[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 14 (Thursday, February 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1102-S1111]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 281. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a mechanism for taxpayers to designate $1 of any overpayment of income 
tax, and to contribute other amounts, for use by the United States 
Olympic Committee; to the Committee on Finance.


                 THE UNITED STATES OLYMPIC CHECKOFF ACT

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I bring to the Senate the United 
States Olympic Checkoff Act. This bill would provide significant--and 
needed--new funding for our Nation's amateur athletic movement. This 
will present a way for Americans to show support for the United States 
Olympic Committee, the USOC, and for our amateur athletes. Simply by 
checking a box on their tax returns, American taxpayers could designate 
a dollar from their refunds to go to the USOC, or they could enclose a 
contribution to the USOC when they mail their tax forms. This concept 
is similar to the existing Presidential checkoff. It is different 
though, in that this deduction for the Olympic Committee would come 
from the taxpayers' own money, their refunds or their contributions, 
and not from the money destined for the Federal Treasury.
  The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 made the USOC the central coordinating 
body for amateur sports in the United States. The responsibilities of 
the act, that is the responsibilities given by the act to the USOC, 
include training and selecting athletes to represent the United States 
at international competitions and, equally important, encouraging 
athletic activities for all amateur athletes in the United States 
through grassroots sports opportunities.
  What the Amateur Sports Act does not do is authorize Federal funding 
of the USOC. In almost every other nation in the world, Olympic and 
amateur sports receive substantial government funding. That is not true 
in our country. The USOC's primary means of raising money to support 
U.S. athletes and to carry out the purposes of the act is through 
charging sponsors a fee to use the words ``Olympics'' or ``Olympiad,'' 
and to display the Olympic symbol of five interlocking rings. Sponsors' 
fees do not come close to providing the funds necessary to train our 
growing legions of athletes. Our athletes at the grassroots level are 
not getting a fair chance to be competitive with their counterparts 
from nations that provide funding from government sources.
  My bill would create a new trust fund in the Treasury called the 
United States Olympic Trust Fund. The amounts voluntarily contributed 
by Americans would be deposited into the trust fund. At least once 
quarterly, the Secretary of Treasury would distribute the amounts in 
the trust fund to the USOC, after deducting reasonable administrative 
costs.
  I look forward to working with the Senate Finance Committee and all 
of the Senate and the House to achieve enactment of this valuable 
legislation in this Congress. I hope this bill will be welcomed by all 
Americans who believe in the importance of our country's athletic 
programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 281

       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 ``United States Olympic 
     Checkoff Act''.

     SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF OVERPAYMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR 
                   UNITED STATES OLYMPIC TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 61 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to returns and records) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new part:

  ``PART IX--DESIGNATION OF OVERPAYMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNITED 
                       STATES OLYMPIC TRUST FUND

     ``SEC. 6097. AMOUNTS FOR UNITED STATES OLYMPIC TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) In General.--With respect to each taxpayer's return 
     for the taxable year of the tax imposed by chapter 1, such 
     taxpayer may designate that--
       ``(1) $1 of any overpayment of such tax for such taxable 
     year, and
       ``(2) any cash contribution which the taxpayer includes 
     with such return,

     be paid over to the United States Olympic Trust Fund.
       ``(b) Joint Returns.--In the case of a joint return showing 
     any overpayment of $2 or more, each spouse may designate $1 
     of such overpayment under subsection (a)(1).
       ``(c) Manner and Time of Designation.--A designation under 
     subsection (a) may be made with respect to any taxable year 
     only at the time of filing the return of the tax imposed by 
     chapter 1 for such taxable year. Such designation shall be 
     made on the first page of the return.
       ``(d) Overpayments Treated as Refunded.--For purposes of 
     this title, any overpayment of tax designated under 
     subsection (a) shall be treated as being refunded to the 
     taxpayer as of the date prescribed for filing the return of 
     tax imposed by chapter 1 (determined without regard to 
     extensions) or, if later, the date the return is filed.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of parts for subchapter 
     A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

  ``Part IX. Designation of overpayments and contributions for United 
                     States Olympic Trust Fund.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable

[[Page S1103]]

     years beginning with the first full taxable year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITED STATES OLYMPIC TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to trust fund code) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 9512. UNITED STATES OLYMPIC TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     `United States Olympic Trust Fund', consisting of such 
     amounts as may be appropriated or credited to the United 
     States Olympic Trust Fund as provided in this section or 
     section 9602(b).
       ``(b) Transfer to United States Olympic Trust Fund of 
     Amounts Designated.--There is hereby appropriated to the 
     United States Olympic Trust Fund amounts equivalent to the 
     amounts designated under section 6097 and received in the 
     Treasury.
       ``(c) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) Payments.--Not less often than quarterly, the 
     Secretary shall pay to the United States Olympic Committee an 
     amount from the United States Olympic Trust Fund equal to the 
     amount in such Fund as of the time of such payment, less any 
     administrative expenses of the Secretary which may be paid 
     under paragraph (2), for the purposes of carrying out the 
     Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (36 U.S.C. 371 et seq.).
       ``(2) Administrative expenses.--Amounts in the United 
     States Olympic Trust Fund shall be available to pay the 
     administrative expenses of the Department of the Treasury 
     directly allocable to--
       ``(A) modifying the individual tax return forms to carry 
     out section 6097,
       ``(B) carrying out this chapter with respect to such Fund, 
     and
       ``(C) processing amounts received under section 6097 and 
     transferring such amounts to such Fund.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     subchapter A is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 9512. United States Olympic Trust Fund.''.
                                 ______
                                 

       By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Murkowski, 
     and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 282. A bill to establish a recurring bi-annual Olympic 
commemorative coins program, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                  THE OLYMPIC COMMEMORATIVE COINS ACT

