[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1383-S1407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENT ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 320. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
comprehensive pension protection for women; to the Committee on 
Finance.


        the comprehensive women's pension protection act of 1997

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I introduce the Comprehensive 
Women's Pension Protection Act of 1997. At the end of the 104th 
Congress, Congresswoman Kennelly and I introduced the Comprehensive 
Women's Pension Protection Act of 1996. When we introduced that 
legislation at the end of the last Congress we made a commitment to 
reintroduce this legislation at the beginning of the 105th Congress and 
to make women's retirement security a priority in the 105th Congress. 
Today we are keeping that promise.
  The Comprehensive Women's Pension Protection Act of 1997 combines 
some of the best ideas on women's pension legislation that have come 
before the House or the Senate and new proposals to increase the 
security, equity, and accessibility of our pension system.
  Many of America's women are facing a retirement without economic 
security. The majority of the elderly in this country are, and will 
continue to be, women, and our retirement system is failing them.
  Younger women are not earning sufficient pension benefits to provide 
for their secure retirement. Due to the demands of child rearing and 
elder care, which often take women out of the workforce for a time, and 
to lower life-time earnings due to continuing wage inequities, the 
average 35-year-old woman with a $50,000 salary must have accumulated 
retirement savings of $35,000 in order to have a comfortable 
retirement. A man need only have saved $3,000 by the time he is 35.
  Many older women worked in the home or took time off to raise 
families, and when pension benefits of their own. For many older women 
too, widowhood or divorce can rob them of their part of their husband's 
pension benefits. To ensure that the golden years are not the 
disposable years women need to take charge of their own retirement, but 
Congress must ensure that the Nation's retirement system enables them 
to do so.
  On May 14, of last year I introduced, and many of my colleagues 
cosponsored, the Women's Pension Equity Act of 1996, to begin to 
address one of the leading causes of poverty for the elderly--little or 
no pension benefits. Less than a third of all female retirees have 
pensions, and the majority of those that do earn less than $5,000 a 
year. The lack of pension benefits for many women means the difference 
between a comfortable retirment and a difficult one. Three of the six 
provisions of that bill are now law.
  This legislation is a continuation of my effort to enact real pension 
reforms that will allow women to achieve a secure retirement. Since 
introducing the first of my women's pension equity bills, I have heard 
from hundreds of women from States across the country about the need 
for pension policy that allows women to retire with dignity.
  Addressing pension issues is an integral part of the solution to 
women's economic insecurity. In addition, pension issues are critical 
to our Nation as a whole. In light of the demographic trends facing 
America, retirement security is increasingly important to the quality 
of life of all of our citizens. Social Security is the focus of much 
discussion and debate in Congress and throughout the Nation, and it 
should be. However, addressing the problems facing Social Security 
alone will not provide women, or any American, with the tools to create 
a secure retirement. The intent, from its inception, was that Social 
Security would provide a floor--a minimum amount of resources for 
retirement. The average retiree will only have about 40 percent of his 
or her wages replaced by Social Security.
  Clearly, women must take charge of their own retirement and not just 
rely on Social Security. I have advocated that every woman create her 
own ``pension eight'' checklist to prepare for economic security. The 8 
items that should be on any woman's checklist include: (1) finding out 
if she is earning or has ever earned a pension; (2) learning if her 
employer has a pension plan, and how to be eligible for the plan; (3) 
contributing to a pension plan if she has the chance; (4) not spending 
pension earnings if given a one-time payment when leaving a job: (5) if 
married, finding out if her husband has a pension; (6) not signing away 
a future right to her husband's pension if he dies; (7) during a 
divorce, considering the pension as a valuable, jointly earned asset to 
be divided; and (8) finding out about pension rights and fighting for 
them.
  Even when women take charge of their own retirement, however, they 
can face a brick wall of pension law that prevents them from investing 
enough for their future. Pension laws were not written to reflect the 
patterns of women's work or women's lives. Women are more likely to 
move in and out of the workforce, work at home, earn less for the work 
they do, and work in low paying industries. These factors limit our 
ability to access or accrue pension benefits. Women are also more 
likely to be widowed or divorced, live alone, and live longer in their 
retirement years, leaving them without adequate coverage.
  This bill, which is also being introduced in the House of 
Representatives today by Congresswoman Kennelly, a long-time champion 
of women's pension rights, addresses the range of concerns that women 
face as they consider retirement.
  This legislation preserves women's pensions by ending the practice of 
integration by the year 2004, the practice whereby pension benefits are 
reduced by a portion of Social Security benefits. It provides for the 
automatic division of pensions upon divorce if the divorce decree is 
silent on pension benefits. It allows a widow or divorced widow to 
collect her husband's civil service pension if he leaves his job and 
dies before collecting benefits. And it continue the payment of court 
ordered Tier II railroad retirement benefits to a divorced widow.
  This legislation protects women's pensions by prohibiting 401(k) 
plans, the fastest growing type of plans in the country, from investing 
employee contributions in the company's own stock. It requires annual 
benefits statements for plan participants. And it applies spousal 
consent rules governing pension fund withdrawals to 401(k) plans.
  This legislation helps prepare women for retirement by creating a 
women's pension hotline, providing a real opportunity for women to get 
answers to their questions.
  By preserving and protecting women's pensions, we in Congress can 
provide women with the tools they need to prepare for their own 
retirement. By reintroducing this legislation today we are giving 
notice that pension policy will be at the top of the agenda for the 
105th Congress.
  Pension policy decisions will determine, in no small part, the kind 
of life Americans will live in their older

[[Page S1384]]

years. With a baby boomer turning 50 every 9 seconds, we cannot ignore 
the problems facing people as they grow older. Now, more than ever, all 
Americans need to consider the role that pensions play in determining 
the kind of life every American will lead. We look forward to being 
joined, on a bipartisan basis, by all of our colleagues in the fight 
for pension equity.
  Senator Murray joins me today in introducing the Comprehensive 
Women's Pension Protection Act of 1997. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that a summary of the bill and a copy of the legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 320

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Comprehensive Women's Pension Protection Act of 1997''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title.

                        TITLE I--PENSION REFORM

Sec. 101. Pension integration rules.
Sec. 102. Application of minimum coverage requirements with respect to 
              separate lines of business.
Sec. 103. Division of pension benefits upon divorce.
Sec. 104. Clarification of continued availability of remedies relating 
              to matters treated in domestic relations orders entered 
              before 1985.
Sec. 105. Entitlement of divorced spouses to railroad retirement 
              annuities independent of actual entitlement of employee.
Sec. 106. Effective dates.

 TITLE II--PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF FORMER SPOUSES TO PENSION BENEFITS 
 UNDER CERTAIN GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED RETIREMENT PROGRAMS

Sec. 201. Extension of tier II railroad retirement benefits to 
              surviving former spouses pursuant to divorce agreements.
Sec. 202. Survivor annuities for widows, widowers, and former spouses 
              of Federal employees who die before attaining age for 
              deferred annuity under civil service retirement system.
Sec. 203. Court orders relating to Federal retirement benefits for 
              former spouses of Federal employees.

               TITLE III--REFORMS RELATED TO 401(K) PLANS

Sec. 301. Requirement of annual, detailed investment reports applied to 
              certain 401(k) plans.
Sec. 302. Section 401(k) investment protection.

   TITLE IV--MODIFICATIONS OF JOINT AND SURVIVOR ANNUITY REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 401. Modifications of joint and survivor annuity requirements.

TITLE V--SPOUSAL CONSENT REQUIRED FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM SECTION 401(K) 
                                 PLANS

Sec. 501. Spousal consent required for distributions from section 
              401(k) plans.

            TITLE VI--WOMEN'S PENSION TOLL-FREE PHONE NUMBER

Sec. 601. Women's pension toll-free phone number.

            TITLE VII--PERIODIC PENSION BENEFITS STATEMENTS

Sec. 701. Periodic pension benefits statements.
                        TITLE I--PENSION REFORM

     SEC. 101. PENSION INTEGRATION RULES.

       (a) Applicability of New Integration Rules Extended to All 
     Existing Accrued Benefits.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1) 
     of section 1111 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (relating to 
     effective date of application of nondiscrimination rules to 
     integrated plans) (100 Stat. 2440), effective for plan years 
     beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) of such section 1111 shall 
     also apply to benefits attributable to plan years beginning 
     on or before December 31, 1988.
       (b) Integration Disallowed for Simplified Employee 
     Pensions.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (D) of section 408(k)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to permitted 
     disparity under rules limiting discrimination under 
     simplified employee pensions) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (C) of such section 
     408(k)(3) is amended by striking ``and except as provided in 
     subparagraph (D),''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to taxable years beginning on or 
     after January 1, 1998.
       (c) Eventual Repeal of Integration Rules.--Effective for 
     plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2004--
       (1) subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 401(a)(5) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to pension 
     integration exceptions under nondiscrimination requirements 
     for qualification) are repealed, and subparagraph (E) of such 
     section 401(a)(5) is redesignated as subparagraph (C); and
       (2) subsection (l) of section 401 of such Code (relating to 
     nondiscriminatory coordination of defined contribution plans 
     with OASDI) is repealed.

     SEC. 102. APPLICATION OF MINIMUM COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS WITH 
                   RESPECT TO SEPARATE LINES OF BUSINESS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 410 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to minimum coverage 
     requirements) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``A trust'' and inserting 
     ``In any case in which the employer with respect to a plan is 
     treated, under section 414(r), as operating separate lines of 
     business for a plan year, a trust'', and by inserting ``for 
     such plan year'' after ``requirements''; and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (7), respectively and by inserting 
     after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule where employer operates single line of 
     business.--In any case in which the employer with respect to 
     a plan is not treated, under section 414(r), as operating 
     separate lines of business for a plan year, a trust shall not 
     constitute a qualified trust under section 401(a) unless such 
     trust is designated by the employer as part of a plan which 
     benefits all employees of the employer.''.
       (b) Limitation on Line of Business Exception.--Paragraph 
     (6) of section 410(b) of such Code (as redesignated by 
     subsection (a)(2) of this section) is amended by inserting 
     ``other than paragraph (1)(A)'' after ``this subsection''.

     SEC. 103. DIVISION OF PENSION BENEFITS UPON DIVORCE.

       (a) Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 414(p) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified domestic 
     relations order defined) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Deemed domestic relations order upon divorce.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iv), a 
     domestic relations order with respect to a marriage of at 
     least 5 years duration between the participant and the former 
     spouse (including an annulment or other order of marital 
     dissolution) shall, if the former spouse, within 60 days 
     after the receipt of notice under paragraph (6)(B)(i)(II), so 
     elects, be deemed by the plan to be a domestic relations 
     order that specifies that 50 percent of the marital share of 
     the participant's accrued benefit is to be provided to such 
     former spouse.
       ``(ii) Marital share.--The marital share shall be the 
     accrued benefit of the participant under the plan as of the 
     date of the first payment under the plan (to the extent such 
     accrued benefit is vested at the date of the divorce or any 
     later date) multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which 
     is the period of participation by the participant under the 
     plan starting with the date of marriage and ending with the 
     date of divorce, and the denominator of which is the total 
     period of participation by the participant under the plan.
       ``(iii) Interpretation as qualified domestic relations 
     order.--Each plan shall establish reasonable rules for 
     determining how any such deemed domestic relations order is 
     to be interpreted under the plan so as to constitute a 
     qualified domestic relations order that satisfies paragraphs 
     (2) through (4) (and a copy of such rules shall be provided 
     to such former spouse promptly after delivery of the divorce 
     decree). Such rules--

       ``(I) may delay the effect of such an order until the 
     earlier of the date the participant is fully vested or has 
     terminated employment,
       ``(II) may allow the former spouse to be paid out 
     immediately,
       ``(III) shall permit the former spouse to be paid not later 
     than the earliest retirement age under the plan or the 
     participant's death,
       ``(IV) may require the submitter of the divorce decree to 
     present a marriage certificate or other evidence of the 
     marriage date to assist in benefit calculations, and
       ``(V) may conform to the rules applicable to qualified 
     domestic relations orders regarding form or type of benefit.

       ``(iv) Application.--This subparagraph shall not apply--

       ``(I) if the domestic relations order states that pension 
     benefits were considered by the parties and no division is 
     intended, or
       ``(II) to the extent that a qualified domestic relations 
     order issued in connection with such divorce provides 
     otherwise.''.

