Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 81 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5856-S5866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 1837. A bill to require that 401(k)-type pension plans
be subject to the same prohibited transaction rules that
apply to traditional defined benefit pension plans; to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself and Mr. Helms):
S. 1838. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to
mint and issue coins in commemoration of the centennial
anniversary of the first manned flight of Orville and Wilbur
Wright in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, on December 17, 1903;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself, Mr. Burns, and Mr.
Stevens):
S. 1839. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
1997 to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for
human space flight; science, aeronautics, and technology;
mission support; and Inspector General; and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Hollings,
Mr. Bryan, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1840. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act
to authorize appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. MOYNIHAN (by request):
S. 1841. A bill to reform the Nation's welfare system by
requiring work and demanding personal responsibility; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. JEFFORDS:
S. 1842. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 to improve protections for workers in
multiemployer pension plans; to the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources.
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Thurmond, Mr.
Thomas, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 1843. A bill to provide for the allocation of funds from
the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1844. A bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act to direct a study of the opportunities for enhanced
water based recreation and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

[[Page S5857]]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

THE 401(k) PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 1996

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I introduced a bill to protect
America's 401(k) retirement savings.
Mr. President, this bill is designed to close a major, unintended
loophole in Federal pension law, a loophole that jeapordizes 401(k)
pension plans.
The legal protections afforded traditional pension plans are not
applied equally to 401(k) pension plans. Traditional pension plans,
known as defined benefit pension plans, may not invest more than 10
percent of their assets in securities and real property of the
corporation they work for. Federal law further requires that all
traditional pension plans investments be diversified. This protection
does not uniformly apply to 401(k) plans.
This increases the investment risk to 401(k) plans. This Increased
investment risk is borne totally by 401(k) plan members, not by the
companies sponsoring the 401(k) plans.
Furthermore, Mr. President, 401(k) plans do not have Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation insurance, as do traditional pension plans, in the
event the employer corporation goes bankrupt. So the protections of
diversity become even more urgent.
The protections for traditional plans were wisely put in Federal law
when the Pension Reform Act, known as ERISA, was adopted in 1974. The
limitations were designed to prevent the recurrence of the many pension
scandals that predated the passage of ERISA, scandals in which
employers used their employees' pension plans as the company piggy-
bank. Scandals in which the sponsoring company went bankrupt and the
employees lost not only their jobs, but their pensions.
Unfortunately, these protections do not apply to 401(k) plans. That
is an unintended consequence, a quirk of history.
When ERISA was passed, there was no section 401(k). 401(k) was added
4 years later, in 1978, to a section of ERISA governing profit sharing
plans, not pension plans. At the time no one thought 401(k) plans would
be any more than small supplemental, profit-sharing plans.
At the time, no one predicted that 401(k) plans would become the
predominant form of pension plan. Consequently, no one thought to
protect them as ERISA protected pension plans. Consequently, Federal
law permitted 401(k) plans to invest more than 10 percent of their
assets in the employer sponsoring the 401(k)plan. In fact, 401(k) plans
are permitted to invest all of their assets in the sponsoring company.
That was hardly noticed when 401(k) was added in 1978; 401(k) plans
were tiny--thought of as profit sharing plans. But today, the
investment loophole represents a danger to the retirement security of
Americans. It is a danger to the 23 million Americans who belong to
401(k) plans. It is a danger to the 675 billion dollars that these
Americans have saved in their 401(k) plans.
Today's Wall Street Journal reports just how dangerous it is. The
Journal today describes the plight of thousands of employees of Color
Tile, Inc. Until January, Color Tile was a major name in retailing,
operating 774 stores in 48 States, coast-to-coast. There were 62 stores
in my State of California alone.

Suddenly in January, Color Tile went into bankruptcy; 234 stores were
closed. Hundreds of employees lost their jobs, many with only 30
minutes notice. The jobs of thousands more are at risk. Unfortunately,
so are their pensions.
Color Tile employees were shocked to learn after the bankruptcy that
nearly 85 percent of Color Tile's 401(k) assets were Color Tile stores.
The 401(k) plan owned 44 stores leased to Color Tile. As a result of
the bankruptcy, Color Tile broke many of the leases on stores owned by
its employees' 401(k) plan. Moreover, the 401(k) plan borrowed to build
many of the stores. Those mortgage-loan payments to the plan's banks
still have to be paid, but, because Color Tile repudiated many of the
leases, rent payments to pay bank loans are no longer available. As a
result, the plan told shocked workers last month, that it isn't ``clear
that the plan has sufficient cash to pay the bills, including mortgage
payments.''
For Color Tile employees, things could not be much worse. Color
Tile's only pension plan is the 401(k) plan. The employees are facing,
not only the loss of their jobs, but their pension savings.
This would not be possible if 401(k) plans were protected by the
rules that protect traditional pension plans. If my bill had been law,
Color Tile's pension plan would not be in jeopardy.
My bill would simply apply the same pension protections to all
plans--401(k) and traditional pension plans--that deliver retirement
security. For the first time, 401(k) plans would have the same 10
percent conflict-of-interest limitations on investments with the
sponsoring company that have always applied to traditional pension
plans. It would be illegal to do what Color Tile did to its employees.
It would be illegal for a company to borrow more than 10 percent of
its employees 401(k) plan assets--as the company slides into
bankruptcy. That's exactly what happened to the employees of Metacor,
Inc., of Deerfield Beach, FL. In the 24 months before Metacor filed for
bankruptcy, the company used its employees 401(k) plan as a piggy bank.
The 401(k) plans made 34 separate loans to Metacor in those 24 months,
until nothing was left to loan. Most people believe that was made
illegal in 1974 when Congress passed the Pension Reform Act. They are
misinformed. Unfortunately, we exempted 401(k) plans. My bill would
close that loophole.

The only plans exempted under my bill would be plans designed as true
profitsharing plans, stock bonus, or stock option plans--plans not
designed specifically for retirement.
My bill also exempts employee-directed 401(k) plans, because
employees should be able to waive the 10-percent limitations if they
want to. It's their money.
My bill would have protected not only the employees of the 62 Color
Tile stores in my State--8 in Orange County alone--but the employees of
Color Tile stores everywhere. Had this bill been law, the employees of
the 12 stores shut down in Illinois, the 5 stores shut in Wisconsin,
the 4 stores shut in Virginia, the 3 stores shut in Michigan, the
stores shut in Texas, Oregon, and Minnesota would not be worried today
about losing their 401(k) pension plan assets.
Remember many have already lost their jobs, now many are losing their
pensions too.
The employees of stores shut in my State, California, in Visalia and
San Diego, would not be worried about their 401(k) plan.
Mr. President, I hope my two colleagues--the Senators from the State
of Mississippi--are listening. One of you may soon be the majority
leader and in a position to greatly help the passage of this bill.
I say to both of them: you can remember the 225 former employees of
the Cleveland, MS, Color Tile factory. You can help assure the
unfolding tragedy of the Color Tile 401(k) plan will not happen again.
You can help pass this bill. I will work with you.
Here is a picture of 12 of those Mississippi employees. This picture
was taken at the front gate of the factory after it was closed in
February. This picture is America. Unfortunately, it says that America
needs better protections for 401(k)'s.
This is Dorsey Kelsey, 57 years old. Dorsey worked at the plant 18
and a half years, as a janitor. Her husband is Robert Kelley. Robert
worked at the plant for over 20 years. Between them, Robert and Dorsey
had $20,000 in the 401(k) plan. $20,000 that Robert needs, but can't
get access to, if he ever will. Robert and Dorsey are why we need this
bill.
This is Woodrow ``Moose'' Issacs, 57, also of Cleveland, MS. Moose
was a maintenance mechanic and worked at the plant for 38 years. His
last statement from the 401(k) plan, as of September 30, 1995, showed
he had $57,900 in the plan. A good deal of that money he may never see.
Raymonda Almond, 53, of Boyle, MS was in outside sales. She worked
for the plant for 9 years and saved $17,000.

