelines.

  The NTSB's authorization expires at the end of fiscal year 1996. The 
bill we are introducing today provides a 3 year authorization for 
fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 at a level of 370 FTE's. Our 
objective is to establish sufficient funding levels to enable the NTSB 
to carry out its immense workload. We can meet this goal while at the 
same time, reducing the currently authorized levels. That is what this 
bill achieves.
  The bill also includes a few statutory changes. First, the bill 
provides for temporary deferral of Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] 
requests regarding the release of foreign aviation accident or incident 
information for 2 years or until the foreign government leading the 
investigation approves release of information. This would apply to NTSB 
participation in foreign accident investigations only. This provision 
would facilitate the NTSB's ability to effectively investigate and 
participate in foreign accidents without risk of the untimely release 
of information prior to a foreign governments'

[[Page S5769]]

approval. However, the NTSB would not be restricted from utilizing 
foreign accident investigation information in making safety 
recommendations.
  Second, the bill would exempt from FOIA aviation data voluntarily 
supplied to the NTSB. The aviation industry currently collects various 
kinds of information, but industry does not share it with the NTSB 
because of concerns that material would be released to the public. Some 
data, if voluntarily supplied to the Government, is exempted from FOIA 
requests. This exemption, however, is at the discretion of the agency. 
The NTSB has requested the exemption be made permanent through statute 
instead of discretionary, and believes a permanent exemption will 
encourage the aviation industry to freely share significant safety-
related data.

  Third, when the NTSB conducts training of its employees and others in 
subjects necessary for the proper performance of accident 
investigations, the bill would allow the NTSB to charge non-NTSB 
personnel attending for the costs associated with the course. These 
reimbursements would be credited to the NTSB as offsetting collections.
  Mr. President, the NTSB carries out an enormous public service. While 
it is a small agency, its work product is critical. Seldom, if ever, is 
this agency the target of criticism. That cannot be said about many 
Federal governmental agencies. Therefore, I want to commend the NTSB 
Board members and its employees for their dedication to carrying out 
such an important public service.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure the NTSB 
can continue its essential work in an efficient manner.
                                 ______

      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1832. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
provide that a monthly insurance benefit thereunder shall be paid for 
the month in which the recipient dies, subject to a reduction of 50 
percent if the recipient dies during the first 15 days of such month, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


               THE SOCIAL SECURITY FAMILY PROTECTION ACT

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I rise to talk about an issue 
that is very important to me, very important to the constituents of 
Maryland and very important to the people of the United States of 
America.
  I wish to declare that I am introducing a bipartisan bill, with 
Senator Olympia Snowe, to end an unfair policy of the Social Security 
System.
  Senator Snowe and I want to introduce this bill because it deals with 
Social Security, retirement security, and income security. We want the 
middle class in the United States of America to know that we are going 
to give help to those who practice self-help.
  What is it I am talking about? We have found that Social Security 
does not pay for the last month of life. If someone dies May 18 or May 
28, when the Social Security check arrived on June 3, the surviving 
spouse or family members had to send back the Social Security check. I 
think that is an outrage.
  That individual worked for Social Security, earned Social Security, 
put money in the Social Security trust fund. We feel that it is up to 
the Social Security system to allow the surviving spouse or the estate 
of the family to have that Social Security check for the last month of 
your life.
  This legislation has an urgency. People have called my office in 
tears. Very often it is a son or a daughter. They are at the desk 
clearing off the paperwork for their mom, and there is the Social 
Security check. And they say, ``Senator, the check says for the month 
of May. Mom died on May 28. Why do we have to send the Social Security 
check back? We have bills to pay. We have utility coverage that we need 
to wrap up, our rent, a mortgage, health bills. Why is Social Security 
telling me, `Send the check back or we're going to come and get you'?''
  My gosh, with all the problems in the United States of America, we 
ought to be going after drug dealers and tax dodgers, not those people 
who have paid into Social Security and their surviving spouse or their 
family who has been left with the bills for the last month of their 
life. I say they are absolutely right--absolutely right--because we 
believe that Social Security should be there for you, for the family, 
and for the surviving spouse.

