[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.

                          ____________________