Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11540-S11557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Burns, Mr. Chafee,
Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Coverdell,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Daschle, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Exon, Mr. Faircloth, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Frahm, Mr. Frist, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr.
Hollings, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerrey,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Levin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. McConnell, Ms.
Moseley-Braun, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Nickles, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller,
Mr. Roth, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Simon,
Mr. Simpson, Mr. Smith, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Thompson, Mr.
Thurmond, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Wyden):

S. 2136. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint
coins in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the breaking of the
color barrier in major league baseball by Jackie Robinson; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

The Jackie Robinson Commemorative Coin Act

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and 64
colleagues, I rise today to introduce the Jackie Robinson Commemorative
Coin Act. It is appropriate and important that the Congress honor
Jackie Robinson, a true American hero who rose above prejudice and
segregation to become a pillar of our national pastime--and a leader in
the fight for racial equality. The bill would authorize the U.S. Mint
to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's historic and
heroic act of breaking baseball's color barrier.
Mr. President, the life story of this great American citizen is so
uplifting. It is a story of a pioneer, a man of many many, ``firsts.''
As a young boy growing up in New York, I was consumed by baseball
like so many others. I have a personal connection to Jackie Robinson
and the legendary Brooklyn Dodgers. Those were certainly the banner
days for baseball, in New York and elsewhere. Jackie Robinson, one of
the all stars with the legendary Brooklyn Dodgers, stood as tall as one
of New York's skyscrapers themselves.
Jackie Robinson's courage, quiet determination and competitive spirit
were evident throughout his life. At UCLA, Jackie Robinson was the
first four-letter man excelling at football, basketball, track, and
baseball.
Although he was far along the path to a promising future in sports,
Jackie Robinson had to leave college after 3 years to support his
mother. He realized that coming to his mother's aid in a time of need
was a more compelling priority. Jackie Robinson was a giving, unselfish
man, and devoted son.
In 1942, Jackie Robinson faced another noble calling. He joined the
Army to serve his country during World War II. In his 3 years of
service, Jackie rose to the rank of 2d lieutenant and attended Officers
Candidate School. The atmosphere of segregation in the Army inspired
him to forge ahead and begin a quiet but lifelong determined effort to
fight discrimination.

After the Army, Jackie Robinson returned to his true dream--playing
baseball. Despite the color barrier, Jackie Robinson persisted. Jackie
Robinson experienced the ugly face of bigotry firsthand playing for the
Negro Baseball League in 1945. It was commonplace to have hotel and
restaurant doors shut in his face. He withstood vicious taunts and
threats from fans. Even some of his own teammates would not acknowledge
him.
But those affronts and experiences did not diminish Jackie Robinson's
spirit. Eventually, his excellence and determination prevailed. In 1946
he joined the Montreal Royals minor-league team in the Dodgers
organization. That same year, he was recognized as the MVP of the
league, the first of many baseball honors.
In 1947, Jackie Robinson became prominent in the history of our
Nation and its great pastime. He penetrated the color barrier in
baseball when he was brought up to play for the Brooklyn Dodgers. This
breakthrough reverberated throughout all professional sports and is
acknowledged today as a watershed event in the continuing struggle for
racial equality.
Mr. President, in late 1947, Jackie Robinson was named Rookie of the
Year, actually the first so-named in the major leagues. Then in 1949 he
was named MVP of the National League. Throughout his 11-year career
with the Dodgers, Jackie Robinson won batting titles, set fielding
records, and was feared as a base stealer.
Another first occurred in 1962 when Jackie Robinson became the first
African-American to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame located
in Cooperstown, NY.
Mr. President, for many of us, especially, those of my generation,
Jackie Robinson is synonymous with baseball. He dazzled and electrified
crowds with his energetic performances on the field. Time and time
again, he brought fans to their feet. At the same time, he united a
whole city with his personal enthusiasm, and baseball excellence. But,
Jackie Robinson, the man transformed his greatness on the baseball
diamond to greatness in his community, hitting homeruns for his fellow
man. In many ways, Jackie Robinson united our Nation through all of his
achievements.
After retiring from professional baseball, he entered a life of
service to his

[[Page S11541]]

community. He donned the many hats of businessman, community leader,
and civil rights activist. His dedication to bringing down social
barriers thrived. He provided affordable housing to low-income families
through the Jackie Robinson Development Corp. He helped spur economic
development in Harlem by founding the Freedom National Bank, now a
prosperous financial institution. As vice president for personnel at a
well-known fast-food chain, he championed the cause of increasing
benefits for workers and their families.
Mr. President, Jackie Robinson remains an inspiration to this Nation
and a commemorative coin will serve as a fitting tribute to this great
man. In the spirit of honoring our greatest American heroes, I am
introducing this bill which would authorize silver dollar commemorative
coins to be minted in 1997 celebrating the 50th anniversary of breaking
the color barrier in American baseball by Jackie Robinson. Once the
Mint has recovered its costs, profits would go to the Jackie Robinson
Foundation, a public, not-for-profit organization.
The focus of the Jackie Robinson Foundation is to make educational
and leadership development opportunities available to minority youths
of limited financial resources. Full 4-year college scholarships are
awarded to those youths who meet the selection criteria of the
foundation. These criteria are based on academic achievement, community
service, leadership potential, and financial need.
The successes of the foundation's primary goal are undeniable. Since
its inception, over 400 young adults from all parts of this Nation have
benefited from participation with most students obtaining degrees in
engineering, science and related fields. And furthermore, the
graduation rate of the foundation participants is 92 percent, one of
the best in our country.

The Jackie Robinson Foundation was established by Mrs. Rachel
Robinson a year following Jackie Robinson's untimely death. She has
worked tirelessly to keep his inspiration alive through her gentle
strength and relentless determination. Jackie Robinson once said of his
wife of 26 years--``strong, loving, gentle, and brave, never afraid to
either criticize or comfort.'' Rachel Robinson is truly an incredible
woman. I can attest to that.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from New York, Floyd
Flake for his leadership and dedication in this matter. I would also
like to extend a deep appreciation to all cosponsors for their
incredible support in realizing this effort. I owe a special debt of
gratitude to the Honorable Robert Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury and
Philip Diehl, Director of the U.S. Mint for their support.
Mr. President, I ask for 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. 2136

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 ``Jackie Robinson
Commemorative Coin Act''.

SEC. 2. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

(a) $1 Silver Coins.--In commemoration of the 50th
anniversary of the breaking of the color barrier in major
league baseball by Jackie Robinson and the legacy that Jackie
Robinson left to society, the Secretary of the Treasury
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall mint and issue not more than 500,000 $1 coins, each of
which shall--
(1) weigh 26.73 grams;
(2) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
(b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.
(c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of
title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under this Act
shall be considered to be numismatic items.

SEC. 3. SOURCES OF BULLION.

The Secretary shall obtain silver for minting coins under
this Act only from stockpiles established under the Strategic
and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.

SEC. 4. DESIGN OF COINS.

(a) Design Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this
Act shall be emblematic of Jackie Robinson and his
contributions to major league baseball and to society.
(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 ``1997''; 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
Jackie Robinson Foundation (hereafter in this Act referred to
as the ``Foundation'') and the Commission of Fine Arts; and
(2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory
Committee.

SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF COINS.

(a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be
issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
(b) Mint Facility.--Only 1 facility of the United States
Mint may be used to strike any particular quality of the
coins minted under this Act.
(c) Period for Issuance.--The Secretary may issue coins
minted under this Act only during the period beginning on
April 15, 1997, and ending on April 15, 1998.

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, and shipping).
(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 $10
per coin.

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.--Subject to section 10(a), all surcharges
received by the Secretary from the sale of coins issued under
this Act shall be promptly paid by the Secretary to the
Foundation for the purposes of--
(1) enhancing the programs of the Foundation in the fields
of education and youth leadership skills development; and
(2) increasing the availability of scholarships for
economically disadvantaged youths.
(b) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall have the right to examine such books, records,
documents, and other data of the Foundation as may be related
to the expenditures of amounts paid under subsection (a).

SEC. 9. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.

(a) No Net Cost to the Government.--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.
(b) Payment for Coins.--A coin shall not be issued under
this Act unless the Secretary has received--
(1) full payment for the coin;
(2) security satisfactory to the Secretary to indemnify the
United States for full payment; or
(3) a guarantee of full payment satisfactory to the
Secretary from a depository institution whose deposits are
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the
National Credit Union Administration Board.

SEC. 10. CONDITIONS ON PAYMENT OF SURCHARGES.

(a) Payment of Surcharges.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no amount derived from the proceeds of any
surcharge imposed on the sale of coins issued under this Act
shall be paid to the Foundation unless--
(1) all numismatic operation and program costs allocable to
the program under which such coins are produced and sold have
been recovered; and
(2) the Foundation submits an audited financial statement
which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary of
the Treasury that, with respect to all projects or purposes
for which the proceeds of such surcharge may be used, the
Foundation has raised funds from private sources for such
projects and purposes in an amount which is equal to or
greater than the maximum amount the Foundation may receive
from the proceeds of such surcharge.
(b) Annual Audits.--
(1) Annual audits of recipients required.--The Foundation
shall provide, as a condition for receiving any amount
derived from the proceeds of any surcharge imposed on the
sale of coins issued under this Act, for

[[Page S11542]]

an annual audit, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards by an independent public
accountant selected by the Foundation, of all such payments
to the Foundation beginning in the first fiscal year of the
Foundation in which any such amount is received and
continuing until all such amounts received by the Foundation
with respect to such surcharges are fully expended or placed
in trust.
(2) Minimum requirements for annual audits.--At a minimum,
each audit of the Foundation pursuant to paragraph (1) shall
report--
(A) the amount of payments received by the Foundation
during the fiscal year of the Foundation for which the audit
is conducted which are derived from the proceeds of any
surcharge imposed on the sale of coins issued under this Act;
(B) the amount expended by the Foundation from the proceeds
of such surcharges during the fiscal year of the Foundation
for which the audit is conducted; and
(C) whether all expenditures by the Foundation from the
proceeds of such surcharges during the fiscal year of the
Foundation for which the audit is conducted were for
authorized purposes.
(3) Responsibility of foundation to account for
expenditures of surcharges.--The Foundation shall take
appropriate steps, as a condition for receiving any payment
of any amount derived from the proceeds of any surcharge
imposed on the sale of coins issued under this Act, to ensure
that the receipt of the payment and the expenditure of the
proceeds of such surcharge by the Foundation in each fiscal
year of the Foundation can be accounted for separately from
all other revenues and expenditures of the Foundation.
(4) Submission of audit report.--Not later than 90 days
after the end of any fiscal year of the Foundation for which
an audit is required under paragraph (1), the Foundation
shall--
(A) submit a copy of the report to the Secretary of the
Treasury; and
(B) make a copy of the report available to the public.
(5) Use of surcharges for audits.--The Foundation may use
any amount received from payments derived from the proceeds
of any surcharge imposed on the sale of coins issued under
this Act to pay the cost of an audit required under paragraph
(1).
(6) Waiver of subsection.--The Secretary of the Treasury
may waive the application of any paragraph of this subsection
to the Foundation for any fiscal year after taking into
account the amount of surcharges which such Foundation
received or expended during such year.
(7) Availability of books and records.--The Foundation
shall provide, as a condition for receiving any payment
derived from the proceeds of any surcharge imposed on the
sale of coins issued under this Act, to the Inspector General
of the Department of the Treasury or the Comptroller General
of the United States, upon the request of such Inspector
General or the Comptroller General, all books, records, and
workpapers belonging to or used by the Foundation, or by any
independent public accountant who audited the Foundation in
accordance with paragraph (1), which may relate to the
receipt or expenditure of any such amount by the Foundation.
(c) Use of Agents or Attorneys to Influence Commemorative
Coin Legislation.--No portion of any payment to the
Foundation from amounts derived from the proceeds of
surcharges imposed on the sale of coins issued under this Act
may be used, directly or indirectly, by the Foundation to
compensate any agent or attorney for services rendered to
support or influence in any way legislative action of the
Congress relating to the coins minted and issued under this
Act.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend from New York will make sure I
am added as a cosponsor.
Mr. D'AMATO. I am delighted. I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Murkowski be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
______

By Mr. GREGG:
S. 2137. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to make misuse
of information received from the National Crime Information Center a
criminal offense; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

THE NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER DATABASE PROTECTION ACT OF 1996

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the National Crime
Information Center [NCIC] Database Protection Act of 1996. This
legislation will make it a Federal offense to purposely misuse the NCIC
data base.
The NCIC was originally established in order to centralize
information about outstanding warrants and criminal history of citizens
of the United States. This data-base allows law enforcement agencies
across the United States to have access to any information regarding
suspected criminals within their jurisdictions. It is an indisputable
fact that the NCIC has helped apprehend thousands of criminals over the
years, including Timothy McVeigh, who allegedly bombed the Oklahoma
City Federal building. By providing instantaneous and accurate
information about individuals with criminal pasts, NCIC has helped
reduce recidivism and identify those people who are dangerous to
society.
It also is an indisputable fact that those individuals whose names
are included on the data-base have a right to privacy. They have a
right to feel secure that their information will be available only to
law enforcement and that the information will be accessed only when it
is necessary for law enforcement to perform their prescribed duties.
Over the past several years, there have been instances when the NCIC
has been used by individuals other than law enforcement officers to
check the backgrounds of individuals who are not having a routine
background check or under suspicion of a crime. In some cases, law
enforcement officers themselves have used the data-base improperly. For
instance, NCIC was used by a drug gang in Pennsylvania to identify
narcotics agents. The gang got the NCIC information through a corrupt
police officer.
NCIC was used by an Arizona law enforcement official to locate his
ex-girlfriend and kill her. The data-base has also been used by private
detectives doing background investigations on political candidates.
Unfortunately, these chilling tales are becoming far too common and
there is no ready mechanism under which the perpetrators of these
crimes can be prosecuted for misusing the NCIC data-base.
There is an obvious need for a law that states in no uncertain terms
that the NCIC should not be readily available to any non-law
enforcement officers or for any unofficial purposes. We need to send a
message that those who are caught violating the privacy of others
through NCIC will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I urge my fellow Senators to support this legislation and join in my
outrage at the ease with which NCIC information is available to
criminals. Our Nation's private citizens are not safe from those who
would exploit their personal information.
I ask unanimous consent that the provisions in the bill be included
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2137

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

SECTION 1. MISUSE OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE NATIONAL
CRIME INFORMATION CENTER.