  I listened to my constituents. And what they say is this: ``Senator 
Mikulski, we don't want anything free. But our family does want what 
our dad worked for. We do want what we feel we deserve and what has 
been paid for in the trust fund in our loved one's name. Please make 
sure that our family gets the Social Security check for the last month 
of our life.''
  That is what we are going to do. That is why Senator Snowe and I are 
introducing the Family Social Security Protection Act. While we talk 
about retirement security, the most important item in that is income 
security. And the safety net for every American is Social Security.
  We know that as Senators we have to make sure that Social Security is 
solvent. And we want to work to do that. We also know that we have an 
obligation to those who continue to get Social Security that they get 
their COLA so when the cost of living goes up, that Social Security is 
adjusted. But this reform of providing a Social Security check for the 
last month of life is absolutely crucial.
  How do we propose to do that? We have a very simple, straightforward 
way of dealing with this. Our legislation says this: that if you die 
before the 15th of a month, you will get a check for those 15 days. If 
you die after the 15th of the month, and between then and the 31st, 
your surviving spouse or the family estate would get that last Social 
Security check.
  We think it is fundamentally fair. Senator Snowe and I are old-
fashioned in our belief in many values. We believe you honor your 
father and your mother. We believe that it is not only a good religious 
principle, but it is good public policy.
  The way to do that is to have a strong Social Security System and to 
make sure that Social Security System is fair in every way. That is why 
we support making sure that the surviving spouse or family has the 
Social Security check for the last month of life. Mr. President, we 
hope to have the support of our colleagues. That is the essence of my 
statement.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GLENN (for himself and Mr. Pryor) (by request):
  S. 1833. A bill to provide temporary authority for the use of 
voluntary separation incentives by Federal agencies that are reducing 
employment levels, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


        the federal employment reduction assistance act of 1996

 Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, at the request of the 
administration, I rise to introduce The Federal Employment Reduction 
Assistance Act of 1996. This legislative proposal is modeled after the 
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994, which provided Federal 
civilian agencies with authority to offer voluntary separation 
incentives for a 1-year period that ended March 31, 1995. I was the 
chief sponsor of the 1994 legislation. Approximately 115,100 Federal 
employees voluntarily resigned or retired during the first buyout 
program. In addition, 40,000 more agreed to leave under a delayed 
departure program and will leave this year or next.
  The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1996 contains the 
following proposals:
  The authority for separation incentives begins with enactment of the 
act and continues until September 30, 2000.
  The amount of the buyout incentive would be the lesser of the amount 
that the employee's severance pay would be or whichever of the 
following amounts is applicable based on separation in accordance with 
the agency plan:
  $25,000 in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
  $20,000 in fiscal year 1998.
  $15,000 in fiscal year 1999.
  $10,000 in fiscal year 2000.
  Any employee who receives an incentive and then accepts any paid 
employment with the Government within 5 years after separating would 
have to repay the entire amount of the incentive payment to the agency 
that paid the incentive. This provision could be waived only under 
stringent circumstances of agency need.
  Agencies are required to pay an amount into the civil service 
retirement trust fund equal to 15 percent of the final basic pay of 
each employee who is accepting a buyout.

[[Page S5770]]