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a second bill pertaining to 
amateur sports I would like to present to the Senate today. This will 
create a recurring Olympic Commemorative Coins Program in the United 
States to provide valuable souvenirs to amateur sports enthusiasts, and 
a new source of revenue to the United States Olympic Committee, the 
USOC. These are sort of companion bills. The second bill would require 
the Secretary of the Treasury to consult with the USOC and the Citizens 
Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee on the design of a $1 silver coin 
which would commemorate each summer and winter Olympic games held 
outside the United States. Only 500,000 of such coins would be minted.
  Under the bill, a new commemorative coin would be issued every 2 
years. The summer and winter Olympics are now staggered, so that, as we 
all know, now there is an Olympic games every 2 years.
  Each coin would carry a surcharge of $10 and that money would be 
transferred by the Secretary of the Treasury to the USOC. The Secretary 
of Treasury would be required to include in the sale price of each coin 
an additional amount to pay for the costs of the program. If the coins 
sell as they have in the past, and these have been very successful 
programs in the past, the USOC could receive a total of about $5 
million for each Olympic games, in other words every 2 years. This 
would go a long way toward supporting our amateur athletes and carrying 
out our responsibilities of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. In years 
when the Olympics are held inside the United States, the Secretary of 
the Treasury would be required to develop an expanded multicoin program 
to commemorate our Olympic Games. This program, designed by the 
Secretary, with the USOC and the Coins Committee, could provide 4 or 5 
different gold, silver or other coins in numbers larger than the 
500,000 for the games that are held outside the United States. These 
would be of special interest to travelers who would come to the United 
States for the Olympic games.
  My bill also provides discretion with respect to the surcharge in 
each coin. This would make it possible for U.S. athletes and the USOC 
to receive an even greater benefit from each coin. In the first 2 
months after the new Olympic Coins Program begins, the Secretary of 
Treasury would be prohibited from issuing other commemorative coins. In 
other words, we would like to have one period, every 2 years, of 2 
months in which the USOC's coins, the Olympic coins, would be the only 
coins available.
  The Amateur Sports Act made the USOC, as I said before, the central 
coordinating body for amateur sports in the United States. It does give 
the USOC the duty to not only select and train athletes to represent 
the United States at international competitions, but to encourage 
athletic activities through a grassroots sports program.
  I believe that the USOC carries out the Amateur Sports Act well, in 
view of the fact it does not receive support from Federal 
appropriations. As I said before, the act does not authorize such 
appropriations.
  I repeat, Mr. President, unless we find a source of revenue for the 
USOC, we are going to have a situation where it cannot carry out the 
responsibilities that were given it by Congress in 1978.
  Last year, the Senate Commerce Committee began a review of the 
Amateur Sports Act. During our first two hearings, we determined 
additional revenues are needed to provide greater grassroots sports 
opportunities in our country.
  Toward this end, the bill I am introducing would require at least 25 
percent of the revenues received by the USOC under the coins program 
would be used solely for promoting grassroots sports opportunities, and 
it would require USOC to use at least 25 percent of the revenues to 
promote and encourage physical fitness and public participation in 
amateur athletic activities; to assist organizations and persons 
concerned with sports in the development of special amateur athletic 
programs for amateurs in our country; and it would also foster the 
development of amateur athletic facilities for use by amateur athletes, 
as well as assist in making existing amateur athletic facilities 
available and to modernize them, Mr. President, which is necessary for 
their use by amateur athletes now in this country.
  I look forward on this bill to working with the chairman and ranking 
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I believe this bill will be 
sent to that committee. It is important legislation to be enacted in 
this Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 282

       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 referred to as the ``Olympic Commemorative 
     Coins Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``Corporation'' shall mean the corporation by 
     the name of ``United States Olympic Committee'' created by 
     the Act entitled ``An Act to incorporate the United States 
     Olympic Association'', approved September 21, 1950 (36 U.S.C. 
     371 et seq.), as amended; and
       (2) the term ``Secretary'' shall mean the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.

     SEC. 3. COMMEMORATIVE COINS PROGRAMS.

       (a) Bi-Annual Olympic Coins.--Beginning in 1977, in each 
     six month period prior to the date upon which the Summer or 
     Winter Olympic Games are held in a nation other than the 
     United States, the Secretary shall issue not more than 
     500,000 commemorative one dollar coins, each of which shall--
       (1) weigh 26.73 grams;
       (2) have a diameter of 1.5 inches;
       (3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent alloy; and
       (4) bear the design selected by the Secretary pursuant to 
     subsection (f).
       (b) Olympic Coins When Games Are Held in the United 
     States.--In each year prior to a year in which the Summer or 
     Winter Olympic Games are held in the United States, the 
     Secretary shall develop an expanded multi-coin commemorative 
     coins program in consultation with the Corporation and the 
     Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee. The Secretary 
     shall issue such coins in the six month period to the date 
     upon which such games are held.
       (c) Exclusivity.--During the first two months of each 
     period in which coins are issued under this Act, the 
     Secretary shall not issue other commemorative coins.
       (d) Surcharges.--(1) All sales of the coins issued under 
     subsection (a) shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.

[[Page S1104]]

       (2) All sales of the coins issued under subsection (b) 
     shall include a surcharge of between $1 and $50 per coin as 
     determined by the Secretary in consultation with the 
     Corporation.
       (e) Distribution and Use of Surcharges.--(1) All surcharges 
     received by the Secretary from the sale of coins under this 
     Act shall be promptly paid by the Secretary to the 
     Corporation.
       (2) Funds received by the Corporation under this Act shall 
     be used to carry out the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (36 
     U.S.C. 371 et seq.), and not less than twenty-five percent of 
     such funds shall be used for the objects and purposes of 
     paragraphs (6), (7), and (9) of section 104 of such Act (36 
     U.S.C. 374).
       (f) Design.--(1) The design for each coin issued under this 
     Act shall be selected by the Secretary after consultation 
     with the Corporation.
       (2)(A) On each coin issued under this Act there shall be--
       (i) a designation of the value of the coin;
       (ii) an inscription of the year; and
       (iii) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We 
     Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus 
     Unum''.
       (B) On coins issued under this Act there may be, with the 
     consent of the Corporation under section 9 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to incorporate the United States Olympic 
     Association'', approved September 21, 1950 (36 U.S.C. 380), 
     the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, the emblem 
     of the Corporation, the words ``Olympic'', ``Olympiad'' or 
     other symbols, emblems, trademarks and names which the 
     Corporation has the exclusive right to use under that 
     section.

     SEC. 4. LEGAL TENDER.

       The coins issued under this Act shall be legal tender, as 
     provided in section 5103 of title 31, United States Code.

     SEC. 5. SOURCES OF BULLION.

       (a) Silver.--The Secretary shall obtain silver for minting 
     coins under this Act from sources the Secretary determines to 
     be appropriate, including stockpiles established under the 
     Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.
       (b) Gold.--The Secretary shall obtain any gold for minting 
     coins under this Act pursuant to the authority of the 
     Secretary under other provisions of law.

     SEC. 6. SALE PRICE.

       Each coin issued under this Act shall be sold by the 
     Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
       (1) the face value of the coin;
       (2) the surcharge provided in section 3 with respect to 
     such coin;
       (3) the cost of designing and issuing the coin (including 
     labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, 
     marketing, and shipping); and
       (4) the estimated profit determined under section 7(b) with 
     respect to such coin.

     SEC. 7. DETERMINATION OF COSTS AND PROFIT.

       (a) Determination of Costs.--The Secretary shall determine 
     the costs incurred with respect to coins issued under this 
     Act, including overhead costs.
       (b) Determination of Profit.--Prior to the sale of each 
     edition of coin issued under this Act, the Secretary shall 
     calculate the estimated profit to be included in the sale 
     price of each such coin under section 6(4).
       (c) Prohibition on Judicial Review.--Determinations made 
     under this section shall be made at the sole discretion of 
     the Secretary and shall not be subject to judicial review.

     SEC. 8. GENERAL WAIVER OF PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.

       Section 5112(j) of title 31, United States Code, shall 
     apply to the procurement of goods and services necessary to 
     carry out the programs and operations of the United States 
     Mint under this Act.

     SEC. 9. AUDITS AND REPORT.

       (a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall have 
     the right to examine books, records, documents, and other 
     data of the Corporation related to the expnditure of amounts 
     it has received under section 3(e)(1).
       (b) The Corporation shall biannually transmit a report to 
     Congress and to the Secretary which shall account for the 
     expenditure of funds received under section 3(e)(1).

     SEC. 11. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.