(a) In General.--Chapter 101 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 2077. Misuse of information received from the National
Crime Information Center.

``Whoever obtains information from the National Crime
Information Center without authorization under law or uses
information lawfully received for purposes not authorized by
law shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 3 years, or both.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
101 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``2077. Misuse of information received from the National Crime
Information Center.''.

______

By Mr. GREGG:

S. 2138. A bill to clarify the standards for State sex offender
registration programs under the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against
Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

THE JACOB WETTERLING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND SEXUALLY VIOLENT
OFFENDER REGISTRATION AMENDMENTS OF 1996

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Jacob Wetterling
Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration
Amendments of 1996.
The current Jacob Wetterling Act is an effective and responsible way
to keep track of sexually violent predators, especially those who prey
on our children. This act requires States to implement a program
through which these types of offenders, once on parole, must register
their places of residence with State and local law enforcement
agencies. I have always supported the premise behind this provision in
the 1994 crime bill, as I believe it provides law enforcement with the
information necessary to locate prior offenders, should they strike
again.

[[Page S11543]]

I was particularly pleased to support this provision because New
Hampshire has had an exemplary sex offender registration program for
several years. In fact, the Department of Justice has complimented the
Granite State's program as one of the best in the Nation.
Despite my support of the Jacob Wetterling Act, I call on the Senate
to amend this legislation because it has come to my attention that this
act has established parameters for compliance that are too restrictive.
In fact, according to the Department of Justice, while most States have
established successful sex offender registration programs, not one is
in compliance with the narrowly drawn provisions outlined in the bill.
This fact is particularly distressing considering that the penalty
for non-compliance is the loss of 10 percent of that State's Edward
Byrne Memorial Grant funds. States that already run successful
registration programs do not deserve such a penalty.
The amendments that I propose will allow States to be in compliance
with Jacob Wetterling while retaining their own unique system of
registering sexually violent offenders.
First, this legislation would allow States to devise their own way of
registering paroled offenders. Current law requires States to conduct a
mail registration system, which is costly. In New Hampshire and other
States, the current system requires offenders to register in person at
their local police departments. My amendments would allow these States
to retain their current, successful systems.
Second, my bill would amend the current provision that requires
States to create a board of experts, whose purpose is to determine
whether an offender should be labeled as sexually violent and required
to register. My amendment would allow States to make this determination
through an assessment of the individual for purposes of a sentencing
enhancement determination. My own State of New Hampshire is an example
of the latter situation in that all people required to register have
been designated as sexually violent by a psychiatrist at the time of
sentencing. In New Hampshire, no State board needs to be created.
Finally, my bill would allow sex offenders to first register with
local law enforcement agencies, who then pass the information to the
State, the FBI, and other appropriate agencies.
These amendments simply recognize that it is not the role of the
Federal Government to devise each State's system for dealing with its
paroled offenders. Each State's methods and needs are different. The
Federal Government should not mandate that each of them conduct
identical programs.
I ask unanimous consent that the provisions in the bill be included
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2138

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF STANDARDS FOR STATE SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRATION PROGRAMS.

Section 170101 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``with a designated
State law enforcement agency'' in each of subparagraph (A)
and subparagraph (B);
(2) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting before the period
the following: ``, or pursuant to an assessment for purposes
of a sentencing enhancement determination'';
(3) in subsection (a)(3)(C), by inserting before the period
the following: ``, or means a person who has been convicted
of a sexually violent offense and has received an enhanced
sentence based on a determination that the person is a
serious danger to others due to a gravely abnormal mental
condition'';
(4) in subsection (b)(1)(A)--
(A) in clause (ii), by striking ``give'' and all that
follows through ``days'' and inserting ``report the change of
address as provided by State law''; and
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``shall register'' and all
that follows through ``requirement'' and inserting ``shall
report the change of address as provided by State law and
comply with any registration requirement in the new State of
residence'';
(5) by amending paragraph (2) of subsection (b) to read as
follows:
``(2) Transfer of information to state and the federal
bureau of investigation.--The officer, or in the case of a
person placed on probation, the court, shall forward the
registration information to the agency responsible for
registration under State law. State procedures shall ensure
that the registration information is available to a law
enforcement agency having jurisdiction where the person
expects to reside, that the information is entered into the
appropriate State records or data system, and that conviction
data and fingerprints for registered persons are transmitted
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.'';
(6) in subsection (b)(3)(A)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting after
``(a)(1),'' the following: ``State procedures shall provide
for verification of address at least annually. Such
verification may be effected by providing that'';
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``The designated State law
enforcement'' and inserting ``A designated'';
(C) in clause (ii), by striking ``State law enforcement'';
(D) in clause (iii), by striking ``to the designated State
law enforcement agency''; and
(E) in clause (iv), by striking ``State law enforcement'';
(7) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``section reported''
and all that follows through ``requirement'' and inserting
the following: ``section shall be reported by the person in
the manner provided by State law. State procedures shall
ensure that the updated address information is available to a
law enforcement agency having jurisdiction where the person
will reside and that the information is entered into the
appropriate State records or data system.'';
(8) in subsection (b)(5), by striking ``shall register''
and all that follows through ``requirement'' and inserting
``who moves to another State shall report the change of
address to the responsible agency in the State the person in
leaving, and shall comply with any registration requirement
in the new State of residence. The procedures of the State
the person is leaving shall ensure that notice is provided to
an agency responsible for registration in the new State, if
that State requires registration''; and
(9) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``the designated''
and all that follows through ``State agency'' and inserting
``the State or any agency authorized by the State''.
______

By Mrs. MURRAY:
S. 2139. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to require the
use of child safety restraint systems approved by the Secretary of
Transportation on commercial aircraft, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

The Children's Airline Safety Act of 1996

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President I introduce legislation that would
protect our Nation's small children as they travel on aircraft. We
currently have Federal regulations that require the safety of
passengers on commercial flights. However, neither flight attendants
nor an infant's parents can protect unrestrained infants in the event
of an airline accident or severe turbulence. A child on a parent's lap
will likely break free from the adult's arms as a plane takes emergency
action or encounters extreme turbulence.
This child then faces two serious hazards. First, the child may be
injured as they strike the aircraft interior. Second, the parents may
not be able to find the infant after a crash. The United/Sioux City, IA
crash provides one dark example. On impact, no parent was able to hold
on to her/his child. One child was killed when he flew from his
mother's hold. Another child was rescued from an overhead compartment
by a stranger.
In July 1994 during the fatal crash of a USAir plane in Charlotte,
NC, another unrestrained infant was killed when her mother could not
hold onto her on impact. The available seat next to the mother survived
the crash intact. The National Transportation Safety Board believes
that had the baby been secured in the seat, she would have been alive
today. In fact, in a FAA study on accident survivability, the agency
found that of the last nine infant deaths, five could have survived had
they been in child restraint devices.
Turbulence creates very serious problems for unrestrained infants. In
four separate incidences during the month of June, passengers and
flight attendants were injured when their flights hit sudden and
violent turbulence. In one of these, a flight attendant reported that a
baby seated on a passenger's lap went flying through the air during
turbulence and was caught by another passenger. This measure is
endorsed by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Aviation
Consumer Action Project.
We must protect those unable to protect themselves. Just as we
require seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, and car seats, we must mandate
restraint devices that protect our youngest citizens. I urge my
colleagues to support

[[Page S11544]]

this legislation that ensures our kids remain passengers and not
victims.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Exon, and Mr.
D'Amato):
S. 2140. A bill to limit the use of the exclusionary rule in school
disciplinary proceedings; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

THE SAFER SCHOOLS ACT OF 1996

Mr. DORGAN. I come to the floor, Mr. President, along with my
colleague, Senator Feinstein, from California, to introduce legislation
that will help keep our kids safe from gun violence in school. It is
late in the session to do this, but I am joined in this effort by the
Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from Nebraska, Mr.
Exon, and the Senator from New York, Mr. D'Amato. I want to describe
what this legislation is and why it is necessary at this point.
Yesterday, in the Washington Post, there was a tiny little paragraph
at the bottom of a section called ``Around the Nation.'' It is the
smallest of paragraphs describing the fate of a man named Horace
Morgan. Horace Morgan was a teacher who, as reported in yesterday's
news, was killed trying to break up a fight at a school for problem
students in Scottdale, GA. He was fatally shot by a teenager. He had
taught English and language arts at the De Kalb County Alternative
School for 10 years. This teacher died of multiple gunshot wounds. A
16-year-old student was arrested. This was not headlines. It was not
the front section. It was not on the front page--a tiny little
paragraph in the newspaper about a teacher being shot in school, a
teacher named Horace Morgan dying of multiple gunshot wounds.
The point is that it is not so uncommon that it warrants headlines in
this country when a student shoots and kills a teacher. About 2 years
ago, Senator Feinstein and I wrote the Gun-Free Schools Act, which is
now law. The Gun-Free Schools Act says there shall be zero tolerance on
the issue of guns in schools--no excuses, no tolerance. Guns do not
belong in schools. Schools are places of learning. Students cannot
bring guns to school to threaten other students. Bring a gun to school
and you will be expelled for 1 year--no tolerance, no excuses, no ifs,
ands or buts. No guns in schools. Bring a gun, you are expelled for a
year. That is now the law.
A week ago yesterday, I came to the Senate floor and again spoke on
the issue of guns in schools. I did this because, as I was shaving in
the morning getting ready for work, I heard a news piece on NBC
television that so infuriated me I wanted to address it right away. The
news story was about an appellate court in New York that had ruled a
student who brought a gun to school should not have been expelled for a
year because the security aide who found the gun did not have
reasonable suspicion to search the student.
The facts of this case made me so angry because it simply stands
common sense on its head. In 1992, Juan C. was stopped by a school
security aide who said he saw a bulge resembling the handle of a gun
inside Juan's leather jacket. The aide grabbed for the bulge, which was
indeed a loaded .45 semiautomatic handgun.
Juan was expelled for school for one year. This internal disciplinary
action is consistent with the requirements of the Gun-Free Schools Act.
Juan was also changed with criminal weapons violations.
The family court that heard Juan's criminal case ruled that the
security guard did not have reasonable suspicion to search this
student. As a result, the court refused to admit the gun as evidence of
Juan's guilt, relying on the judicially created mechanism known as an
exclusionary rule.
The New York appellate court took this decision to ridiculous lengths
by applying the exclusionary rule to the internal school disciplinary
action against this student. In essence, this court was saying that the
security aide in the school was to blame for catching this young
student red-handed bringing a gun to school. They said he should not
have been expelled and ordered his record expunged of any wrongdoing in
the matter.
This is the most ludicrous decision from a court. If this ruling is
allowed to stand, teachers and school administrators who know that a
student is packing a gun will be powerless to act without a
``reasonable suspicion''--whatever that now is--that the gun exists. In
some cases, like this one, it tells school officials to look the other
way when they know a student is carrying a loaded gun.
I do not understand this thinking. What on Earth has happened to
common sense? When you and I board an airplane, we voluntarily consent
to security checks in order to preserve the safety and security of
ourselves and other passengers. Now we have a court that says, ``Oh,
but you can't have that same level of security with respect to kids in
school. Yes, you can remove a gun from a passenger who is going on an
airplane because it is unsafe, but you cannot remove a gun from the
jacket of a 15-year-old who is carrying a loaded .45 semiautomatic
pistol into a school.'' What has happened to common sense?
I am introducing a piece of legislation today that is painfully
simple. So simple, in fact, that it ought not to have to be introduced.
It simply says that you cannot exclude a gun as evidence in a
disciplinary action in school. This bill returns to schools the most
basic and necessary of disciplinary tools--the ability to keep
classrooms safe from gun violence for the students who want to learn.
Let me emphasize that this bill does not violate the constitutional
rights of kids. School officials who conduct unreasonable or unlawful
searches will not be exonerated by this legislation, and people who
have been aggrieved will be free to pursue any judicial or statutory
remedies available to them. What they are not free to do--once they
have been found with a gun--is slip through a school's disciplinary
process and return to school where they can continue to threaten other
kids and teachers. I do not want that kid in school with my children. I
do not want that kid in school with the children of the Presiding
Officer or any other citizen of this country. When a kid puts a
semiautomatic pistol, loaded, in his waistband or jacket and heads off
to school, if my children or the children of any American citizen are
in that school, I want that kid expelled and out immediately.
If our court system does not understand that, then there is something
wrong with our court system. Never again, in this country, should we
have a circumstance where a court says that, even though a student is
caught red-handed with a loaded gun, the security guard who finds it
should pat the kid on back and say, ``Sorry, I really should not have
seen that. You go to class now.''
No wonder people are angry in this country about a system that
excuses everything. I know people will say to me, ``How dare you
personalize this? How dare you criticize a judge?'' But who is a judge?
Judges are public servants, paid for with public money. I want judges
to make thoughtful, reasonable decisions.