  Agencies are required to reduce their full-time equivalent [FTE] 
employment by one for each buyout.
  OMB approval would be required for all agency buyout plans. The 
legislation would only apply to civilian agencies. DOD would continue 
to operate its own buyout program.
  In addition, the proposed legislation includes some softening 
provisions for agencies that must institute reductions-in-force 
[RIF's]:
  The bill would authorize agencies to allow employees to volunteer for 
a separation during a RIF if this would prevent the involuntary 
separation of another employee in a similar situation. Employees who 
volunteered would receive severance pay. The DOD authorization bill 
also contains this proposal.
  Employees involuntarily separated under RIF's could continue their 
health insurance coverage for up to 18 months while continuing to pay 
only the premium that would apply to current employees.
  Mr. President, previous buyout legislation was preeminently 
successful in helping to reduce the number of Federal employees but 
accomplished the downsizing in a fair and equitable manner.
  Overall, including the buyout program, there are now some 208,000 
fewer civil service employees than there were when this administration 
came into office. That's a real success story. In fact, Federal 
employment is now at its lowest point since John F. Kennedy.
  This buyout legislation will help to continue that trend. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       The first section provides a title for the bill, the 
     ``Federal Employment Reduction Assistance Act of 1996.''
       Section 2 provides definitions of ``agency'' and 
     ``employee.'' Among the provisions, an employee who has 
     received any previous voluntary separation incentive from the 
     Federal Government and has not repaid the incentive is 
     excluded from any incentives under this Act.
       Section 3 provides that, when an agency head determines 
     that employment in the agency must be reduced in order to 
     improve operating efficiency or meet anticipated budget 
     levels, the agency head may submit a plan to the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget for payment of voluntary 
     separation incentives to agency employees. The plan must 
     specify the manner in which the planned employment reductions 
     will improve efficiency or meet budget levels. The plan must 
     also include a proposed time period for payment of separation 
     incentives, and a proposed coverage for offers of incentives 
     to agency employees, which may be on the basis of any 
     component of the agency, any occupation or levels of an 
     occupation, any geographic location, or any appropriate 
     combination of these factors. The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall review and approve or disapprove 
     each plan submitted, and may modify the plan with respect to 
     the time period for incentives or the coverage of incentive 
     offers.
       Section 4 provides that in order to receive a voluntary 
     separation incentive, an employee covered by an offer of 
     incentives must separate from service with the agency 
     (whether by retirement or resignation) within the time period 
     specified in the agency's plan as approved. An employee's 
     voluntary separation incentive is an amount equal to the 
     lesser of the amount that the employee's severance pay would 
     be if the employee were entitled to severance pay under 
     section 5595 of title 5, United States Code (without 
     adjustment for any previous severance pay), or whichever of 
     the following amounts is applicable based on the date of 
     separation: $25,000 during fiscal years 1996 and 1997; 
     $20,000 during fiscal year 1998; $15,000 during fiscal year 
     1999; or $10,000 during fiscal year 2000.
       Section 5 provides that any employee who receives a 
     voluntary separation incentive under this Act and then 
     accepts any employment with the Government within 5 years 
     after separating must, prior to the first day of such 
     employment, repay the entire amount of the incentive to the 
     agency that paid the incentive. If the subsequent 
     employment is with the Executive branch, including the 
     United States Postal Service, the Director of the Office 
     of Personnel Management may waive the repayment at the 
     request of the agency head if the individual possesses 
     unique abilities and is the only qualified applicant 
     available for the position. For subsequent employment in 
     the legislative branch, the head of the entity or the 
     appointing official may waive repayment on the same basis. 
     If the subsequent employment is in the judicial branch, 
     the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts may waive repayment on the same criteria. 
     For the purpose of the repayment and waiver provisions, 
     employment includes employment under a personal services 
     contract, as defined by the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management.
       Section 6 requires additional agency contributions to the 
     Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts equal 
     to 15 percent of the final basic pay of each employee of the 
     agency who is covered by the Civil Service Retirement System 
     or the Federal Employees Retirement System to whom a 
     voluntary separation incentive is paid under this Act.
       Section 7 provides that full-time equivalent employment in 
     each agency will be reduced by one for each separation of an 
     employee who receives a voluntary separation incentive under 
     this Act, and directs the Office of Management and Budget to 
     take any action necessary to ensure compliance. Reductions 
     will be calculated by using the agency's actual full-time 
     equivalent employment levels. For example, if an agency's 
     actual FTE usage in FY 1996 is 1,050 FTEs, and 50 FTEs 
     separate during FY 1997 using voluntary separation incentive 
     payments provided under this Act, then the agency staffing 
     levels at the end of FY 1997 shall not exceed 1,000 FTEs.
       Section 8 requires the Office of Personnel Management to 
     report by March 31st of each year to the Senate Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government 
     Reform and Oversight concerning agencies' use of voluntary 
     separation incentives in the previous fiscal year. The report 
     must show, for each agency which had approval to pay 
     incentives, the number of employees who received incentives, 
     the average amount of the incentives, and the average grade 
     or pay level of the employees who received incentives. The 
     report must also include the number of waivers made under the 
     provisions of section 5 in the repayment of incentives upon 
     subsequent employment with the Government, the reasons for 
     each waiver, and the title and grade or pay level of each 
     employee to whom the waiver applied. Section 8 also amends 
     the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law 
     103-226), which now requires that reports on voluntary 
     separation incentives under that Act provide data for each 
     employee who received an incentive, to instead require 
     reports on a summary basis for each agency which paid 
     incentives, as provided for the new authority.
       Section 9 authorizes agency heads, under procedures 
     prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, to allow an 
     employee to volunteer for separation in a reduction-in-force 
     when this will result in retaining an employee in a similar 
     position who would otherwise be released in the reduction-in-
     force. A voluntary release under the provision would be 
     treated as an involuntary separation in the reduction-in-
     force. The procedures prescribed by the Office will provide 
     that an offer of voluntary participation in a reduction-in-
     force is made at the agency's discretion, and that no 
     employee may be coerced into accepting such offer. An 
     employee who is voluntarily released would not have 
     assignment (``bump'' and ``retreat'') rights in the 
     reduction-in-force.
       Section 10 provides that employees in any agency who are 
     involuntarily separated in a reduction-in-force, or who 
     voluntarily separate from a surplus position that has been 
     specifically identified for elimination in the reduction-in-
     force, can continue health benefits coverage for 18 months 
     and be required to pay only the employee's share of the 
     premium.
       Section 11 provides that the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management may prescribe any regulations necessary 
     to administer the provisions of the Act.
       Section 12 provides that the Act will take effect upon 
     enactment and that no voluntary separation incentive under 
     the Act may be paid based on the separation of an employee 
     after September 30, 2000.
                                                                    ____