       (2) Notification procedures.--Section 414(p)(6) of such 
     Code (relating to plan procedures with respect to orders) is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (A), by redesignating 
     subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), and by inserting before 
     subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(A) Notice and determination by administrator.--In the 
     case of any domestic relations order received by a plan, 
     including such an order received under subparagraph (B) or 
     section 4980B(f)(6)(C)--
       ``(i) within 14 days after receipt of such order, the plan 
     administrator shall--

[[Page S1385]]

       ``(I) notify the participant and each alternate payee of 
     the receipt of such order and the plan's procedures for 
     determining the qualified status of domestic relation orders, 
     and
       ``(II) notify the former spouse of such former spouse's 
     rights under paragraph (1)(C), and

       ``(ii) within a reasonable period after receipt of such 
     order, the plan administrator shall determine whether such 
     order is a qualified domestic relations order and notify the 
     participant and each alternate payee of such determination.
       ``(B) Notification of plan administrator.--In the case of a 
     domestic relations order which is not a qualified domestic 
     relations order, each plan--
       ``(i) shall require that each participant is responsible 
     for notifying the plan administrator of the occurrence of a 
     divorce of the participant from the former spouse and for 
     delivery to the plan administrator of the domestic relations 
     order along with the information required by paragraph (2)(A) 
     within 60 days after the date of the divorce, and
       ``(ii) shall allow a former spouse to so notify the plan 
     administrator and deliver to the plan administrator the 
     domestic relations order within 60 days after the date of the 
     divorce.''.
       (b) Amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act of 1974.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (d)(3)(B) of section 206 of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1056) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``this paragraph--'' and inserting ``this 
     paragraph:'',
       (B) in clause (i)--
       (i) by striking ``the term'' and inserting ``The term'', 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``met, and'' and inserting ``met.'',
       (C) in clause (ii), by striking ``the term'' and inserting 
     ``The term'', and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii)(I) Except as provided on subclause (IV), a domestic 
     relations order with respect to a marriage of at least 5 
     years duration between the participant and the former spouse 
     (including an annulment or other order of marital 
     dissolution) shall, if the former spouse, within 60 days 
     after the receipt of notice under subparagraph 
     (G)(ii)(I)(bb), so elects, be deemed by the plan to be a 
     domestic relations order that specifies that 50 percent of 
     the marital share of the participant's accrued benefit is to 
     be provided to such former spouse.
       ``(II) The marital share shall be the accrued benefit of 
     the participant under the plan as of the date of the first 
     payment under the plan (to the extent such accrued benefit is 
     vested at the date of the divorce or any later date) 
     multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the 
     period of participation by the participant under the plan 
     starting with the date of marriage and ending with the date 
     of divorce, and the denominator of which is the total period 
     of participation by the participant under the plan.
       ``(III) Each plan shall establish reasonable rules for 
     determining how any such deemed domestic relations order is 
     to be interpreted under the plan so as to constitute a 
     qualified domestic relations order that satisfies 
     subparagraphs (C) through (E) (and a copy of such rules shall 
     be provided to such former spouse promptly after delivery of 
     the divorce decree). Such rules--
       ``(aa) may delay the effect of such an order until the 
     earlier of the date the participant is fully vested or has 
     terminated employment,
       ``(bb) may allow the former spouse to be paid out 
     immediately,
       ``(cc) shall permit the spouse to be paid not later than 
     the earliest retirement age under the plan or the 
     participant's death,
       ``(dd) may require the submitter of the divorce decree to 
     present a marriage certificate or other evidence of the 
     marriage date to assist in benefit calculations, and
       ``(ee) may conform to the rules applicable to qualified 
     domestic relations orders regarding form or type of benefit.
       ``(IV) This clause shall not apply--
       ``(aa) if the domestic relations order states that pension 
     benefits were considered by the parties and no division is 
     intended, or
       ``(bb) to the extent that a qualified domestic relations 
     order issued in connection with such divorce provides 
     otherwise.''.
       (2) Notification procedures.--Section 206(d)(3)(G) of such 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3)(G)) is amended by striking all 
     matter before clause (ii), by redesignating clause (ii) as 
     clause (iii), and by inserting before clause (iii) (as so 
     redesignated) the following:
       ``(G)(i) In the case of any domestic relations order 
     received by a plan, including such an order received under 
     clause (ii) or section 606(a)(3)--
       ``(I) within 14 days after receipt of such order, the plan 
     administrator shall--
       ``(aa) notify the participant and each alternate payee of 
     the receipt of such order and the plan's procedures for 
     determining the qualified status of domestic relation orders, 
     and
       ``(bb) notify the former spouse of such former spouse's 
     rights under subparagraph (B)(iii), and
       ``(II) within a reasonable period after receipt of such 
     order, the plan administrator shall determine whether such 
     order is a qualified domestic relations order and notify the 
     participant and each alternate payee of such determination.
       ``(ii) In the case of a domestic relations order which is 
     not a qualified domestic relations order, each plan--
       ``(I) shall require that each participant is responsible 
     for notifying the plan administrator of the occurrence of a 
     divorce of the participant from the former spouse and for 
     delivery to the plan administrator of the domestic relations 
     order along with the information required by subparagraph 
     (C)(i) within 60 days after the date of the divorce, and
       ``(II) shall allow a former spouse to so notify the plan 
     administrator and deliver to the plan administrator the 
     domestic relations order within 60 days after the date of the 
     divorce.''.

     SEC. 104. CLARIFICATION OF CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF REMEDIES 
                   RELATING TO MATTERS TREATED IN DOMESTIC 
                   RELATIONS ORDERS ENTERED BEFORE 1985.

       (a) In General.--In any case in which--
       (1) under a prior domestic relations order entered before 
     January 1, 1985, in an action for divorce--
       (A) the right of a spouse under a pension plan to an 
     accrued benefit under such plan was not divided between 
     spouses,
       (B) any right of a spouse with respect to such an accrued 
     benefit was waived without the informed consent of such 
     spouse, or
       (C) the right of a spouse as a participant under a pension 
     plan to an accrued benefit under such plan was divided so 
     that the other spouse received less than such other spouse's 
     pro rata share of the accrued benefit under the plan, or
       (2) a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any 
     further action is appropriate with respect to any matter to 
     which a prior domestic relations order entered before such 
     date applies,

     nothing in the provisions of section 104, 204, or 303 of the 
     Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-397) or the 
     amendments made thereby shall be construed to require or 
     permit the treatment, for purposes of such provisions, of a 
     domestic relations order, which is entered on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and which supersedes, 
     amends the terms of, or otherwise affects such prior domestic 
     relations order, as other than a qualified domestic relations 
     order solely because such prior domestic relations order was 
     entered before January 1, 1985.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) In general.--Terms used in this section which are 
     defined in section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002) shall have the meanings 
     provided such terms by such section.
       (2) Pro rata share.--The term ``pro rata share'' of a 
     spouse means, in connection with an accrued benefit under a 
     pension plan, 50 percent of the product derived by 
     multiplying--
       (A) the actuarial present value of the accrued benefit, by
       (B) a fraction--
       (i) the numerator of which is the period of time, during 
     the marriage between the spouse and the participant in the 
     plan, which constitutes creditable service by the participant 
     under the plan, and
       (ii) the denominator of which is the total period of time 
     which constitutes creditable service by the participant under 
     the plan.
       (3) Plan.--All pension plans in which a person has been a 
     participant shall be treated as one plan with respect to such 
     person.

     SEC. 105. ENTITLEMENT OF DIVORCED SPOUSES TO RAILROAD 
                   RETIREMENT ANNUITIES INDEPENDENT OF ACTUAL 
                   ENTITLEMENT OF EMPLOYEE.

       Section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 
     231a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(4)(i), by striking ``(A) is entitled 
     to an annuity under subsection (a)(1) and (B)''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(5), by striking ``or divorced wife'' 
     the second place it appears.

     SEC. 106. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     amendments made by this title, other than section 101, shall 
     apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after 
     January 1, 1998, and the amendments made by section 103 shall 
     apply only with respect to divorces becoming final in such 
     plan years.
       (b) Special Rule for Collectively Bargained Plans.--In the 
     case of a plan maintained pursuant to 1 or more collective 
     bargaining agreements between employee representatives and 1 
     or more employers ratified on or before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, subsection (a) shall be applied to 
     benefits pursuant to, and individuals covered by, any such 
     agreement by substituting for ``January 1, 1998'' the date of 
     the commencement of the first plan year beginning on or after 
     the earlier of--
       (1) the later of--
       (A) January 1, 1999, or
       (B) the date on which the last of such collective 
     bargaining agreements terminates (determined without regard 
     to any extension thereof after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act), or
       (2) January 1, 2000.
       (c) Plan Amendments.--If any amendment made by this title 
     requires an amendment to any plan, such plan amendment shall 
     not be required to be made before the first plan year 
     beginning on or after January 1, 2000, if--
       (1) during the period after such amendment made by this 
     title takes effect and before such first plan year, the plan 
     is operated in accordance with the requirements of such 
     amendment made by this title, and
       (2) such plan amendment applies retroactively to the period 
     after such amendment

[[Page S1386]]

     made by this title takes effect and such first plan year.

     A plan shall not be treated as failing to provide definitely 
     determinable benefits or contributions, or to be operated in 
     accordance with the provisions of the plan, merely because it 
     operates in accordance with this subsection.
 TITLE II--PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF FORMER SPOUSES TO PENSION BENEFITS 
 UNDER CERTAIN GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED RETIREMENT PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF TIER II RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS 
                   TO SURVIVING FORMER SPOUSES PURSUANT TO DIVORCE 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Railroad Retirement Act 
     of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231d) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     payment of any portion of an annuity computed under section 
     3(b) to a surviving former spouse in accordance with a court 
     decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation or the 
     terms of any court-approved property settlement incident to 
     any such court decree shall not be terminated upon the death 
     of the individual who performed the service with respect to 
     which such annuity is so computed unless such termination is 
     otherwise required by the terms of such court decree.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 202. SURVIVOR ANNUITIES FOR WIDOWS, WIDOWERS, AND FORMER 
                   SPOUSES OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO DIE BEFORE 
                   ATTAINING AGE FOR DEFERRED ANNUITY UNDER CIVIL 
                   SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

       (a) Benefits for Widow or Widower.--Section 8341(f) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by--
       (A) by inserting ``a former employee separated from the 
     service with title to deferred annuity from the Fund dies 
     before having established a valid claim for annuity and is 
     survived by a spouse, or if'' before ``a Member''; and
       (B) by inserting ``of such former employee or Member'' 
     after ``the surviving spouse'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``former employee or'' before ``Member 
     commencing''; and
       (B) by inserting ``former employee or'' before ``Member 
     dies''; and
       (3) in the undesignated sentence following paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting 
     ``former employee or'' before ``Member''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``former employee or'' 
     before ``Member''.
       (b) Benefits for Former Spouse.--Section 8341(h) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by adding after the first sentence 
     ``Subject to paragraphs (2) through (5) of this subsection, a 
     former spouse of a former employee who dies after having 
     separated from the service with title to a deferred annuity 
     under section 8338(a) but before having established a valid 
     claim for annuity is entitled to a survivor annuity under 
     this subsection, if and to the extent expressly provided for 
     in an election under section 8339(j)(3) of this title, or in 
     the terms of any decree of divorce or annulment or any court 
     order or court-approved property settlement agreement 
     incident to such decree.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(ii) by striking ``or annuitant,'' 
     and inserting ``annuitant, or former employee''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(iii) by inserting ``former employee 
     or'' before ``Member''.
       (c) Protection of Survivor Benefit Rights.--Section 
     8339(j)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting at the end the following:
       ``The Office shall provide by regulation for the 
     application of this subsection to the widow, widower, or 
     surviving former spouse of a former employee who dies after 
     having separated from the service with title to a deferred 
     annuity under section 8338(a) but before having established a 
     valid claim for annuity.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply only in the case of a former employee who 
     dies on or after such date.

     SEC. 203. COURT ORDERS RELATING TO FEDERAL RETIREMENT 
                   BENEFITS FOR FORMER SPOUSES OF FEDERAL 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8345(j) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Payment to a person under a court decree, court 
     order, property settlement, or similar process referred to 
     under paragraph (1) shall include payment to a former spouse 
     of the employee, Member, or annuitant.''.
       (2) Lump-sum benefits.--Section 8342 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c) by striking ``Lump-sum benefits'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to subsection (j), lump-sum benefits''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (j)(1) by striking ``the lump-sum credit 
     under subsection (a) of this section'' and inserting ``any 
     lump-sum credit or lump-sum benefit under this section''.
       (b) Federal Employees Retirement System.--Section 8467 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Payment to a person under a court decree, court 
     order, property settlement, or similar process referred to 
     under subsection (a) shall include payment to a former spouse 
     of the employee, Member, or annuitant.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
               TITLE III--REFORMS RELATED TO 401(K) PLANS

     SEC. 301. REQUIREMENT OF ANNUAL, DETAILED INVESTMENT REPORTS 
                   APPLIED TO CERTAIN 401(K) PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 104(b)(3) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1024(b)(3)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B)(i) If a plan includes a qualified cash or deferred 
     arrangement (as defined in section 401(k)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986) and is maintained by an employer with 
     less than 100 participants, the administrators shall furnish 
     to each participant and to each beneficiary receiving 
     benefits under the plan an annual investment report detailing 
     such information as the Secretary by regulation shall 
     require.
       ``(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply with respect to any 
     participant described in section 404(c).''.
       (b) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, in prescribing 
     regulations required under section 104(b)(3)(B)(i) of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1023(b)(3)(B)(i)), as added by subsection (a), shall consider 
     including in the information required in an annual investment 
     report the following:
       (A) Total plan assets and liabilities as of the beginning 
     and ending of the plan year.
       (B) Plan income and expenses and contributions made and 
     benefits paid for the plan year.
       (C) Any transaction between the plan and the employer, any 
     fiduciary, or any 10-percent owner during the plan year, 
     including the acquisition of any employer security or 
     employer real property.
       (D) Any noncash contributions made to or purchases of 
     nonpublicly traded securities made by the plan during the 
     plan year without an appraisal by an independent third party.
       (2) Electronic transfer.--The Secretary of Labor in 
     prescribing such regulations shall also make provision for 
     the electronic transfer of the required annual investment 
     report by a plan administrator to plan participants and 
     beneficiaries.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to plan years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 302. SECTION 401(K) INVESTMENT PROTECTION.