When judges, just as when other public officials come up with
decisions that defy all common sense, we have a right to be publicly
critical. Certainly in this case we have a right to offer legislation
to say there ought not be one school district in America that has any
other than zero tolerance for guns in schools. There ought not be one
judicial jurisdiction in this country that is able to say to any school
board, any principal, or any teacher, that a kid bringing a gun to
school ought to be sent back to a classroom because someone had no
right to find the gun.
If we have a right to ensure the security of passengers who get on
airplanes in this country, and we do, then we have a right to ensure
the safety of teachers and children in our public schools. If we do not
have that right, if we cannot take the first baby step in making sure
that places of learning are safe, then we cannot take any step in
improving our educational system in America.
I offer this bill in the spirit of bipartisanship. There are
Republicans and Democrats who have joined me in offering it. I recall a
couple years ago, at the end of a legislative session just like we are
now, when Senator Feinstein and I were trying very hard to save the
provision that we had put in law saying we ought to adopt a zero
tolerance on guns in schools. At the time, I shared a story with my
colleagues. I know it is repetitious but it is important, so I am

[[Page S11545]]

going to tell it again. I do not know about the subject of guns in
schools so much from my hometown because I come from North Dakota, a
town of 300, a high school class of nine; a small school. We did not
have so many of the problems that so many schools have now.
But a few years ago I toured a school not very far from this Capitol
building. That school had metal detectors and security guards. A month
later, a student at that school bumped a student who was taking a drink
at a water fountain and the student taking the drink, after he was
bumped, pulled out a pistol, turned around, and shot the other student
four times. The name of the young man who was shot is Jerome. He
survived; critically wounded, but he survived. I visited with Jerome
after that. He has since graduated.
But I was trying to understand, what is happening here? What is
happening that a child who bumps another child in a lunchroom finds
himself facing a loaded pistol and is shot four times? I do not even
begin to understand it. But I do not need to begin to understand it to
know that we ought, in every circumstance, under every condition,
decide to fight to make certain that people are not bringing guns into
our schools. Our schools ought to be safe havens, places of learning
where our young boys and girls come, believing they are going to learn
during that day and be safe while they are learning.
That is why we introduced the legislation 2 years ago. I am very
surprised we are here on the floor of the Senate talking again about
this issue, but we are here because of a court decision that stands
logic on its head. When they do that, I will come to the floor again,
and again, and again, and introduce legislation that restores some
common sense on this issue.
Mr. President, let me say again that I appreciate the opportunity to
work closely with the Senator from California on this issue. Mr.
President, I yield the floor, 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. 2140

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 ``Safer Schools Act of 1996''.

SEC 2. SAFER SCHOOLS.

(a) In General.--Section 14601(b)(1) of the Gun-Free
Schools Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 8921(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``under this Act shall have'' and inserting
the following: ``under this Act--
``(A) shall have'';
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) beginning not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Safer Schools Act of 1996, shall have in
effect a State law or regulation providing that evidence that
a student brought a weapon to a school under the jurisdiction
of the local educational agencies in that State, that is
obtained as a result of a search or seizure conducted on
school premises, shall not be excluded in any school
disciplinary proceeding on the ground that the search or
seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.''.
(b) Report to State.--Section 14601(d) of the Gun-Free
Schools Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 8921(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the State law required
by'' and inserting ``each State law or regulation''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (b)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)''.
(c) Report to Congress.--Section 14601(f) of the Gun-Free
Schools Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 8921(f)) is amended by
inserting ``of subsection (b)(1)(A)'' before ``of this''.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his
leadership on this issue. I have been very proud to cosponsor the bill
with him, and it has been a very important bill in California.
I will never forget going to a school in Hollywood, CA, speaking to a
fourth grade class and asking that class, What is your No. 1 fear?
Do you know what it was? It was getting shot in class or on the way
to school. I didn't believe it, so I asked the class: Well, how many of
you have even heard gunshots? In the fourth grade of this Hollywood
elementary school, every single hand went up.
Then I remember going to Reseda High School and embracing a mother
whose son had been shot in a hallway for no reason at all, just shot
dead by another student. That is when I came back and sort of firmed up
my resolve to really try to do something about it.
In 1993--this is the year before we passed this bill, gun-free
schools--the Oakland school officials confiscated 60 guns; Fresno
school officials confiscated 43 guns; San Jose, 175 guns; Los Angeles,
256 guns; Long Beach, 37 guns; and San Diego, 30 guns.
These are the schools of California. Who can learn when a youngster
has a .45 in their pocket? I don't think your son or daughter could
learn. I know my son or daughter or granddaughter couldn't learn in a
school if guns are present. So this is a good bill.
I share the frustration of Senator Dorgan. I wasn't shaving that
morning, but I did read the New York Times, and what I saw in the New
York Times amazed me, because what it said was that no school security
guard, seeing a bulge in a youngster's pocket, could go up to that
youngster and say, ``What do you have in your pocket?''
If you see a bulge in somebody's pocket, you can have a reasonable
belief that they are carrying a weapon, particularly in a day and age
where we have 160,000 students a year going into schools with weapons.
That is a reasonable belief if there is a bulge.
We know for a fact that many schools now have metal detectors, that
many schools routinely search backpacks. What does this court finding
do to these routine searches? I think it decimates them.
So we have submitted to you a bill which we hope will correct this. I
know that gun-free schools work. In Los Angeles, when they put in a
gun-free-school bill, gun incidents went down by 65 percent. In San
Diego, gun incidents in school were cut in half.
What we contend is that any school that takes Federal money should
have a zero tolerance policy for guns in that school. That means you
bring a gun to school, you are expelled for 1 year. No ifs, ands, or
buts, you go out. The superintendent has the ability to be able to see
there is some alternative placement if that is available and to provide
counseling for the youngster. But the point of this is, it has to be
enforced. For the New York City Family Court to strike down a gun being
entered into evidence that was confiscated by a bona fide security
person in the course of their duties on school grounds to me just
boggles my mind.
Let me talk just for a moment about what happens if this ruling
stands and if we don't address it legislatively. I think it is really a
shot in the back of school districts that are attempting to eliminate
gun violence in their schools. How many school security guards and
teachers will now hesitate to be just a little bit more vigilant in
protecting the millions of good, innocent kids who are in our schools?
How many overworked and underpaid teachers, fearful for their safety,
will decide that this is the last straw and simply turn away from
teaching if they can't go out there and say, ``I think you may have
something in your backpack that is contraband. Open it up.'' Or,
``Susie,'' or ``Jeff, what is that bulge in your pocket? Let me see
what you have in your pocket.''
This raises the whole kind of commonsense aspect: Should a youngster
in a school have the same privacy rights that a youngster in a home
would have? I don't think so. I think a minor should be subject to
search for contraband, to search for possession of a weapon, and if we
let our laws in this country bend over so backward that a security
guard or a teacher can't say, ``Show me what you have in that pocket,''
or ``Show me what I think you have in that backpack,'' or ``I have
reason to believe you may have something you shouldn't have in your
locker; I am going to open it up and look at it,'' I think any effort
to protect youngsters in schools will go right out the window.
So I think that what we are trying to do today--Senator Dorgan,
myself, I know I talked with Senator D'Amato about this. I know he has
said, ``Let's work together.'' I am delighted to see he is on this bill
as well.
It is extraordinarily important that we get guns out of our schools,
and this

[[Page S11546]]

court decision was just a major setback, because what it said is, you
can't enter the gun into evidence, you can't make it stick. I cannot
fathom how any judge could do this.
I am not entirely sure that the remedy we present today is the full
remedy that we need. I think it may even need beefing up in itself. But
I think it is a real start in the right direction, and I think it is
extraordinarily important that Senators on both sides of the aisle
really state to the public their belief that guns must not be brought
to school, that knives must not be brought to school, that drugs, for
that matter, should not be brought to school, and that we reinforce
this in every way, shape or form we can legislatively.
I am very, very pleased and proud to join with the Senator from North
Dakota, once again, in hopes that this body will take prompt action in
the early part of the next session. My hope also is, as this case
proceeds on appeal, that common sense may reign. I cannot believe that
the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America wanted
a situation whereby a youngster could be search-proof in a school for a
weapon of destruction.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2141. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit
certain tax free corporate liquidations into a 501(c)(3) organization
and to revise the unrelated business income tax rules regarding receipt
of debt-financed property in such a liquidation; to the Committee on
Finance.

CHARITABLE GIVING TAX LEGISLATION

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to
strengthen tax incentives to encourage more charitable giving in
America. The legislation would represent an important step and
encourage greater private sector support of important educational,
medical, and other valuable programs in local communities across the
country.
Americans are among the most caring in the world, contributing
generously to charities in their communities:
American families contribute, on average, nearly $650 per household,
or about $130 billion, per year, to charities.
Approximately, three out of every four households give to nonprofit
charitable organizations.
However, charities are very concerned for the future, anticipating a
decline in Federal social spending to address urgent needs like
childrens' services, homelessness, job training, health and welfare,
just as the need for help accelerates.
Nonprofit charities are very concerned about their ability to
maintain their current level of services, let alone expand to meet the
increasing demand for services. While charitable contributions grew by
3.7 percent in 1994, contributions for human services, the area most
closely associated with poverty programs, dropped by 6 percent.
Private charities can never replace government programs for national
social priorities. However, nonprofit charities across America play a
critical role in providing vital services to people in need. The
Federal Government needs to take steps to ensure we are doing
everything we can to encourage private charitable support to supplement
government programs and government support.
The Federal Government needs to take steps to encourage greater
private sector support. Government must provide both the leadership and
the incentives to encourage more private, charitable giving through the
tax code. Analysts believe the gift of closely held business stock is
an underutilized source of potential funds for charitable activities
that warrants closer attention and legislative remedies.

A closely held business is a corporation, in which stock is issued to
a small number shareholders, such as family members, but is not
publicly traded on a stock exchange. This business form is very popular
for family businesses involving different generations.
However, today, the tax cost of contributing closely-held stock to a
charity or foundation can be prohibitively high. The tax burden
discourages families and owners from winding down a business and
contributing the proceeds to charity. This legislation would permit
certain tax-free liquidations of closely held corporations into one or
more tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations.
Under current law, a corporation may have to be liquidated to
effectively complete the transfer of assets to the charity for its use,
incurring a corporate tax at the Federal rate of 35 percent. In 1986,
Congress repealed the ``General Utilities'' doctrine, imposing a
corporate level tax on all corporate transfers, including those to tax
exempt charitable organizations. Additionally, a charitable
organization could also be subject to taxation on its unrelated
business income from certain types of donated property.
These tax costs make contributions of closely held stock a costly and
ineffective means of transferring resources to charity. If the Federal
Government is going to find new ways to encourage charitable giving, we
need to look at these tax costs which undercut both the incentive to
give and the potential value of any charitable gift.
Governments at the Federal, State, and local level, are reducing
spending in all areas of their budgets, including spending for social
services. Public charities and private foundations already distribute
funds to a diverse and wide ranging group of social support
organizations at the community level. Congressional leaders have looked
to private charities in our religious institutions, our schools and
communities, to fill the void created by government cut-backs. However,
volunteers are already hard at work in their communities and charitable
funding is already stretched dangerously thin. Charities need added
tools to unlock the public's desire to give generously. We need to
create appropriate incentives for the private sector to do more.

In California and throughout the country, volunteer and charitable
organizations, together, perform vital roles in the community and they
deserve our support. Allow me to provide a few examples, which could be
repeated in any town across America:
Summer Search: In San Francisco, the Summer Search Foundation is hard
at work preventing high school students from dropping out of school.
Summer Search helps students not only successfully complete high school
but, for 93 percent of the participants, go on to college. By
increasing charitable contributions, groups like Summer Search can help
keep kids in school and moving forward toward graduation and a more
productive contribution to the Nation.
Drew Center For Child Development: Dramatic increases in the number
of child abuse and neglect cases, which now total nearly 3 million
children in the United States, is deeply troubling for everyone. We
must do everything to prevent these cases, but cutbacks in Social
Services block grants will impose new burdens on local communities.
Charitable support can be a small part of the solution.
Drew Child Development, a child care and development center in the
Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, works directly with children and
families involved in child abuse environments. Unfortunately, these 130
families in which the Drew Center supports is not the end of the story.
There are thousands of other families that could benefit from this
child abuse treatment program if more resources were available.
The Drew Center expects cuts in government funding. They anticipate
that they will have to cut counselor positions and turn needy families
away. Stronger incentives for private sector giving would provide the
Drew Center with some of the resources needed to combat this enormous
problem.
The Chrysalis Center: In 1993 I visited the Chrysalis Center, a
nonprofit organization in downtown Los Angeles dedicated to helping
homeless individuals find and keep jobs. Chrysalis provides employment
assistance, from training in job-seeking skills to supervised searches
for permanent employment. In 1995, the center helped over 750 people
find work, and has helped place more than 3,000 people in permanent,
full-time jobs in the last decade.

However, there are still an estimated 15,000 homeless individuals in
the Los Angeles area that are able to work. Most of these men and
women, however, lack literacy skills and the resources to move from the
streets to full-time employment. With increased charitable
contributions, Chrysalis would be able to offer hope and opportunity
for thousands more.

[[Page S11547]]

Today, I introduce tax incentive legislation to encourage stronger
support for the Nation's vital charities. The proposal:
Eliminates the corporate tax upon liquidation of a qualifying
closely-held corporation under certain circumstances. The legislation
would require 80 percent or more of the stock to be bequeathed to a
501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization; and
Clarifies that a charity can receive mortgaged property in a
qualified liquidation, without triggering unrelated business income tax
for a period of 10 years. This change parallels the exemption from
unrelated business income tax provided under current law for direct
transfers by gift or bequest.
Under the legislation, the individual donor would receive no tax
benefit from the proposal, as the tax savings generated would increase
the funds available for the charity.
By eliminating the corporate tax upon liquidation, Congress would
encourage additional, and much needed, charitable gifts. Across
America, countless thousands have built successful careers and have
generated substantial wealth in closely-held corporations. As the
individuals age and plan for their estate, we should help them channel
their wealth to meet philanthropic goals. Individuals who are willing
to make generous bequests of companies and assets, often companies they
have spent years building, should not be discouraged by substantially
reducing the value of their gifts through Federal taxes.