                                                    U.S. Office of


                                         Personnel Management,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 1996.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the President's Management 
     Council, the Office of Personnel Management submits herewith 
     an Administration legislative proposal entitled the ``Federal 
     Employment Reduction Assistance Act of 1996.'' We request 
     that it be referred to the appropriate committee for prompt 
     and favorable consideration.
       While total Federal employment is relatively stable at 
     present, the need for employment reductions may vary 
     significantly from one particular agency to another. In the 
     next several years, it is likely that many Federal agencies 
     will need to make significant cuts. The Administration 
     believes that separation incentives can be an appropriate 
     tool for those agencies that must reduce their employment 
     levels, when the use of incentives is properly related to the 
     specific cuts that are needed within the agency and thus will 
     help reshape the agency for the future. Further, it is vital 
     to provide for consistent administration of any incentive 
     programs that prove necessary for different agencies, and to 
     appropriately limit the time period for any incentive offers.
       This initiative is based on the Executive Branch's 
     experience with voluntary separation incentives under the 
     Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994. The 
     Restructuring Act provided Federal civilian agencies with 
     authority to offer voluntary separation incentives for a one-
     year period that ended

[[Page S5771]]

     March 31, 1995. We believe that agencies generally used these 
     incentives successfully to help avoid involuntary 
     separations, and that the Restructuring Act provided a useful 
     framework for consistent administration of incentive programs 
     in many different agencies.
       This proposal would provide an overall system for the 
     limited use of voluntary separation incentives by Federal 
     civilian agencies. When an agency head determines that 
     employment in the agency must be reduced in order to improve 
     operating efficiency or meet anticipated budget levels, the 
     agency head may submit a plan to the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget for payment of voluntary separation 
     incentives to agency employees. The plan must specify how the 
     planned employment reductions will improve efficiency or meet 
     budget levels. The plan must also include a proposed time 
     period for payment of incentives, and a proposed coverage for 
     offers of incentives to agency employees on the needed 
     organizational, occupational, and geographic basis. The 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget would approve 
     or disapprove each plan submitted, and would have authority 
     to modify the time period for incentives or coverage of 
     incentive offers. We believe that these provisions for plan 
     approval will ensure that any separation incentives are 
     appropriately targeted within the agency in view of the 
     specific cuts that are needed, and are offered on a timely 
     basis. An agency's full-time equivalent employment would be 
     reduced by one for each employee of the agency who receives 
     an incentive.
       The authority for separation incentives would be in effect 
     for the period starting with the enactment of this Act and 
     ending September 30, 2000. The amount of an employee's 
     incentive would be the lesser of the amount that the 
     employee's severance pay would be, or whichever of the 
     following amounts is applicable based on separation in 
     accordance with the agency plan: $25,000 in fiscal years 1996 
     and 1997; $20,000 in fiscal year 1998; $15,000 in fiscal year 
     1999; or $10,000 in fiscal year 2000. Any employee who 
     receives an incentive and then accepts any employment with 
     the Government within 5 years after separating must, prior to 
     the first day of employment, repay the entire amount of the 
     incentive to the agency that paid the incentive. The 
     repayment requirement could be waived only under very 
     stringent circumstances of agency need.
       In order to further assist agencies in making needed cuts, 
     the bill would authorize agencies, under appropriate 
     conditions, to allow an employee to volunteer for separation 
     in a reduction-in-force when this will prevent the 
     involuntary separation of an employee in a similar position. 
     In addition, in order to minimize the impact of reduction-in-
     force actions on employees, the bill provides that employees 
     who are involuntarily separated in reductions-in-force can 
     continue their health insurance coverage for 18 months while 
     continuing to pay only the premium that would apply to a 
     current employee.
       The Administration believes that this proposal would 
     provide a very useful tool to assist agencies in making 
     needed cuts under appropriate controls and effective program 
     administration.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that the 
     enactment of this legislative proposal would be in accord 
     with the program of the President.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James B. King,
                                                 Director.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Simon, and Mr. 
        Domenici):
  S. 1834. A bill to reauthorize the Indian Environmental General 
Assistance Program Act of 1992, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs


   THE INDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ACT AMENDMENTS

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
amend the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act of 1992. 
I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, Senator Inouye, and my colleagues, Senator Simon and 
Senator Domenici as original cosponsors of this legislation.
  Mr. President, the Congress enacted the Indian Environmental General 
Assistance Program Act over 4 years ago to correct a serious deficiency 
in Federal efforts to ensure environmental protection on reservation 
lands. Environmental problems on Indian lands were virtually ignored 
until the mid-1980's when the Congress adopted amendments to the Clean 
Water Act, Superfund and the Safe Drinking Water Act to authorize 
Indian tribes to obtain regulatory primacy under these Federal 
statutes. Despite these efforts to ensure that Indian lands enjoyed the 
same level of environmental protection as the rest of the Nation, there 
remain many serious environmental threats to Indian lands.
  Some of the most severe environmental problems in the United States 
threaten our poorest communities. It has been reported that at least 
600 solid waste landfills exist on Indian lands that do not meet 
Federal standards. Contamination from unsanitary landfills pose a daily 
hazard to the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota, which is located 
in one of the poorest counties in America. Mercury pollution on the 
Seminole Indian Reservation in Florida threatens fishing and the 
gathering of food. The Navajo Nation estimates that as many as 1,000 
abandoned hazardous waste sites polluted with uranium mine waste 
contaminate its reservation land in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. In a 
1994 inspector general report, the EPA estimated that at least 75 
percent of the reported 530 leaking underground storage tanks on Indian 
lands have not been cleaned up and many more have not been identified. 
These additional conditions are intolerable and deserve our immediate 
action.
  The Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act authorizes 
the Environmental Protection Agency to award multimedia grants to 
Indian tribal governments for the purpose of developing tribal capacity 
to establish environmental regulatory programs. Before the Committee on 
Indian Affairs, Indian tribes have testified regarding the need for a 
diversified and flexible funding mechanism to allow for the development 
of tribal environmental programs across a wide range of media areas.
  The General Assistance Program allows Indian tribes to tailor an 
environmental management approach that is flexible and allows for the 
allocation of limited resources pursuant to tribally identified 
environmental priorities. The minimum award for a general assistance 
grant is $75,000 per year. The act authorizes $15 million per fiscal 
year to be appropriated to the EPA to administer the General Assistance 
Program.