[[Page S5858]]

She planned on using the money to supplement her Social Security when
she retired. Now she needs it to live on, but cannot get access to it.
Some of it she possibly never will see.
She will just have to make do with Social Security.
Paul Locke, 24 years old, worked at the plant for 3\1/2\ years. He
was a full-time student at Delta State University and worked full time
at Color Tile. He saved $4,000, money that he was going to use as a
down payment on a house when he graduated. That house will probably
have to wait.
I could list the other seven former Color Tile employees in this
picture, some holding their children, some holding grandchildren.
Suffice to say that collectively this picture represents $199,900 in
savings in the 401(k) plan. Saved through years of work at Color Tile.
Money that is at risk because the Federal Government is not adequately
protecting 401(k) plans.

Mr. President this picture says more than I could ever say about why
we need this bill. I ask all my colleagues to join me in protecting
401(k) pension plans--just as well as we protect traditional pension
plans.
It is time to close an unintended and unforeseen loophole in ERISA.
It is time to apply the 10-percent limitations on conflict-of-interest
investments to 401(k) plans. Let us protect 401(k) members just as we
protect the members of traditional pension plans.
______

By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself and Mr. Helms):
S. 1838. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and
issue coins in commemoration of the centennial anniversary of the first
manned flight of Orville and Wilbur Wright in Kitty Hawk, NC, on
December 17 1903; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.

the first flight commemorative coin act

Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague
from North Carolina, Senator Helms, to introduce the First Flight
Commemorative Coin Act. This revenue-neutral legislation instructs the
Treasury Secretary to mint coins in commemoration of the Wright
Brothers' historic 1903 flight on the North Carolina coast.
Mr. President, in the cold morning hours of December 17, 1903, a
small crowd watched the Wright flyer lift off the flat landscape of
Kitty Hawk. Orville Wright traveled just 120 feet--less than the
wingspan of a Boeing 747--in his 12-second flight. It was, however, the
first time that a manned machine sailed into the air under its own
power.
The residents of Kitty Hawk, then an isolated fishing village, thus
bore witness to the realization of the centuries-old dream of flight.
The significance of the Wright Brothers' flight reaches far beyond
its status as the first flight. There flight represented the birth of
aviation. On that morning, aeronautics moved from untested theory to
nascent science, and it triggered a remarkable technological evolution.
In fact, just 24 years after their fragile craft rose unsteadily and
took to the air, Charles Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic Ocean. In 1947,
less than half a century after the pioneer 31 mph flight over Kitty
Hawk, Chuck Yeager shattered the sound barrier over the Mojave Desert.
The rapid aeronautical progression, which the Wright Brothers
initiated on that December morning in Kitty Hawk, is, of course,
remarkable. Mr. President, it was just 66 years after the Wright
Brothers' 120-foot flight--a timespan equivalent to the age of many
Members of this body--that Neil Armstrong traveled 240,000 miles to
plant the American flag on the Moon.
Today, some 86,000 planes lift off from American airports on a daily
basis, and air travel is routine. It was with a sprinkling of
onlookers, however, that the Wright Brothers ushered in the age of
flight on that cold winter morning in Kitty Hawk.
The site of the first flight, at the foot of Kill Devil Hill, was
initially designated as a national memorial in 1927 and is visited by
close to a half-million people each year.
I think that First Flight Commemorative Coin Act is a most
appropriate tribute to the Wright Brothers as the centennial
anniversary of the first flight approaches. The coin will be minted in
$10, $1, and 50 cents denominations, and its sales will fund
educational programs and improvements to the visitor center at the
memorial.
These commemorative coins are struck to celebrate important
historical events, and, of course, the proceeds are an important
revenue source to the custodians of these legacies. The centennial
anniversary of the Wright Brothers' flight merits our observance.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues for their support, and 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. 1838

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 ``First Flight Commemorative
Coin Act''.

SEC. 2. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

(a) Denominations.--The Secretary of the Treasury
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall mint and issue the following coins:
(1) $10 gold coins.--Not more than 500,000 $10 coins, each
of which shall--
(A) weigh 16.718 grams;
(B) have a diameter of 1.06 inches; and
(C) contain 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy.
(2) $1 silver coins.--Not more than 3,000,000 $1 coins,
each of which shall--
(A) weigh 26.73 grams;
(B) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(C) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
(3) Half dollar clad coins.--Not more than 10,000,000 half
dollar coins each of which shall--
(A) weigh 11.34 grams;
(B) have a diameter of 1.205 inches; and
(C) be minted to the specifications for half dollar coins
contained in section 5112(b) of title 31, United States Code.
(b) Reduced Amounts.--If the Secretary determines that
there is clear evidence of insufficient public demand for
coins minted under this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury
may reduce the maximum amounts specified in paragraphs (1),
(2), and (3) of subsection (a).
(c) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.

SEC. 3. SOURCES OF BULLION.

The Secretary shall obtain gold and silver for minting
coins under this Act pursuant to the authority of the
Secretary under other provisions of law, including authority
relating to the use of silver stockpiles established under
the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act, as
applicable.

SEC. 4. DESIGN OF COINS.

(a) Design Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this
Act shall be emblematic of the first flight of Orville and
Wilbur Wright in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, on December 17,
1903.
(2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted
under this Act there shall be--
(A) a designation of the value of the coin;
(B) an inscription of the year ``2003''; and
(C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We
Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus
Unum''.
(b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this
Act shall be--
(1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with the
Board of Directors of the First Flight Foundation and the
Commission of Fine Arts; and
(2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory
Committee.

SEC. 5. PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF COINS.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Secretary may issue coins minted under this Act only during
the period beginning on August 1, 2003, and ending on July
31, 2004.
(b) Exception.--If the Secretary determines that there is
sufficient public demand for the coins minted under section
2(a)(3), the Secretary may extend the period of issuance
under subsection (a) for a period of 5 years with respect to
those coins.

SEC. 6. SALE OF COINS.

(a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be
sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
(1) the face value of the coins;
(2) the surcharge provided in subsection (d) with respect
to such coins; and
(3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including
labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses,
marketing, shipping, and profit).
(b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the
coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
(c) Prepaid Orders.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders
for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of
such coins.
(2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders
under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
(d) Surcharges.--All sales shall include a surcharge of--
(1) $35 per coin for the $10 coin;

[[Page S5859]]

(2) $10 per coin for the $1 coin; and
(3) $1 per coin for the half dollar coin.
(e) Marketing Expenses.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
(1) a plan is established for marketing the coins minted
under this Act; and
(2) adequate funds are made available to cover the costs of
carrying out that marketing plan.

SEC. 7. GENERAL WAIVER OF PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
provision of law governing procurement or public contracts
shall be applicable to the procurement of goods and services
necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(b) Equal Employment Opportunity.--Subsection (a) shall not
relieve any person entering into a contract under the
authority of this Act from complying with any law relating to
equal employment opportunity.

SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.

(a) In General.--All surcharges received by the Secretary
from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall be
promptly paid by the Secretary to the First Flight Foundation
for the purposes of--
(1) repairing, refurbishing, and maintaining the Wright
Brothers Monument on the Outer Banks of North Carolina; and
(2) expanding (or, if necessary, replacing) and maintaining
the visitor center and other facilities at the Wright
Brothers National Memorial Park on the Outer Banks of North
Carolina, including providing educational programs and
exhibits for visitors.
(b) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall have the right to examine such books, records,
documents, and other data of the First Flight Foundation as
may be related to the expenditures of amounts paid under
subsection (a).