While the Joint Tax Committee has not yet prepared an official
revenue cost, previous estimates suggest a 7-year cost of about $600
million.
However, the revenue estimate represents the expectation of
significant transfer to charity as a result of the legislation. By the
same techniques used to estimate the tax cost to Treasury, we estimate
between $3 and $5 billion in charitable contributions would be
stimulated by this tax change. This tax proposal may generate as much
as seven times its revenue loss in expanded charitable giving.
The legislation has been endorsed by the Council on Foundations, the
umbrella organization for foundations throughout the country, and the
Council of Jewish Federations.
I am pleased to add my colleagues Mark Hatfield, of Oregon, Slade
Gorton of Washington and Max Baucus, of Montana, as co-sponsors of the
legislation. I encourage others to review this legislation and listen
to the charitable sectors in your community. During this past year, the
proposed legislation went through several different revisions in order
to sharpen the bill's focus and target the legislation in the most
effective manner. I want to encourage the review process to continue,
so we may continue to build support and target the bill's impact for
the benefit of the Nation's nonprofit community.
With virtually limitless need, we must look at new ways to encourage
and nurture a strong charitable sector. The private sector cannot begin
to replace the government role, but if the desire to support charitable
activity exists, we should not impose taxes to deplete the value of
that support.
Tax laws should encourage, rather than impede, charitable giving. By
inhibiting charitable gifts, Federal tax laws hurt those individuals
that most need the help of their government and their community.
I request unanimous consent to have the legislation and section-by-
section analysis printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 2141

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF CORPORATE LEVEL TAX UPON
LIQUIDATION OF CLOSELY HELD CORPORATIONS UNDER
CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 337(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to treatment of
indebtedness of subsidiary, etc.) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Except as provided in subparagraph (B)''
in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``Except as provided in
subparagraph (B) or (C)'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Exception in the case of stock acquired without
consideration.--If the 80-percent distributee is an
organization described in section 501(c)(3) and acquired
stock in a liquidated domestic corporation from either a
decedent (within the meaning of section 1014(b)) or the
decedent's spouse, subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any
distribution of property to the 80-percent distributee. This
subparagraph shall apply only if all of the following
conditions are met:
``(i) Eighty percent or more of the stock in the liquidated
corporation was acquired by the distributee, solely by a
distribution from an estate or trust created by one or more
qualified persons. For purposes of this clause, the term
`qualified person' means a citizen or individual resident of
the United States, an estate (other than a foreign estate
within the meaning of section 7701(a)(31)(A)), or any trust
described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section
1361(c)(2)(A).
``(ii) The liquidated corporation adopted its plan of
liquidation on or after January 1, 1997.
``(iii) The 80-percent distributee is an organization
created or organized under the laws of the United States or
of any State.

Nothing in subsection (d) shall be construed to limit the
application of this subsection in circumstances in which this
subparagraph applies.''.
(b) Revision of Unrelated Business Income Tax Rules To
Exempt Certain Assets.--Subparagraph (B) of section 514(c)(2)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to property
acquired subject to mortgage, etc.) is amended by inserting
``or pursuant to a liquidation described in section
337(b)(2)(C),'' after ``bequest or devise,''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
____

Section By Section Description

Amending the Internal Revenue Code to permit certain tax
free corporate liquidations into 501(c)(3) organizations and
to revise the Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT) rules
regarding the receipt of mortgaged property in a corporate
liquidation:
Section 1: Establishes an exception under IRC section 337
to permit a tax-free liquidation of a corporation into a
charitable organization under IRC section 501(c)(3) when
eighty percent or more of the corporation is dedicated to the
charity through a bequest at death by a US citizen or
resident of the US, an estate or trust.
Section 2: Expands the current law ten year exemption from
the Unrelated Business Income Tax to include entities
receiving mortgaged assets in a corporate liquidation. When a
tax exempt entity receives mortgaged property from a
corporate liquidation covered by section one of this bill, no
Unrelated Business Income Tax would be imposed for 10 years.
Section 3: The amendment takes effect upon date of
enactment for corporate plans of liquidation adopted on or
after January 1, 1997.
______

By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Coats,
Mr. Lugar, Mr. Gramm, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Robb, Mr. Faircloth,
Mr. Hollings, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Nickles):
S. 2143. A bill to authorize funds for construction of highways, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

THE ISTEA INTEGRITY RESTORATION ACT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along
with my distinguished colleague from Florida, Mr. Graham, the ISTEA
Integrity Restoration Act. We have a number of cosponsors, I am pleased
to say, whom I shall not list. But it is a bipartisan group.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
and the distinguished Senator from Florida is a member of my
subcommittee, we do this on behalf of many Senators and invite others,
hearing of this introduction at this time, to consider adding their
names as cosponsors.
This legislation is the product of 2 years of work on the part of
many Senators and, indeed, specifically a group of States, 21 in
number, known as STEP-21. The goals of this group of States, referred
to as STEP-21, are incorporated in this legislation. This group shares,
among those goals, that of ensuring that our surface transportation
system is prepared to respond to the economic challenges of the 21st
century.
The current surface transportation authorization bill, known as
ISTEA--I might refer to it as ISTEA 1, and next year I, hopefully, will
be a part of the legislating group to provide for ISTEA 2--but ISTEA 1
expires September 30, 1997. So it is imperative that the Congress of
the United States draft and legislate ISTEA 2 next year.
American products are reaching domestic and international markets in
shorter times. Manufacturing plants are reducing inventories and
relying on just-in-time deliveries. I visited an industrial plant in my
State, in Luray,

[[Page S11548]]

VA, which is primarily making blue jeans. I asked them, ``How do you
compete with the low-cost labor market in Asia? Indeed, how do you
compete with the European markets?'' They came straight to the point.
No. 1, the hard work delivered by the citizens of Virginia in that
plant. But, No. 2, it is very clear, is turnaround time. We get an
order in, we fill the boxes, we put it on the truck, and that truck
turns around and goes back, back to the purchasers in a very short
period of time. Mr. President, that turnaround time, that ability to
turn goods around on the roads as they exist in America today that will
exist even in better form tomorrow through improved bridges and other
forms of transportation, that gives us an edge in this ``one world
market'' to beat those other competitors.

Throughout Virginia, all types of industries tell me that their
ability to get the goods to domestic or international markets makes the
difference in their competitiveness here at home, indeed, and
worldwide. In this one-world market, our existing modern transportation
system is probably one of the major factors that gives us such a
competitive edge as we have here today. But we must improve that for a
tougher competitive environment of tomorrow.
We are a mobile society here in the United States, but our
transportation challenges are growing as we face an aging surface
transportation system. As we work to develop a national consensus on
transportation policy, I remain committed to a future that provides for
easier access for every community to a modern, safer road system
designed for ever-increasing volumes of traffic.
Responding to the congestion on our Nation's highways and the
resulting lost productivity is a primary focus of the legislation we
are introducing today, such that all in America can study it. And
tomorrow, next year, we will begin work in response to the needs of our
country.
It is not too early to begin the discussion, to ensure that the next
multiyear surface transportation bill provides a system that:
First, effectively moves people and goods--that is more effectively;
Second, provides for the safety of the traveling public, and this
Senator and, indeed, my colleague from Florida have always stood in the
forefront for provisions which add safety to our transportation system;
Third, fosters a healthy economy;
Fourth, ensures a consistent level of performance and service among
the 50 States and provides an equitable distribution of highway trust
funds that responds to the challenging demographics in America.
These are our national priorities that must be met.
The legislation Senator Graham and I are introducing today is a sound
approach that meets these priorities.
With the completion of the Interstate Highway System, the mobility of
Americans has steadily increased.
Every day we commute longer distances to our jobs. We travel longer
distances for vacations or to visit friends and family.
In testimony before the Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee this year, Secretary of Transportation Pena indicated that
gridlock on our Nation's highways wastes $30 billion annually. The
ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act addresses this critical problem by
redirecting Federal dollars to our States on a more equitable basis.
Our legislation also builds upon the successes of ISTEA by:
preserving public participation and the role of local governments in
transportation decision-making; continuing the national goal of
intermodalism; expanding State and local authority to determine
transportation priorities; and, increasing the flexibility to use
transportation dollars on other modes of transportation that improve
air quality, facilitates the flow of traffic or enhances the
preservation of historic transportation facilities.
The ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act continues to move our surface
transportation policy forward. It responds to the single most glaring
failure of ISTEA by modernizing our outdated Federal apportionment
formulas.
Virginia and many other States have historically been ``donor''
States--sending more into the Highway Trust Fund that we receive in
return.
This legislation addresses the needs of the ``donor'' States and also
recognizes the demands of our rural States and small States with dense
populations.
This bill is an honest, good-faith effort to reduce the extremes in
the funding formulas. It provides that all States should receive at
least 95 percent of the funds their citizens pay into the highway trust
fund by way of the Federal gas tax.
We are introducing this legislation today, near the end of the 104th
Congress, to stimulate discussion among the States, local governments
and various interested groups on how the Congress should approach the
reauthorization of ISTEA.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the subcommittee will
hold extensive hearings next year of ISTEA reauthorization.
I pledge to work with all of my colleagues to craft a multiyear
reauthorization bill that addresses the issues I have outlined. I
welcome all comments on the legislation I am introducing today as we
share the common goal of providing for an efficient transportation
system for the 21st century.
I want to credit my distinguished colleague from Florida, because the
two of us, along with others, have stood toe-to-toe on this floor
trying to bring into balance a more equitable system of allocation of
the public highway trust funds donated by our respective States. As I
said, some of our States, like Virginia and Florida, are referred to as
donor States, meaning we send more to Washington than we get back. That
must be adjusted next year.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity this
afternoon to join my friend and colleague from Virginia in the
introduction of this important legislation. I believe there are a
couple of historical notes that should be made at this time.
First is, we are introducing legislation to carry on a program which
will expire 368 days from today. By introducing this legislation today,
we are giving to our colleagues--but more important to the millions of
Americans who will be affected by this legislation--more than a year to
give full consideration to the policy proposals which we are advancing.
We are doing that at the very time that, here on the Senate floor,
other important matters are being denied that kind of full attention
and exploration. I commend the Senator from Virginia for his vision and
his farsightedness in making it possible for such a dispassionate,
thoughtful consideration of this important legislation.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for
helping draft the first blueprint of this exciting challenge for
America.
Mr. GRAHAM. The second historical point is consistent with what my
friend from Virginia has just said, and that is we are at a new point
of departure for our surface transportation system. We could date the
current era with adoption of the Interstate Highway Act during the
administration of President Eisenhower. We have had a great national
objective over almost a half century, to link America with the highest
standards of highway engineering, design and construction and
maintenance. We have largely accomplished the task that we set out for
ourselves in the 1950's.
Now the question is, what will this generation's contribution be to
America's transportation for the first half of the 21st century? The
decisions that we will be making in 1997 will be an important step
toward answering that question of what we shall do for the future of
America's transportation.
I am pleased to cosponsor this important legislation which has a
number of significant provisions. One of those provisions is the need
for equity in the funding of our highway system. In report after
report--and I bring to the Senate's attention just two of many. One, a
report in 1985, ``Highway Funding, Federal Distribution Formulas Should
Be Changed,'' which was produced prior to the 1991 act upon which we
are currently distributing our Federal highway funds, and then a second
dated November of 1995, 4 years after

[[Page S11549]]

the adoption of the 1991 Highway Act, which is entitled ``Highway
Funding Alternatives for Distributing Highway Funds'' in which it
states that ``the formula process in the current law is cumbersome,
yielding a largely predetermined outcome and partially relies on
outdated and irrelevant factors.''
So, Mr. President, in spite of repeated reports pointing out
shortcomings in our past and current distribution laws, we still are
subject to the criticism of being cumbersome, predetermined, and
outdated and irrelevant in our distribution facts.
One of the important objectives of this legislation that we
introduced today is to bring greater rationality and modernity into our
distribution of highway funds while we also strive to give greater
flexibility to the States that have the responsibility for
administering these funds.
I am glad that we commenced the debate today. I look forward to more
than a year of opportunity to move this idea into a form that can come
before the Senate and our colleagues in the House for passage and to
usher in a new postinterstate era for American highway transportation.
______

By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Faircloth, Mr.
Pressler, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 2144. A bill to enhance the supervision by Federal and State
banking agencies of foreign banks operating in the United States, to
limit participation in insured financial institutions by persons
convicted of certain crimes, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban affairs.