  Despite these advances in Federal Indian environmental policy, many 
Indian tribal programs are barely in the infant stages of development. 
The General Assistance Program provides Indian tribal governments with 
the necessary technical and financial assistance to enable them to 
become better environmental managers.
  The bill I am introducing is a simple amendment to the act that would 
authorize the appropriation of such sums as are necessary to implement 
the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program. This modification 
will provide greater flexibility to the Administrator of EPA to make 
awards to Indian tribes under the act and it will enable a greater 
number of Indian tribes to develop environmental programs.
  In the 4 years since its enactment, less than one-fifth of the 557 
Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages have been able to receive 
grant awards under this program. This modification will ensure that 
more tribal governments will be able to receive assistance to address 
the many severe environmental problems affecting reservation lands. In 
monetary terms, the funds that are needed to address these 
environmental problems are enormous and far exceed the scarce resources 
of most Indian tribes. Through this legislation, we will ensure that 
the Federal Government will afford Indian lands the same protection to 
a clean environment as the rest of the United States.
  I am pleased to note that this legislation is strongly endorsed by 
Indian tribes and the EPA. The EPA has steadily increased its efforts 
over the past several years to support tribal authority to regulate 
environmental programs on reservation lands. EPA Administrator Browner 
expressed her commitment to improving environmental protection on 
Indian lands by elevating the needs of Indian tribes as a funding 
priority for the Agency. This commitment is a long overdue, but much 
welcome change for Indian country.
  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation and 
join me in this effort to assist Indian tribes to improve environmental 
quality on Indian lands.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1835. A bill to expand the definition of limited tax benefit for 
purposes of the line-item veto; to the Committee on the Budget and the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of 
August 4, 1977, that

[[Page S5772]]

if one committee reports the other have 30 days to report or be 
discharged.