       (a) Limitations on Investment in Employer Securities and 
     Employer Real Property by Cash or Deferred Arrangements.--
     Paragraph (3) of section 407(d) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1107(d)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) The term `eligible individual account plan' does not 
     include that portion of an individual account plan that 
     consists of elective deferrals (as defined in section 
     402(g)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) pursuant to a 
     qualified cash or deferred arrangement as defined in section 
     401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and earnings 
     thereon), if such elective deferrals (or earnings thereon) 
     are required to be invested in qualifying employer securities 
     or qualifying employer real property or both pursuant to the 
     documents and instruments governing the plan or at the 
     direction of a person other than the participant (or the 
     participant's beneficiary) on whose behalf such elective 
     deferrals are made to the plan. For the purposes of 
     subsection (a), such portion shall be treated as a separate 
     plan. This subparagraph shall not apply to an individual 
     account plan if the fair market value of the assets of all 
     individual account plans maintained by the employer equals 
     not more than 10 percent of the fair market value of the 
     assets of all pension plans maintained by the employer.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Transition rule for plans holding excess securities or 
     property.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of a plan which on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, has holdings of employer 
     securities and employer real property (as defined in section 
     407(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
     (29 U.S.C. 1107(d)) in excess of the amount specified in such 
     section 407, the amendment made by this section applies to 
     any acquisition of such securities and property on or after 
     such date, but does not apply to the specific holdings which 
     constitute such excess during the period of such excess.

[[Page S1387]]

       (B) Special rule for certain acquisitions.--Employer 
     securities and employer real property acquired pursuant to a 
     binding written contract to acquire such securities and real 
     property entered into and in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, shall be treated as acquired 
     immediately before such date.
   TITLE IV--MODIFICATIONS OF JOINT AND SURVIVOR ANNUITY REQUIREMENTS

     SEC. 401. MODIFICATIONS OF JOINT AND SURVIVOR ANNUITY 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Amendments to ERISA.--
       (1) Amount of annuity.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 205(a) of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1055(a)) is amended by inserting ``or, at the election of the 
     participant, shall be provided in the form of a qualified 
     joint and \2/3\ survivor annuity'' after ``survivor 
     annuity,''.
       (B) Definition.--Subsection (d) of section 205 of such Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 1055) is amended--
       (i) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively,
       (ii) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(d)'', and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) For purposes of this section, the term ``qualified 
     joint and \2/3\ survivor annuity'' means an annuity--
       ``(A) for the participant while both the participant and 
     the spouse are alive with a survivor annuity for the life of 
     surviving individual (either the participant or the spouse) 
     equal to 67 percent of the amount of the annuity which is 
     payable to the participant while both the participant and the 
     spouse are alive,
       ``(B) which is the actuarial equivalent of a single annuity 
     for the life of the participant, and
       ``(C) which, for all other purposes of this Act, is treated 
     as a qualified joint and survivor annuity.''.
       (2) Illustration requirement.--Clause (i) of section 
     205(c)(3)(A) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1055(c)(3)(A)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(i) the terms and conditions of each qualified joint and 
     survivor annuity and qualified joint and \2/3\ survivor 
     annuity offered, accompanied by an illustration of the 
     benefits under each such annuity for the particular 
     participant and spouse and an acknowledgement form to be 
     signed by the participant and the spouse that they have read 
     and considered the illustration before any form of retirement 
     benefit is chosen,''.
       (b) Amendments to Internal Revenue Code.--
       (1) Amount of annuity.--
       (A) In general.--Clause (i) of section 401(a)(11)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirement of 
     joint and survivor annuity and preretirement survivor 
     annuity) is amended by inserting ``or, at the election of the 
     participant, shall be provided in the form of a qualified 
     joint and \2/3\ survivor annuity'' after ``survivor 
     annuity,''.
       (B) Definition.--Section 417 of such Code (relating to 
     definitions and special rules for purposes of minimum 
     survivor annuity requirements) is amended by redesignating 
     subsection (f) as subsection (g) and by inserting after 
     subsection (e) the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Definition of Qualified Joint and \2/3\ Survivor 
     Annuity.--For purposes of this section and section 
     401(a)(11), the term ``qualified joint and \2/3\ survivor 
     annuity'' means an annuity--
       ``(1) for the participant while both the participant and 
     the spouse are alive with a survivor annuity for the life of 
     surviving individual (either the participant or the spouse) 
     equal to 67 percent of the amount of the annuity which is 
     payable to the participant while both the participant and the 
     spouse are alive,
       ``(2) which is the actuarial equivalent of a single annuity 
     for the life of the participant, and
       ``(3) which, for all other purposes of this title, is 
     treated as a qualified joint and survivor annuity.''.
       (2) Illustration requirement.--Clause (i) of section 
     417(a)(3)(A) of such Code (relating to explanation of joint 
     and survivor annuity) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) the terms and conditions of each qualified joint and 
     survivor annuity and qualified joint and \2/3\ survivor 
     annuity offered, accompanied by an illustration of the 
     benefits under each such annuity for the particular 
     participant and spouse and an acknowledgement form to be 
     signed by the participant and the spouse that they have read 
     and considered the illustration before any form of retirement 
     benefit is chosen,''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 1998.
       (2) Special rule for collectively bargained plans.--In the 
     case of a plan maintained pursuant to 1 or more collective 
     bargaining agreements between employee representatives and 1 
     or more employers ratified on or before the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to the first plan year beginning on or after the earlier of--
       (A) the later of--
       (i) January 1, 1999, or
       (ii) the date on which the last of such collective 
     bargaining agreements terminates (determined without regard 
     to any extension thereof after the date of enactment of this 
     Act), or
       (B) January 1, 2000.
       (3) Plan amendments.--If any amendment made by this section 
     requires an amendment to any plan, such plan amendment shall 
     not be required to be made before the first plan year 
     beginning on or after January 1, 2000, if--
       (A) during the period after such amendment made by this 
     section takes effect and before such first plan year, the 
     plan is operated in accordance with the requirements of such 
     amendment made by this section, and
       (B) such plan amendment applies retroactively to the period 
     after such amendment made by this section takes effect and 
     such first plan year.

     A plan shall not be treated as failing to provide definitely 
     determinable benefits or contributions, or to be operated in 
     accordance with the provisions of the plan, merely because it 
     operates in accordance with this paragraph.
TITLE V--SPOUSAL CONSENT REQUIRED FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM SECTION 401(k) 
                                 PLANS

     SEC. 501. SPOUSAL CONSENT REQUIRED FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM 
                   SECTION 401(K) PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 401(k) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified cash or 
     deferred arrangement) is amended by striking ``and'' at the 
     end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at 
     the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) which provides that no distribution may be made 
     unless--
       ``(i) the spouse of the employee (if any) consents in 
     writing (during the 90-day period ending on the date of the 
     distribution) to such distribution, and
       ``(ii) requirements comparable to the requirements of 
     section 417(a)(2) are met with respect to such consent.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to distributions in plan years beginning on or 
     after January 1, 1998.
            TITLE VI--WOMEN'S PENSION TOLL-FREE PHONE NUMBER

     SEC. 601. WOMEN'S PENSION TOLL-FREE PHONE NUMBER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Labor shall contract with 
     an independent organization to create a women's pension toll-
     free telephone number and contact to serve as--
       (1) a resource for women on pension questions and issues;
       (2) a source for referrals to appropriate agencies; and
       (3) a source for printed information.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $500,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     1998, 1998, 2000, and 2001 to carry out subsection (a).
            TITLE VII--PERIODIC PENSION BENEFITS STATEMENTS

     SEC. 701. PERIODIC PENSION BENEFITS STATEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 105 of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1025) is amended by striking ``shall furnish to any plan 
     participant or beneficiary who so requests in writing,'' and 
     inserting ``shall furnish at least once every 3 years, in the 
     case of a defined benefit plan, and annually, in the case of 
     a defined contribution plan, to each plan participant, and 
     shall furnish to any plan participant or beneficiary who so 
     requests,''.
       (b) Rule for Multiemployer Plans.--Subsection (d) of 
     section 105 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
     1974 (29 U.S.C. 1025) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Each administrator of a plan to which more than 1 
     unaffiliated employer is required to contribute shall furnish 
     to any plan participant or beneficiary who so requests in 
     writing, a statement described in subsection (a).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to plan years beginning after the earlier of--
       (1) the date of issuance by the Secretary of Labor of 
     regulations providing guidance for simplifying defined 
     benefit plan calculations with respect to the information 
     required under section 105 of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1025), or
       (2) December 31, 1997.
                                  ____


          Comprehensive Women's Pension Protection Act of 1997

                       Section-by-Section Summary


                        section 101--integration

       Problem--Social Security integration is a little known, but 
     potentially devastating mechanism whereby employers can 
     reduce a portion of employer-provided pension benefits by the 
     amount of Social Security to which an employee is entitled. 
     The Tax Reform Act of 1986 limited integration so as to 
     guarantee a minimum level of benefits, but the formula only 
     applied to benefits accrued in plan years beginning after 
     December 31, 1998. Low wage workers are disproportionately 
     affected by integration and are often left with minimal 
     benefits.
       Solution--Apply the integration limitations of Tax Reform 
     Act of 1986 to all plan years prior to 1988, thereby 
     minimizing integration for low and moderate wage workers. In 
     addition, eliminate integration entirely for plan years 
     beginning on or after January 1, 2004. The lag between 
     enactment and 2004 is designed to be a transition period for 
     employers. No integration would be permissible for Simplied 
     Employee Pensions for taxable years beginning after January 
     1, 1998.

[[Page S1388]]

section 102--application of minimum coverage requirements with Respect 
                     to separate lines of business

       Problem--Current law allows companies with several lines of 
     business to deny a substantial percentage of employees 
     pension coverage. The employees denied coverage are 
     disproportionately low-wage workers.
       Solution--Requires that all employees within a single line 
     of business be provided pension coverage to the extent the 
     employer provides coverage and the employee meets other 
     statutory requirements such as minimum age and hours.


         section 103--division of pension benefits upon divorce

       Problem--Pension assets are often overlooked in divorce 
     even though they can be a couple's most valuable asset.
       Solution--Using COBRA as a model for the process, provide 
     for an automatic division of defined benefit pension benefits 
     earned during the marriage upon divorce, provided that the 
     couple has been married for five years. The employee would 
     notify his or her employer of a divorce. The employer would 
     then send a letter to the ex-spouse informing him or her that 
     he or she may be entitled to half of the pension earned while 
     the couple was married. The ex-spouse would then have 60 
     days, as under COBRA, to contact the employer and determine 
     eligibility. If a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) 
     dealt with the pension benefits, then this provision would 
     not apply.


   section 104--clarification of continued availability of remedies 
 relating to matters treated in domestic relations orders entered into 
                              before 1985

       Problem--In response to both the greater propensity of 
     women to spend their retirement years in poverty and the fact 
     that women were much less likely to earn private pension 
     rights based on their own work history, the Retirement Equity 
     Act of 1984 gave the wife the right to a share of her 
     husband's pension assets in the case of divorce. This law 
     only applied to divorces entered into after January 1, 1985.
       Solution--Where a divorce occurred prior to 1985, allow the 
     Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to be reopened to 
     provide for the division of pension assets pursuant to a 
     court order.


  section 105--entitlement of divorced spouses to railroad retirement 
        annuities independent of actual entitlement of employee

       Problem--Under the Railroad Retirement System a divorced 
     wife is automatically entitled to 50% of her husband's 
     pension under Tier I benefits as long as four conditions are 
     met: 1) the divorced wife and her husband must both be at 
     least 62 years old; 2) the couple must have been married for 
     at least 10 consecutive years; 3) she must not have remarried 
     when she applies; and 4) her former husband must have started 
     collecting his own railroad retirement benefits. There have 
     been situations where a former husband has delayed collection 
     of benefits so as to deny the former wife benefits.
       Solution--Eliminate the requirement that the former husband 
     has started collecting his own railroad retirement benefits.


   section 201--extension of tier ii railroad retirement benefits to 
        surviving former spouses pursuant to divorce agreements

       Problem--The Tier I benefits under the Railroad Retirement 
     Board take the place of social security. The Tier II benefits 
     take the place of a private pension. Under current law, a 
     divorced widow loses any court ordered Tier II benefits she 
     may have been receiving while her ex-husband was alive, 
     leaving her with only a Tier I annuity.
       Solution--All payment of a Tier II survivor annuity after 
     divorce.


 section 202--court orders relating to federal retirement benefits for 
                  former spouses of federal employees

       Problem--Currently, under CSRS, if the husband dies after 
     leaving the government (either before or after retirement 
     age) and before starting to collect retirement benefits, no 
     retirement or survivor benefits are payable to the spouse or 
     former spouse.
       Solution--Make widow or divorced widow benefits payable no 
     matter when the ex-husband dies or starts collecting his 
     benefits.