       It is the sense of Congress that each coin edition issued 
     under this Act should be self-sustaining and should be 
     administered so as not to result in any net cost to the 
     Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 283. A bill to establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives 
for the Federal Court of Appeals; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


THE STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS COMMISSION 
                       ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 1997

 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I introduce a bill which would 
establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Court 
of Appeals.
  This commission would study the present division of the United States 
into the several judicial circuits, study the structure and alignment 
of the Federal Court of Appeals system, with particular reference to 
the ninth circuit, and report recommendations to the President and 
Congress on appropriate changes in circuit boundaries or structure for 
the expeditious and effective disposition of the caseload of the 
Federal Court of Appeals, consistent with fundamental conceptions of 
fairness and due process.
  As you may know, I have cosponsored legislation in the past that 
would have split the ninth circuit. I have not altered my opinion of 
the need for this, however, it seems that some of my colleagues need a 
little bit more convincing. That is why I believe having a well-formed 
commission, which examines this issue closely and delivers a 
nonpolitical response, will dispel the doubts that my colleagues have 
about a split.
  I believe that the commission will begin to answer some of the 
concerns that Montanans have voiced that they are not obtaining the 
same level of judicial consideration as others in the ninth circuit. 
Considering the size of the district, I have the same doubts. The ninth 
circuit is now comprised not only of Montana, but also, Alaska, 
Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, the Northern Mariana Islands, 
Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. That's nine States and two 
principalities. The ninth circuit is about twice the size of the next 
largest circuit, both in population and geography.
  Its caseload is among the fastest growing in the Nation, and the time 
to complete an average appeal, more than 14 months, is more than 4 
months longer than the national average. Its 28 judges are about twice 
the recommended number for an appellate circuit.
  Any objective view of the ninth circuit is a case study in the phrase 
``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' I am optimistic that a 
commission that studies the ninth will come to the same conclusion: 
This body will acknowledge this travesty and finally move for justice 
for all.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, and Mr. Coats):
  S. 284. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to improve 
safety at public railway-highway crossings, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


     the highway rail grade crossing safety formula enhancement act

 Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce 
legislation to provide a more effective method of targeting available 
Federal funds to enhance safety at our Nation's most hazardous highway-
rail grade crossings.
  I first introduced this measure during the 104th Congress following 2 
years of work to address a pressing public safety problem occurring in 
Indiana and other rail-intensive States. It is my hope this important 
legislation will be given thoughtful and thorough consideration this 
year as Congress moves to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. It is unclear what the final 
program structure will look like, or what the specific Federal role 
will be in the transportation decisionmaking process. I will work this 
year to assure that the goals of this rail safety legislation are 
incorporated as part of an ISTEA reauthorization bill that creates a 
more streamlined, flexible Federal highway program to help States 
maintain safe, effective, and efficient transportation networks.
  In America today, several hundred people are killed and thousands 
more injured every year as a result of vehicle-train collisions at 
highway-rail grade crossings. A significant number of these accidents 
occur in rail-intensive States such as Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, 
California, and Texas. One quarter of the Nation's 168,000 public 
highway-rail grade crossings are located in these 5 States. They 
accounted for 38 percent of deaths and 32 percent of injuries caused by 
vehicle-train collisions nationwide during 1991-1993.
  My home State of Indiana ranks sixth in the Nation for number of 
total public grade crossings with about 6,700, and is annually among 
the top five States for numbers of accidents and fatalities caused by 
vehicle-train crashes.
  In 1994, I travelled across northern Indiana aboard a QSX-500 
locomotive and witnessed what engineers see every day--motorists 
darting across the railroad tracks before an oncoming train. From this 
experience, and from my work to improve safety at highway-rail grade 
crossings, I learned that engineering solutions, along with education 
and awareness about grade crossing safety, are key strategies that can 
effectively prevent grade crossing accidents.

[[Page S1105]]

  Responding to this disturbing national trend, I began working in 1993 
with Transportation Secretary Federico Pena and with the Indiana 
Department of Transportation to address this serious safety problem. We 
worked to find solutions that would help Indiana and other States make 
better use of available funds to target the Nation's most hazardous 
rail crossings.
  The Federal Government has played an important role in helping States 
eliminate accidents and fatalities at public highway-rail intersections 
since passage of the Highway Safety Act by Congress in 1973. This act 
created the Rail-Highway Crossing Program, also known as the Section 
130 Program. Since the program's inception, more than 28,000 
improvement projects have been undertaken--from installation of warning 
gates, lights and bells, to pavement improvements and grade separation 
construction projects.
  During the 103d Congress, I introduced grade crossing safety 
legislation to restore States' discretion over millions of Federal 
highway dollars lost as a result of noncompliance with the Federal 
motorcycle helmet law. Indiana and other States affected by this law 
were prohibited from using a portion of their highway construction 
dollars to improve safety at highway-rail grade crossings. I was 
pleased the Congress repealed the helmet law penalty in 1995 as part of 
the National Highway System designation legislation. States now have 
greater flexibility to use their highway dollars for improvements at 
rail crossings, and for other transportation priorities.
  In March 1994, Senator Coats and I asked the General Accounting 
Office to conduct a survey of rail safety programs in Indiana and other 
rail intensive States experiencing a high number of accidents at 
highway-rail grade crossings. Released in August 1995, the report 
``Railroad Safety: Status of Efforts to Improve Railroad Crossing 
Safety'' evaluated the best uses of limited Federal funds for rail 
crossing safety, reviewed policy changes that help State and local 
governments address rail safety issues, and recommended strategies to 
encourage interagency and intergovernmental cooperation.
  The report found that in addition to States' efforts to reduce 
accidents and fatalities through emphasis on education programs, 
engineering solutions, and enforcement of traffic laws, changes to the 
Federal funding formulas would target highway funds to areas of 
greatest risk.
  Under, ISTEA, the Section 130 Program was continued--with a portion 
of the 10 percent of a State's STP safety funds dedicated to highway-
rail crossing improvement and hazard elimination projects.
  The GAO reported that key indicators or ``risk factors'' used to 
assess rail-grade crossing safety are not taken into account when STP 
funds are distributed among States. The GAO outlined the Federal 
Highway Administration's [FHWA] work to review options for STP formula 
changes that adjust the current flat percentage allocation to include 
these risk factors. Applying these factors to the funding formula 
creates a more targeted and focused process that maximizes the 
effectiveness of Federal funds.
  The risk factors criteria considered by FHWA include a State's share 
of the national total for number of public crossings, number of public 
crossings with passive warning devices, total number of accidents, and 
total number of fatalities occurring as a result of vehicle-train 
collisions at highway-rail grade crossings.
  For example, while Indiana received 3.4 percent of section 130 funds 
in fiscal year 1995, the Hoosier State experienced 6.1 percent of the 
Nation's accidents and 5.9 percent of the fatalities as a result of 
vehicle-train collisions from 1991 to 1993. In addition, Indiana has 
about 4 percent of the Nation's public rail crossings.
  Preliminary estimates of STP apportionments under a risk-based 
apportionment formula indicate Indiana's share of section 130 funds 
could increase by 49 percent, from the fiscal year 1997 level of $4.9 
to $7.3 million. Overall, about 21 States would receive a substantial 
increase in section 130 funds for grade crossing improvements, 
including: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.
  While the Indiana Department of Transportation [INDOT] spends over 
$10 million a year to improve highway-rail grade crossings, a 49-
percent increase in section 130 funds would allow INDOT and other State 
departments of transportation additional resources to improve hazardous 
highway-rail grade crossings.
  The Formula Enhancement Act addresses the allocation problem by 
adjusting the funding formula for the STP to include an apportionment 
of funds to States for the section 130 Program based on a 3-year 
average of these risk factors. I want to express my appreciation to the 
FHWA and to the Federal Railroad Administration for their valuable 
assistance in preparing this legislation.