              the line-item veto act expansion act of 1996

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to 
expand the Line-Item Veto Act to cover one of the largest and fastest 
growing areas of the Federal budget, tax expenditures.
  I am especially proud to be joined in offering this legislation by 
two colleagues who have worked to ensure that tax expenditures receive 
the scrutiny that other forms of spending receive, my good friends, the 
Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] and the Senator from Minnesota 
[Mr. Wellstone].
  In addition to our effort here in the Senate, I am pleased that my 
good friend, Congressman Tom Barrett of Milwaukee, is spearheading this 
legislation in the other body. Both bills expand the Line-Item Veto Act 
which was signed into law recently, and which will take effect next 
January and remain in force for the next 8 years.
  Mr. President, both Congressman Barrett and I supported the new Line-
Item Veto Act that was signed into law a few weeks ago. Though it isn't 
the whole answer to our deficit problem, I very much hope it will be 
part of the answer.
  However, the new Line-Item Veto Act failed to address one of the 
largest, and fastest growing areas of Federal spending--the program 
spending done through the Tax Code, often called tax expenditures.
  Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that over the next 7 years, we 
will spend $3.7 trillion on tax expenditures. In the coming fiscal 
year, it is estimated that we will spend more on programs through the 
Tax Code, nearly $480 billion, than we will on discretionary spending 
for defense, agriculture, the Commerce Department programs, education, 
the environment, health programs including medical research, housing 
programs, the Justice Department, transportation, veterans affairs, the 
space program, the entire Federal judiciary, and the entire legislative 
branch.
  Mr. President, despite making up a huge portion of the Federal 
budget, tax expenditures are off the table with regard to the new 
Presidential authority which only extends to so-called limited tax 
benefits, defined in part to be a tax expenditure that benefits 100 or 
fewer taxpayers. Thus, as long as the tax attorneys can find 101 
taxpayers--individuals, corporations, or both--who benefit from the 
proposed tax expenditure, it is beyond the reach of the new 
Presidential authority.
  Mr. President, it may not even be necessary for the tax attorneys to 
find that one 101st taxpayer. If a tax expenditure gives equal 
treatment to all persons in the same industry or engaged in the same 
type of activity, it is exempt from the new Presidential authority no 
matter how few benefit from the special treatment.
  Also, if all persons owning the same type of property, or issuing the 
same type of investment, receive the same treatment from a tax 
expenditure, that tax expenditure is beyond the reach of the 
President's new authority.
  And, there are still more exceptions that make it even harder for a 
President to trim unnecessary spending done through the Tax Code. For 
example, if any difference in the treatment of persons by a new tax 
expenditure is based solely on the size or form of the business or 
association involved, or, in the case of individuals, general 
demographic conditions, then the new spending cannot be touched by the 
President except as part of a veto of the entire piece of legislation 
which contains the new spending.
  Mr. President, we find none of these elaborate restrictions on 
spending done through the appropriations process or through 
entitlements. The new Presidential authority is handcuffed only for 
spending done through the Tax Code.
  Mr. President, this raises several problems.
  First, and foremost, it partitions off an enormous portion of the 
Federal budget from this new tool to cut wasteful and unnecessary 
spending. Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that we are spending over 
$450 billion through the Tax Code this year, nearly $480 billion next 
year, and a whopping $3.7 trillion over the next 7 years. If the 
authority established by the Line-Item Veto Act is to have meaning, it 