THE FOREIGN BANK ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1996

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today I introduce the Foreign Bank
Enforcement Act of 1996.
This legislation proposes a number of important modifications to
statutes governing the activities of foreign banks operating in the
United States. It reflects the recommendations of Federal and State
bank regulators. It will enhance the ability of U.S. regulators to
oversee the 275 foreign banks from 61 countries now operating in the
United States.
The world's financial system is increasingly interconnected, and
foreign banks operate in the United States to a greater degree than
ever before. These banks now hold more than $1 trillion in U.S. banking
assets and make approximately 30 percent of the amount of all loans to
U.S. businesses.
The integrity of the U.S. financial system is one of our most
important national assets. This asset is threatened whenever any bank--
domestic or foreign--operating on our shores engages in misconduct or
fraud. It is therefore imperative that U.S. bank regulators possess all
of the tools necessary to supervise the U.S. operations of foreign
banks with the same care and attention as those of our domestic banks.
Over the past several years, the activities of rogue traders at banks
and securities firms have shaken world financial markets. Last year,
the $1.3 billion in hidden losses from derivatives trading by Nicholas
Leeson in Singapore brought down the venerable Barings Bank in Great
Britain. In September 1995--and much closer to home--Federal bank
regulators learned that Daiwa Bank's New York branch had incurred
losses of $1.1 billion from the unauthorized trading activities of just
one employee, Mr. Toshihide Iguchi, over a period of 10 years.
Mr. President, the Daiwa matter is particularly troubling. Although
Daiwa senior management learned of these hidden trading losses of $1.1
billion in July 1995, they concealed the losses from U.S. bank
regulators for almost 2 months. Even worse, Daiwa senior management
directed Mr. Iguchi to continue his fraudulent transactions during July
and August 1995 to avoid detection of the losses.
In November 1995, Federal and State bank regulators took the stern,
but entirely appropriate step, of terminating all of Daiwa Bank's
operations in the United States. The bank also paid a criminal fine of
$340 million, and two of its officials entered guilty pleas to criminal
offenses.
In the wake of the Daiwa scandal, I asked the Federal Reserve to
conduct a full inquiry into this matter and to examine our existing
scheme for regulating the U.S. activities of foreign banks. The Banking
Committee also held a hearing in November 1995 on Daiwa and related
matters at which Federal and State bank regulators testified.
Mr. President, it is clear that we must learn from the Daiwa scandal.
Over the past year, the Banking Committee has worked with Federal and
State regulators, including the Federal Reserve and the New York State
Banking Department, to identify any limitations in the existing laws
governing the U.S. operations of foreign banks.
After reviewing the recommendations of Federal and State bank
regulators, I today introduce the Foreign Bank Enforcement Act. This
legislation would make the following five changes to the statutory
scheme now governing the U.S. operations of foreign banks.
First, it would clarify that the Federal Reserve possesses the
statutory authority to set conditions for the termination of a foreign
bank's activities in the United States. Under the International Banking
Act of 1978, the Federal Reserve may order the complete termination of
a foreign bank's branches and agencies in the U.S. This amendment would
make explicit that the Federal Reserve also may issue, on an
involuntary basis, a termination order that sets specific conditions on
the termination of a foreign bank's U.S. activities. These conditions
might include requiring the terminated bank to maintain the records of
its U.S. activities in the U.S., to make its officials available in the
U.S. to facilitate U.S. investigatory efforts, and to escrow funds in
the U.S. to meet contingent liabilities after the foreign bank has left
the U.S.

Second, this bill would clarify the authority of federal banking
agencies to remove convicted felons from the banking industry. Under
Section 8(g) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the Federal Reserve
and other Federal banking agencies may suspend and permanently bar from
the banking industry persons convicted of certain felonies. This
amendment would make clear that Federal banking agencies possess this
authority with regard to persons who are not actually employed by a
banking organization.
Third, the Foreign Bank Enforcement Act would expand the current
automatic bar on the employment of persons convicted of a crime
involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering. Under
Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, a person convicted of
such crimes may not work for an insured depository institution without
the approval of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it does not
expressly bar the future employment of a convicted person by a bank
holding company, an Edge or Agreement corporation, or a U.S. branch or
agency of a foreign bank. For instance, under the current Section 19,
Mr. Iguchi, the senior Daiwa official who caused the bank's $1.1
billion trading loss, would not automatically be barred from working
for another U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank. This amendment
would close this loophole.
Fourth, this legislation would increase the ability of the federal
bank regulators to obtain from foreign bank supervisors critical
examination and supervision-related information concerning foreign
banks operating in the U.S. Specifically, it would amend the
International Banking Act of 1978 to provide explicitly that federal
bank regulators may keep confidential critical bank-examination
information obtained from foreign supervisors. This provision would not
protect such information from disclosure to Congress or to the courts
and is similar to a provision in the securities laws that allows the
SEC to maintain the confidentiality of information received from a
foreign securities authority.
Finally, this bill would authorize Federal courts, upon a motion of a
U.S. Attorney, to issue orders authorizing the disclosure of matters
occurring before a grand jury to State bank regulators. Under current
law, such disclosures may be made only to Federal bank regulators, and,
as the Daiwa matter demonstrates, State bank regulators play an
important role in the supervision of foreign banks operating in the
U.S.
Mr. President, we must not allow loopholes in existing law to erode
the confidence of the American people in the integrity of our financial
system.

[[Page S11550]]

Congress must provide Federal and State bank regulators with all of the
tools necessary to supervise fully the U.S. operations of foreign
banks. The Foreign Bank Enforcement Act proposes a number of narrow,
but important, changes in existing law. It reflects the recommendations
of the Federal Reserve and other bank regulators. I urge the swift
approval of this important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 2144

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 ``Foreign Bank Enforcement Act
of 1966''.

SEC. 2. UNAUTHORIZED PARTICIPATION BY CONVICTED PERSONS.

Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1829) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Corporation'' and
inserting ``appropriate Federal banking authority''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `appropriate Federal banking authority'
means--
``(A) the Corporation, in the case of any insured
depository institution, except as specifically provided in
subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), or in the case of any
insured branch of a foreign bank;
``(B) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
in the case of any bank holding company and any subsidiary
thereof (other than a bank), uninsured State branch or agency
of foreign bank, or any organization organized and operated
under section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act or operating
under section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act;
``(C) the Comptroller of the Currency, in the case of any
Federal agency or uninsured Federal branch of a foreign bank;
and
``(D) the Office of Thrift Supervision, in the case of any
savings and loan holding company and any subsidiary thereof
(other than a bank or a savings association) or any
institution that is treated as an insured bank under section
8(b)(9); and
``(2) the term `insured depository institution' shall be
deemed to include any institution treated as an insured bank
under paragraph (3), (4), or (5) of section 8(b) or as a
savings association under section 8(b)(9).''.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL ACTIONS AGAINST PERSONS CONVICTED OF
FELONIES.

Section 8(i)(3) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1818(i)(3)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, or any order pursuant to subsection
(g),'' after ``any notice''; and
(2) by inserting ``or order'' after ``such notice''.

SEC. 4. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

Section 15 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12
U.S.C. 3109) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsections:
``(c) Information Obtained From Foreign Supervisors.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d),
the Board, the Comptroller, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision shall not
be compelled to disclose information obtained from a foreign
supervisor if--
``(A) the foreign supervisor has, in good faith, determined
and represented to such agency that public disclosure of the
information would violate the laws applicable to that foreign
supervisor; and
``(B) the United States agency obtains such information
pursuant to--
``(i) such procedure as the agency may authorize for use in
connection with the administration or enforcement of the
banking laws; or
``(ii) a memorandum of understanding.
``(2) Treatment under title 5.--For purposes of section 552
of title 5, United States Code, this subsection shall be
considered to be a statute described in subsection (b)(3)(B)
of such section 552.
``(d) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section
authorizes the Board, the Comptroller, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, or the Office of Thrift Supervision to
withhold information from the Congress or to prevent such
agency from complying with an order of a court of the United
States in an action commenced by the United States or by such
agency.''.

SEC. 5. TERMINATION OF FOREIGN BANK OFFICES IN THE UNITED
STATES.

Section 7(e) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12
U.S.C. 3105(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(8) Provisions of a termination order.--An order issued
by the Board under paragraph (1) or by the Comptroller under
section 4(i) may contain such terms and conditions as the
Board or the Comptroller, as the case may be, deems
appropriate to carry out this subsection.''.

SEC. 6. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN MATTERS OCCURRING BEFORE GRAND
JURY.

Section 3322(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``State or Federal''
before ``financial institution''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``at any time during or
after the completion of the investigation of the grand jury''
before ``upon''.
____

Summary of the Foreign Bank Enforcement Act of 1996

section 2. employment prohibition

Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (``FDI
Act''), (12 U.S.C. 1829), prohibits anyone convicted of a
criminal offense from being employed by, or participating in
the affairs of, an insured depository institution unless they
receive the written consent of the FDIC. Section 19 covers
only employees of depository institutions and thus does not
currently prohibit the employment of convicted felons in a
bank holding company, Edge or Agreement Corporation, or in a
U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank. The Act would expand
the employment bar to these regulated entities and give
authority for regulatory review to the federal regulator with
oversight over the affected institution.

section 3. removal actions

Banking regulators are empowered under Section 8(g) of the
FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1818(g)) to suspend or permanently
prohibit a person who is indicted or convicted of a felony
from participating in the affairs of a regulated institution.
Under 8(g), the regulatory order must be made against an
``institution-affiliated party.'' The FDI Act clarifies that
even when the person resigns or is terminated by the
institution and is thus no-longer an ``institution-affiliated
party,'' the regulators may prohibit employment in regulated
institutions.

section 4. international cooperation

Section 4 provides that communications from foreign
supervisors to U.S. banking agencies may be held
confidential. The provision, by making such protection
explicit in the law, would encourage foreign bank supervisors
to communicate more closely with their U.S. counterparts,
thereby contributing to better oversight of banks operating
internationally. The provision parallels the authority
already available to securities regulators, and would not
affect the ability of Congress or the courts to obtain such
information.

section 5. termination of foreign bank offices

The International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C.
3105(e)(1)) authorizes the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC
to terminate a foreign bank's activities in the U.S. The Act
is unclear, however, about whether the termination order can
require the foreign bank to take actions such as
establishment of escrow accounts for the payment of potential
fines. Section 5 states explicitly that the regulators may
include appropriate terms and conditions in their termination
orders.

section 6. grand jury disclosure

Under section 3322 of the U.S. Criminal Code, (18 U.S.C.
3322(b)) a federal court may authorize disclosure to federal
banking regulators of grand jury information used by law
enforcement authorities investigating federal banking law
violations. Section 6 expands the scope of this provision to
include disclosure of such information to state bank
regulatory authorities.
______

By Mr. PELL (for himself and Mr. HATFIELD):
S. 2147. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint
coins in commemoration of the bicentennial of the Library of Congress;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

the library of congress commemorative

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, at the request of the Library of Congress I
am introducing, for myself and for the senior Senator from Oregon [Mr.
Hatfield], the Library of Congress Commemorative Coin Act, in
recognition of the 200th anniversary of the Library of Congress, which
will occur in the year 2000.
Established in 1800, the Library of Congress is our Nation's oldest
national cultural institution and has become the largest repository of
recorded knowledge in the world. It stands as a symbol of the vital
connection between knowledge and democracy.
The Library of Congress Commemorative Coin Act authorizes the
Secretary of the Treasury to issue, in year 2000, 500,000 silver
dollars and 500,000 half dollar coins commemorating the anniversary.
The proceeds of the sale of the coins will support not only the
observance of the bicentennial of the Library's creation, but also
digitization projects that will share the resources of the Library with
the Nation's schools and libraries.
James Madison said ``Learned institutions ought to be the favorite
objects of every free people. They throw the light over the public mind
which is the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments
on the public liberty.'' This bill commemorates the fact that the
Library of Congress for two centuries has fulfilled James Madison's
hope by dispensing the light of

[[Page S11551]]

knowledge over the Congress, the Nation, and the world.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. KERRY):

S. 2149. A bill to establish a program to provide health insurance
for workers changing jobs; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.

THE TRANSITIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR WORKERS BETWEEN JOBS ACT

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last month, President Clinton signed the
Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Insurance Reform Act. That legislation
provides portability of health insurance coverage. It said to American
workers and their families: you do not have to lose your health
insurance coverage because you lose your job.