  This legislation will help improve the way the Federal Government 
targets existing resources to enhance safety on our Nation's highways 
and along our rail corridors. This legislation does not call for new 
Federal spending, but rather for a more equitable and effective 
distribution of existing highway funds to States to enhance safety at 
dangerous highway-rail grade crossings.
  This legislation addresses one aspect of the grade crossing safety 
problem by refining a key provision of the existing ISTEA law. Using 
this proposal as a foundation, I am hopeful the Congress will craft 
provisions for the highway reauthorization bill that recognize the 
overall efforts of States to implement comprehensive rail safety 
programs. An effective grade crossing safety program integrates 
construction improvement projects with driver education and awareness 
programs, crossing closures, vigorous enforcement of crossing traffic 
laws and assessments of crossing inventories to identify the most 
hazardous crossings in a State.
  I will work with my colleagues this year to help assure Congress 
passes highway reauthorization legislation that makes the best use of 
available Federal resources while encouraging States to continue 
pursuing comprehensive efforts to address their public grade crossing 
safety requirements. My intent with this legislation is not to penalize 
certain States or to create winners or losers in the process of 
distributing Federal highway funds, but to find the best solution that 
will eliminate these preventable tragedies.
  At this time, it is unclear what direction the next highway 
authorization bill will take, what the Federal role will be in 
maintaining the national transportation infrastructure, and what 
current ISTEA programs will be renewed. Last year, I endorsed Senator 
Warner's reauthorization proposal to provide a more streamlined and 
flexible highway program that returns resources and authority back to 
the States. My intent with this legislation during this reauthorization 
process is not to protect a particular highway program or specific 
Federal set-aside requirement of the expiring ISTEA law, but rather to 
continue emphasizing an issue of great importance to my State of 
Indiana and to other States experiencing rail safety problems. I will 
advocate grade crossing safety as a priority within the context of 
other key funding and flexibility issues that are vital to the 
continued safety and mobility of Hoosiers traveling on Indiana 
roadways. I am hopeful this legislation will reinforce the importance 
of highway-rail grade crossing safety as the Congress moves forward 
with the national discussion of U.S. transportation policy for the 21st 
century.
  Continued emphasis on finding new and better ways to target existing 
resources to enhance safety at highway-rail grade crossings will 
contribute to the overall effort in Congress and in the States to 
prevent accidents, save lives, and sustain a balanced and effective 
transportation network for the Nation.
 Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Senator Lugar and I are introducing 
today legislation which will more effectively direct Federal funding to 
those States which have the greatest needs with highway-rail grade 
crossings.
  We first introduced this bill in the 104th Congress after recognizing 
a critical deficiency at rail grade crossings which has contributed 
senseless, tragic deaths over the years.
  This year as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
[ISTEA]

[[Page S1106]]

is reauthorized, it is my hope that the committee will seriously 
consider the needs of rail-intensive States, such as Indiana. While the 
final structure of ISTEA is still unknown, I will work to ensure that 
the objectives of this legislation are incorporated in the final 
highway bill.
  Rail transportation is important in Indiana, playing a key role in 
the State's agriculture and manufacturing economy. Much of the rail 
activity goes through northwest Indiana which accounts for 75 percent 
of the State's rail crossing accidents. In 1994, Indiana ranked third 
in the Nation with 263 rail crossing accidents, resulting in the deaths 
of 27 people. Six percent of all rail crossing accidents in America 
took place in Indiana and 5.9 percent of the fatalities occurred there.
  Several years ago, I became aware that Indiana and a number of other 
States had a critical problem with rail accidents. Senator Lugar and I 
asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to examine the safety 
conditions in States with a high concentration of rail crossings. The 
GAO report, completed in August 1995, revealed that while Indiana had a 
large number of rail crossings--6,700, the sixth largest number of all 
States--the State received only 3.4 percent of the Federal funding 
available specifically targeted to prevent such tragedies.
  The Section 130 Program was established in 1973 to help States reduce 
accidents, injuries, and fatalities at public railroad crossings. In 
the first 10 years of the program, accidents declined by 61 percent and 
deaths were reduced by 34 percent. Since 1985, little progress was made 
toward further reducing these numbers.
  The problem becomes apparent when you realize that many of the States 
with the highest concentration of crossings, number of accidents, and 
fatalities receive less money than States that do not have as great a 
need. Thus, the GAO included that the Federal Government should examine 
funding formulas and consider using risk factors in determining how to 
distribute section 130 highway dollars to States for rail safety 
purposes.
  The current formula funding--based on 10 percent of a State's surface 
transportation program [STP] funding--does not take into account such 
essential criteria as a State's total number of crossing, amount of 
train traffic, nor the number of accidents and fatalities. I believe it 
is critical that these risk factors be considered in determining how 
much money a State should receive for rail safety under the current 
funding structure.
  The formula enhancement bill would correct this flaw in the current 
formula. Based on the GAO report and work with the Federal Highway 
Administration, we crafted this legislation to ensure that States with 
the greatest risk receive more money. This bill does not increase 
Federal spending. Rather it ensures that money is targeted to those 
States with the most serious safety concerns.
  Using this more equitable way of disbursing funds, Indiana--which 
received $4.9 million in fiscal year 1997--could receive $7.3 million 
in fiscal year 1998. Overall, 21 States would benefit substantially 
from increased funding to help reduce rail crossing accidents.
  Clearly, this bill addresses one aspect of law, providing a fairer 
distribution of resources. But money alone will not solve all the 
problems related to rail crossing accidents. A comprehensive plan to 
educate people about the dangers at rail crossings must be developed. I 
support the efforts of programs like Operation Lifesaver which works 
effectively to get information to citizens. Continued cooperation among 
all levels of government: local, State, and Federal is essential to 
stop these sort of tragedies.
  There are many issues facing the Congress this year as we decide 
funding levels, formulas, and determine the role of the Federal 
Government in the context of the highway authorization. I supported 
Senator Warner's legislation last year to provide for a streamlined, 
flexible, and equitable highway program. I continue to believe this 
approach is best for the States to address their fundamental needs and 
priorities. The STEP-21 proposal would ensure that States receive a 
fairer return on highway funding and the flexibility to spend the 
resources according to State and local priorities. My purpose in 
introducing this rail legislation at this time is to draw attention to 
this serious problem facing Indiana and other States and to show my 
determination to make rail crossing safety a priority as we make the 
key decisions on ISTEA.
  We cannot afford to neglect the safety of our citizens at rail grade 
crossings. We must find ways to address these critical problems. 
Overall, the safety of our highways and rail is essential as we examine 
and make decisions on the future of our transportation system. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that our focus is 
indeed comprehensive in addressing our transportation needs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Hutchinson, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Smith):
  S. 285. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from gross income any distribution from a qualified State tuition 
program used exclusively to pay qualified higher education expenses 
incurred by the designated beneficiary, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                    THE TUITION TAX ELIMINATION ACT