cannot be preempted from being used to scrutinize this much spending.
  A second problem raised by the inability of the new Presidential 
authority to address new tax expenditures is that it creates an 
enormous loophole through which questionable spending can escape. The 
current Line-Item Veto Act power given the President formally covers 
discretionary spending and new entitlement authority. But a special 
interest intent on enacting its pork-barrel spending could still do so 
by avoiding the discretionary or entitlement formats, and instead 
transform their pork into a tax expenditure. As a tax expenditure, most 
special interest pork is beyond the reach of the Line-Item Veto Act.
  Mr. President, this gaping hole is big enough to sink the entire 
ship.
  No matter how powerful this new authority is with regard to 
discretionary spending and entitlement authority, it is virtually 
useless against tax expenditures, and thus invites special interests to 
use this avenue to deliver pork.

  Mr. President, a further problem with the lack of adequate 
Presidential review in this area is the very real potential for 
inequities in the implementation of the new Line-Item Veto Act 
authority. These inequities arise in part from the progressive 
structure of marginal tax rates--as income rises, higher tax rates are 
applied. In turn, this means that many tax expenditures are worth more 
to those in the higher income tax brackets than they are to families 
with lower incomes.
  In some instances, tax expenditures provide no benefit at all to 
individuals with lower incomes.
  This is not the case with entitlement and discretionary spending 
programs--both areas covered by the Line-Item Veto Act. The benefits of 
those programs often are targeted to those with lower income.
  The net effect is that the scope of the current Line-Item Veto Act 
covers programs that often benefit those with low and moderate income, 
while it is powerless with regard to programs that often benefit 
individuals and corporations with higher incomes.
  Mr. President, tax expenditures have another feature that makes it 
especially important that we extend the new Line-Item Veto Act to cover 
them, namely their status as a kind of superentitlement. Once enacted, 
a tax expenditure continues to spend money without any additional 
authorization or appropriation, and without any regular review. In 
fact, while even funding for entitlements like Medicare or Medicaid can 
be suspended in rare instances such as a Government shutdown, funding 
for a tax expenditure is never interrupted.
  Tax expenditures enjoy a status that is far above any other kind of 
government spending, and as such, it should receive special scrutiny. 
Extending the Line-Item Veto Act to cover them will provide some of 
that needed review.
  Mr. President, as I have noted, tax expenditures make up a huge 
portion of the budget. They will soon exceed the entire Federal 
discretionary budget. Citizens for Tax Justice reports that if all 
current tax expenditures were suddenly repealed, the deficit could be 
eliminated and income tax rates could be reduced across the board by 
about 25 percent.
  Clearly, tax expenditures have an enormous impact on the deficit, and 
we need to pursue two tracks with regard to them. First, we must cut 
some of the $455 billion in existing spending done through the Tax 
Code. Any balanced plan to eliminate the deficit over the next few 
years must contain cuts to spending in this area.
  And second, with so much of our budget already dedicated to this kind 
of spending, we must bring tax expenditures under the Line-Item Veto 
Act and give the President the authority to act on new spending in this 
area as he does in other areas.
  Our legislation does just that by eliminating the highly restrictive 
language with respect to tax expenditures.
  Mr. President, as with the recently enacted Line-Item Veto Act 
itself, this bill to extend that new authority is not the whole answer 
to our deficit problems, but it can be part of the answer, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this effort to put teeth into the new 
Presidential authority with respect to the tax expenditure portion of 
the Federal budget.