SEC. 9. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.

The Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary
to ensure that minting and issuing coins under this Act will
not result in any net cost to the United States Government.
______

By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Stevens):
S. 1839. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 to
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for human space
flight; science, aeronautics, and technology; mission support; and
inspector general; and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

the nasa authorization act for fiscal year 1997

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today, as chairman of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Space, I introduced the NASA
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. The bill is cosponsored by the
chairman of our Space Subcommittee, Senator Conrad Burns, who has
provided the committee with great leadership and direction on space
policy matters.
In the past, the main challenges NASA faced were technological.
Today, NASA faces a new set of challenges which are mainly budgetary,
but they are no less daunting than the Apollo missions to the Moon. To
the credit of Administrator Dan Goldin, rather than complain about the
current budget challenge faced by the Federal Government, he has faced
them head on. Last year, he developed an ambitious budget-cutting plan
to reduce his agency's budget by more than $5 billion over the next 5
years. Under the plan, NASA funding would drop from its current level
of $13.9 billion to $11.6 billion by the year 2000.
To date, NASA has not revealed precisely how it will make these cuts
while at the same time fulfilling its commitment to its major ongoing
programs--including multibillion-dollar initiatives like space station
and Mission to Planet Earth. There is a growing sense NASA's budget is
already cut to the bone and further cuts by Congress might prevent the
agency from realizing its bold visions in space science and
exploration. With that in mind, my bill is aimed at providing NASA
sufficient funding authority to continue the missions and programs that
have inspired our Nation and the world.
Mr. President, my bill authorizes $13.7 billion in fiscal year 1997
to support a diverse and forward-looking space program to move NASA
into the 21st century. It authorizes all of NASA's major current
programs such as Mission to Planet Earth, space station, space science,
and aeronautics and, in almost all cases, at their requested funding
levels. It also continues funding for the new Reusable Launch Vehicle
Program aimed at providing private industry the technology to
eventually build a shuttle replacement. The bill contains an
authorization for NASA's new radar satellite program which is so
critical to U.S. leadership in space science and our competitiveness in
the growing satellite remote sensing market.
Mr. President, let me make special mention of certain portions of the
bill.
I believe Mission to Planet Earth may be NASA's most important and
relevant program. The satellite data from Mission to Planet Earth will
deliver direct benefits to the taxpayer in contrast to the speculative
spinoffs promised by other space activities. For this reason, the bill
fully funds this activity at the requested level of $1.4 billion.
Using the latest satellite technology, Mission to Planet Earth will
help researchers understand and predict the global climate trends that
affect our lives. As a Senator representing an agricultural State, I
have a keen interest in this program's potential to provide detailed
data on soil conditions, topography, crops, and other information
critical to the farming and ranching community. I also take great pride
in the selection of the EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD as one of
the regional data centers that will collect and distribute this
satellite data.
I am very concerned that, under the new budget constraints in which
we find ourselves, some may seek to sacrifice Mission to Planet Earth,
and space science in general, to fund space station. That would be a
disservice to the Nation and I will oppose any such move strongly.
I am pleased with the direction of the baseline plan for the Mission
to Planet Earth Program and am concerned about the possibility of NASA
taking any imprudent and unnecessary efforts to restructure the
program. Accordingly, the bill specifically prohibits NASA from
changing the program unless, 60 days before such action, NASA has
reported to Congress on the nature and overall impact of the planned
changes.
The bill also provides the full $2.1 billion requested funding for
space station. However, this authorization should not be interpreted as
a ringing endorsement of that program. I am a longstanding support of
the program, but, in recent years, I have become concerned that it has
become too expensive, too complex, and too dependent on the
contributions of Russia, the latest station partner.
In a June 1995 report, the General Accounting Office [GAO] estimated
that the total cost of the design, launch, and operation of the space
station will be $94 billion. That is almost seven times the entire
annual budget for NASA. Given the history of past missions, it is fair
to assume that $94 billion price tag for the program will increase over
time. If that happens, we may wake up to find the enormous space
station budget has crowded out every other NASA program to become
NASA's only mission. Because of my reservations about space station, I
may well reconsider my support in the future. But, for now, with the
start of the space station assembly only 1 year away, I am supporting
full funding in fiscal year 1997 for the space station effort.

The bill also authorizes NASA's Reusable Launch Vehicle Program,
which will support the X-33 and X-34 activities to pave the way for the
later development by private enterprise of a replacement for the
shuttle in the next decade. Employing 1970's technologies and costing
$400 million per flight, the shuttle may have outlived its usefulness.
However, within today's budget constraints, the Government cannot
afford to foot the entire bill for a new multibillion dollar spacecraft
development program. That is why the Reusable Launch Vehicle Program,
with its emphasis on sharing financing with industry and its goal of
moving our national space transportation system toward privatization,
seems a viable concept worth pursuing.
The bill also authorizes $35 million for NASA feasibility studies and
subsequent development and operations work for a new radar satellite
program. Earlier this year, at the urging of the Commerce Committee and
the Congress, NASA announced its commitment to study the feasibility of
developing a new civilian radar satellite with scientific applications.
Because radar satellites have the ability to see through cloud cover,
they will dramatically enhance the capability of the Nation's existing
optical-based satellite

[[Page S5860]]