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation, the Tuition Tax Elimination Act, which will help make 
college more affordable for thousands of young people all across 
America. I am pleased that Senators Sessions, DeWine, Hutchinson, 
Faircloth, Cochran, and Smith of New Hampshire have joined me as 
original cosponsors. This bill will eliminate a new Federal tax on the 
tuition expenses of students participating in State prepaid tuition 
programs. Here is how the tax came about.
  It is no secret that many families in our Nation are struggling to 
finance their childrens' education. College tuition costs have 
skyrocketed in the past decade increasing 95 percent at private 
institutions and 82 percent at public institutions. Newsweek magazine 
reported last year that some families will spend more than $100,000 
just to send one child to college.
  To combat the high cost of a college education, many States, 
including Alabama, have set up prepaid tuition funds. These funds allow 
parents to make a tax-free investment, years in advance of their 
child's enrollment in college, with the guarantee that the child's 
tuition will be paid for by the State when he or she enrolls in 
college.
  Last year, the IRS attempted to impose taxes on States operating 
prepaid tuition funds by claiming that the funds were not legitimate 
functions of the State and thus not exempt from Federal taxation. If 
the IRS had been successful in their attempt, many States would have 
been forced to terminate their prepaid tuition programs.
  Fortunately, Senators McConnell, Graham, and I were able to get a 
provision in the Small Business Job Protection Act which clarified that 
prepaid tuition programs should not be subject to Federal taxes, since 
they are a legitimate function of State governments.
  At the same time, the IRS was also attempting to impose a tax on the 
parents' contributions to these State prepaid tuition programs. What 
the IRS wanted to do was to count the annual increased value of the 
parents' contribution as income and tax it. Again, Senators McConnell, 
Graham, and I put a provision in the minimum wage bill last year to 
prevent the IRS from taking those actions.
  However, there was a provision of that bill which I did not support. 
It provided that when a student enrolls in college under a prepaid 
tuition plan, the student must pay taxes on the difference between the 
value of the tuition costs, which are paid by the State, and the amount 
his or her parent paid for the contract. Essentially, this provision is 
a new tax on students. I attempted to offer an amendment to strike this 
provision, but unfortunately, no amendments were in order.
  Mr. President, prepaid tuition programs are a creative way many 
States all across the country have developed to help more young people 
afford a college education. We need to do everything we can at the 
Federal level to encourage these types of programs.
  The Tuition Tax Elimination Act will do that by relieving students 
from Federal taxes on their tuition expenses. This legislation will 
provide

[[Page S1107]]

that distributions from qualified prepaid tuition funds are not to be 
counted as taxable income for the student, as long as the money is 
spent for the designated purpose.
  This legislation is fully paid for with a provision which would 
suspend the automatic inflation adjustments used to award the earned 
income tax credit to individuals without children. President Clinton's 
1993 tax bill expanded the EITC to cover individuals without children, 
and currently, a childless individual earning between $4,220 and $5,280 
is eligible for a maximum EITC amount of $323. Each year, these income 
levels are adjusted upward for inflation. Many people have questioned 
whether we should even be providing the EITC to individuals without 
children. However, that is a question which can be addressed in other 
legislation. This offset does not eliminate the EITC for individuals 
without children; it simply eliminates the annual increase in the EITC 
calculation for individuals who have no dependents. This provision 
passed the Senate last year as a part of welfare reform, but it was 
dropped in conference.
  Mr. President, the cost of going to college is now more expensive 
than ever, and is growing much faster than inflation. Eliminating the 
tax students will face on their tuition expenses is a real step toward 
making college more affordable for thousands of young people all across 
America, and I hope my colleagues join me in support of this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. DeWine, 
        Mr. Bond, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Frist, Mr. Nickles, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Shelby, Mr. Coats, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 286. A bill to provide for a reduction in regulatory costs by 
maintaining Federal average fuel economy standards applicable to 
automobiles in effect at current levels until changed by law, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


        THE CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS ACT OF 1997

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation with 
Senators Levin and Ashcroft that would freeze the corporate average 
fuel economy standards--known as CAFE--at current levels unless changed 
by Congress.
  Enacted in 1975, CAFE established Federal requirements regulating the 
average fleet fuel economy of new passenger cars and light trucks. Now 
there are a number of reasons why the CAFE standards should continue to 
be frozen at their current level, and there is a great deal of 
information available which documents CAFE's harmful effects. Rest 
assured, I'll touch on both these topics in a moment. But there is one 
overriding reason this legislation needs to be adopted: control of CAFE 
standards must reside with the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. President, the control of CAFE standards is too great a 
responsibility to be entrusted to any entity other than the Congress. 
CAFE requirements were initiated over 20 years ago in response to an 
oil crisis that has long since disappeared. New standards would 
constitute the most tremendous regulation foisted on the automobile 
industry in over two decades and would require a massive retooling, at 
great cost, by America's automakers.
  This is an industry that employs 2.3 million Americans and is 
estimated to provide 4.4 percent of this Nation's GDP. Should the 
authority to impose upon this industry a new regulation with 
questionable goals and dubious results reside with unelected 
bureaucrats? Should regulators at the Department of Transportation have 
the authority to change CAFE standards at any time, for any reason and 
do so without congressional approval? The answer to these questions is 
clearly no. Such a decision in my view belongs with this legislature, 
the body entrusted by our Constitution with the duty to determine 
whether any proposed policy change is in the best interests of the 
American people.
  The other question we need to ask is why a CAFE increase should be 
considered at all. When CAFE was instituted, it was part of a larger 
effort to regulate oil consumption and reduce America's dependence on 
foreign oil. Today, however, it is clear that CAFE standards failed to 
achieve this goal. Domestic manufacturers have increased passenger car 
fuel economy 108 percent and light truck fuel economy almost 60 percent 
since the mid-1970's. Rather than decreasing during this time, however, 
oil imports have increased. In 1974 the United States imported 35 
percent of its oil--last year this country imported between 45 and 50 
percent of its oil.
  Now, with CAFE's obvious failure to reduce oil imports, CAFE 
proponents cite the threat of potential global warming as the major 
rationale for increasing these standards further. Mr. President, the 
argument that CAFE standards will prevent or reduce global warming is 
as weak as the argument that CAFE would reduce this country's reliance 
on foreign oil.
  According to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, cars 
and light trucks subject to CAFE standards account for only one and 
1\1/2\ percent of global man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing 
CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon, as has been discussed, would 
result in minuscule reductions in emissions--less than one-half of 1 
percent.
  There can be no doubt, Mr. President, that CAFE standards have failed 
to reduce America's dependency on foreign oil or significantly reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. So what have they succeeded in doing? They 
have succeeded in putting domestic automobile manufacturers at a 
competitive disadvantage and putting American families at risk of 
severe injury and even death.
  First, on competitiveness. CAFE standards apply to the average fuel 
consumption standards for a company's fleet of cars--that is, the fuel 
economy for all cars sold in one model year is averaged together to 
determine the fleet average. Due to the high price of gasoline in 
Japan, the Japanese have traditionally engineered smaller cars. 
Consequently their automobile fleets come in below the CAFE standards, 
thus allowing them to make larger, less fuel-efficient cars and still 
fall within the CAFE limits for their fleet. According to the National 
Academy of Sciences, ``the CAFE system operated to the benefit of the 
Japanese manufacturers, and at the expense of the domestic 
manufacturers.'' This system continues to this day.
  Despite this inequity, the Department of Transportation continues to 
push for increased CAFE standards, and in 1994 issued an Advanced 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making that suggested setting light truck CAFE 
standards for up to 9 years at levels up to 40 percent higher than they 
are today.
  Compounding their potential harm to our light truck industry, these 
CAFE supporters fail to consider the differences between cars and 
trucks. Many of the fuel efficient technologies used to make cars more 
efficient, such as front wheel drive and increased aerodynamics, cannot 
be used for trucks. Trucks are designed specifically for hauling 
capacity, off-road use and durability. Only one or two very small 
trucks currently provide the level of fuel efficiency sought by CAFE 
proponents, and they account for less than 1 percent of light truck 
sales. The Department of Transportation's CAFE-mandated changes would 
negatively affect American manufacturers by reducing the segment of the 
light-duty truck market--the full-size trucks consumers desire--in 
which they predominate.
  But, important as competitiveness is to our workers and consumers, 
there is a more important reason to freeze CAFE standards: it will save 
lives. Why? Because higher CAFE standards will force automobile 
manufacturers to downsize cars and trucks, and smaller vehicles are 
more dangerous. Automobile experts estimate that almost 50 percent of 
the fuel economy gains made since the mid-1970's are attributable to 
reductions in vehicle size and weight. And what was the cost? In 1991, 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that 
vehicle downsizing since the mid-1970's was responsible for an 
additional 2,000 deaths and 20,000 serious injuries on America's 
highways every year.
  Other studies have reached the same, logical conclusion. To 
illustrate the relationship between size and safety, the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety studied the occupant death rates of 11 car 
models that had been downsized since 1977. It found that death rates 
were higher for 10 of the 11 vehicle types after downsizing. More 
recently, the institute has determined that, even when equipped with 
airbags, smaller cars are still less safe than larger cars.