[[Page S5773]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1835

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

       Section 1026(9) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 (as added by the Line Item Veto Act) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(9) Limited tax benefit.--The term `limited tax benefit' 
     means any tax provision that has the practical effect of 
     providing a benefit in the form of different treatment to a 
     particular taxpayer or a limited class of taxpayers, whether 
     or not such provision is limited by its terms to a particular 
     taxpayer or class of taxpayers.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 1836. A bill to designate a segment of the Clarion River, located 
in Pennsylvania, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


           NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM LEGISLATION

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure to 
add 51.7 miles of Pennsylvania's Clarion River to the National Wild and 
Scenic Rivers System. This bill, which Senator Specter has joined as an 
original cosponsor, is companion legislation to a measure being 
introduced in the House of Representatives today by Congressman Bill 
Clinger.
  Our bill designates segments of the main stem of the Clarion River 
from the Allegheny National Forest-State Game Lands No. 44 boundary to 
the backwaters of Piney Dam as part of the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System. This designation will help to preserve and protect the 
significant scenic and recreational values of these segments of the 
Clarion River.
  This measure will conclude work begun by the late Senator John Heinz. 
It was his legislation to add a portion of the Allegheny River to the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that also authorized the study 
of the Clarion River to determine its eligibility. The study was 
concluded earlier this year. And enactment of the bill that Senator 
Specter and I are offering today will bring Senator Heinz's efforts 
full circle.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the full text 
of this bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1836

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THE CLARION RIVER.

       Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``( ) Clarion river, pennsylvania.--The 51.7-mile segment 
     of the main stem of the Clarion River from the Allegheny 
     National Forest/State Game Lands Number 44 boundary, located 
     approximately 0.7 miles downstream from the Ridgway Borough 
     limit, to an unnamed tributary in the backwaters of Piney Dam 
     approximately 0.6 miles downstream from Blyson Run, to be 
     administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in the following 
     classifications:
       ``(A) The approximately 8.6 mile segment of the main stem 
     from the Allegheny National Forest/State Game Lands Number 44 
     boundary, located approximately 0.7 miles downstream from the 
     Ridgway Borough limit, to Portland Mills, as a recreational 
     river.
       ``(B) The approximately 8-mile segment of the main stem 
     from Portland Mills to the Allegheny National Forest 
     boundary, located approximately 0.8 miles downstream from 
     Irwin Run, as a scenic river.
       ``(C) The approximately 26-mile segment of the main stem 
     from the Allegheny National Forest boundary, located 
     approximately 0.8 miles downstream from Irwin Run, to the 
     State Game Lands 283 boundary, located approximately 0.9 
     miles downstream from the Cooksburg bridge, as a recreational 
     river.
       ``(D) The approximately 9.1-mile segment of the main stem 
     from the State Game Lands 283 boundary, located approximately 
     0.9 miles downstream from the Cooksburg bridge, to an unnamed 
     tributary at the backwaters of Piney Dam, located 
     approximately 0.6 miles downstream from Blyson Run, as a 
     scenic river.''.

                          ____________________