That legislation is important. But for too many workers who lose
their job, it could be an empty promise if the coverage is
unaffordable. In fact, those between jobs typically have great
difficulty paying the cost of insurance coverage. In 1996, family
coverage costs an average of $6,900 a year, and individual coverage
costs $2,600.
The legislation we are introducing today will help fill this gap. It
is a modified version of President Clinton's proposal to provide
temporary assistance for workers to keep their coverage between jobs. I
commend the President for offering this progressive, thoughtful
program, and I commend my colleague, Senator John Kerry, for his
leadership on this issue and his important contribution to the
development of this legislation.
This is a logical and needed step in health insurance reform. The
needs of the unemployed are especially great. Since 1936, we have
provided a temporary program of income maintenance to workers who lose
their jobs. Because of the high cost of health care, temporary
assistance for health insurance during periods of unemployment is
essential for American workers in 1996. Unemployment insurance alone is
no longer sufficient.
Temporary health insurance assistance is especially critical as we
face the economic changes associated with the new global economy and
changing corporate behavior. Corporations used to reduce their work
forces only when they were in trouble. But now, no worker can count on
job security, since the trend is for profitable companies to lay off
good workers to become even more profitable. Experts estimate that the
average worker entering the work force today will change jobs seven to
nine times in a typical career. Some of these workers will choose to
change jobs, but others will be forced to. The Department of Labor
estimates that in 1996 alone, 8.5 million workers will collect
unemployment insurance for some period of time.
The legislation we are proposing today will provide financial
assistance to help maintain health insurance coverage for workers and
their families who are no longer eligible for on-the-job coverage
because they have lost their job. To qualify, an individual would have
to be eligible for unemployment insurance, would have to have had
employer-sponsored coverage for 6 months before becoming unemployed,
and could not be eligible for employment-based coverage through a
spouse or domestic partner or for Medicaid or Medicare.
In the month for which assistance is provided, the family income
would have to be 240 percent of poverty or less--about $37,440 for a
family of four. Assistance would be limited to 6 months. The goal of
this program is to help workers in transition between jobs--not to
provide permanent coverage.
The program will be administered through the states. Typically, an
eligible individual will receive assistance in paying the cost of COBRA
continuation coverage under current law. If the worker is not eligible
for COBRA, assistance will be available for any other policy that is
not more generous than the Blue Cross-Blue Shield standard option plan
available to Federal employees and Members of Congress.
There are a number of unanswered questions about the best way to
structure the program, and I look forward to working with my colleagues
in the next Congress, with the administration, and outside experts to
improve it before it is passed. But the underlying principle is clear.
No family should lose its health insurance coverage because a
breadwinner is in transition between jobs.
The administration estimates that the cost of the program will be
approximately $2 billion a year over the next 6 years, that
approximately 3 million workers and their families will be helped to
maintain their coverage every year.
The program can be paid for largely by closing two of the most
notorious corporate tax loopholes--the title passage loophole and the
runaway plant loophole. The first loophole involves bookkeeping
transactions under which multinational corporations artificially shift
income to overseas operations to avoid U.S. taxes. The second loophole
allows corporations to move jobs abroad, accrue large in foreign bank
accounts, and avoid U.S. taxes. Closing these loopholes to help
unemployed workers keep their health insurance coverage is an
appropriate use of the revenue.
This program is a modest attempt to help American workers cope with
the disclosures of modern industrial life and the new global economy.
But it is also important to understand what it does not do:
It does not add to the deficit. The program will be fully financed.
In President Clinton's budget, it was paid for within his balanced
budget plan.
It does not impose additional burdens on employers or create an
employer mandate.
It is not an unfunded mandate on the States. The Federal Government
pays 100 percent of the cost of the program. If a State chooses not to
administer the program, it is not required to do so.
The Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance reform bill passed the Senate
by a strong bipartisan vote of 98 to 0, because it was clearly needed.
This additional improvement is also needed--to help see that the
promise of health insurance portability is fulfilled in practice.
We have heard a great deal of talk about family values in this
campaign year. One of the most important expressions of family values
is to help families keep their health insurance coverage when a
breadwinner is between jobs. For the millions of American workers who
worry that their family will lose their health insurance if they lose
they job, this bill can be a lifeline, and I look forward to its
bipartisan passage next year.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Kennedy and I are introducing
the Transitional Health Insurance Coverage for Workers Between Jobs
Act. This bill would build on the recently passed Kennedy-Kassebaum
health bill by providing funding to States in order to finance up to 6
months of health coverage for unemployed workers and their families.
The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill was an important step toward assuring
portability of health insurance coverage. More than 20 million people
will benefit from that legislation and the senior Senator from
Massachusetts deserves our thanks for his tireless efforts to achieve
its passage. Unfortunately, however, although more people are now
allowed to purchase health care coverage, many workers are still unable
to afford this coverage. Those workers who have been laid off are most
likely not to be able to obtain coverage.
The bill we are introducing today would help temporarily unemployed
workers to afford health coverage for themselves and their families. It
would do so by providing Federal assistance to pay the premium for
health insurance. A worker would be eligible who had employer-based
coverage in his or her prior job, is receiving unemployment benefits,
and has income below certain levels. Families would have to earn no
more than $37,440 for a family of four to qualify for the subsidy.
People who are eligible for Medicaid or Medicare would not be able to
receive this subsidy. Funds would be allocated to States based on the
proportion of unemployed persons in the State who collected
unemployment insurance [UI] benefits relative to all persons in the
Nation who collected UI benefits.
This bill is necessary because, in the real world, workers between
jobs still face mortgage or rent payments, utility bills, and other
expenses necessary to support themselves and their families in addition
to health insurance costs. Many lack a source of income and have
exhausted family savings and other resources during the period of
unemployment. And unemployment insurance in most states barely pays

[[Page S11552]]

enough to cover rent and food--the average monthly UI benefit was only
$692 in 1993. In today's increasingly turbulent economy, a secure job
is difficult to find. This year in Massachusetts, for example, such
major corporations as Digital, Raytheon, and Fleet Bank have laid off
hundreds of workers. And over the last few years, most of the major
hospitals in my State have significantly downsized their work force.
This bill will help workers as they move to new jobs.
I want to squarely address the issue of the cost of this program. The
administration has estimated the annual cost to be approximately $2
billion. But I want to make clear that we are committed to fully
offsetting the cost with other budget components. I am heartened that
President Clinton was able to support establishing such a program in
the context of his fiscal year 1997 balanced budget request. Senator
Kennedy has described two corporate loopholes we propose to close. I
look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues to
identifying a budget offset that is acceptable to my colleagues for
this important program.
As Senator Kennedy said, this plan will not add to the deficit, does
not impose additional burdens on employers, and is not an unfunded
mandate on States. I look forward to working with the administration
and my colleagues to refine this bill and to pass it in the 105th
Congress.
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Nickles, and Mr.
Stevens):

S. 2150. A bill to prohibit extension or establishment of any
national monument on public land without full compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and
an express Act of Congress, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.

the public lands protection act of 1996

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
for myself, Senator Craig, Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett, Senator
Grams, Senator Nickles, Senator Campbell, Senator Burns, and Senator
Stevens to protect public lands from the type of assault visited upon
the people of Utah last week, when our President created a new national
monument containing 1.7 million acres. That was done without a process,
without a process involving public hearings, without a process
involving notification of the Utah delegation, and without courtesies
extended in advance so the delegation could be responsive to the
particular delineations of the area suggested.
I think it is further important to point out the announcement of the
President's action was not made in the State of Utah but in the State
of Arizona. The withdrawal of land, 1.7 million acres, was in the State
of Utah. One could curiously ask, for a Presidential proclamation, why
go to another State? It was clear that this action was not welcome in
Utah. There would have been many school children to protest that
action.
The legislation I introduce with my colleagues is called the Public
Lands Protection Act of 1996. It provides that no extension or
establishment of a national monument can be undertaken pursuant to the
Antiquities Act without full compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act, NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act, and an affirmative
act of Congress.
Yet, by invoking the Antiquities Act, the President chose to ignore
NEPA, ignore the Endangered Species Act, and take action almost as
though it were simply a Presidential mandate that was necessary. Some
of us might suggest it was political expediency suggested by some of
the President's advisers that caused him to circumvent the process, the
public process.
We have had some tough conversations in the Congress. The California
Desert Wilderness was an example, of contested legislation and
contested hearings. But the process went forward. We got the job done.
This action taken in Utah last week defies logic, defies principle, and
defies all semblance of courtesy. In effect, the President declared
himself to be above the law by unilaterally declaring that the action
he took, which unquestionably is a ``major Federal action'' within the
meaning of NEPA, did not require an analysis to determine its impact on
the environment. By specifically using the authority of the Antiquities
Act, a statute enacted in 1906 to enable President Theodore Roosevelt
to take action to protect unique features of our public land, the
President conveniently sidestepped NEPA and the requirement to consider
the environmental consequences of his action.
We know President Clinton is no President Theodore Roosevelt.
Theodore Roosevelt allowed a tremendous public dialog to take place
before he invoked the Antiquities Act. President Carter invoked the
Antiquities Act in my State in a massive land withdrawal. But there was
a long process. We didn't like it, but we participated. The people of
Utah simply had the national monument dictated to them.
Further, by creating a national monument in the manner the President
chose, he circumvented the Endangered Species Act, a law that the elite
environmental lobbyists invoke at every turn to strike fear in the
hearts of the American people that public land use for timber
harvesting, oil and gas development, livestock grazing, and mining is
causing irreversible and intolerable damage to threatened and
endangered species and their habitat and that such use of the public
domain should be eliminated altogether.
Finally, Mr. President, the Clinton administration kept the decision
concerning the national monument cloaked in secrecy until it was sprung
on the citizens of Utah by surprise. There was no consultation with the
Governor, no consultation with the congressional delegation, no
outreach effort to the citizens, no interactive process with the public
land users, and no consideration of any of the benefits of the lands
that have now been taken out of productive multiple use.
The President didn't want the democratic process, or the hearing
process to go forward. It would have gone into the 105th Congress. We
would have resolved it.
I dare say, President Clinton's action is probably the most arrogant,
hypocritical, and blatantly political exercise of Federal power
affecting public lands ever, and the media seems to have bought it.
President Clinton's and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's war on the
West, in this unprecedented action, has almost the feel of Pearl
Harbor. The President chose the most politically expedient and least
publicly interactive route possible. The fact that he announced his
decision, as I stated, in Arizona speaks for itself.
My bill and that of my colleagues would bring an end to the use of
this old law to abuse Federal power and trample on States' rights. It
is not needed anymore. We have the democratic process, we have NEPA, we
have the Endangered Species Act, and we have the checks and balances so
that a Presidential land grab is not in order.
Our bill is very straightforward. It provides that no extension or
establishment of a national monument can be undertaken pursuant to the
Antiquities Act without full compliance with NEPA, full compliance with
the Endangered Species Act and an expressed act of Congress. What is
wrong with that? That is the process. That is the democratic way.
This bill, when passed, would mean that there will be a public
process and a deliberate, thoughtful analysis of the environmental
consequences of the proposed action. There will also be consultation
under the Endangered Species Act among the affected agencies on the
potential effects on threatened and endangered species and their
habitat.
More important, Mr. President, by requiring an act of Congress before
a monument can be extended or established, the American people, the
affected citizenry of the State involved, and interested public land
users will have an opportunity to voice their opinions during the
process.
This can occur during the NEPA process, during the endangered species
consultation process and during legislative consideration of the act to
extend or establish a national monument. No secret decision by the
President's handlers and spin doctors and no campaign ploys, such as we
have seen with the Utah monument.
President Clinton's action in Utah ignored public sentiment. It
ignored the wishes of the citizens of Utah, of the public land users,
of those who hold valid existing property rights and

[[Page S11553]]

those who care deeply--deeply--about environmental stewardship. As our
committee process continued, had it been allowed to continue, areas
would have been identified and put into wilderness that were agreed
upon by the State of Utah, the Governor, the legislature and the
congressional delegation.
My bill would restore the public's voice in these matters and give
meaning to the concept of public participation.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Record be left open until the
end of the session to allow additional sponsors to join me on this
measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill being
introduced that has been forced by recent events. I'm talking about
President Clinton's proclamation unilaterally declaring nearly two
million acres of southern Utah a National Monument.
After the President's announcement, Senator Kempthorne and I
introduced the Idaho Protection Act. The bill would require that the
public and the Congress be included before a National Monument could be
established in Idaho.
When we introduced that bill, I was immediately approached by other
Senators seeking the same protection. What we see unfolding before us
in Utah ought to frighten all of us. Without including Utah's Governor,
Senators, congressional delegation, the state legislature, county
commissioners, or the people of Utah--President Clinton set off limits
forever approximately 1.7 million acres of Utah.
Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, President Clinton has the authority
to create a National Monument where none existed before. And if he can
do it in the State of Utah, he can do it in Idaho, or Montana, or
California. In fact, since 1906, the law has been used some 66 times to
set lands aside.
Just as 64 percent of the land in Utah is owned by the Federal
Government, 62 percent of Idaho is also owned by Uncle Sam. Even New
Hampshire, on the East Coast, has 14 percent of its land owned by the
Federal Government. What the President has done in Utah, without public
input, he could also do in Idaho or any of the States where the Federal
Government has a presence.
The bill that is being introduced would simply require that the
public and the Congress be fully involved and give approval before such
a unilateral administrative act could take effect on our public lands.
Unfortunately, for the people of Utah, what the President has done
there, should be a wake up call to people across America. While we all
want to preserve what is best in our States, people everywhere
understand that much of their economic future is tied up in what
happens on the public lands in our States.
In the West, where public lands dominate the landscape, issues such
as grazing, timber harvesting, water use, have all come under attack by
an administration seemingly bent upon kowtowing to a segment of our
population that wants other uses off our public lands.
But in addition to those in the West, everyone wants the process to
be open and inclusive. No one wants the President, acting alone, to
unilaterally lock up enormous parts of any State. That is not what
Idahoans, or Utah natives or others. We certainly don't work that way
in the West. There is a recognition that with common sense, a balance
can be struck that allows jobs to grow and families to put down roots
while at the same time protecting America's great natural resources.
In my view, the President's actions are beyond the pale and for that
reason--to protect others from suffering a similar fate, I am
cosponsoring this bill.
Thank you and I yield the floor.
______

By Mr. SIMPSON (by request):
S. 2151. A bill to provide a temporary authority for the use of
voluntary separation incentives by Department of Veterans Affairs
offices that are reducing employment levels, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

the department of veterans affairs employment reduction assistance act
of 1996

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, S. 2151, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs
Employment Reduction Assistance Act of 1996'' relating to the
Department of Veterans Affairs' authority to offer separation
incentives to achieve reductions in employment levels. The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the President of the
Senate by letter dated September 11, 1996.
My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the
Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and the
enclosed analysis of the draft legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 2151

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act
an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment to a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of title 38,
United States Code.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Department Of Veterans
Affairs Employment Reduction Assistance Act of 1996.''

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For the purpose of this Act--
(1) ``Department'' means the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
(2) ``employee'' means an employee (as defined by section
2105 of title 5, United States Code) who--
(A) is employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs;
(B) is serving under an appointment without time
limitation; and
(C) has been currently employed for a continuous period of
at least 12 months; but does not include--
(i) a reemployed annuitant under subchapter III of chapter
83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, or another
retirement system for employees of the Federal Government;
(ii) an employee having a disability on the basis of which
such employee is eligible for disability retirement under the
applicable retirement system referred to in clause (i);
(iii) an employee who is in receipt of a specific notice of
involuntary separation for misconduct or performance;
(iv) an employee who has accepted a final offer of a
voluntary separation incentive payment, payable upon
completion of an additional period of service as referred to
in section 3(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-226; 108 Stat.
111);
(v) an employee who previously has received any voluntary
separation incentive payment by the Federal Government under
this Act or any other authority and has not repaid such
payment; or
(vi) an employee covered by statutory reemployment rights
who is on transfer to another organization.
(3) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT PLANS; APPROVAL.