[[Page S1108]]

 The National Academy of Sciences also understands that emissions 
controls result in less protection in the event of an accident. 
According to the Academy, ``safety and fuel economy are linked because 
one of the most direct methods of increasing gas mileage is reducing 
size and weight.''
  And what would happen if the new, increased CAFE standards are 
adopted? A study by the Harvard Injury Control Center estimates that an 
increase to proposed CAFE levels would result in downsizing that would 
produce an additional 1,650 deaths and 8,500 serious injuries on our 
highways every year. This is absolutely unacceptable.
  Mr. President, what I find most troubling about efforts to increase 
CAFE standards is that they are simply unnecessary. American automobile 
manufacturers are constantly striving to improve their current product 
and develop innovative new ways to power cars and trucks. And these 
efforts are beginning to show results. In recent weeks, Chrysler has 
announced breakthroughs in fuel-cell technology. By converting gasoline 
into hydrogen, Chrysler's new engine will increase fuel efficiency and 
reduce tailpipe emissions. Similarly, all three auto makers are working 
to develop a gas turbine engine that will combine better efficiency, 
low emissions and quiet performance.
  These technological advances are the result of open competition, not 
Government mandate. This kind of innovation is only produced in a free 
market. Thus, rather than shackling American manufacturers with costly, 
outdated regulations, we should be encouraging them to develop new 
technologies to take the automobile industry into the 21st century.
  Mr. President, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that, 
``the CAFE approach to achieving automotive fuel economy has defects 
that are sufficiently grievous to warrant careful reconsideration.'' 
This bill is a modest step in that direction. It will permit Congress 
to carefully consider and debate any increases to CAFE standards rather 
than allow the administration to change the standards, at any time and 
for any reason without congressional approval, as is currently the 
case.
  Specifically, this bill will freeze CAFE standards at 27.5 miles per 
gallon for passenger cars and 20.7 miles per gallon for light-duty 
trucks. The transportation appropriations conference report we passed 
last year included a 1-year freeze on CAFE standards. This bill would 
make that freeze permanent unless changed by Congress.
  CAFE standards did not reduce our country's reliance on foreign oil, 
and they are not saving the planet from ozone depletion. CAFE standards 
are hurting American manufacturers and putting American families at 
increased risk of injury or death. All this when the automobile 
industry has shown itself capable of producing the technological 
advances necessary for increased efficiency on its own. Congress should 
fulfill its responsibility as our Nation's law-making body by 
protecting the American people from this instance of excessive and 
counterproductive bureaucratic rule making.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 286

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

     SECTION 1. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.

       Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the average 
     fuel economy standards established (whether directly or 
     indirectly) under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of 
     Transportation under chapter 329 of title 49, United States 
     Code, prior to the date of enactment of this Act for 
     automobiles (as that term is defined in section 32901 of 
     title 49, United States Code) that are in effect on the day 
     before the date of enactment of this Act, shall apply without 
     amendment, change, or other modification of any kind (whether 
     direct or indirect) for--
       (1) the model years specified in the regulations;
       (2) the applicable automobiles specified in the regulations 
     last promulgated for such automobiles; and
       (3) each model year thereafter;

     until chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     specifically amended to authorize an amendment, change, or 
     other modification to such standards or is otherwise modified 
     or superseded by law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 287. A bill to require congressional approval before any trade 
agreements entered into under the auspices of the World Trade 
Organization; to the Committee on Finance.


              the approval of trade agreements act of 1997

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to restore the 
constitutional balance to our trade policy and preserve the Congress' 
constitutional obligation to regulate foreign commerce. The bill I 
introduce requires that before a trade agreement negotiated under the 
auspices of the World Trade Organization is accorded the force of law, 
it must be ratified by the Congress. It is a simple bill, but I believe 
it protects a fundamental principle of our democracy, the separation of 
powers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 288. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
families with estate tax relief, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                The Family Estate Tax Relief Act of 1997

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I introduce the Family Estate Tax 
Relief Act of 1997. This legislation is nearly identical to my bill 
from the 104th Congress with one major change.
  My new legislation still targets substantial estate tax relief to 
help preserve one of our Nation's most important economic assets--its 
family run small businesses. But it also increases the existing 
$600,000 unified estate and gift tax credit, which is available to 
everyone.
  Of course, increasing the unified credit will further reduce the 
estate tax burden now imposed on many families trying to transfer their 
businesses to the next generation. It also will help any families 
wishing to pass along to the children or grandchildren some stock, 
proceeds from a life insurance policy or other assets acquired over 
many years.
  The main thrust of this legislation remains the preservation of 
family farmers and other family run businesses. These businesses are 
the major creators of new wealth and jobs in this country. However, 
they face a number of obstacles to succeeding, ranging from price 
gouging by tough international competitors to excessive U.S. 
regulations. That is why it is not surprising to find, for example, 
that we have lost some 377,000 family farms since 1980, a decline of 
some 23,500 family farms every year.
  Since 1980, we have lost some 9,000 of our family farms in North 
Dakota. At the same time, we see that only a small fraction of other 
family run businesses survive beyond the second generation.
  When families have to sell their farms or board up their Main Street 
businesses, those families lose their very livelihood. Moreover, our 
communities lose the jobs and services those family businesses provide.
  I have been approached on many occasions at town meetings by North 
Dakotans who say it is virtually impossible for them to pass along 
their farm or business--which has been the family's major asset for 
decades--to their children because of the exorbitant estate taxes they 
would pay. They think it is unfair, and I agree.
  Unfortunately, our estate tax laws force many family members who 
inherit a modestly sized farm, ranch, or other family business to sell 
it, or a large part of it, out of the family in order to pay off estate 
taxes. This is especially onerous when the inheriting family members 
have already been participating in the business for years and depend 
upon it to earn a living.
  I think that we must take immediate steps to breathe new economic 
life and opportunities into our family businesses and the communities 
in which they operate. It seems to me that a good first step is 
correcting our estate tax laws so they do not unfairly penalize those 
working families.
  There are a few provisions included in our estate tax laws to help a 
family keep its business running long after the death of the original 
owner. But for the most part, these provisions are either too modest or 
too narrowly drawn to do much good.
  Now I also understand that there are some complicated estate tax 
planning techniques available for those wealthy

