Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 80 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)

[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.''.

____________________