(a) If the Secretary determines that, in order to improve
the efficiency of operations or to meet actual or anticipated
levels of budgetary or staffing resources, the number of
employees employed by the Department must be reduced, the
Secretary may submit a plan to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget to pay voluntary separation incentives
under this Act to employees of the Department who agree to
separate from the Department by retirement or resignation.
The plan shall specify the planned employment reductions and
the manner in which such reductions will improve operating
efficiency or meet actual or anticipated levels of budget or
staffing resources. The plan shall include a proposed period
of time for the payment of voluntary separation incentives by
the Department and a proposed coverage for offers of
incentives to Department employees, targeting positions in
accordance with the Department's strategic alignment plan and
downsizing initiatives. The proposed coverage may be based
on--
(1) any component of the Department;
(2) any occupation, occupation level or type of position;
(3) any geographic location; or
(4) any appropriate combination of the factors in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
(b) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall approve or disapprove each plan submitted under
subsection (a),

[[Page S11554]]

and may make appropriate modifications to the plan with
respect to the time period in which voluntary separation
incentives may be paid or with respect to the coverage of
incentives on the basis of the factors in subsection (a) (1)
through (4).

SEC. 4. VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

(a) In order to receive a voluntary separation incentive
payment, an employee must separate from service with the
Department voluntarily (whether by retirement or resignation)
during the period of time for which the payment of incentives
has been authorized for the employee under the Department
plan under section 3.
(b) A voluntary separation incentive payment--
(1) shall be paid in a lump sum at the time of the
employee's separation:
(2) shall be equal to the lesser of--
(A) an amount equal to the amount the employee would be
entitled to receive under section 5595(c) of title 5, United
States Code (without adjustment for any previous payment made
under that section), if the employee were entitled to payment
under that section; if the employee were entitled to payment
under that action; or
(B) if the employee separates--
(i) during fiscal year 1996 or 1997, $25,000;
(ii) during fiscal year 1998, $20,000;
(iii) during fiscal year 1999, $15,000;
(iv) during fiscal year 2000, $10,000;
(3) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be
included in the computation, of any other type of Government
benefit, except that this paragraph shall not apply to
unemployment compensation funded in whole or in part with
Federal funds;
(4) shall not be taken into account in determining the
amount of severance pay to which an employee may be entitled
under section 5595 of title 5, United States Code, based on
any other separation; and
(5) shall be paid from the appropriations or funds
available for payment of the basic pay of the employee.

SEC. 5. EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENT EMPLOYMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

(a) An individual who has received a voluntary separation
incentive payment under this Act and accepts any employment
with the Government of the United States within 5 years after
the date of the separation on which the payment is based
shall be required to repay, prior to the individual's first
day of employment, the entire amount of the incentive payment
to the Department.
(b)(1) If the employment under subsection (a) is with an
Executive agency (as defined by section 105 of title 5,
United States Code), the United States Postal Service, or the
Postal Rate Commission, the Director of the Office of
personnel Management may, at the request of the head of the
agency, waive the repayment if the individual involved
possesses unique abilities and is the only qualified
applicant available for the position.
(2) If the employment under subsection (a) is with an
entity in the legislative branch, the head of the entity or
the appointing official may waive the repayment if the
individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the
only qualified applicant available for the position.
(3) If the employment under subsection (a) is with the
judicial branch, the Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts may waive the repayment if the
individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the
only qualified applicant available for the position.
(c) For the purpose of this section, the term
``employment''--
(1) includes employment of any length or under any type of
appointment, but does not include employment that is without
compensation; and
(2) includes employment under a personal services contract,
as defined by the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management.

SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RETIREMENT
FUND.

(a) In addition to any other payments which it is required
to make under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of
title 5, United States Code, the Department shall remit to
the Office of Personnel Management for deposit in the
Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund an amount equal to 15
percent of the final basic pay of each employee of the
Department who is covered under subchapter III of chapter 83
or chapter 84 of title 5 to whom a voluntary separation
incentive has been paid under this Act.
(b) For the purpose of this section, the term ``final basic
pay'', with respect to an employee, means the total amount of
basic pay that would be payable for a year of service by that
employee, computed using the employee's final rate of basic
pay, and, if last serving on other than a full-time basis,
with appropriate adjustment therefor.

SEC. 7. REDUCTION OF AGENCY EMPLOYMENT LEVELS.

(a) Total full-time equivalent employment in the Department
shall be reduced by one for each separation of an employee
who receives a voluntary separation incentive payment under
this Act. The reduction will be calculated by comparing the
Department's full-time equivalent employment for the fiscal
year in which the voluntary separation payments are made with
the actual full-time equivalent employment for the prior
fiscal year.
(b) The Office of Management and Budget shall monitor the
Department and take any action necessary to ensure that the
requirements of this section are met.
(c) Subsection (a) of this section may be waived upon a
determination by the President that--
(1) the existence of a state of war or other national
emergency so requires; or
(2) the existence of an extraordinary emergency which
threatens life, health, safety, property, or the environment
so requires.

SEC. 8. REPORTS.

(a) The Department, for each applicable quarter of each
fiscal year and not later than 30 days after the date of such
quarter, shall submit to the Office of Personnel Management a
report stating--
(1) the number of employees who receive voluntary
separation incentives for each type of separation involved;
(2) the average amount of the incentives paid;
(3) the average grade or pay level of the employees who
received incentives; and
(4) such other information as the Office may require.
(b) No later than March 31st of each fiscal year, the
Office of Personnel Management shall submit to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight of the House of
Representatives a report which, with respect to the preceding
fiscal year, shall include--
(1) the number of employees who received voluntary
separation incentives;
(2) the average amount of such incentives;
(3) the average grade or pay level of the employees who
received incentives; and
(4) the number of waivers made under section 5 of this Act
in the repayment of voluntary separation incentives, and for
each such waiver--
(A) the reasons for the waiver; and
(B) the title and grade or pay level of the position filled
by each employee to whom the waiver applied.

SEC. 9. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION IN REDUCTIONS IN FORCE.

Section 3502(f) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs,'' after ``Defense'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, the Department of
Veterans Affairs,'' after ``Defense'';
(3) by striking paragraph (4); and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); and
(5) by amending such paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by
striking ``1996'' and inserting ``2000'' in lieu thereof.

SEC. 10. CONTINUED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

Section 8905a(d)(4) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``in or under the
Department of Defense'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``1999'' in clause (i) and (ii) and
inserting ``2000''; and
(B) by striking ``2000'' in clause (ii) and inserting
``2001''; and
(3) in subparagraph (C) by inserting ``by the agency''
after ``identified''.

SEC. 11. REGULATIONS.

The Director of the Office of Personnel Management may
prescribe any regulations necessary to administer the
provisions of this Act.

SEC. 12. LIMITATION; SAVINGS CLAUSE.

(a) No voluntary separation incentive under this Act may be
paid based on the separation of an employee after September
30, 2000;
(b) This Act supplements and does not supersede other
authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
____

Analysis of Draft Bill

The first section provides a title for the bill, the
``Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Reduction
Assistance Act of 1996.''
Section 2 provide definitions of ``Department'',
``employee'', and ``Secretary.'' Among the provisions, an
employee who has received any previous voluntary separation
incentive from the Federal Government and has not repaid the
incentive is excluded from any incentives under this Act.
Section 3 provides that, when the VA Secretary determines
that employment in the agency must be reduced in order to
improve operating efficiency or meet anticipated budget or
staffing levels, the Secretary may submit a plan to the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget for payment
of voluntary separation incentives to Department employees.
The plan must specify the manner in which the planned
employment reductions will improve efficiency or meet budget
or staffing levels. The plan must also include a proposed
time period for payment of separation incentives, and a
proposed coverage for offers of incentives to Department
employees, targeting positions in accordance with VA's
strategic alignment plan. Coverage may be on the basis of any
component of the Department, any occupation or levels of an
occupation, any geographic location, or any appropriate
combination of these factors. The Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall approve or disapprove each plan
submitted, and may modify the plan with respect to the time
period for incentives or the coverage of incentive offers.
Section 4 provides that in order to receive a voluntary
separation incentive, an employee covered by an offer of
incentives must

[[Page S11555]]

separate from service with the agency (whether by retirement
or resignation) within the time period specified in the
agency's plan as approved. For an employee who separates, the
voluntary separation incentive is an amount equal to the
lesser of the amount that the employee's severance pay would
be if the employee were entitled to severance pay under
section 5595 of title 5, United States Code (without
adjustment for any previous severance pay), or whichever of
the following amounts is applicable based on the date of
separation: $25,000 during fiscal year 1996 or 1997; $20,000
during fiscal year 1998; $15,000 during fiscal year 1999;
or $10,000 during fiscal year 2000. These reductions in
incentive amount for each year an employee delays
separation would encourage eligible employees to take the
incentive at an earlier point.
Section 5 provides that any employee who receives a
voluntary separation incentive under this Act and then
accepts any employment with the Government within 5 years
after separating must, prior to the first day of such
employment, repay the entire amount of the incentive to the
agency that paid the incentive. If the subsequent employment
is with the Executive branch, including the United States
Postal Service, the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management may waive the repayment at the request of the
agency head if the individual possesses unique abilities and
is the only qualified applicant available for the position.
For subsequent employment in the legislative branch, the head
of the entity or the appointing official may waive repayment
on the same basis. If the subsequent employment is in the
judicial branch, the Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts may waive repayment on the same
criteria. For the purpose of the repayment and waiver
provisions, employment includes employment under a personal
services contract, as defined by the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management.
Section 6 requires additional agency contributions to the
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts equal
to 15 percent of the final basic pay of each employee of the
Department who is covered by the Civil Service Retirement
System to whom a voluntary separation incentive is paid under
this Act.
Section 7 provides that full-time equivalent employment
(FTEE) in the Department will be reduced by one for each
separation of an employee who receives a voluntary separation
incentive under this Act, and directs the Office of
Management and Budget to take any action necessary to ensure
compliance. Reductions will be calculated by using the
Department's actual FTEE levels. For example, if the
Department's FTEE usage in FY 1996 is 1,050 FTEEs, and 50
FTEEs separate during FY 1997 using voluntary separation
incentive payments provided under this Act, then
the Department's staffing levels at the end of FY 1997
shall not exceed 1,000 FTEEs. The President may waive the
reduction in FTEE in the event of war or emergency.
Section 8 requires the Department to report to the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) on a quarterly basis: the
number of employees receiving incentive payments for each
type of separation; the average amount of incentive payments;
the average grade or pay of employees receiving incentive
payments; and other information OPM may require. This section
also requires the Office of Personnel Management to report by
March 31st of each year to the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight concerning the Department's use of
voluntary separation incentives in the previous fiscal year.
The report must show the number of employees who received
incentives, the average amount of the incentives, and the
average grade or pay level of the employees who received
incentives. The report must also include the number of
waivers made under the provisions of section 5 in the
repayment of incentives upon subsequent employment with the
Government, the reasons for each waiver, and the title and
grade or pay level of each employee to whom the waiver
applied.
Section 9 amends section 3502(f) of title 5 to authorize
the Secretary to allow an employee to volunteer for
separation in a reduction-in-force when this will result in
retaining an employee in a similar position who would
otherwise be released in the reduction-in-force. Section 9
also changes section 3502(f)'s sunset date from 1996 to 2000.
Section 10 amends section 8905a(d)(4) to provide that
employees who are involuntarily separated in a reduction in
force, or who voluntarily separate from a surplus position
that has been specifically identified for elimination in the
reduction in force, can continue health benefits coverage for
18 months and be required to pay only the employee's share of
the premium. Section 10 also extends section 8905a(d)(4)
sunset provisions.
Section 11 provides that the Director of OPM may prescribe
any regulations necessary to administer the provisions of the
Act.
Section 12 provides that no voluntary separation incentive
under the Act may be paid based on the separation of an
employee after September 30, 2000, and that the Act
supplements and does not supersede other authority of the
Secretary.
____

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Washington, DC, September 11, 1996.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are submitting a draft bill
``Department of Veterans Affairs Employment Reduction
Assistance Act of 1996.'' We request that it be referred to
the appropriate committee for prompt consideration and
enactment.
In the next several years, VA will undergo dramatic change.
VA believes that separation incentives can be an appropriate
tool for those VA components that are redesigning their
employment mix when the use of incentives is property related
to the specific changes that are needed within those
components and thus will reshape the agency for the future.
They can also be an invaluable tool for components that are
restructuring and reengineering, such as the Veterans Health
Administration and the Veterans Benefits Administration, as
they move towards primary care and new methods of delivering
services to veterans. Further, it is vital to provide for
consistent administration of any incentive programs that
prove necessary for different components, and to
appropriately limit the time period for any incentive offers.
This initiative is based on VA's experience with voluntary
separation incentives under the Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994. The Restructuring Act provided
Federal civilian agencies, including VA, with authority to
offer voluntary separation incentives for a 1-year period
that ended March 31, 1995. VA generally used these incentives
successfully to help avoid involuntary separations and to
achieve reductions in administrative overhead and supervisory
positions, and the Restructuring Act provided a useful
framework for consistent administration of incentive
programs in many different VA components.
This proposal would provide an overall system for the
limited use of voluntary separation incentives by VA. When
the Secretary determines that employment in particular
organizations must be reduced in order to meet restructuring
goals, the Secretary may submit a plan to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget for payment of voluntary
separation incentives to Department employees. The plan must
specify how the planned employment reductions will improve
efficiency or meet budget or staffing levels. The plan must
also include a proposed time period for payment of
incentives, and a proposed coverage for offers of incentives
to agency employees on the needed organizational,
occupational, or geographic basis, targeting positions in
accordance with VA's strategic alignment plan. The Director
of the Office of Management and Budget would approve or
disapprove each plan submitted, and would have authority to
modify the time period for incentives or coverage of
incentive offers. We believe that these provisions for plan
approval will ensure that separation incentives are
appropriately targeted within the Department in view of the
specific cuts that are needed, and are offered on a timely
basis. Although the Department's full-time equivalent
employment would be reduced by one for each employee of the
Department who receives an incentive, we believe that service
to veterans will improve as a result of the reengineering
that is happening simultaneously within the system.
The authority for separation incentives would be in effect
for the period starting with the enactment of this Act and
ending September 30, 2000. The amount of an employee's
incentive would be the lesser of the amount that the
employee's severance pay would be, or whichever of the
following amounts is applicable based on the year of
separation in accordance with the agency plan; for employees
who retire, $25,000 during fiscal year 1996 or 1997,
$20,000 during fiscal year 1998, $15,000 during fiscal
year 1999, and $10,000 during fiscal year 2000.
These reductions in the incentive amount for each year an
employee delays separation would encourage employees to take
the incentives during the first year of eligibility. An
employee who receives an incentive and then accepts any
employment with the Government within 5 years after
separating must, prior to the first day of employment, repay
the entire amount of the entire amount of the incentive. The
repayment requirement could be waived only under very
stringent circumstances of agency need.
In order to further assist VA components in making needed
changes, the bill would authorize VA, under appropriate
conditions, to allow an employee to volunteer for separation
in a reduction-in-force when this will prevent the
involuntary separation of an employee in a similar position.
In addition, in order to minimize the impact of reduction-in-
force actions on employees, the bill provides that employees
who are involuntarily separated in reductions-in-force can
continue their health insurance coverage for 18 months while
continuing to pay only the premium that would apply to a
current employee.
This proposal would provide a very useful tool to assist in
reorganizing VA and reengineering services provided to
veterans, quickly, effectively, and humanely. We also believe
that it is a tool that will allow significant cost savings.
If the proposal is enacted, we will report, on an annual
basis, cost savings associated with separation incentives as
well as where such funds have been redirected to improve the
provision of services to veterans.
______

By Mr. SIMPSON (by request):

[[Page S11556]]

S. 2152. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide
benefits for certain children of Vietnam veterans who are born with
spina bifida, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.