[[Page S1109]]

enough to hire sophisticated and costly tax advisors. Clearly some 
estate planning devices may reduce the estate tax burden imposed on 
some family businesses upon the death of a principal owner. But for 
those less affluent families inheriting a family business--where such 
estate planning tools were unavailable for whatever reason--the estate 
taxes will ultimately force them to amass a pile of debt, or to sell 
off all or a large part of a family business, just to pay off their 
estate taxes. I think that this is wrong, and it runs counter to the 
kinds of policies that we ought to be pursuing in support of our 
family-owned businesses.
  That is why I am introducing the Family Estate Tax Relief Act to 
rectify this matter, and I urge my colleagues to consider joining me in 
this endeavor.
  The Family Estate Tax Relief Act of 1997 would provide three 
significant measures of estate tax relief to those families hoping to 
pass along their businesses or other assets to the next generation.
  First, my bill would increase the existing unified estate and gift 
tax credit from $600,000 today to $1,000,000 in the year 2004. The 
amount of the existing credit has not been changed for nearly a decade, 
and its benefit has been reduced by more than 35 percent due to 
inflation over this period. Moreover, even 3-percent inflation for 
another 7 years will rob an additional 20 percent of the real value of 
the unified credit. This provision will prevent erosion of the credit's 
real value by inflation.
  Second, my bill allows a decedent's estate to exclude up to the first 
$1,000,000 of value of the family business from estate taxes so long as 
the heirs continue to materially participate in the business for many 
years after the death of the owner. The full benefit of this new 
$1,000,000 exclusion is available to couples trying to pass along the 
family business without the complicated tax planning tailored to one 
spouse or the other that is sometimes used today.

  Together, these two proposals would eliminate estate tax liability on 
qualifying family business assets valued up to $2.0 million. This would 
eliminate the burden of estate taxes for the majority of family run 
businesses.
  Third, my bill would allow the executor of a qualifying estate who 
chooses to pay estate taxes in installments to benefit from a special 
4-percent interest rate on the payment of estate taxes attributable to 
a family business worth between $2.0 and $3.0 million. In other words, 
my bill would also lighten the estate tax burden on the next $1 million 
of estate assets.
  The parts of my legislation targeted to family run businesses expand 
upon the well-tested approaches found in sections 2032A and 6601(j) of 
the Tax Code.
  For example, we currently provide a special-use calculation for 
valuing real estate used in a farm or other trade or business for 
estate tax purposes, where a qualifying business is passed along to 
another family member after the death of the owner. To benefit from the 
special-use formula under section 2032A, the inheriting family member 
must continue to actively participate in the business operation. If the 
heir ceases to participate in the business, he or she may face a 
substantial recapture of the estate taxes which would have been paid at 
the time of the original owner's death.
  In enacting this provision, Congress embraced the goal of keeping a 
farm or other closely held business in the family after the death of 
the owner. However, in the case of family farms, special-use valuation 
primarily helps those farms adjacent to urban areas, where the value of 
the land for non-farm uses is often much higher. But section 2032A does 
not help many farms located in truly rural areas of the country where 
farming is the land's best use. This provision also provides little 
help for families transferring other nonfarm small businesses under 
similar circumstances. My legislation would correct these glaring 
shortfalls in current law.
  In addition, my bill would increase the benefit of the existing 
preferential interest rates under section 6601(j) that apply to farms 
and other closely held businesses. The benefits of the current 
provision have been significantly reduced by inflation over the past 
several decades, and my bill simply increases the amount of estate 
taxes that qualify for a special 4-percent interest rate if paid to the 
IRS in installment payments over time.
  Moreover, my bill includes several safeguards to ensure that its tax 
benefits are truly targeted at the preservation of most family 
businesses.
  Finally, I plan to offset any estimated revenue losses from this bill 
by offering another legislative package to close a number of outdated 
or unnecessary tax loopholes for large multinational corporations doing 
business in the United States. As a result, passing my estate tax 
relief proposals will not increase the Federal deficit. But passing the 
Family Estate Tax Relief Act will help to preserve the economic 
backbone of this country and to help thrifty parents to help their 
children.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this much-needed 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Stevens, and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 290. A bill to establish a visa waiver pilot program for nationals 
of Korea who are traveling in tour groups to the United States; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


            The Korea Visa Waiver Pilot Project Act of 1997

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Stevens, 
Inouye, Akaka and Thomas, am introducing the Korea Visa Waiver Pilot 
Project Bill of 1997.''
  This bill addresses the problem of the slow issuance of United States 
tourist visas to Korean citizens. Koreans typically wait up to 3 weeks 
to obtain tourist visas from the United States Embassy in Seoul. As a 
result, most of these spontaneous travelers decide to vacation in one 
of the other 48 nations that allow them to travel to their country 
without a visa, including both Canada and New Zealand.
  This legislation provides a carefully controlled pilot program of 
visa-free travel by small groups of Koreans to the United States. The 
program seeks to capture the Korean tourism market lost due to the 
cumbersome visa system. For example, New Zealand experienced a 2,400-
percent increase in tourism from Korea after easing its visa 
requirements in 1993.
  The pilot program is designed to allow visitors in a tour group from 
South Korea to travel to the United States without a visa for up to 15 
days. However, it does not compromise the security standards of the 
United States. The program would allow selected travel agencies in 
Korea to issue temporary travel permits based on applicants meeting the 
same preset standards used by the United States Embassy in Seoul. The 
travel permits could only be used by supervised tour groups.
  While the pilot project would allow small Korean tour groups to 
travel to the United States without visas, the project includes many 
restrictions. These are:

       The Attorney General and Secretary of State can terminate 
     the program if the overstay rates in the program are over 2 
     percent.
       The stay of the visitors is less than or equal to 15 days.
       The visitors must have a round-trip ticket and arrive by a 
     carrier that agrees to return them if they are deemed 
     inadmissible.
       The Secretary of State should institute a bonding and 
     licensing requirement that each participating travel agency 
     post a substantial performance bond and pay a financial 
     penalty if a tourist fails to return on schedule.
       The on-time return of each tourist in the group would be 
     certified after each tour.
       Security checks will be done to ensure that the visitor is 
     not a safety threat to the United States.