systems such as Landsat. With Japan, Europe, and Canada already
operating radar satellite systems, and with Canada poised to deploy one
later this year, the United States cannot afford to be left behind in
this critical technology.
In my role as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation, it has become apparent to me that small-city, rural
States like my home State of South Dakota are often forgotten in our
vast $70-billion Federal science and technology enterprise. That part
of America wants and deserves to be part of the technological
revolution. More importantly, it wants to contribute. It is in the
national interest to strengthen the scientific talent, resources, and
infrastructure in our rural States through appropriate research,
education, and outreach activities. The bill attempts to accomplish
this in several ways. It increases funding for the Experimental Program
To Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR] from its current level of
$4.9 million to $10 million. NASA's EPSCoR Program, was well as similar
programs in six other science agencies, have been instrumental in
providing Federal funding for academic research in rural States. My
bill also funds the efforts of two separate university-led consortia
formed to process Mission to Planet Earth satellite date into useful
information for the farming and research communities in the Upper
Plains States region.
Finally, Mr. President, my bill urges NASA to consider the use of
underutilized military and other Federal Government facilities before
committing to new leases of the construction of new facilities to
fulfill agency requirements. With the end of the cold war and the
drawdown of our military infrastructure, we have many facilities and
property that are unused or woefully underutilized. In my home State of
South Dakota, I can cite the Ellsworth Air Force Base as an example,
but every Member in the Senate can no doubt identify an underutilized
military facility in his or her State that might be put to some cost-
effective use in our U.S. space program. I strongly believe that NASA
should start taking a serious look at using some of these valuable
assets and properties that have served as the foundation of our
national defense before making huge financial commitments to new leases
or facilities. My bill would simply require NASA to engage in this kind
of review as a matter of agency policy.
Mr. President, I believe NASA is up to the challenge of keeping
America preeminent in aeronautics and space despite the intense budget
pressure and despite the increasing competition from other spacefaring
nations. I am convinced this authorization bill provides NASA with the
support it needs to meet that challenge.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the
NASA authorization bill for fiscal year 1997, introduced by Senator
Pressler, the chairman of our Commerce Committee. Let me take this
opportunity to thank Senator Pressler for crafting a bill which
provides the funding NASA will need to complete billion-dollar missions
like space station and Mission to Planet Earth on schedule and prepare
for the next century.
As chairman of the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee, I
have concerns about NASA's cost-cutting plan to reduce its budget by $5
billion over 5 years and cut its spending to $11.6 billion by the year
2000. The goals and missions of our space agency must be balanced
within fiscal responsibility. This legislation authorizes $13.7 billion
for NASA in fiscal year 1997. This level, slightly less than the $13.8
billion budget request, will allow NASA to continue all of its major
ongoing aeronautics and space programs, including Mission to Planet
Earth, space station aeronautics research, and space science and
exploration.
The bill authorizes the full $1.4 billion requested by NASA for its
Mission to Planet Earth. This program has come a long way in recent
years. Originally, it was misperceived as being exclusively focused on
global warming and developing justifications for caps and timetables on
industry emissions. Now we realize it is much broader than that. From
several oversight hearings before the Science Subcommittee, we now know
it is really about using satellite technology to help farmers predict
weather on a year-to-year basis and measure soil moisture using a desk-
top computer. It is about giving land planners, mappers, and foresters
a cost-effective tool to help them do their work. It is about mineral
exploration and archaeology. In short, Mission to Planet Earth is about
using NASA's satellites to help average citizens in their everyday
activities. At the University of Montana and other institutions in the
Plains States, our researchers are already eager to gather data from
the program so they can start developing useful applications for the
community. It is time to proceed with carrying out the sound baseline
plan for the program and not get sidetracked by calls for delays,
cutbacks, and unnecessary studies from vocal opponents of this
important initiative. The bill's full funding for Mission to Planet
Earth should help the program go forward.
The bill also provides $2.1 billion for the space station account and
related activities. After more than a decade of planning and hard work,
the United States and its foreign partners will finally start the
assembly of the mammoth orbiting laboratory late next year. Let me
first say that I wholeheartedly support the space station. I believe
the space station represents the next logical step in our manned space
exploration program. If successful, this program will demonstrate what
great nations can do when combining their talent and resources for
peaceful scientific purposes. Beyond that, the space station will help
our Nation maintain and strengthen its traditional leadership in
aeronautics and space. While I continue to have some concerns about the
heavy reliance of the current space station plan on Russian
participation, I am optimistic that space station will successfully
proceed within budget and on schedule.
I believe that NASA's aeronautics research program is one of the main
reasons for our Nation's preeminence in aerospace. Aeronautics is the
first A in NASA. Yet, for many years, aeronautics seemed to be reduced
to a small A status. It always seemed to take a back seat to the higher
profile space missions. However, under Dan Goldin's leadership, that is
beginning to change and NASA is giving aeronautics the backing it
deserves. For instance, the High Speed Research Program is developing
precompetitive technologies in support of supersonic aircraft. It is
estimated that the first country to market such an aircraft stands to
gain $200 billion in sales and 140,000 new jobs. Similarly, the
Advanced Subsonic Technology Program funds research in support of
subsonic airplanes--a market that generates 1 million jobs and
contributes over $25 billion annually to the U.S. trade balance. These
programs are moneymakers and it is in the national interest to give
them whatever support they need. Accordingly, our NASA bill authorizes
aeronautics research at the requested level of $858 million.
Our bill also provides authorization for NASA's successful collection
of technology transfer, education, and outreach activities. These
programs have been very effective in allowing our quality research
institutions in rural States and regions to contribute to the
technological revolution. For instance, last May, our Science
Subcommittee heard from Professor Steve Running of the University of
Montana about his promising research in the use of remote sensing
satellite data in forest and crop management. Our rural States can make
an enormous contribution to the civilian space program if only given
the chance.
In that connection, the bill provides $10 million for the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR]
Program--an increase of $5.5 million over the requested level of $4.5
million. This authorized increase reflects the important role that
NASA's EPSCoR, as well as its counterparts at other Federal science
agencies, has played in supporting vital academic research in rural
States like Montana. The bill also includes sufficient funding to
enable NASA to continue support for a new Rural Teacher Resource Center
and a new Rural Technology Transfer and Commercialization Center to
serve the Upper Plains States region. NASA made commitments to those
new centers this year to fill in coverage gaps in NASA's outreach
programs.

[[Page S5861]]

Full funding is also provided for ongoing technology programs to keep
NASA on the cutting edge. The bill supports the Reusable Launch Vehicle
Program aimed at developing, and flight testing, new technologies to
reduce the cost of access to space and eventually lay the foundation
for a Shuttle replacement. In addition, there is funding to continue
NASA's commitment to a new radar satellite program. Unlike conventional
satellites, radar satellites are unaffected by cloud cover or
nightfall. Now that Canada, Japan, and Europe have operational systems,
it is clearly in the national interest for this country to develop that
capability for civilian purposes as soon as practicable.
Finally, Mr. President, I note that the bill contains buyout
provisions that we worked out with NASA that are intended to reduce the
need for the agency to resort to reductions in force to downsize its
work force. We recognize the need for NASA to reduce its 25,000-person
work force to meet its budget targets. However, such personnel
reductions need to be implemented in a gradual and thoughtful manner,
with proper consideration for the personnel affected. It is with that
in mind that we have provided the buyout authority in the bill to
encourage voluntary separations in support of NASA's downsizing effort.
Mr. President and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation
when it is considered by the full Senate later this year.
______

By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Hollings, Mr.
Bryan, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1840. A bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to
authorize appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

the federal trade commission reauthorization act of 1996

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I am pleased to introduce, along
with Senators Gorton, Hollings, and Bryan, the Federal Trade Commission
Reauthorization Act of 1996. This bill reauthorizes the Federal Trade
Commission [FTC] for 2 years with funding sufficient to maintain
current staffing levels.
Congress last reauthorized the FTC in 1994. That authorization was
the Commission's first since 1980. In that reauthorization legislation
we significantly modified the Federal Trade Commission Act. At present,
we see no need to further modify the FTC's authorizing statutes.
Therefore, this is an extremely simple piece of legislation. It
authorizes funding for the FTC of $107 million for fiscal year 1997 and
$111 million for fiscal year 1998. As I mentioned earlier, these
authorization levels would simply maintain the existing staffing level
of 979 FTE's.
The Federal Trade Commission is a law enforcement agency. The
Commission's primary authority is derived from section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission Act through the declaration that ``unfair methods of
competition * * * and unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' are
unlawful. The FTC's dual mission is to enforce Federal consumer
protection laws and antitrust and competition laws. The FTC has
enforcement and administrative duties under 37 separate acts.
The Commerce Committee held a hearing on the FTC on May 7, 1996. We
are pleased with the general direction of the Commission. Under the
leadership of Chairman Pitofsky, and his predecessor, Chairman Steiger,
the Commission has established a solid performance record.
No comprehensive controversy surrounds the FTC today as it did in the
late 1970's and early 1980's. As one would expect of a law enforcement
entity acting in complex and, often, uncertain situations, individual
Commission actions are sometimes not met with universal approval.
Nevertheless, there is a general consensus that the Commission is
functioning efficiently and effectively.
The FTC fulfills its mission with minimal burden on taxpayers because
it generates over half its annual operating budget through fees from
the corporations it regulates.
I hope the Senate will join Senators Gorton, Hollings, Bryan, and
myself in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1840

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 ``Federal Trade Commission
Reauthorization Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

Section 25 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
57c) is amended by striking ``and not to exceed'' and
inserting ``not to exceed'' and by inserting before the
period the following: ``; not to exceed $107,000,000 for
fiscal year 1997; and not to exceed $111,000,000 for fiscal
year 1998''.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (by request):
S. 1841. A bill to reform the Nation's welfare system by requiring
work and demanding personal responsibility; to the Committee on
Finance.