   section 203--survivor annuities for widows, widowers, and former 
spouses of federal employees who die before attaining age for deferred 
                           annuity under csrs

       Problem--In the case of a husband dying before collecting 
     benefits, his contributions to the Civil Service Retirement 
     System are paid to the person named as the ``beneficiary.'' 
     The employee may name anyone as the beneficiary. A divorce 
     court cannot order him to name his former spouse as the 
     beneficiary to receive a refund of contributions upon his 
     death, even if she was to receive a portion of his pension.
       Solution--Authorize courts to order the ex-husband to name 
     his former wife as the beneficiary of all or a portion of any 
     refunded contributions.


 section 301--small 401(k) plans required to provide annual investment 
                        reports to participants

       Problem--Current law requires that pension plans file an 
     annual detailed investment report with the Treasury 
     Department and make it available to any participant upon 
     request. Pension plans, including 401(k)s, with fewer than 
     100 participants and beneficiaries are not required to file 
     or make detailed investment reports available to 
     participants. 401(k)s, unlike traditional pension plans, do 
     not have the plan sponsor guaranteeing their pension benefits 
     nor do they have PBGC pension insurance. Consequently small 
     401(k) participants bear the investment risks, but are not 
     told what the investments are.
       Solution--The Secretary of Labor must issue regulations 
     requiring small 401(k) plans to provide each participant with 
     an annual investment report. The details of the report are 
     left to the Secretary.


           section 302--section 401(k) investment protection

       Problem--Under federal law, a traditional defined benefit 
     pension plan may not invest more than 10 percent of its 
     assets in the company sponsoring the plan. The purpose of the 
     limitation is to protect employees from losing their jobs and 
     pensions at the same time. The 10 percent limitation does not 
     apply to 401(k) plans, despite their having become the 
     predominant form of pension plan, enrolling 23 million 
     employees and investing more than $675 billion.
       Solution--Apply the 10 percent limit to employee 
     contributions to 401(k) plans--unless the participants, not 
     the company sponsoring the plan, make the investment 
     decisions.


 section 401--modifications of joint and survivor annuity requirements

       Problem--Under current federal law, traditional defined 
     benefit pension plans can offer unequal survivor benefit 
     options. That option can pay the surviving spouse (most often 
     the wife) only half the survivor's benefit paid to the spouse 
     who participated in the plan. Plans may, but are not 
     required, to offer more equitable options. Current law also 
     requires that pension plans disclose retirement benefit 
     options to one spouse, the spouse who participated in the 
     plan. This leaves the other spouse (usually the wife) 
     uninformed about an irrevocable decision that affects her 
     income for the rest of her life.
       Solution--Require that pension plans offer an additional 
     option that provides either surviving spouse with two-thirds 
     of the benefit received while both were alive. Require that 
     both spouses be given a illustration of benefits before any 
     benefit can be chosen.


 Section 501--Spousal Consent Required for Distributions from Section 
                              401(k) Plans

       Problem--Under current federal law, in order for a plan 
     participant to take a lump sum distribution from a defined 
     benefit plan, the participant must have the consent of his or 
     her spouse. This is not true of a 401(k) plan. This means 
     that a participant can, at any time, drain his or her pension 
     plan and leave the spouse with no access to retirement 
     savings.
       Solution--Require that 401(k) plans be covered by the same 
     spousal consent protections as defined benefit plans when it 
     comes to lump-sum distributions.


          Section 601--Women's Pension Toll-free Phone Number

       Problem--One of the key obstacles to women's pension 
     security is lack of information. Too many women do not know 
     whether or not they are eligible for retirement income, the 
     implications of the decisions they are asked to make 
     regarding divorce and survivor benefits, the steps they 
     should take to provide for a secure retirement, or even how 
     to gather the necessary information.
       Solution--Create a women's pension hotline that can provide 
     basic information to women regarding pension law and their 
     options under that law.


           Section 701--Periodic Pension Benefits Statements

       Problem--Under federal law, pension plans are required to 
     provide a benefits statement annually, upon request by the 
     employee. Many employees, especially young employees, do not 
     consider pension income or do not feel secure requesting 
     information from their employer. Thus, many employees do not 
     know the amount of their accrued benefits, or payout upon 
     retirement. In addition, there are numerous instances of 
     defined contribution plans misappropriating money by failing 
     to place funds in the employee's account. Unless an employee 
     asks for a statement, he or she does not have a clear idea of 
     the state of his or her retirement security, or if the funds 
     are being properly placed.
       Solution--Require that 401(k) plans provide benefits 
     statements automatically at least once a year. For defined 
     benefit plans, due to the more complicated calculations 
     required to produce an accurate future benefits statement be 
     automatically provided every three years.
                                 ______
                                 
       By Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
     Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Levin, 
     Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Wellstone):

  S. 322. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to 
repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact provision; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


       THE NORTHEAST INTERSTATE DAIRY COMPACT REPEAL ACT OF 1997

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from 
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to introduce the Dairy Fairness Act. In 
short, this bill repeals the provision in the 1996 farm bill creating 
the so-called Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.
  Senator Feingold and I offer this legislation with 10 other 
colleagues,

[[Page S1389]]

both Democrats and Republicans, for two basic reasons: Fair process and 
sound policy. The compact sets a very dangerous precedent by violating 
both. Let me be specific, first regarding process.
  Back in the 103d Congress--to give history--the Senate Judiciary 
Committee held a business meeting to consider the compact, without the 
benefit of a prior public hearing, and reported the bill to the floor. 
The full Senate never considered it. A House Judiciary subcommittee 
held a hearing on the proposal, but eventually sent it to full 
committee without a recommendation because the vote was evenly divided 
for and against the compact. The bill died in full committee. It is 
important to note that the official Department of Agriculture witness 
at the House hearing stated the administration had no position and 
twice stated that, we believe this is a matter that warrants further 
review and consideration.
  In the 104th Congress, the compact was the subject of not one single 
hearing in either the Judiciary Committee or the Agriculture Committee 
of the Senate. Nor was it the topic of a single hearing in counterpart 
committees in the House. The importance of all this is that veteran 
lawmakers knew, at best, that the Department of Agriculture was not 
sure about the compact. And, 11 freshmen senators and 87 House freshmen 
knew little-to-nothing about the compact because of the lack of any 
public record.
  Despite this, the compact was exhumed from its crypt and found its 
way into the Senate's version of the farm bill. Fortunately, many of my 
colleagues and I led a successful bipartisan effort to strip the 
compact from the farm bill. The House had never included the compact in 
its version.
  Now, here is the kicker. The compact never had ample consideration in 
the 103d Congress. It never had a single hearing in the 104th. The 
compact was not included in the House version of the farm bill. And, it 
was stripped out of the Senate's version. But the compact came back to 
life in conference. It was included in the 1996 farm bill and, due to 
time constraints on passage of farm legislation, as we know, the 
compact became law.
  Now, my purpose in reciting this litany of events is not to disparage 
the respective committees for not considering the compact. They have 
their priorities. Nor do I mean to disparage those in the conference 
committee for agreeing to the compact.
  They worked hard to present a timely and--aside from the compact--
excellent farm bill for farmers who were already making planting 
decisions, if not already planting at the time the bill was passed.
  Now my point is best summarized by the late Justice Oliver Wendell 
Holmes who said that ``the best test of truth is the power of the 
thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and 
that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes can be carried 
out.''
  I would like to think that my colleagues in what's been called the 
most deliberative body in the world would want nothing less for the 
compact or any other proposal. Unfortunately, the compact never faced 
the test and, as a consequence it has never been accepted.
  Mr. President, there is no doubt about it, the compact circumvented a 
very important process.
  In regard to policy, the scenario does not improve. In a nutshell, 
the compact would permit a six-State compact commission to fix prices 
for that region's dairy producers. Yet, simple economics tells us that 
the higher minimum price set by the commission will result in even more 
milk production in the six-State region--which is great news for 
producers in those six States. But the overproduction will undoubtedly 
further depress producer income for every other region of the country.
  Unfortunately, as many of my colleagues know, producer income 
nationally is already so depressed that the Secretary announced some 
emergency steps to correct the problem including the purchase of $5 
million in cheese and advanced cheese purchases for the School Lunch 
Program. In the Midwest, it's reported to be so bad that small- and 
mid-sized producers aren't even recovering the cost of production. But 
despite all this, the compact will drive national dairy prices down 
even further in 44 States in order to boost producer income in 6, even 
though the 6 have traditionally received higher class I prices in the 
first place.
  The compact is patently unfair. The inequity it creates for dairy 
farmers in 44 States is exactly the problem the Framers of the 
Constitution thought Congress would protect against in providing us 
with the power to regulate commerce among the States.
  Now, I understand that even more States are pondering the idea of a 
compact of their own. I cannot underscore how destructive this course 
is: using government-condoned, anticompetitive programs to the 
disadvantage of other domestic producers in other regions of the 
country. In an era of freer and fairer trade, I find it very troubling 
that what we don't want to do with our foreign competitors, we're now 
doing to ourselves. That's no way to encourage a national industry and 
that's no way to compete abroad.
  Of course, it is not just dairy producers who are hurt by the 
compact. According to Public Voice, a leading consumer advocacy group, 
the compact will cost New England consumers over $300 million in just 3 
years, especially affecting the region's poor, and drive up the cost of 
Federal, State, and local food nutrition programs. Indeed, the St. Paul 
Pioneer Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Boston 
Herald--whose employees as New Englanders are ostensibly served by the 
compact--have called it ``noxious,'' ``absurd,'' an ``ugly precedent,'' 
and the ``OPEC of milk.''
  The compact is being challenged in Federal court. In fact, last week, 
the court issued an order allowing the Secretary of Agriculture 45 days 
to bolster his arguments for the compact before the case proceeds any 
further. But what was most telling was the tenor of the order and I'll 
offer just an excerpt. The order reads:

       As the Court tried to make plain in its December 11, 1996 
     Opinion, [the court] could not even tell whether anyone at 
     the Department of Agriculture had read all the comments in 
     the administrative record or just counted them since the only 
     expressed reason . . . for his finding of compelling public 
     interest . . . was that 95 percent of the comments . . . 
     supported the implementation of the Compact. But, a simple 
     head count will not do . . . particularly in view of the 
     numerous concerns the Secretary himself expressed [about the 
     Compact]. Those concerns, expressed in four paragraphs, 
     overshadow the four reasons, expressed in two sentences, that 
     the Secretary gave for finding a compelling public interest.

  I ask unanimous consent to have the order printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 96-
                              2027 (PLF)]

Milk Industry Foundation, plaintiff, v. Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, defendant, and Northeast Dairy Compact 
                    Commission, defendant-intervenor


                                 order

       This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for a 
     stay of proceedings in this case to allow the Secretary of 
     Agriculture 45 days to provide what defendant characterizes 
     as ``an Amplified Decision on its finding that there is 
     compelling public interest in the compact region for the 
     Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.'' Plaintiff opposes the 
     motion for a variety of reasons, while defendant-intervenor 
     supports it.
       The parties to this case are all aware that Congress placed 
     a particular condition on its consent to the Compact--that 
     the Secretary make a finding of compelling public interest. 
     As the Court tried to make plain in its December 11, 1996 
     Opinion, it could not even tell whether anyone at the 
     Department of Agriculture had read all the comments in the 
     administrative record or just counted them, since the only 
     expressed reason the secretary gave for his finding of 
     compelling public interest (other than congressional consent 
     and state approval) was that 95 percent of the comments the 
     Department received supported implementation of the Compact. 
     Opinion at 8, 24-25. But ``a simple head count will not do,'' 
     id. at 24, particularly in view of the numerous concerns the 
     Secretary himself expressed about the potential adverse 
     effects the Compact might have, concerns presumably based on 
     material in the record. Id. at 9-10, 25. ``Those concerns, 
     expressed in four paragraphs, overshadow the four reasons, 
     expressed in two sentences, that the Secretary gave for 
     finding a compelling public interest.'' Id. at 25.
       If the Secretary wants time now ``to amplify'' his 
     decision, he must make sure that the entire administrative 
     record, including the comments submitted, is thoroughly 
     reviewed and analyzed and approached from a

