[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

      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.


               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.''

                          ____________________