The Work First and Personal Responsibility Act of 1996

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, at the request of the administration, I
rise to introduce the Work First and Personal Responsibility Act of
1996. This was sent to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives on April 26, 1996, by Alice M. Rivlin,
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
I do not support this bill, and will indeed oppose it with great
conviction. All the same, the President is entitled to the courtesy of
having his bills introduced, printed, and referred to the appropriate
committee. This particular bill will be referred to the Finance
Committee, of which I am the ranking Democratic member. Hence this
simple duty falls to me.
I have a further purpose in introducing this bill. As Senators know,
it is the fixed practice of the Office of Management and Budget to
require a report from the appropriate Department or Departments on the
impact an administration measure would have on the area of concern.
Such a report is required of legislation passed by Congress and
presented to the President for approval. Last October 24, 1995, at the
first--and only--meeting of the House-Senate conference on H.R. 4, the
House-passed Personal Responsibility Act and the Senate-passed Work
Opportunity Act, I stated that ``when fully implemented the time limits
in the House bill would cut off benefits for 4,800,000 children.'' This
was not a complicated calculation. There are this many children
receiving benefits, that many who can expect to receive benefits for
more than 5 years, and so forth. The mean stay on AFDC is 12.9 years. I
concluded my statement calling on the White House to release a report
on the Senate-passed bill which had been prepared by the Department of
Health and Human Services.

Three days later, on October 27, 1995, Elizabeth Shogren in the Los
Angeles Times reported that the Senate-passed bill, thought to be
moderate as compared with the House-passed bill, ``would push an
estimated 1.1 million children into poverty and make conditions worse
for those already under the poverty line * * *''
The Senate needs to know what would be the poverty impact of this
newest administration proposal. It cannot be much less, or so I would
think. Bear in mind that OMB estimates $41 billion in Deficit Reduction
from fiscal year 1996 through 2002.
I await an early reply from the administration. There has been more
than sufficient time to make the calculations. One may be sure that if
there were any prospect that the bill would reduce the number of
children in poverty, we would have learned this by now.
The problem of understanding within the administration and the
Congress, or so it appears to me, is that there is simply too little
grasp of just how bad conditions are among America's children. None of
us is without responsibility for this. Some protecting the good name of
the poor; others assuming knowledge about behavior and behavioral
change. Too few following Hippocrates' dictum: Primum non noncere.
First do no harm. But it is not too late, if only we will look at the
facts.
Two weeks ago, my revered colleague, Representative Sam M. Gibbons
and I requested of the Office of Management and Budget an analysis of
S.

[[Page S5862]]

1795, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996,
which is the latest Republican welfare reform bill. The poverty impact.
Today I am also requesting an analysis of the poverty effects of the
President's latest proposal. This will be critical for Members to
better understand the potential effects on children of both pieces of
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and the letter of
transmittal from Dr. Alice M. Rivlin, Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Title-by-Title Summary

title i--work-based assistance

Title I repeals the Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) program and replaces it with a time-limited, work-
based Temporary Employment Assistance (TEA) program. TEA
continues open-ended Federal matching payments for State
expenditures on welfare assistance. It also repeals the Job
Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program and replaces it
with a new Work First program. (Funding for JOBS, AFDC
Administration, and Emergency Assistance is merged into Work
First. Most activities under these programs remain allowable
under Work First.) Title I requires welfare recipients to
sign personal responsibility contracts and mandates that they
work or engage in job training within two years of first
receiving benefits.
Title I also requires States to meet welfare recipient work
targets. It includes a five-year time limit on the receipt of
cash benefits, but allows States to exempt a portion of the
caseload from the time limits. Vouchers must be provided to
children in families that lose assistance due to the time
limit. In addition, Title I provides performance bonuses to
States based on their job placement effectiveness. It also
gives States the option to deny additional welfare benefits
to families that have another child while receiving welfare
benefits.
Title I mandates that States operate child abuse prevention
and protection, child support enforcement, foster care, and
adoption assistance programs as a condition of receiving the
Federal match. States also must operate a child care program
under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act
of 1990. Title I amends the CCDBG Act and consolidates the
three individual child care programs under current title IV-A
of the Social Security Act into one program. Funding for
child care is significantly increased. This title also
continues the one-year entitlement to transitional Medicaid
benefits for families losing welfare benefits due to
employment or excess income. In addition, it allows States to
enter into demonstration programs to make periodic advances
of the earned income tax credit (EITC) to welfare recipients
in jobs programs (as opposed to having workers file for the
EITC themselves).

title ii--child support enforcement

Title II proposes stringent child support enforcement
measures including a State case registry of child support
enforcement orders. It improves paternity establishment and
requires employers to report new hires to a central State
data base. Title II allows States to revoke drivers and
professional licenses for parents who refuse to pay child
support. It also removes administrative barriers that impede
the enforcement of child support orders.

title iii--food assistance

Title III amends the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition
programs. It adjusts the maximum Food Stamp allotment to 100
percent of the Thrifty Food Plan and reduces the standard
deduction and indexes it to the Consumer Price Index
thereafter. Title III also counts all energy assistance as
income and includes a work requirement that makes adults age
18 to 50 with no dependents ineligible for food stamps after
six months of each year unless they work 20 hours a week or
participate in workfare or training (although eligibility
continues if a State fails to supply a training or workfare
slot). It also includes State flexibility measures and new
program integrity proposals to reduce Food Stamp trafficking
and program waste. Finally, Title III better targets food
subsidies for family day care homes and makes other minor
changes in Child Nutrition programs.

title iv--treatment of aliens

Title IV makes only ``qualified aliens'' eligible for the
TEA (formerly AFDC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and
Medicaid programs. In addition, it gives States the option of
applying the same eligibility criteria to State funded needs-
based assistance. Title IV also lengthens until citizenship
the deeming period during which a sponsor's income is
presumed available to support a legal permanent resident
should he or she apply for SSI, TEA, or Food Stamps. It makes
all future affidavits of support legally binding and provides
States the option to extend sponsor income deeming to State
funded needs-based cash assistance if the immigrant is denied
TEA, SSI, or Food Stamps.

title v--supplemental security income reforms

Title V tightens eligibility standards for disabled
children who receive SSI benefits. Children currently on the
rolls who are found no longer eligible would not receive
benefits as of January 1, 1998. It creates new guidelines for
the Social Security Administration to conduct continuing
disability reviews (CDRs).
Title V also creates a dedicated savings account for SSI-
eligible disabled children for education, job training, and
equipment or housing modifications related to their
disability, and allows this account to be excluded from
income and resource determinations. It establishes an
installment schedule for paying past-due SSI benefit amounts,
and authorizes the Commissioner of Social Security to reduce
Social Security (OASDI) benefits by the amount of overpayment
of SSI benefits without an OASDI beneficiary's consent.
Title V also denies SSI eligibility if drug addiction or
alcoholism is the basis for the disability determination.
Current SSI recipients who are eligible on the basis of drug
addiction or alcoholism will no longer receive benefits as of
January 1, 1997. A portion of the savings from this proposal
($50 million annually during FYs 1997-1998) will be used to
fund additional drug (including alcohol) treatment programs
and services through the Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Block Grant program.
Title V also makes individuals convicted in Federal or
State court of having fraudulently misrepresented their
residence in order to receive welfare benefits from two or
more States ineligible to receive SSI for ten years from the
date of conviction. It makes fugitive felons ineligible for
SSI. In addition, it provides that the appropriation of
additional administrative funds to SSA for FYs 1996-2002 for
conducting Social Security Disability Insurance and SSI CDRs
should trigger an increase, within specified limits, to the
discretionary spending caps. The title would also provide
authority to increase the discretionary spending caps, within
specified limits, upon appropriation of funds for FYs 1996-
1997 to the Social Security Administration to implement any
changes to the SSI program pursuant to adoption of welfare
reform.
Title V provides that when private insurance covers the
costs of SSI eligible children in medical care facilities,
these children will no longer be eligible for their full SSI
benefits. Instead, they will only be eligible to receive the
same $30 per month standard amount that Medicaid-covered SSI
eligible children receive.

title vi--social services block grants (ssbg)

This title reduces the amount required to be allotted among
States for SSBG under Title XX of the Social Security Act
from $2.8 billion to $2.73 billion in FY 1996, and to $2.52
billion for each of FYs 1997-2002.