[[Page S1390]]

     fresh perspective. It is not open to the Secretary under this 
     Court's Opinion of December 11, 1996, to approach his task 
     with a preconceived view that a compelling public interest 
     exists. His job is not merely to cull out from the favorable 
     comments reasons to support a pre-determined decision. His 
     responsibility is to review the quality of the comments in 
     the record and to decide whether his earlier finding is 
     justified at all.
       The Court is prepared to grant the stay requested by the 
     defendant, so long as the Secretary of Agriculture and his 
     counsel understand what is required over the course of the 
     next 45 days. The Court agrees with plaintiff that if a stay 
     is granted the Secretary's responsibility is much broader 
     than he and defendant-intervenor suggest. The Secretary must 
     now be as open to reaching a finding of no public interest as 
     he is to concluding that there is one. Regardless of which 
     conclusion he reaches, he must articulate his reasons in 
     accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and the case 
     law. With the foregoing in mind, it is hereby
       Ordered that all proceedings in this case are stayed until 
     March 20, 1997, during which time the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall review the Administrative Record in this 
     case, reach a conclusion with respect to the existence of a 
     compelling public interest, and provide a reasoned 
     explanation for that decision in accordance with this Court's 
     Opinion of December 11, 1996, and today's order, it is
       Further ordered that the stay does not preclude plaintiff 
     from renewing its motion for a preliminary injunction should 
     the Compact attempt to move forward and impose higher milk 
     prices or for any other appropriate reason; it is
       Further ordered that the briefing and argument schedule set 
     forth in this Court's Order of December 11, 1996, is 
     rescinded; and it is
       Further ordered that the parties shall jointly propose 
     within ten days from the date of this Order a revised 
     briefing and argument schedule.
       So ordered.
                                                 Paul L. Friedman,
                                     United States District Judge.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, in short, a Federal judge cannot even find 
the merit behind the compact. But, despite earlier misgivings, the 
Department seems resigned to embarking on what appears to be the 
herculean task of making some sense out of the compact in order to save 
it from a court.
  Now, Mr. President, I believe this Congress has a unique opportunity 
to save an overcrowded court some time, help the Department focus its 
energies on the consolidation and reform of milk marketing orders, and 
do it all while guaranteeing New England consumers and dairy producers 
in 44 States a little fairness. We can do this by passing the Dairy 
Fairness Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  I see some of my other colleagues who have helped sponsor this 
legislation, including Senator Kohl and Senator Feingold, are on the 
floor, and I yield some time to them if they would like to add their 
support to this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my continued opposition to 
the Northeast Dairy Compact. As I have said many times in the past, it 
does not make me happy to oppose efforts by dairy farmers in other 
parts of the country to reap a higher price for their milk. For years, 
I have worked with many of the proponents of the compact in efforts to 
help farmers get a better price for their product. But in the past, 
these efforts have been national. And I believe we should continue with 
national efforts to bring farmers together, instead of regional efforts 
that pit farmer against farmer.
  The Northeast Compact is an effort by six Northeastern States to 
establish a regional cartel, to guarantee the farmers in that region 
alone get a higher price for their milk, to the detriment of the 
consumers in the Northeast, and farmers in other parts of the country, 
including Wisconsin. In my view, it is the exact opposite of what we 
should be doing; which is establishing a fair and reasonable national 
dairy policy that gives farmers in all regions an opportunity to 
prosper, free of structural impediments from the Federal Government.
  In my region of the country, the discriminatory nature of the current 
milk pricing system has contributed to a dangerous erosion of our farm 
economy. In Wisconsin alone, we have lost 12,000 dairy farms in the 
last 10 years. And I believe that the Northeast Compact will worsen the 
regional inequities that exist today, and be detrimental to farmers in 
regions outside the Northeast.
  To those outside the upper Midwest, who have not witnessed the 
destruction caused by the current milk pricing system, it may be 
difficult to understand how pricing schemes in one region could affect 
other regions of the country. But we cannot ignore that dairy markets 
are national, and any effort to artificially boost prices in one region 
alone will have effects throughout the national system. History has 
proven that point time and time again, and unfortunately, Wisconsin is 
the proving ground of that destruction.
  And even prior to its implementation, the evidence is beginning to 
build proving that the Northeast Dairy Compact sets a dangerous 
precedent in U.S. economic policy. Recently, the secretaries of 
agriculture from 15 southeastern States announced that they would be 
seeking to establish a Southeastern Dairy Compact, citing the precedent 
established by the Northeast Compact. So we must ask ourselves, where 
does it stop? A 6-State dairy cartel in the Northeast, a 15-State dairy 
cartel in the Southeast. This disintegration of our national economic 
unity does not come without cost. We may not be able to predict where 
this new regional cartel movement will stop, but it is clearly 
dangerous.
  So I join my colleagues in introducing this legislation that would 
repeal the section of the 1996 farm bill that gives the Secretary of 
Agriculture authority to approve the Northeast Compact. Whether it is 
stopped legislatively, or by the Secretary of Agriculture, to whom it 
has been returned by a Federal judge for reconsideration, I believe it 
should be stopped. And I urge my colleagues to join us in opposing this 
dangerous precedent for U.S. economic policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the junior Senator from 
Wisconsin under time controlled by the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, am pleased to rise in 
support of the legislation introduced by the Senator from Minnesota, 
and also by my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Wisconsin, 
Senator Kohl.
  I was prepared to give a longer speech but I am informed that the 
mother-in-law of the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, has passed away, 
and he is not able to be here today because of that. For that reason, I 
simply associate my remarks with the Senator from Minnesota, and the 
senior Senator from Wisconsin so we can take this debate up on another 
day when Senator Leahy is able to respond. He is very able to respond 
himself. We have a strong disagreement on this issue, but I am a great 
friend of his and I believe he is a fine Senator and prefer at this 
point to wait.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation introduced by the 
Senator from Minnesota, Senator Grams, to repeal the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact was included in 
the 1996 farm bill during conference negotiations after it had been 
struck from the Senate version of the farm bill during floor 
consideration of the farm bill early last year.
  Mr. President, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact establishes a 
commission for six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut--empowered to set minimum 
prices for fluid milk above those established under Federal Milk 
Marketing Orders. Ironically, the Federal milk marketing order system 
already provides farmers in the designated compact region with minimum 
milk prices higher than those received by most other dairy farmers 
throughout the nation. The compact not only allows the six States to 
set artificially high fluid milk prices for their producers, it also 
allows those States to keep out lower priced milk from producers in 
competing States and provides processors within the region with a 
subsidy to export their higher priced milk to noncompact States.
  Mr. President, the arguments against this type of price-fixing scheme 
are numerous: It interferes with interstate commerce by erecting 
barriers around one region of the Nation; It provides preferential 
price treatment for farmers in the Northeast at the expense of farmers 
nationally; It encourages excess milk production in one region without 
establishing effective supply control which may drive down milk prices 
for producers throughout the

[[Page S1391]]

country; It imposes higher costs on the millions of consumers in the 
Compact region; It imposes higher costs to taxpayers who pay for 
nutrition programs such as food stamps and the national school lunch 
programs which provide for milk and other dairy products in their 
programs; and as a price-fixing compact it is unprecedented in the 
history of this Nation.
  Most important to my home State of Wisconsin, Mr. President, is that 
the Northeast Dairy Compact exacerbates the inequities within the 
Federal milk marketing orders system that already discriminates against 
dairy farmers in Wisconsin and throughout the upper Midwest. Federal 
orders provide higher fluid milk prices to producers the further they 
are located from Eau Claire, WI, for markets east of the Rocky 
Mountains.
  Wisconsin farmers have complained for many years that this inherently 
discriminatory system provides other regions, such as the Northeast, 
the Southeast, and the Southwest with milk prices that encourage excess 
production in those regions. Of course, that excess production drives 
down prices throughout the Nation and results in excessive production 
of cheese, butter, and dry milk. Cheese and other manufactured dairy 
products constitute the pillar of our dairy industry in Wisconsin. 
Competition for the production and sale of these products by other 
regions spurred on by artificial incentives under milk marketing orders 
has eroded our markets for cheese and other products.
  Mr. President, my State of Wisconsin loses more than 1,000 dairy 
farms per year either through bankruptcy or attrition. The number of 
manufacturing plants has declined from 400 in 1985 to less than 230 in 
1996. These losses are due in part, to the systematic discrimination 
and market distortions created by Federal dairy policies that provide 
artificial regional advantages that cannot be justified on any rational 
economic grounds.
  Mr. President, my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams and I are 
on the floor today offering this legislation because the Northeast 
Dairy Compact reinforces the discrimination that has so damaged the 
dairy industry in our States. We have fought to change Federal milk 
marketing orders and we will fight to prevent the Northeast Dairy 
Compact from ever going into effect.
  Less damaging but more insulting to Wisconsin dairy farmers than the 
increase in regional inequities is the inherent assumption of the 
compact proponents that either the financial distress of Northeast 
dairy farmers is worse than that experienced by farmers in other 
regions or that farmers in the Northeast are more important than 
farmers elsewhere. Either assumption is ludicrous.
  As all Senators are aware, when milk prices plummet, as they did last 
fall by 26 percent in 3 months, the financial pain is felt by farmers 
throughout the Nation, no worse and no less by any particular region.
  And yet the Northeast Compact provides price protection for dairy 
farmers in six States, insulating them from market conditions which 
noncompact farmers must confront and to which they must adjust. Compact 
proponents have never been able to explain how conditions in the 
Northeast merit greater protection from market price fluctuations than 
other regions of the country. The fact that there are no compelling 
arguments made in favor of the compact that justified special treatment 
for the Northeast was emphasized by a vote in the full Senate to strike 
the compact from the 1996 farm bill. It was the only recorded vote on 
approval or disapproval of the Northeast Dairy Compact--and it killed 
the compact in the Senate. The way in which the compact was ultimately 
included in the 1996 farm bill also illustrates the weak justification 
and the lack of support for its approval. It was never included in a 
House version of the farm bill and yet emerged as part of the bill 
after a closed door Conference negotiation. Legislation which is 
difficult to defend must frequently be negotiated behind closed doors 
rather than in the light of day.
  The 1996 farm bill provided authority to approve the compact to the 
Secretary of Agriculture if he found a compelling public interest for 
the compact in the Northeast. Congress, still unwilling to accept 
responsibility for what I believe to be an unjustifiable compact, 
delegated their authority to the Secretary. The Secretary approved the 
compact last August but even he, with his teams of economists and 
marketing specialists, was unable to come up with an economic 
justification for the compact. The Secretary's finding of ``compelling 
public interest'' justifying his approval of the compact was so weak 
and unsupported by the public record that a suit was filed by compact 
opponents in Federal court charging that the Secretary violated the 
Administrative Procedures Act. Last December, a Federal District Court 
judge found that, in fact, the plaintiffs in that suit were likely to 
prevail on their claim that the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and 
capricious. More recently, the same Federal judge told USDA to review 
the public record and determine whether in fact that compact should 
have been approved.
  Mr. President, the Northeast Dairy compact can't be justified because 
it is just plain bad policy. It is bad public policy because it 
increases costs to taxpayers nationally and consumers in the Northeast 
to benefit few. It is bad dairy policy because it exacerbates regional 
discrimination of existing Federal milk marketing orders by providing 
artificial advantages to a small group of producers at the expense of 
all others. And it is bad economic policy because it establishes 
barriers to interstate trade--barriers of the type the United States 
has been working hard to eliminate in international markets.
  Mr. President, Congress should never have provided Secretary Glickman 
with authority to approve the compact. That in my view, was an improper 
and potentially unconstitutional delegation of our authority and it was 
irresponsible. It is the role of Congress to approve interstate 
compacts and we irresponsibly abrogated our responsibility in this 
matter. It is time to make it right.
  I hope the Secretary rescinds his earlier decision to approve the 
compact in the additional time the courts have provided him. If he does 
not, I hope the courts strike down the compact both on the grounds that 
it violated the APA and on constitutional grounds. However, in any 
event, it is incumbent upon Congress to undo the mistake it made in the 
1996 farm bill. Congress can and should act independently of both the 
administrative and judicial process to repeal the Northeast Interstate 
Dairy compact. As the other branches of Government are doing their 
jobs, we must continue to do ours.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, 
        Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. 
        Inhofe, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Sessions, 
        Mr. Cochran, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Hagel):

  S. 323. A bill to amend title 4, United States Code, to declare 
English as the official language of the Government of the United 
States; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                 THE LANGUAGE OF GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce what I consider 
to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be 
offered this year. It is the Language of Government Act of 1997, which 
designates English as the official language of the U.S. Government. I 
have as original cosponsors on that legislation Senators Byrd, 
Coverdell, Craig, Faircloth, Gregg, Helms, Hutchinson of Arkansas, 
Inhofe, Lugar, Santorum, Thurmond, Cochran, and Sessions.
  Mr. President, language, as we all know, is a powerful factor in 
society. As de Tocqueville observed more than a hundred years ago, 
``The tie of language is perhaps the strongest and the most durable 
that can unite mankind.'' That was true then, and it is true today.
  Just as surely as language has the power to unite us, it has the 
power to divide us. One year after French-speaking Quebec rejected by a 
razor-thin margin the referendum to secede from Canada, our neighbor to 
the north is still grappling with the repercussions of the vote. 
English-speaking residents of Quebec have threatened to secede if 
Quebec proceeds with another referendum. There are many examples in the 
world of what happens to nations that are divided among language and 
ethnic lines. Bosnia, as we all know, has been decimated by ethnic 
strife. The countries of the former Soviet Union are in constant 
internal conflict and turmoil.