THE AGENT ORANGE BENEFITS ACT OF 1996

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, S. 2152, a bill to provide benefits for certain
children of Vietnam veterans who are born with spina bifida. The
Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this legislation to the
President of the Senate by letter dated July 25, 1996.
My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the
Veterans' Affairs Committee. Thus, I reserve the right to support or
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter of the
draft legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 2152

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

SECTION 1. REFERENCES TO TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE.

Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of title 38, United States Code.

SECTION 2. BENEFITS FOR THE CHILDREN OF VIETNAM VETERANS WHO
ARE BORN WITH SPINA BIFIDA.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Agent Orange
Benefits Act of 1996.''
(b) Establishment of new chapter 18.--Part II is amended by
inserting after chapter 17 the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 18--BENEFITS FOR THE CHILDREN OF VIETNAM VETERANS
WHO ARE BORN WITH SPINA BIFIDA.

``Sec.
``1801. Purpose.
``1802. Definitions.
``1803. Health care.
``1804. Vocational training.
``1805. Monetary allowance.

``1801. Purpose

``The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the special
needs of certain children of Vietnam veterans who were born
with the birth defect spina bifida, possibly as the result of
the exposure of one or both parents to herbicides during
active service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam
era, through the provision of health care, vocational
training, and monetary benefits.

``1802. Definitions

``For the purposes of this chapter--
``(1) The term `child' means a natural child of a Vietnam
veteran, regardless of age or marital status, who was
conceived after the date on which the veteran first entered
the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era.
``(2) The term `Vietnam veteran' means a veteran who,
during active military, naval, or air service, served in the
Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era.
``(3) The term `spina bifida' means all forms of spina
bifida other than spina bifida occulta.

``1803. Health care

``(a) In accordance with regulations the Secretary shall
prescribe, the Secretary shall provide such health care under
this chapter as the Secretary determines is needed to a child
of a Vietnam veteran who is suffering from spina bifida, for
any disability associated with such condition.
``(b) The Secretary may provide health care under this
section directly or by contract or other arrangement with a
health care provider.
``(c) For the purposes of this section--
``(1) The term `health care' means home care, hospital
care, nursing home care, outpatient care, preventive care,
habilitative and rehabilitative care, case management, and
respite care, and includes the training of appropriate
members of a child's family or household in the care of the
child and provision of such pharmaceuticals, supplies,
equipment, devices, appliances, assistive technology, direct
transportation costs to and from approved sources of health
care authorized under this section, and other materials as
the Secretary determines to be necessary.
``(2) The term `health care provider' includes, but is not
limited to, specialized spina bifida clinics, health-care
plans, insurers, organizations, institutions, or any other
entity or individual who furnishes health care services that
the Secretary determines are covered under this section.
``(3) The term `home care' means outpatient care,
habilitative and rehabilitative care, preventive health
services, and health-related services furnished to an
individual in the individual's home or other place of
residence.
``(4) The term `hospital care' means care and treatment for
a disability furnished to an individual who has been admitted
to a hospital as a patient.
``(5) The term `nursing home care' means care and treatment
for a disability furnished to an individual who has been
admitted to a nursing home as a resident.
``(6) The term `outpatient care' means care and treatment
of a disability, and preventive health services, furnished to
an individual other than hospital care or nursing home care.
``(7) The term `preventive care' means care and treatment
furnished to prevent disability or illness, including
periodic examinations, immunizations, patient health
education, and such other services as the Secretary
determines are necessary to provide effective and economical
preventive health care.
``(8) The term `habilitative and rehabilitative care' means
such professional, counseling, and guidance services and
treatment programs (other than vocational training under
section 1804 of this title) as are necessary to develop,
maintain, or restore, to the maximum extent, the functioning
of a disabled person.
``(9) the term `respite care' means care furnished on an
intermittent basis in a Department facility for a limited
period to an individual who resides primarily in a private
residence when such care will help the individual to continue
residing in such private residence.''.

``Sec. 1804. Vocational training

``(a) Pursuant to such regulations as the Secretary may
prescribe, the Secretary may provide vocational training
under this section to a child of Vietnam veteran who is
suffering from spina bifida if the Secretary determines that
the achievement of a vocational goal by such child is
reasonably feasible.
``(b)(1) If a child elects to pursue a program of
vocational training under this section, the program shall be
designed in consultation with the child in order to meet the
child's individual needs and shall be set forth in an
individualized written plan of vocational rehabilitation.
``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, a
vocational training program under this subsection shall
consist of such vocationally oriented services and
assistance, including such placement and post-placement
services and personal and work adjustment training, as the
Secretary determines are necessary to enable the child to
prepare for and participate in vocational training or
employment.
``(B) A vocational training program under this subsection--
``(i) may not exceed 24 months unless, based on a
determination by the Secretary that an extension is necessary
in order for the child to achieve a vocational goal
identified (before the end of the first 24 months of such
program) in the written plan formulated for the child, the
Secretary grants an extension for a period not to exceed 24
months;
``(ii) may not include the provision of any loan or
subsistence allowance or any automobile adaptive equipment;
and
``(iii) may include a program of education at an
institution of higher learning only in a case in which the
Secretary determines that the program involved is
predominantly vocational in content.
``(c)(1) A child who is pursuing a program of vocational
training under this section who is also eligible for
assistance under a program under chapter 35 of this title may
not receive assistance under both of such programs
concurrently but shall elect (in such form and manner as the
Secretary may prescribe) under which program to receive
assistance.
``(2) The aggregate period for which a child may receive
assistance under this section and chapter 35 of this title
may not exceed 48 months (or the part-time equivalent
thereof).

``Sec. 1805. Monetary allowance

``(a) The Secretary shall pay a monthly allowance under
this chapter to any child of a Vietnam veteran for disability
resulting from spina bifida suffered by such child.
``(b) The amount of the allowance paid under this section
shall be based on the degree of disability suffered by a
child as determined in accordance with such schedule for
rating disabilities resulting from spina bifida as the
Secretary may prescribe. The Secretary shall, in prescribing
the rating schedule for the purposes of this section,
establish three levels of disability upon which the amount of
the allowance provided by this section shall be based. The
allowance shall be [$200] per month for the lowest level of
disability prescribed, [$700] per month for * * *.

* * * * *

(B) by striking out``, aggravation,'' both places it
appears; and
(C) by striking out ``sentence'' and substituting in lieu
thereof ``subsection''.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall govern all
administrative and judicial determinations of eligibility for
benefits under section 1511 of title 38, United States Code,
made with respect to claims filed on or after the date of
enactment of this Act, including those based on original
applications

[[Page S11557]]

and applications seeking to reopen, revise, reconsider, or
otherwise readjudicate on any basis claims for benefits under
section 1151 of that title or predecessor provisions of law.
____

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Washington, DC, July 25, 1996.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Transmitted herewith is a draft bill
``To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide benefits
for certain children of Vietnam veterans who are born with
spina bifida.''
On March 14, 1996, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the
National Academy of Sciences released a report which
concluded that there is ``limited/suggestive'' evidence of an
association between exposure to herbicides and spina bifida,
a neural tube birth defect in which the bones of the spine
fail to close over the spinal cord, often causing
neurological impairment.\1\ Based on this conclusion, and
consistent with the spirit of the statutory standard
governing decisions regarding presumptions of service
connection for disabilities associated with exposure to
herbicides during active military service in the Republic of
Vietnam, as established by Public Law 102-4, I have
determined that a positive association exists between
exposure of a parent to herbicides during such service and
the birth defect of spina bifida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ That report, Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 1996, also
concluded that ``limited/suggestive'' evidence of an
association exists between exposure to herbicides and cancer
of the prostate and acute/subacute peripheral neuropathy.
Based on these conclusions, I have determined, under
statutory guidelines set forth in section 1116(b)(3) of title
38, United States Code, that a ``positive association''
exists between such exposure and the two conditions. Pursuant
to section 1116(b)(1), we intend to add such diseases to the
list of diseases for which a presumption of service
connection is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This determination was made based on a recommendation of a
special task force I established to review the IOM report.
The task force noted that certain studies of Vietnam veterans
suggested an apparent increase in the risk for spina bifida
in their offspring. These included studies conducted by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and, more
recently, a study of offspring of Air Force Ranch Hand
personnel. Although noting that scientific questions remain,
the task force indicated that spina bifida does appear to
meet the statutory standards set forth in Public Law 102-
4.\2\ The task force noted that VA currently has no authority
to establish presumptions of service connection for diseases
in the offspring of veterans, but concluded that, if such
authority existed, it would recommend, at this time, that
spina bifida in the offspring of Vietnam veterans be treated
in the same manner as prostate cancer and acute/subacute
peripheral neuropathy. Because VA currently has no authority
to provide benefits to these offspring, enabling legislation
is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The standard for determining whether a positive
association exists with respect to herbicide exposure and
diseases in Vietnam veterans is set forth in 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 1116(b)(3), as added by Public Law 102-4, which states,
``An association between the occurrence of a disease in
humans and exposure to a herbicide agent shall be considered
to be positive for the purposes of this section if the
credible evidence for the association is equal to or
outweighs the credible evidence against the association.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that the provisions of law that govern and, in
some instances, mandate, the addition of new disabilities for
which a presumption of service connection is provided do not
govern the present situation. However, the level of
association that we believe has been shown to exist is no
less compelling for the conditions suffered by these children
than for certain diseases in Vietnam veterans themselves for
which the Government has assumed responsibility. It seems
appropriate, therefore, and in the best interests of these
children, that the same benefit of the doubt as is required
to be given Vietnam veterans be given to their offspring,
whose birth defects may be a result of their father's or
mother's service to this country.
Historically, benefits for spouses and/or children have
been derivative, that is, based on the death or disability of
a veteran. The benefits proposed in this draft bill would
represent the first instance in which VA would be
authorized to provide benefits to a non-veteran based on a
possible relationship between that individual's disability
and a veteran's service. While this is unprecedented, we
believe it to be an appropriate extension of the principle
of providing benefits for disabilities that are incurred
or aggravated as a result of an individual's service on
active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States. When
sound medical judgment indicates a course of action, as it
appears to in this case, we believe that it is not only
reasonable, but responsible, to propose the enactment of
appropriate legislative remedies. We believe Congress, in
enacting the standards for compensation found in Public
Law 102-4, intended that the benefit of the doubt should
be applied in making judgments regarding the consequences
surrounding the use of herbicide agents and that benefits
be provided to individuals who have suffered injury as a
result thereof, a policy which should have equal force in
terms of providing benefits to the offspring of such
individuals.
The primary benefit proposed in the draft bill is
associated comprehensive medical care, which could be
provided directly by VA or by contract with non-VA providers.
Second, because of the likelihood that individuals who suffer
from spina bifida will encounter difficulties in pursuing
vocational goals, we believe it is appropriate to assist them
through the provision of vocational training benefits.
Finally, in recognition of other, special financial needs
these children are likely to have, we believe they should be
provided with a monthly stipend to help defray additional
expenses associated with their disabilities. The Secretary
would be required to base the amount of the stipend, or
allowance, on each child's level of disability, in accordance
with a special schedule established for this purpose. Under
the proposed framework, the Secretary would pay the allowance
based upon three levels of disability, resulting in monthly
levels of $200 per month for the lowest level of disability
assigned, $700 per month for the intermediate level of
disability assigned, and $1,200 per month for the highest
level of disability assigned.
In addition, this proposal includes a provision to offset
costs associated with these new benefits. This provision
would effectively reverse the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Gardner v. Brown which held that monthly VA disability
compensation must be paid for any additional disability or
death attributable to VA medical treatment even if VA was not
negligent in providing that care. A detailed explanation of
the justification for this cost-saving measure appears in the
testimony of VA's General Counsel before the Senate Committee
on Veterans' Affairs on June 8, 1995.
This bill would affect direct spending and therefore is
subject to the pay-as-you-go provisions of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990. Enactment of this legislation
would increase direct spending by $5.5 million in Fiscal Year
1997 and decrease direct spending by $291.5 million over a 5-
year period.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the submission of this proposal to the
Congress and that its enactment would be in accord with the
program of the President.
Sincerely yours,
Jesse Brown.

____________________