Deficit Reduction

The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the
Administration's welfare reform proposal saves $41 billion
during FYs 1996 through 2002. This total includes $3 billion
in savings resulting from the enactment of P.L. 104-121,
which extended the debt limit and modified the Social
Security Act, and reflects interactions with Medicaid
proposals in the President's FY 1997 Budget.
____

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, April 26, 1996.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am enclosing for the consideration of
the Congress the Administration's ``Work First and Personal
Responsibility Act of 1996,'' a comprehensive proposal to
reform the Nation's failed welfare system. The President
remains committed to working with the Congress to pass a
bipartisan welfare reform bill this year that honors the
values of work, responsibility, and family. This proposal
will end the current welfare system by requiring work,
demanding responsibility, strengthening families, and
protecting children.
Under this legislative proposal, everyone who can work must
go to work, and no one who can work can stay on welfare
indefinitely. This proposal replaces Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) with a time-limited benefit
conditioned on work. It imposes tough work requirements and
time limits, including a lifetime limit of five years for
receipt of welfare benefits. It gives States the means to
provide child care that is essential to imposing tough work
requirements and moving people from welfare to work. States
are given broad new flexibility to tailor welfare reforms to
local needs, but are also held accountable for continuing
their commitment to move people from welfare to work. The
proposal permits adjusting to changing economic circumstances
and provides vouchers to meet the most basic needs of
children in families whose benefits end.
The Work First proposal demands responsibility as well. It
includes the toughest child support enforcement measures ever
proposed. The proposal requires minor mothers to live at home
and stay in school as a condition of receiving assistance and
gives States the option to deny additional benefits for
additional children born to parents who are on welfare.
The proposal achieves significant savings by reforming the
Food Stamp and Child Nutrition programs, while preserving the
national nutritional safety net. The Congressional Budget
Office estimates that these reforms would save almost $22
billion over

[[Page S5863]]

seven years through provisions such as counting energy
assistance as income and tough new program integrity measures
to crack down on Food Stamp fraud. The proposal gives States
unprecedented flexibility to administer the Food Stamp
program, with new work requirements and time limits on able-
bodied, childless adults. It continues to index basic
benefits with inflation, better targets food subsidies for
family day care homes, and makes other adjustments in the
Child Nutrition program. The proposal protects children by
preserving the school lunch program and important child
welfare programs for abused and disabled children.
The proposal achieves substantial savings in other areas by
requiring sponsors who bring immigrants into the country to
be held legally responsible for their financial well-being,
and by better targeting eligibility for childhood disability
benefits. It also includes two provisions that are part of
the recently enacted Public Law 104-121. The first provision
modifies the Social Security Act to deny benefits to adults
who are on Supplemental Security Income due to drug abuse or
alcoholism. The second provision improves program integrity
measures through expanded continuing disability reviews. The
savings from these enacted proposals should be applied
towards the total savings to be achieved through welfare
reform.
The Administration's welfare reform proposal reduces
spending by $41 billion over seven years. This total includes
the $3 billion in savings resulting from the enactment of
Public Law 104-121 and reflects interactions with Medicaid
proposals in the President's FY 1997 Budget.
I urge the Congress to act favorably and expeditiously on
this important proposal. Welfare reform is at the top of the
President's and the Nation's agenda. The Administration is
confident that agreement can be reached this year on
bipartisan welfare reform legislation that is tough on work
and responsibility and serves the interests of our Nation's
children. We look forward to working with the Congress to
achieve this urgent national goal.
Sincerely,
Alice M. Rivlin,
Director.
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS:
S. 1842. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 to improve protections for workers in multiemployer pension
plans, to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

the workers pension protection act of 1996

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I introduce the Workers' Pension
Protection Act of 1996 in order to level playing field for millions of
American workers who participate in multi-employer pension plans. This
bill will extend, to them, the protections previously established for
workers in single-employer pension plans. First, the legislation
harmonizes the rules for all workers by adopting a 5-year vesting
requirement which conforms to vesting rules applicable to other
qualified pension plans. Furthermore, this bill also protects workers'
pension benefits by making sure that these multi-employer plans are
sufficiently funded so that the benefits promised today will actually
be there for the worker when he retires.
One benefit which has long been extend to workers in single-employer
pension plans is the guarantee of benefits after a maximum of 5 years
of service. Workers whose employers contribute to multi-employer plans
may work for up to 10 years before they are guaranteed to receive any
benefits from their pension plan. This bill extends the same 5-year
vesting right to multi-employer plan participants.
Many of this country's multi-employer pension plans are significantly
under funded by billions of dollars. This legislation targets those
bade apples--the under funded plans. This bill addresses the problem
with four provisions that are consistent with the pension reform for
single employer pension plans that we passed in 1994 as part of the
GATT legislation.
First, this bill would prohibit multi-employer plan trustees from
increasing pension benefits unless a plan has a 95-percent ratio of
assets to current liabilities attributable to employees and their
beneficiaries. Pension plans would be required to operate with a
balanced budget and could not run in the red as they do now.
Second, this bill would prohibit multi-employer trustees from
granting a benefit increase in a multi-employer plan which satisfies
the 95-percent ratio if the increase would reduce this ratio below 90
percent. In addition, should the ratio drop due to fluctuations in the
market or other changes in the funding valuation, the trustees could
not increase benefits again until they retain the 90-percent ratio.
These ratios will allow multi-employer pension plans to operate at full
funding yet maintain the discretion to rely on actuarial analysis in
modifying benefit levels.
Third, multi-employer plans would be required to use a single,
identified interest rate and mortality table assumptions in all
calculations for all players. As in the single employer pension reform
legislation in 1994, the interest rates and mortality tables must be
standardized and should conform with the most recent data. As a result,
these plans could not continue to use one rate when reporting to the
Government and different rate when determining liability associated
with under funding. This is the same commonsense approach that was
applied to single employer pension plans when the GATT legislation was
passed.
Finally, as did the GATT legislation, this bill would require that
plan trustees provide notification of their financial status on annual
basis to participating employees in easily understood terms. Once and
for all participants and beneficiaries will begin to understand how
secure there pension benefits really are because these interests rates
more accurately predict the return on investment than current rates
permitted for multi-employer plans. With a better understanding of the
worth of their pension benefits workers can make informed decisions
about their future retirement needs.
In the last Congress, we took significant and necessary steps to
reform the pension laws for retirement security for millions of
American workers. Unfortunately, a large segment of the work force was
left behind and is in need of similar protection. Union employees
participating in multi-employer pension plans have been contributing
hard earned dollars to these plans with the expectation of receiving
$2,000 to $3,000 a month when they retire. They are not aware that, if
their plan goes belly-up due to significant under funding, they could
receive less than $500 a month. This legislation will ensure that the
pension benefits, union employees have worked so hard for and are
depending on, will be there when they are ready to retire.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section
analysis of the bill 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

Section 101

Section 101 prohibits multiemployer pension plan trustees
from increasing benefits unless the plan is operating with at
least 95 percent funding. If a plan satisfies this minimum
funding requirement, it may choose to increase benefits if
the benefit increase would not reduce the funding levels to
below 90 percent. The plan would then be required to reach 95
percent funding again before increasing benefits.
This section also requires multiemployer plans to use the
interest rate assumptions and the mortality tables that were
passed into law in the 1994 GATT legislation for single-
employer pension plans. These interest rates more accurately
predict the return on investment than the current rates
permitted for multiemployer plans. Furthermore, the mortality
tables currently relied on by multiemployer plans date back
to 1971 while the GATT legislation required that single-
employer plans rely on more current data. This section
requires that multiemployer plans rely on the current
mortality tables.

section 102

Section 102 amends ERISA by modifying the anti-cutback rule
contained in ERISA Sec. 204(g). This provision is necessary
in order to revoke any trustee action which violates the
other provisions of this bill.