[[Page S1392]]

  Today, more than 320 different languages are spoken in our country. 
We should respect each of these languages and those individuals who 
speak them. But in order to assimilate the various cultures and ethnic 
groups that comprise our great Nation, I believe we must use English. 
Furthermore, the Federal Government should not, in my opinion, be 
expected to administer its official business in all of these languages. 
Yet, the Federal Government continues to expand the number and types of 
services that it administers in foreign languages.
  Layers of bureaucracy have been added as these governmental agencies 
have evolved into permanent multi-language service providers. In light 
of this fact, Mr. President, I believe it is imperative that we 
establish in America a responsible, coherent language policy for all of 
us.
  The legislation that I offer today, on behalf of myself and the 
colleagues I mentioned earlier, is simple and straightforward. It 
designates English as the language of the Federal Government and 
requires that most Government functions be performed in English. There 
are exceptions to that rule, Mr. President, for safety, emergencies, 
and health-related services.
  I want to emphasize that ``official English'' is directed at the 
Federal Government and its agents, but does not cover private citizens. 
In no way, Mr. President, does the bill limit an individual's use of 
his or her native language in home, church, community, or other private 
communications.
  Mr. President, since last December, the Nation has engaged in a 
heated debate over using ``ebonics'' in public schools. We are all 
familiar with that. I do not intend to join that debate today. Instead, 
I raise this in order to mention a fundamental point. In the words of 
Maya Angelo, ``The very idea * * * can be very threatening, because it 
can encourage young men and women not to learn standard English.'' 
Without mastering English, our children and grandchildren cannot 
succeed. Indeed, as so many Americans know from their own experiences, 
proficiency in English propelled them from a life of poverty to a 
future full of opportunity.

  A substantial body of evidence supports that notion and confirms that 
there is a direct correlation between an individual's ability to speak 
English in America and that person's economic fortunes.
  A recent Ohio University study concluded that if immigrant knowledge 
of English were raised to that of native-born Americans, their income 
levels would increase by $63 billion annually. In 1994, the Texas 
Office of Immigration and Refugee Affairs published a study of 
Southeast Asian refugees in Texas. It conclusively demonstrated that in 
that population, individuals proficient in English earned over 20 times 
the annual income of those who could not speak English. Analysis of 
1990 census data shows that immigrants' incomes rise 30 percent as a 
result of being able to communicate in English.
  So, without question, fluency in the English language will do more to 
empower people coming to America than all Federal Government services 
combined. The Federal Government, however, is offering more services 
and producing more publications in a multitude of foreign languages, at 
a cost of $14 billion annually. Conducting official Government 
functions in a foreign language supposedly facilitates assimilation 
into our society. What began in a piecemeal fashion to facilitate 
assimilation has mutated into institutionalized and permanent 
multilingual programs and services.
  The effect, Mr. President, is that it destroys the incentive to learn 
English, which undermines one of the key objectives of integration in 
this country. As I stated earlier, the plain truth is that immigrants 
who do not develop proficiency in English will almost always be 
relegated to a lower rung on the economic ladder, often far below their 
earnings potential.
  By designating English as the official language of our Government, we 
send a clear and unmistakable message that English is a necessary part 
of life in America. But it is not just a symbolic gesture. If most 
communication with the Federal Government is conducted in English, it 
encourages fluency in English. At the same time, establishing a 
language policy will stop the frivolous expenditure of printing 
Government documents in foreign languages. There is no justification 
for the money wasted to produce, for example, ``The Reproductive 
Behavior of Young People in the City of Sao Paulo'' in Portuguese or 
publication on the U.S. Mint in Chinese. The money squandered on those 
documents would be better spent teaching English to those who cannot 
speak it. My bill states that the savings from this initiative be used 
to teach English in America.
  Mr. President, national polling indicates that 86 percent of 
Americans support making English the official language of this country. 
In fact, Mr. President, 8 out of 10 first-generation immigrants in 
America support this legislation. As our Nation becomes more diverse, 
it becomes more and more important for Congress to deal with the 
establishment of an official language policy. Our consideration of this 
bill shows that we take our national heritage and democracy seriously.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Mr. Campbell):

  S. 324. A bill to amend title 32, United States Code, to provide that 
performance of honor guard functions at funerals for veterans by 
members of the National Guard may be recognized as a Federal function 
for National Guard purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.


                       NATIONAL GUARD LEGISLATION

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr President, I come to the floor today to introduce a 
common sense piece of legislation of great importance to the veterans 
of our country.
  Let me begin by thanking the veterans of my State for bringing this 
important issue to my attention. I particularly want to thank Mr. Fran 
Agnes, past national chairman, with the Former Prisoners of War 
veterans service organization. Fran is a champion for the veterans of 
my State and he never lets an opportunity pass to share with me the 
views of Washington State veterans.
  My State is home to nearly 700,000 veterans, and one of the few 
States with a growing veterans population. Washington State vets are 
active; virtually every veterans service organization has chapters, 
posts, and members all across my State. At the State level, Washington 
veterans are also blessed with a team of dedicated veterans' advocates. 
For me, this means I have a statewide ``unofficial'' advisory team to 
provide me with regular information about the issues of importance to 
veterans. I hear from Washington vets in the classroom, in the grocery 
store, at VA facilities, on the street, in my office and through the 
mail. My service on the Veterans' Affairs Committee is a genuine 
partnership with the veterans of my State.
  The bill I am introducing today is a direct result of this 
partnership. Simply stated, my bill proposes to allow the performance 
of honor guard functions by members of the National Guard at funerals 
for veterans.
  It may shock my colleagues to know why this legislation is so 
important. Sadly, decorated U.S. veterans are being laid to rest all 
across this country without the appropriate military honors.
  For years, military installations trained personnel to provide color 
guard services at the funerals of veterans. Oftentimes, as many as 10 
active duty personnel were made available by local military 
installations to provide funeral services for a compatriot and his or 
her grieving family. These services were immensely important to the 
veterans community. It allowed veterans to see fellow veterans treated 
with the appropriate respect and admiration they deserved, and to know 
that they would also be afforded a dignified service.
  As the military has downsized in recent years, many installations are 
no longer able to provide personnel to perform color guard services and 
aid the veteran's family. Some installations do provide limited 
assistance if the deceased served in that branch of the military. In my 
State, that means very little to the Navy family who loses a loved one 
near the Air Force or Army installations nearby. And we all know, when 
a family member passes away there is little time or emotional capacity 
to plan a funeral. Too often, the result for a veteran is a funeral 
service

[[Page S1393]]

without the requested and the deserved military honors. This must 
change.
  Veterans' service organizations have stepped in and tried to provide 
the color guard services for fellow deceased veterans. By most 
accounts, they do a very good job. But VSO's cannot meet the need for 
color guard services. By their own admission, they often lack the 
crispness and the precision of trained military personnel. Our veterans 
population is getting older, and we cannot expect a group of older 
veterans to provide these services day in and day out for their 
military peers. We are simply asking too much of a generation that has 
already given so much.
  My bill is an important first step toward ensuring that every veteran 
receives a funeral worthy of the valiant service he or she has given to 
our country. I believe every single Member of Congress believes our 
veterans deserve to be remembered with the appropriate military honors 
during a funeral service. By passing my legislation, the Congress can 
send a message to veterans that their service to us all will never be 
forgotten. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to pass this 
legislation at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. President, I also want to thank Senator and Korean war veteran 
Ben Nighthorse Campbell for joining me in this effort. Senator Campbell 
also serves on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and I know personally of 
his great commitment to the veterans of our country. And I'd also like 
to thank Congressman Paul Kanjorski, who has previously introduced this 
legislation on the House side. As I understand it, his constituents in 
Pennsylvania originally asked him to get involved in this effort. I 
look forward to working closely with both Senator Campbell and 
Congressman Kanjorski in support of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
        Kohl):
  S. 325. A bill to repeal the percentage depletion allowance for 
certain hardrock mines; to the Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUMPERS:
  S. 326. A bill to provide for the reclamation of abandoned hardrock 
mines, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, 
        and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 327. A bill to ensure that Federal taxpayers receive a fair return 
for the extraction of locatable minerals on public domain lands, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                   hardrock mining reform legislation

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills 
which are intended to reform hardrock mining on public land and 
recover, for taxpayers, lost revenues resulting from the patenting 
process under the 1872 mining law.
  The 1872 mining law was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant 
during a time when our national policy was to encourage the settlement 
of the West with the enticement of free land and minerals. However, 124 
years have now passed and the mining law has become a relic. Rather 
than serve the interests of the public, the mining law gives away 
billions of dollars worth of land and minerals to mining companies for 
practically nothing.
  While there are many flaws with the 1872 law, some of the most 
outrageous include: allowing the sale of public lands and minerals for 
$2.50 to $5.00 per acre; allowing the mining of valuable minerals 
without a dime in royalty payments to the taxpayers for those minerals; 
allowing patented land bought for $2.50 an acre to be resold at market 
prices--sometimes thousands of dollars per acre; and not adequately 
protecting the environment.
  Our attitudes toward public resources have changed since the 19th 
century and so have most of our public policies. While the mining law 
has been amended indirectly over the years, its basic provisions remain 
unchanged and are in dire need of reform. Over the years numerous 
private, government and congressional studies have recommended either 
revising the mining law or repealing it completely. One of the most 
thorough modern studies of the mining law was conducted by the Public 
Land Law Review Commission during the 1960's. The commission's work 
formed the basis for the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
[FLPMA]. In ``One Third of the Nation's Land--A Report to Congress and 
the President'' the commission stated:

       The general mining law of 1872 has been abused, but even 
     without that abuse, it has many deficiencies. Individuals 
     whose primary interest is not in mineral development and 
     production have attempted, under the guise of that law, to 
     obtain use of public lands for various other purposes. The 
     1872 law offers no means by which the Government can 
     effectively control environmental impacts.

  While the Public Land Review Commission and many others have called 
for comprehensive mining law reform for some time now, Congress has 
failed to respond. At a time when the public is clamoring for a more 
efficient government and a government that treats the taxpayers with 
dignity and respect, the 1872 mining law instead condones the giveaway 
of public lands and valuable minerals worth billions of dollars for 
practically nothing and which permits long-term environmental 
degradation of our public lands.
  In the last four Congresses I introduced legislation which would have 
comprehensively reformed the mining law. On each occasion the mining 
industry went to great lengths to successfully ensure that the 1872 
mining law would not be comprehensively reformed. However, Mr. 
President, as we continue to strive to balance the Federal budget, the 
day of reckoning for beneficiaries of corporate welfare is getting 
closer. Eventually, Congress is going to enact real mining law reform.
  The legislation I am introducing today is an effort to seek to 
protect the interests of the very people that Members of Congress 
purport to represent--the American people. One hundred twenty-four 
years after Ulysses Grant signed the mining law the time has come to 
bring our Nation's mineral policy into the present.
  As always, I am willing to work with people on all sides of this 
issue in an attempt to develop a solution amenable to all. However, I 
will not be a party to the efforts of those who, in an effort to end 
debate on the subject, attempt to enact ``sham reform'' legislation 
drafted by the mining industry.
  The problems of the mining law and the proposed solutions contained 
in the three bills I am introducing today are described more fully 
below.
  Under the existing mining law, a patent-fee simple title--to a mining 
claim on Federal lands may be obtained for the purchase price of $2.50 
an acre for a placer claim--or $5 an acre for a lode claim--a price 
which has not changed since 1872. During the last 124 years, the 
Government has sold more than 3.2 million acres of land under the 
patent provision of the 1872 mining law, an area similar to the size of 
the State of Connecticut. This is a giveaway--pure and simple--and is 
directly contrary to the national policy enunciated in the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act--that, in most cases, public lands should be 
retained in public ownership.
  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that $5 an acre is 
far less than the fair market value of the patented land and the 
minerals thereon. In 1994 we witnessed one of the biggest taxpayer 
ripoffs in the history of the mining law when the Federal Government 
was forced to grant patents to a subsidiary of a Canadian-owned mining 
company. In exchange for 1,800 acres of land in Nevada containing more 
than $10 billion in gold, the Federal Government received the princely 
sum of less than $10,000. Mr. President, believe it or not, the 
taxpayers stand to do worse in the very near future. The Stillwater 
Mining Co., which is jointly owned by Chevron and Manville, has applied 
for patents on approximately 2,000 acres of Forest Service land in 
Montana. In exchange for $10,000, the company will receive fee title to 
land containing, according to Stillwater's own reserve estimates, $35 
billion worth of platinum and palladium.
  Congress finally took action in 1994 by imposing a 1-year moratorium 
on the processing of new patent applications and those applications 
that were still in the early stages of processing. This moratorium has 
been renewed the last 2 years, albeit after an effort was made by 
Senators from the West to repeal it.
  Under the Hardrock Mining Royalty Act of 1997, which I am introducing

[[Page S1394]]

today, mining claim holders would no longer be able to patent their 
claims. The sale of Federal lands for $2.50 or $5.00 an acre would be 
permanently halted.
  In addition to allowing the sale of lands for far less than fair 
market value, the mining law also permits corporations to mine valuable 
minerals from public domain lands without paying a nickel in royalties 
to the landowner--the taxpayers. While oil, gas, and coal producers all 
pay royalties to the U.S. Treasury for production on Federal lands, the 
Government doesn't receive anything for hardrock minerals produced on 
Federal lands subject to the 1872 mining law.
  The hardrock mining companies contend that they would be forced to 
shut down operations if they were required to pay royalties to the 
Federal Government. However, these same companies find themselves able 
to pay royalties for mining operations on State and private lands. In 
fact, the Newmont Mining Co. pays an 18 percent royalty on land 
acquired from private interests on a portion of its gold quarry mine in 
Nevada's Carlin Trend. Ironically, a hardrock miner operating on 
acquired Federal lands pays a royalty to the Federal Government while 
his counterpart on lands subject to the mining law pays nothing. There 
is no justifiable reason for this difference.
  Billions of dollars' worth of hardrock minerals are extracted from 
the public lands. It is absolutely unfair to the taxpayers of this 
country to permit hardrock mining companies to enjoy the same tax 
breaks as others, while failing to adequately compensate the public 
landowners. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to remedy this 
result. First, the Hardrock Mining Royalty Act of 1997 would require 
the payment of a royalty of 5 percent of the net smelter return from 
mineral production on public lands. Because the royalty would not apply 
to minerals extracted on lands already patented under the mining law, 
the Abandoned Mines Reclamation Act of 1997 would required mining 
companies operating on patented land to pay a net-income-based 
reclamation fee. Finally, because it makes absolutely no sense to 
permit mining companies to take advantage of a mineral depletion 
allowance when they are using taxpayer land without compensating the 
taxpayers, the elimination of double subsidies for the Hardrock Mining 
Industry Act of 1997 would repeal the depletion allowance for mining 
operations on land subject to the 1872 mining law.
  Originally, the mining law required claimants to certify that they 
performed 100 dollars' worth of work on their mining claims each year 
in order to maintain their claims. Because many claimants were not 
serious about mining their claims, Congress replaced the work 
requirement with a $100 per claim maintenance fee. In conjunction with 
the administration's proposal the Hardrock Mining Royalty Act increases 
the fee for new claims to $125.
  Mr. President, past mining activities have left a legacy of 
unreclaimed lands, acid mine drainage, and hazardous waste. More than 
50 abandoned hardrock mining sites are currently on the Superfund 
national priority list. Some estimate that it could cost taxpayers 
upward of $70 billion to clean all the abandoned mining sites.