  This legislation's restrictions ensure that the pilot program will be 
a successful program, and one that I hope will entice more Korean 
tourists to visit the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BYRD:
  S.J. Res. 15. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to clarify the intent of the 
Constitution to neither prohibit nor require public school prayer; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


             public school prayer constitutional amendment

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the English word ``irony'' comes to us from 
an Ancient Greek word meaning ``a dissembler in speech.''
  The English word ``irony'' is defined as the contrast between 
something

[[Page S1110]]

that somebody thinks to be true, as revealed in speech, action, or 
common wisdom, and that which an audience or a reader knows to be true.
  Mr. President, permit me to give an example.
  If anyone in the hearing of my voice will take out a U.S. one-dollar 
bill and turn that one-dollar bill over onto its obverse side, he or 
she will read in clear script, ``In God We Trust.''
  Permit me to introduce another example.
  Every day of each new meeting of the Senate and House of 
Representatives, an official chaplain of each of those two chambers of 
Congress--or a designated substitute--will stride to the dais and 
address a sometimes elegant prayer to the Deity.
  Again, every day in courtrooms across this country, hundreds of 
witnesses will take their place at the front of the court chamber, put 
their hands on incalculable numbers of Bibles, and swear to tell the 
truth, ``. . . so help me God.''
  We do the same. I have done it many times in my 50 years of service 
and elected office. We stand and swear on oath to support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States, ``so help me God.''
  Additionally, daily, thousands of men and women, in a variety of 
groups and millions upon millions of boys and girls in our schools will 
pledge allegiance to our flag, uttering, among other words, the words 
``under God.'' I was a member of the House of Representatives in June 
1954, when the House of Representatives, I believe on June 7th of that 
year, added the words ``under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance to the 
Flag. The next day, the Senate adopted a similar amendment, and then, 
on June 14, the measure was signed into law adding the words ``under 
God.'' I will always be proud of the fact that I was a Member of the 
Congress of the United States when those words were added to the Pledge 
of Allegiance--``one nation under God.'' Both Houses added the words 
``under God.''
  Here is the irony. In spite of that chain of rituals I have just 
related, in situation after situation, anecdotal and documented both, 
public school authorities, ostensibly following rulings of the Supreme 
Court dating from at least the 1960's, have prohibited the utterance of 
prayers at school functions, in classrooms, or even in groups or 
privately on public school property.
  As I read my U.S. Constitution--and here it is--such a prohibition of 
prayer in school flies in the face of the first amendment, which 
declares that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .''
  Please note those words again: ``. . . or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof. . . .''
  That passage was explicitly written into our Bill or Rights at the 
insistence of none other than James Madison, based on direct appeals to 
Madison by baptist ministers in Virginia, who had been forced to 
support the official State church during the colonial era, and whose 
practice of their own religious choice had been officially denied, 
proscribed, or penalized by colonial officials.
  It is ironic that from that understandable constitutional safeguard 
in support of the free exercise of religious faith, opponents of any 
religion have turned that passage of the First Amendment on its head to 
prohibit--I say prohibit--the free exercise of religion in our public 
life and, particularly, to drive religious faith out of our public 
schools.
  It is equally ironic that, as religion is making a public resurgence 
in the long-atheistic former Soviet Union, our Nation, whose 
protofoundations stand on the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of 
early colonists whose primary inspiration in coming to America in the 
first--Congregationalists, Calvinists, Baptists, Jews, Catholics, 
Orthodox, and others--whose primary purpose in coming to America in the 
first place, I repeat, was a yearning for religious liberty against 
those who would deny them the right of religious liberty--that our 
Nation should be embarked on a course which, in effect, denies 
religious liberty to many of our citizens.
  Mr. President, I have heard increasing concerns about the lack of 
moral orientation among so many younger Americans--about a rising drug 
epidemic among our children, about rampant sexual promiscuity, about 
children murdering children, about gangs of teenage thugs terrorizing 
their neighborhoods, and about a pervading moral malaise among youth in 
both our inner cities and suburbs.
  Is there any wonder that so many young Americans should be drifting 
with seemingly no ethical moorings in the face of an apparent effort to 
strip every shred of recognizable ethics, of teachings about values, 
and spirituality from the setting in which those young Americans spend 
most of their waking hours--our public schools?

  Mr. President, in an effort to restore something of a spiritual 
balance to our public schools and to extracurricular activities in our 
public schools, I am today introducing a joint resolution to propose an 
amendment to the Constitution clarifying the intent of the Constitution 
with regard to public school prayer.
  My amendment is an effort to make clear that neither the 
Constitution, or the amendments thereto, require, nor do they prohibit, 
voluntary prayer in the public schools or in the extracurricular 
activities of the public schools.
  Let me read my amendment. Let me read my proposed amendment. It is 
very short, very brief, very much to the point:

       Nothing in this Constitution, or amendments thereto, shall 
     be construed to prohibit or require voluntary prayer in 
     public schools, or to prohibit or require voluntary prayer at 
     public school extracurricular activities.

  So anyone who fears that the language of this amendment would allow 
public schools to mandate the recitation of daily prayer, or that 
school administrators will become the authors of such prayers, need not 
worry. Have no fear. You need not lose a moment of sleep. This 
amendment does not supplant the clear proscription contained in the 
``establishment'' clause of the First Amendment. My amendment is an 
effort to make clear that the words that the Constitution uses with 
regard to religious freedom do not mean that voluntary prayer is 
prohibited from our public schools or our public school activities.
  As I shall one day state on this floor, all of the Presidents in 
their inaugural speeches, and/or in other documents and writings, have 
referred to the Deity, referred to the Almighty God, to Providence, all 
of them. I shall read from the words of each President's inauguration 
speech in which he refers, in one way or another, to God Almighty, the 
Great Judge of the world. We read those references in the Declaration 
of Independence and the Mayflower Compact, and all of the State 
constitutions, as I shall show upon another occasion. Then to say that 
the schoolchildren of the Nation cannot enter into voluntary prayer in 
the public schools, or during commencement exercises is absurd, absurd, 
utter nonsense.
  In short, I hope to end the three-decades-long tyranny of the 
minority in denying to the majority of Americans the least vestige of 
the exercise of a liberty otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution--the 
right of believing children in our public school system to pray in 
accordance with their own consciences and in the privacy of their 
voluntary associations within our public schools. That right I 
sincerely believe the Constitution already grants, but I want to spell 
out in that same Constitution by way of an amendment that permission to 
pray voluntarily in our public schools does not constitute ``an 
establishment of a religion.''

  To deny any schoolchild in this country the right to voluntarily pray 
in academics maintaining that that constitutes establishment of 
religion is pure nonsense.
  With introduction, and I hope eventual adoption of my amendment, we 
can finally begin the 7-year long process to answer the peoples' 
concerns. We can begin to restore the spiritual compass that has been 
lost in the lives of so many of our citizens. And, most importantly, we 
can begin to return to our children the moral orientation they so 
desperately desire.
  Tennyson said, ``More things are wrought by prayer than this world 
dreams of.''
  So, Mr. President, I urge those who want to deliver on the wishes of 
the American people to join me in this effort.

[[Page S1111]]

  I send to the desk my amendment, and ask that it be printed and 
referred appropriately to committee.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 15

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, which shall be 
     valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution 
     when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
     several States within seven years after the date of its 
     submission to the States for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution, or amendments 
     thereto, shall be construed to prohibit or require voluntary 
     prayer in public schools, or to prohibit or require voluntary 
     prayer at public school extracurricular activities.''.

                          ____________________