Section 103

Section 103 requires multiemployer plan administrators to
notify plan participants, beneficiaries and contributing
employers of the plan's funded status and the limits of the
PBGC's guarantee should the plan terminate while underfunded.
The notice must be written in a manner which can be
understood by the average plan participant. This provision
duplicates the notice requirements for single-employer plans
contained in the GATT legislation.

section 201

Section 201 requires multiemployer plans to adopt the
interest rate and mortality tables used by single-employer
plans as mandated in the GATT legislation for all purposes.
For a description of these interest rate and mortality table
requirements, see Section 101 above.

Section 301

Section 301 provides employers the right to seek an
injunction against a plan to prevent an impermissible benefit
increase. The sole relief available to employers is an
injunction against trustees to enforce the provisions
contained in this bill.

[[Page S5864]]

Section 302

Section 302 is modeled on ERISA Section 502(g)(I) and
permits a court, in its discretion, to award reasonable
attorney's fees and costs to either party in actions brought
under Section 301. This Bill does not provide for either
compensatory or punitive damages.

Section 303

Section 303 expands the list of civil actions which may be
brought by the PBGC to include section 101, 102, 103 and 201.
The Bill gives the PBGC, and not the U.S. Department of
Labor, the concurrent power of enforcement of the Bill's
provisions because the PBGC is financially responsible for
guaranteed benefits.

Section 401

Section 401 conforms the vesting rules for multiemployer
plans to the rules applicable to other qualified plans by
requiring that a worker's accrued benefits be 100-percent
vested no later than upon the participant's completion of 5
years of service rather than the current 10-year period.

Effective Dates

The effective dates for the first three titles in this Bill
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 1996.
Section 401 would be effective for plan years beginning on or
after the earlier of (1) the later of December 31, 1996, or
the date on which the last collective bargaining agreements
pursuant to which the plan is maintained terminates, or (2)
January 1, 1999, with respect to participants with an hour of
service after the effective date.
______

By Mr. INHOFF (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 1843. A bill to provide for the allocation of funds from the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

MASS TRANSIT LEGISLATION

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that
attempts to level the playing field for transit donor States across the
country. In addition to myself, Senators Lott, Thurmond, Thomas,
Jeffords, and Cochran are all original cosponsors.
Federal transit dollars are distributed according to the Federal
Transit Act as amended by the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. Similar to highway dollars, transit dollars are
collected at the gas pump and are distributed by both formula and
discretionary grants.
States such as Oklahoma that do not receive back all of the revenues
that they send to the Federal mass transit account are considered donor
States. Unfortunately, these States are not getting nearly as much back
in Federal funding as they contribute. My proposal is designed to
address this critical transit problem. Each State that contributes $45
million or less into the Federal mass transit account will be
guaranteed to receive back no less than 80 percent of its
apportionment.
States should be able to expect local dollars to be used for local
transit needs. Oklahoma-generated revenues should be remitted back to
Oklahoma to provide for improved public transportation for Oklahomans,
not urban mass transit systems in other States. This bill will put
equity into the mass transit apportionment system by returning these
locally generated dollars home.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1844. A bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to
direct a study of the opportunities for enhanced water based recreation
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.

the national recreation lakes study act of 1996

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is an important time of the year
for Americans: It is among the first weeks of the summer vacation and
recreation season, and it is National Fishing Week.
Millions of Americans are either tuning their boat engines, tying
flies, dusting off their hiking boots, squeezing into their bathing
suits, or putting on their water skis. In short, we're ready to go, and
the vacation rush is on. Many people got a jump start last week,
heading to lakes or national parks. Being lucky enough to be in Alaska,
I was able to steal a couple days myself. If you want to hear my big
fish stories, ask me later.
This is also an important week for at least three other reasons: I am
introducing legislation to help increase recreational opportunities on
this Nation's lakes and rivers; the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources holds a hearing Tuesday on S. 1703, my legislation
raising millions of dollars for our national parks; and the House and
Senate conference is working to resolve the differences on the most
important parks and conservation legislation in a decade.
Let's take a moment to take stock of some of this Nation's natural
bounty and talk about a couple areas where we can take action to
protect and enhance it. Let's start with the recreation lakes
initiative.
The Recreation Roundtable recently reported that a body of water--a
lake, river, or ocean--is the primary choice for 40 percent of
Americans' recreational destination. Nearly 17 million boats are in use
in this Nation, and sales of boats and boating goods are on the
upswing. Fishing and the bragging rights that go along with it are two
of Americans' favorite pastimes.
But, when it comes to our thousands of bodies of water, both natural
and man made, are we using our resources as wisely as we should? Are we
living up to our recreational potential? We probably are not.
In addition to the many natural lakes and rivers with which this
Nation is blessed, we also have an enormous resource in man-made
reservoirs built by Federal, State and local agencies, as well as
private entities. For important practical, financial, and legal
reasons, most public resources in these areas must first go to purposes
such as flood control, navigation, and water supply. But, even after
meeting those requirements, there is a lot of untapped recreational
potential in almost every State.
The recreation lakes initiative I am introducing today will
reinvigorate the public-private partnership between States, the Federal
Government, and private entities to make the most of our public, water-
based recreational opportunities.

While this bill concerns public assets, the private sector plays a
very important role. Did you know our national forest lands provide
over one-half of all skiing in the United States without the Federal
Government building one lift or one ski lodge? My legislation will help
build a true partnership to make the recreation on or near our man-made
lakes available to all Americans.
My legislation will kick-start this partnership by bringing together
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and recreation users and
providers to make specific recommendations about how we can use our
vast untapped recreational potential. While protecting the integrity of
our lakes and reservoirs for their primary purposes, they will be
charged with finding ways to make them more available to Americans.
The prudent use of these resources will protect the environment, help
local communities and decrease the demand for other, overburdened
resources. It will also help bring days of joy to thousands of
Americans who are brought in closer touch with the great outdoors.
Speaking of the great outdoors, I want to say a few words about our
national parks. This week marks the beginning of the summer vacation
season, and our national parks are a main destination.
From the majesty and colors of the Grand Canyon--to the excitement of
Old Faithful--to the remote beauty of Alaska's national parks, millions
of Americans are traveling thousands of miles to catch a glimpse of our
natural heritage. While the beauty and excitement is still there,
American are facing some unsightly problems when they reach their
vacation destinations. For many years, the National Park Service has
struggled with a growing maintenance backlog. Increased park use and
the addition of more new parks have stretched Federal park dollars to
the hilt. Now, with Federal funds already tight, the National Park
Service's park maintenance backlog stands at $4 billion.
The time has come to make needed repairs and to restore the luster to
some of our crown jewels. We need an infusion of cash no Congress and
no President could provide overnight. It is unfortunate some in this
administration has chosen election-year rhetoric over substance to try
and meet these needs. Federal funds can and will keep our parks open
and running. But we need private funds--like those that

[[Page S5865]]

flowed in to restore the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island--to help
pay for the backlog of repairs in our parks.
My legislation--introduced April 25 and scheduled for a hearing this
Thursday--will generate $100 million a year or more for our national
parks.
It provides the National Park Foundation the means to collect funds
from individuals, foundations, and corporations. It gives this official
fundraising arm of the National Park Service the authority to engage in
appropriate business relationships, similar to those already enjoyed
by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the National Forest
Foundation, and the U.S. Olympic Committee.