  The legislation I am introducing today would create an abandoned mine 
reclamation fund to help reclaim the many hardrock mining sites which 
have been abandoned. Money for the fund would come from the royalties 
and holding fees collected under the Hardrock Mining Royalty Act of 
1997 and the reclamation fees collected under the Abandoned Hardrock 
Mining Reclamation Act of 1997.
  Mr. President, the mining industry knows that the public is slowly 
learning about the 1872 mining law and the associated atrocities and 
believe me, the industry is worried. As they have done in the past, I 
suspect the mining industry will once again raise a smokescreen by 
proposing so-called reforms. For instance, the mining industry has 
proposed that instead of paying $2.50 or $5.00 an acre for patents, 
that instead they pay the fair market value of the surface, regardless 
of the value of the minerals located on the land. While the concept of 
fair market value is certainly a good one, it is absurd to argue that 
the Stillwater Mining Co. would really be paying fair market value if 
they paid for the surface--probably worth less than $100 an acre--and 
ignored the value of the platinum and palladium--estimated to be $35 
billion. Mr. President, if you or I ran a company which sold land for 
such fair market value, we would be fired in a New York minute. Mr. 
President, I urge my colleagues to beware of such sham reform.
  Mr. President and colleagues, I urge you to support the long overdue 
reform of the 1872 mining law and to cosponsor my three bills. Both 
Republicans and Democrats are always talking about change and the need 
to end business as usual in Washington. My legislation is intended to 
end business as usual and bring the 1872 mining law into the 20th 
century. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 325

       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 ``Elimination of Double 
     Subsidies for the Hardrock Mining Industry Act of 1997.''

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN HARDROCK 
                   MINES.

       (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 611(a) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 611(a), is 
     amended by inserting immediately after ``mines'' the 
     following: ``(except for hardrock mines located on land 
     currently subject to the general mining laws or on land 
     patented under the general mining laws)''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 611 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as 
     subsection (d) and inserting after subsection (b) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
       ``(1) `general mining laws' means those Acts which 
     generally comprise chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and sections 161 
     and 162 of title 30 of the United States Code.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 1996.
                                  ____


                                 S. 326

       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 ``Abandoned Hardrock Mines 
     Reclamation Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. RECLAMATION FEE.

       (a) Reservation of Reclamation Fee.--Any person producing 
     hardrock minerals from a mine that was within a mining claim 
     that has subsequently been patented under the general mining 
     laws shall pay a reclamation fee to the Secretary under this 
     section. The amount of such fee shall be equal to a 
     percentage of the net proceeds from such mine. The percentage 
     shall be based upon the ratio of the net proceeds to the 
     gross proceeds related to such production in accordance with 
     the following table:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Rate of Fee as
     Net Proceeds as Percentage of Gross Proceeds      Percentage of Net
                                                            Proceeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 10.........................................               2.00
10 or more but less than 18..........................               2.50
18 or more but less than 26..........................               3.00
26 or more but less than 34..........................               3.50
34 or more but less than 42..........................               4.00
42 or more but less than 50..........................               4.50
50 or more...........................................               5.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) Exemption.--Gross proceeds of less than $500,000 from 
     minerals produced in any calendar year shall be exempt from 
     the reclamation fee under this section for that year if such 
     proceeds are from one or more mines located in a single 
     patented claim or on two or more contiguous patented claims.
       (c) Payment.--The amount of all fees payable under this 
     section for any calendar year shall be paid to the Secretary 
     within 60 days after the end of such year.
       (d) Disbursement of Revenues.--The receipts from the fee 
     collected under this section shall be paid into an Abandoned 
     Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect with 
     respect to hardrock minerals produced in calendar years after 
     December 31, 1996.

     SEC. 3. ABANDONED MINERALS MINE RECLAMATION FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) There is established on the books of the Treasury of 
     the United States an interest-bearing fund to be known as the 
     Abandoned Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund (hereinafter 
     referred to in this section as the ``Fund''). The Fund shall 
     be administered by the Secretary.
       (2) The Secretary shall notify the Secretary of the 
     Treasury as to what portion of the Fund is not, in his 
     judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. The Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall invest such portion of the Fund in 
     public debt securities with maturities suitable for the needs 
     of such Fund and

[[Page S1395]]

     bearing interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, taking into consideration current market yields on 
     outstanding marketplace obligations of the United States of 
     comparable maturities. The income on such investments shall 
     be credited to, and from a part of, the Fund.
       (b) Use and Objectives of the Fund.--The Secretary is, 
     subject to appropriations, authorized to use moneys in the 
     Fund for the reclamation and restoration of land and water 
     resources adversely affected by past mineral (other than coal 
     and fluid minerals) and mineral material mining, including 
     but not limited to, any of the following:
       (1) Reclamation and restoration of abandoned surface mined 
     areas.
       (2) Reclamation and restoration of abandoned milling and 
     processing areas.
       (3) Sealing, filling, and grading abandoned deep mine 
     entries.
       (4) Planting of land adversely affected by past mining to 
     prevent erosion and sedimentation.
       (5) Prevention, abatement, treatment and control of water 
     pollution created by abandoned mine drainage.
       (6) Control of surface subsidence due to abandoned deep 
     mines.
       (7) Such expenses as may be necessary to accomplish the 
     purposes of this section.
       (c) Eligible Areas.--
       (1) Land and waters eligible for reclamation expenditures 
     under this section shall be those within the boundaries of 
     States that have lands subject to the general mining laws--
       (A) which were mined or processed for minerals and mineral 
     materials or which were affected by such mining or 
     processing, and abandoned or left in an inadequate 
     reclamation status prior to the date of enactment of this 
     title;
       (B) for which the Secretary makes a determination that 
     there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under State 
     or Federal laws; and
       (C) for which it can be established that such lands do not 
     contain minerals which could economically be extracted 
     through the reprocessing or remining of such lands.
       (2) Sites and areas designated for remedial action pursuant 
     to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 
     (42 U.S.C. 7901 and following) or which have been listed for 
     remedial action pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601 and following) shall not be eligible for expenditures 
     from the Fund under this section.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       As sued in this Act:
       (1) The term ``gross proceeds'' means the value of any 
     extracted hardrock mineral which was:
       (A) solid;
       (B) exchanged for any thing or service;
       (C) removed from the country in a form ready for use of 
     sale; or
       (D) initially used in a manufacturing process or in 
     providing a service.
       (2) The term ``net proceeds'' means gross proceeds less the 
     sum of the following deductions:
       (A) The actual cost of extracting the mineral.
       (B) The actual cost of transporting the mineral to the 
     place or places of reduction, refining and sale.
       (C) The actual cost of reduction, refining and sale.
       (D) The actual cost of marketing and delivering the mineral 
     and the conversion of the mineral into money.
       (E) The actual cost of maintenance and repairs of:
       (i) All machinery, equipment, apparatus and facilities used 
     in the mine.
       (ii) All milling, refining, smelting and reduction works, 
     plants and facilities.
       (iii) All facilities and equipment for transportation.
       (F) The actual cost of fire insurance on the machinery, 
     equipment, apparatus, works, plants and facilities mentioned 
     in subseciton (E).
       (G) Depreciation of the original capitalized cost of the 
     machinery, equipment, apparatus, works, plants and facilities 
     mentioned in subsection (E).
       (H) All money expended for premiums for industrial 
     insurance, and the actual cost of hospital and medical 
     attention and accident benefits and group insurance for all 
     employees.
       (I) The actual cost of developmental work in or about the 
     mine or upon a group of mines when operated as a unit.
       (J) All royalties and severance taxes paid to the Federal 
     government or State governments.
       (3) The term ``hardrock minerals'' means any mineral other 
     than a mineral that would be subject to disposition under any 
     of the following if located on land subject to the general 
     mining laws:
       (A) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 and following);
       (B) the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 100 and 
     following);
       (C) the Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as the 
     Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 and following); or
       (D) the Mineral Leasing for Acquired Lands Act (30 U.S.C. 
     351 and following).
       (4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (5) The term ``patented mining claim'' means an interest in 
     land which has been obtained pursuant to sections 2325 and 
     2326 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein 
     or lode claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36 and 37) for placer claims, 
     or section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for 
     mill site claims.
       (6) The term ``general mining laws'' means those Acts which 
     generally comprise Chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and sections 161 
     and 162 of title 30 of the United States Code.
                                  ____


                                 S. 327

       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 ``Hardrock Mining Royalty Act 
     of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. ROYALTY.

       (a) Reservation of Royalty.--Each person producing 
     locatable minerals (including associated minerals) from any 
     mining claim located under the general mining laws, or 
     mineral concentrates derived from locatable minerals produced 
     from any mining claim located under the general mining laws, 
     as the case may be, shall pay a royalty of 5 percent of the 
     net smelter return from the production of such locatable 
     minerals or concentrates, as the case may be .
       (b) Royalty Payments.--Each person responsible for making 
     royalty payments under this section shall make such payments 
     to the Secretary not later than 30 days after the end of the 
     calendar month in which the mineral or mineral concentrates 
     are produced and first placed in marketable condition, 
     consistent with prevailing practices in the industry.
       (c) Reporting Requirements.--All persons holding mining 
     claims located under the general mining laws shall provide to 
     the Secretary such information as determined necessary by the 
     Secretary to ensure compliance with this section, including, 
     but not limited to, quarterly reports, records, documents, 
     and other data. Such reports may also include, but not be 
     limited to, pertinent technical and financial data relating 
     to the quantity, quality, and amount of all minerals 
     extracted from the mining claim.
       (d) Audits.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct such 
     audits of all persons holding mining claims located under the 
     general mining laws as he deems necessary for the purposes of 
     ensuring compliance with the requirements of this section.
       (e) Disposition of Receipts.--All receipts from royalties 
     collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into 
     the Fund established under section 3.
       (f) Compliance.--Any person holding mining claims located 
     under the general mining laws who knowingly or willfully 
     prepares, maintains, or submits false, inaccurate, or 
     misleading information required by this section, or fails or 
     refuses to submit such information, shall be subject to a 
     penalty imposed by the Secretary.
       (g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect with 
     respect to minerals produced from a mining claim in calendar 
     months beginning after enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. ABANDONED MINERALS MINE RECLAMATION FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) There is established on the books of the Treasury of 
     the United States a trust fund to be known as the Abandoned 
     Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund (hereinafter referred to as 
     the ``Fund''). The Fund shall be administered by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) The Secretary shall notify the Secretary of the 
     Treasury as to what portion of the Fund is not, in his 
     judgement, required to meet current withdrawals. The 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of the 
     Fund in public debt securities and maturities suitable for 
     the needs of such Fund and bearing interest at rates 
     determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into 
     consideration current market yields on outstanding 
     marketplace obligations of the United States of comparable 
     maturities. The income on such investments shall be credited 
     to, and from a part of, the Fund.
       (b) Amounts.--The following amounts shall be credited to 
     the Fund for the purposes of this Act:
       (1) All moneys received from royalties under section 1 of 
     this Act and the mining claim maintenance fee under section 4 
     of this Act.
       (2) All donations by persons, corporations, associations, 
     and foundations for the purposes of this title.
       (c) Use and Objectives of the Fund.--The Secretary is, 
     subject to appropriations, authorized to use moneys in the 
     Fund for the reclamation and restoration of land and water 
     resources adversely affected by past mineral (other than coal 
     and fluid minerals) and mineral material mining, including 
     but not limited to, any of the following:
       (1) Reclamation and restoration of abandoned surface mined 
     areas.
       (2) Reclamation and restoration of abandoned milling and 
     processing areas.
       (3) Sealing, filling, and grading abandoned deep mine 
     entries.
       (4) Planting of land adversely affected by past mining to 
     prevent erosion and sedimentation.
       (5) Prevention, abatement, treatment and control of water 
     pollution created by abandoned mine drainage.
       (6) Control of surface subsidence due to abandoned deep 
     mines.
       (7) Such expenses as may be necessary to accomplish the 
     purposes of this section.