Rather than allowing movie executives, advertisers, and publishers to
continue making millions off the intellectual property and assets of
our parks for next to nothing, my bill will allow our parks to get
something in return. It will provide a responsible way to reduce our
National Park Service's long-term maintenance backlog.
Our natural and recreational assets must be conserved and enjoyed by
Americans. As we enter the summer vacation months, we must take the
extra steps needed to make this possible. These two bills--our
recreation lakes initiative and my bill to provide $100 million a year
for maintenance of our national parks--are a good start.
We continue to work on park concessions and entrance fee reforms. A
House-Senate conference committee also continues to meet to work out
the details on my omnibus 60-plus item parks and conservation package.
From the Selma to Montgomery National Historical Trail to the San
Francisco Presidio to lands needed for the Winter Olympics, the
beneficial effects of this legislation will be felt in every State.
As I stated, I am introducing legislation on a recreation lakes
initiative and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation
be printed in the Record. I want to emphasize that the study mandated
by this bill will rely on existing data and is designed to develop
creative solutions to involve the private sector. We do not need an
elaborate multiyear effort to produce volumes to gather dust on the
shelves. What we need is a thoughtful exchange of views on how best to
develop the recreational potential at our Federal, man-made lakes and
reservoirs, without diminishing or adversely affecting the purposes for
which those areas were established.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1844

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Recreation Lakes
Study Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

The Congress finds that the federal government, under the
authority of the Reclamation Act and other statutes, has
developed man-made lakes and reservoirs that have become a
powerful magnet for diverse recreational activities and that
such activities contribute to the well-being of families and
individuals and the economic viability of local communities.
The Congress further finds that in order to further the
purposes of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the
President should appoint an advisory commission to review the
current and anticipated demand for recreational opportunities
at federally-managed man-made lakes and reservoirs through
creative partnerships involving federal, State and local
governments and the private sector and to develop
alternatives for enhanced recreational use of such
facilities.

SEC. 3. COMMISSION.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-
578, 78 Stat. 897), as amended, is further amended by adding
the following new section 13:
``Sec. 13. (a) The President shall appoint an advisory
commission to review the opportunities for enhanced
opportunities for water based recreation which shall submit a
report to the President and to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives within one year
from the date of enactment of this section.
``(b) The members of the Commission shall include:
(1) The Secretary of the Interior, or his designee;
(2) The Secretary of the Army, or his designee;
(3) The Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, or his
designee;
(4) The Secretary of Agriculture, or his designee;
(5) A person nominated by the National Governor's
Association;
(6) Four persons familiar with the recreation and tourism
industry, at least one of whom shall be familiar with the
economics and financing of recreation related infrastructure.
``(c) The President shall appoint one member to serve as
Chairman. Any vacancy on the Commission shall be filled in
the same manner as the original appointment. Members of the
Commission shall serve without compensation but shall be
reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary
expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties.
The Secretary of the Interior shall provide all financial,
administrative, and staffing requirements for the Commission,
including office space, furnishings, and equipment. The heads
of other federal agencies are authorized, at the request of
the Commission, to provide such information or personnel, to
the extent permitted by law and within the limits of
available funds, to the Commission as may be useful to
accomplish the purposes of this section.
``(d) The Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at
such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such
evidence as it deems advisable: Provided, That, to the
maximum extent possible, the Commission shall use existing
data and research. The Commission is authorized to use the
United States mail in the same manner and upon the same
conditions as other departments and agencies of the United
States.
``(e) The report shall review the extent of water related
recreation at federal man-made lakes and reservoirs and shall
develop alternatives to enhance the opportunities for such
use by the public. In developing the report, the Commission
shall (1) review the extent to which recreation components
identified in specific authorizations associated with
individual federal man-made lakes and reservoirs have been
accomplished, (2) evaluate the feasibility of enhancing
recreation opportunities at federally-managed lakes and
reservoirs under existing statutes, (3) consider legislative
changes that would enhance recreation opportunities
consistent with and subject to the achievement of the
authorized purposes of federal water projects, and (4) make
recommendations on alternatives for enhanced recreation
opportunities including, but not limited to, the
establishment of a National Recreation Lake System under
which specific lakes would receive national designation and
which would be managed through innovative partnership-based
agreements between federal agencies, State and local units of
government, and the private sector. Any such alternatives
shall be consistent with and subject to the authorized
purposes for any man-made lakes and reservoirs and shall
emphasize private sector initiatives in concert with State
and local units of government.''

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 814

At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. Nickles] was added as a cosponsor of S. 814, a bill to provide for
the reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and for other
purposes.

S. 1150

At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from
Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1150, a bill to
require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of
the 50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan and George Catlett Marshall.

S. 1233

At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from Florida
[Mr. Graham] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1233, a bill to assure
equitable coverage and treatment of emergency services under health
plans.

S. 1237

At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from California
[Mrs. Feinstein] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1237, A bill to amend
certain provisions of law relating to child pornography, and for other
purposes.

S. 1420

At the request of Mr. Stevens, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. Simpson] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1420, a bill to amend the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to support International Dolphin
Conservation Program in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and for
other purposes.

S. 1437

At the request of Mr. Thurmond, the name of the Senator from Colorado
[Mr. Campbell] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1437, a bill to provide
for an increase in funding for the conduct and support of diabetes-
related research by the National Institutes of Health.

S. 1512

At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Illinois
[Ms. Moseley-Braun] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1512, A bill to
amend title 23, United States Code, to improve safety at public
railway-highway crossings, and for other purposes.

[[Page S5866]]

S. 1578

At the request of Mr. Frist, the name of the Senator from Utah [Mr.
Hatch] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1578, a bill to amend the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to authorize appropriations
for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, and for other purposes.

S. 1610

At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. McConnell] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1610, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the standards used for
determining whether individuals are not employees.

S. 1612

At the request of Mr. Helms, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1612, a bill
to provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals
possessing firearms, and for other purposes.

S. 1735

At the request of Mr. Pressler, the names of the Senator from West
Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], and
the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] were added as cosponsors of S.
1735, a bill to establish the U.S. Tourism Organization as a
nongovernmental entity for the purpose of promoting tourism in the
United States.

S. 1757

At the request of Mr. Frist, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1757, a bill to
amend the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act
to extend the act, and for other purposes.

S. 1836

At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] was added as a cosponsor of 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.

Senate Joint Resolution 52

At the request of Mr. Kyl, the name of the Senator from Kansas [Mr.
Dole] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 52, a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States to protect the rights of victims of crimes.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 63

At the request of Mrs. Kassebaum, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota [Mr. Daschle], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], the Senator
from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
Bingaman], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], the Senator from
Montana [Mr. Burns], the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], and the
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] were added as cosponsors of Senate
Concurrent Resolution 63, a concurrent resolution to express the sense
of Congress that the Secretary of Agriculture should dispose of all
remaining commodities in the disaster reserve maintained under the
Agricultural Act of 1970 to relieve the distress of livestock producers
whose ability to maintain livestock is adversely affected by the
prolonged drought conditions existing in certain areas of the United
States, and for other purposes.

Senate Resolution 257

At the request of Mr. Ford, the names of the Senator from Georgia
[Mr. Coverdell], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], the Senator
from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], the
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], and the Senator from New York [Mr.
Moynihan] were added as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 257, a
resolution to designate June 15, 1996, as ``National Race for the Cure
Day.''

____________________