[[Page S1396]]

       (d) Eligible Areas.--
       (1) Land and waters eligible for reclamation expenditures 
     under this section shall be those within the boundaries of 
     States that have lands subject to the general mining laws--
       (A) which were mined or processed for minerals and mineral 
     materials or which were affected by such mining or 
     processing, and abandoned or left in an inadequate 
     reclamation status prior to the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       (B) for which the Secretary makes a determination that 
     there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under State 
     or Federal laws; and
       (C) for which it can be established that such lands do not 
     contain minerals which could economically be extracted 
     through the reprocessing or remining of such lands.
       (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), sites and areas 
     designated for remedial action pursuant to the Uranium Mill 
     Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 and 
     following) or which have been listed for remedial action 
     pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response 
     Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 and 
     following) shall not be eligible for expenditures from the 
     Fund under this section.
       (e) Fund Expenditures.--Moneys available from the Fund may 
     be expended directly by the Director, Bureau of Land 
     Management. The Director may also make such money available 
     through grants made to the Chief of the United States Forest 
     Service, and the Director of the National Park Service.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Amounts credited to 
     the Fund are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of 
     this title without fiscal year limitation.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON PATENT ISSUANCE.

       No patents shall be issued by the United States for any 
     mining or mill site claim located under the general mining 
     laws unless the Secretary determines that, for the claim 
     concerned a patent application was filed with the Secretary 
     on or before September 30, 1994, and all requirements 
     established under sections 2325 and 2326 of the Revised 
     Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein or lode claims and 
     sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the Revised 
     Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36 and 37) for place claims, and 
     section 2337 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 42) for 
     mill site claims, as the case may be, were fully complied 
     with by the applicant by that date.

     SEC. 5. MINING CLAIM MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Effective October 1, 1998, the holder of each mining 
     claim located under the general mining laws prior to the date 
     of enactment shall pay to the Secretary an annual claim 
     maintenance fee of $100 per claim per calendar year.
       (2) The holder of each mining claim located under the 
     general mining laws subsequent to the date of enactment shall 
     pay to the Secretary an annual claim maintenance fee of $125 
     per claim per calendar year.
       (b) Purchasing Power Adjustment.--The Secretary shall 
     adjust the amount of the claim maintenance fee payable 
     pursuant to subsection (a) for changes in the purchasing 
     power of the dollar after the calendar year 1993, employing 
     the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by 
     the Department of Labor as the basis for adjustment, and 
     rounding according to the adjustment process of conditions of 
     the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990.
       (c) Time of Payment.--Each claim holder shall pay the claim 
     maintenance fee payable under subsection (a) for any year on 
     or before August 31 of each year, except that for the initial 
     calendar year in which the location is made, the initial 
     claim maintenance fee shall be paid at the time the location 
     notice is recorded with the Bureau of Land Management.
       (d) Oil Shale Claims Subject to Claim Maintenance Fees 
     Under Energy Policy Act of 1992.--The section shall not apply 
     to any oil shale claims for which a fee is required to be 
     paid under section 2511(e)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992 (30 U.S.C. 242(e)(2))
       (e) Claim Maintenance Fees Payable Under 1993 Act.--The 
     claim maintenance fees payable under this section for any 
     period with respect to any claim shall be reduced by the 
     amount of the claim maintenance fees paid under section 10101 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 with respect 
     to that claim and with respect to the same period.
       (f) Waiver.--
       (1) The claim maintenance fee required under this section 
     may be waived for a claim holder who certifies in writing to 
     the Secretary that on the date the payment was due, the claim 
     holder and all related parties held not more than 10 mining 
     claims on land open to location. Such certification shall be 
     made on or before the date on which payment is due.
       (2) For purposes of this subsection, with respect to any 
     claim holder, the term ``related party'' means each of the 
     following:
       (A) The spouse and dependent children (as defined in 
     section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), of the 
     claim holder.
       (B) Any affiliate of the claim holder.
       (g) Co-ownership.--Upon the failure of any one or more of 
     several co-owners to contribute such co-owner or owners' 
     portion of the fee under this section, any co-owner who has 
     paid such fee may, after the payment due date, give the 
     delinquent co-owner or owners notice of such failure in 
     writing (or by publication in the newspaper nearest the claim 
     for at least once a week for at least 90 days). If at the 
     expiration of 90 days after such notice in writing or by 
     publication, any delinquent co-owner fails or refused to 
     contribute his portion, his interest, in the claim shall 
     become the property of the co-owners who have paid the 
     required fee.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) The term ``affiliate'' means with respect to any 
     person, each of the following:
       (A) Any partner of such person.
       (B) Any person owning at least 10 percent of the voting 
     shares of such person.
       (C) Any person who controls, is controlled by, or is under 
     common control with such person.
       (2) The term ``locatable minerals'' means minerals not 
     subject to disposition under any of the following:
       (A) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 and following);
       (B) the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 100 and 
     following);
       (C) the Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as the 
     Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 and following); or
       (D) the Mineral Leasing for Acquired Lands Act (30 U.S.C. 
     351 and following).
       (3) The term ``net smelter return'' has the same meaning 
     provided in section 613 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (26 U.S.C. 613) for ``gross income from mining''.
       (4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (5) The term ``general mining laws'' means those Acts which 
     generally comprise chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and sections 161 
     and 162 of title 30, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
        Mack, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Allard, Mr. Lott, 
        Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Faircloth):
  S. 328. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect 
employer rights, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


                    Truth in Employment Act of 1997

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today an 
important piece of legislation which will enable thousands of 
businesses in my home State of Arkansas, and across the Nation, to 
avoid an unscrupulous practice which is literally crippling business.
  The Truth in Employment Act will protect these businesses and curtail 
the destructive union tactic known as salting. It may not be in the 
same magnitude of issues as the balanced budget amendment, which I am 
deeply concerned about and in which we have had prolonged debate, but 
it is nonetheless a very, very significant issue that is affecting the 
economic well-being of thousands of businesses across America. So I am 
glad to be able to introduce this today with 14 cosponsors joining me 
on S. 328.
  Salting is the calculated practice of placing trained union 
professional organizers and agents in a nonunion workplace whose sole 
purpose is to harass or disrupt company operations, apply economic 
pressure, increase operating and legal costs, and ultimately the 
purpose of putting that company out of business. The objectives of 
these union agents are accomplished through filing frivolous and unfair 
labor practice complaints or discrimination charges against the 
employer with the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], and the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC]. Salting campaigns have been 
used successfully to cause economic harm to construction companies and 
are quickly expanding into other industries across the country as well.
  To my colleagues I would say, Mr. President, the average cost to the 
employer to defend himself or defend herself against this practice runs 
upwards of $5,000 per case.
  Salting is not merely a union organizing tool. It has become an 
instrument of economic destruction aimed at nonunion companies. This is 
what happens. Unions send their agents into nonunion workplaces under 
the guise of seeking employment. Hiding behind the shield of the 
National Labor Relations Act, these salts use its provisions 
offensively to bring hardship on their employers. They deliberately 
increase the operating costs of their employers through actions such as 
sabotage and frivolous discrimination complaints.
  In the 1995 Town & Country decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that 
paid union organizers are employees within the meaning of the National 
Labor Relations Act. Because of their broad interpretation of this act, 
employers who

[[Page S1397]]

refuse to hire paid union employees or their agents violate the act if 
they are shown to have discriminated against the union salts.

  This leaves employers in a precarious and vulnerable situation. If 
employers refuse to hire union salts, they will file frivolous charges 
and accuse the employer of discrimination. Yet if salts are employed, 
they will create internal disruption through a pattern of dissension 
and harassment. They are not there to work--only to disrupt. For many 
small businesses this means that whenever hiring decisions are made, 
the future of the company may actually be at stake. A wrong decision 
can mean frivolous charges, legal fees, and lost time, which may 
threaten the very existence of their business.
  I have received many accounts from across the Nation of how salting 
is affecting small businesses. In Carmel, IN, John Gaylor, of Gaylor 
Electric, is a favorite target of the local International Brotherhood 
of Electrical Workers. Mr. Gaylor has to budget almost $200,000 
annually to defend himself against frivolous charges. In fact, Gaylor 
has been forced to defend himself against at least 80 unfair labor 
practice complaints. However, in each case the charges against him were 
dismissed as frivolous. Nonetheless, he is bound to pay hundreds of 
thousands of dollars to attorneys to defend himself.
  In a classic example of salting tactics, Gaylor had to fire one 
employee after his refusal to wear his hardhat on his head. This 
employee would strap the hardhat to his knee and then dare Gaylor, his 
boss, to fire him because he said the employee manual stated only that 
he had to wear the hardhat, it did not state where he had to wear it.
  Another common salting practice is for salts to actually create 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] violations and 
then report those violations to OSHA. When the employer terminates 
these individuals, they file frivolous unfair labor practice violations 
against the employer. This results in wasted time and money, as well as 
bad publicity for the company.
  These are just a few of the many examples of how devastating this 
practice can be to small businesses. What makes this practice even more 
appalling is how organized labor openly advocates its use. According to 
the group, ``Workplaces against Salting Abuse,'' the labor unions are 
even advocating this practice in their manuals.
  The Union Organizing Manual of the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers explains why salts are used. Their purpose is to 
gather information that will

       * * * shape the strategy the organizer will use later in 
     the campaign to threaten or actually apply the economic 
     pressure necessary to cause the employer to * * * raise his 
     prices to recoup additional costs, scale back his business, 
     leave the union's jurisdiction, go out of business, * * *

  The International Vice President of the United Food and Commercial 
Workers Union has been quoted as saying that:

       If we can't organize them, the best thing to do is erode 
     their business as much as possible.

  That is what we are facing. The balance of rights must be restored 
between employers, employees, and labor organizations. The Truth in 
Employment Act seeks to do this by inserting a provision in the 
National Labor Relations Act establishing that an employer is not 
required to employ a person seeking employment for the primary purpose 
of furthering the objectives of an organization other than that 
employer. Furthermore, this legislation will continue to allow 
employees to organize and engage in activities designed to be protected 
by the National Labor Relations Act.
  This measure is not intended to undermine those legitimate rights or 
protections that employees have had. Employers will gain no ability to 
discriminate against union membership or activities. This bill only 
seeks to stop the destructive practice of salting. Salting abuses must 
be curtailed if we are to protect the small business owners of this 
Nation. This legislation will ensure these protections are possible.
  I am glad that Senator Nickles, Senator Warner, Senator Mack, Senator 
Kyl, Senator Brownback, Senator Cochran, Senator Roberts, Senator 
Hatch, Senator Gorton, Senator Enzi, Senator Gregg, Senator Allard, 
Senator Sessions, Senator Faircloth, and the majority leader, Senator 
Lott, have joined as original cosponsors of this legislation.
  It is for these reasons I am introducing the Truth in Employment Act. 
I ask more of my colleagues to support this bill and restore fairness 
to the American workplace.
  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. 328

       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 ``Truth in Employment Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2 FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) An atmosphere of trust and civility in labor-management 
     relationships is essential to a productive workplace and a 
     healthy economy.
       (2) The tactic of using professional union organizers and 
     agents to infiltrate a targeted employer's workplace (a 
     practice commonly referred to as ``salting'') has evolved 
     into an aggressive form of harassment not contemplated when 
     the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) was 
     enacted and threatens the balance of rights that is 
     fundamental to the collective bargaining system of the United 
     States.
       (3) Increasingly, union organizers are seeking employment 
     with nonunion employers not because of a desire to work for 
     such employers but primarily to organize the employees of 
     such employers or to inflict economic harm specifically 
     designed to put nonunion competitors out of business.
       (4) While no employer may discriminate against employees 
     based upon the views of the employees concerning collective 
     bargaining, an employer should have the right to expect job 
     applicants to be primarily interested in utilizing the skills 
     of the applicants to further the goals of the business of the 
     employer.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to preserve the balance of rights between employers, 
     employees, and labor organizations that is fundamental to a 
     system of collective bargaining;
       (2) to preserve the rights of employees to organize, or 
     otherwise engage in concerted activities protected under the 
     National Labor Relations Act; and
       (3) to alleviate pressure on employers to hire individuals 
     who seek or gain employment in order to disrupt the workplace 
     of the employer or otherwise inflict economic harm designed 
     to put the employer out of business.

     SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYER RIGHTS.

       Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     158(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following flush 
     sentence:

     ``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring 
     an employer to employ any person who seeks or has sought 
     employment with the employer in furtherance of the objectives 
     of an organization other than the employer.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM:
  S. 329. A bill to provide that pay for Members of Congress shall be 
reduced whenever total expenditures of the Federal Government exceed 
total receipts in any fiscal year, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to reduce the salaries of Members of Congress by 10 percent for every 
year that the budget remains out of balance or Congress fails to enact 
a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Since the Senate is 
currently debating a balanced budget to the Constitution, I think it is 
an appropriate time to renew this legislation.
  Mr. President, the Federal budget has been out of balance since 1969. 
If you exclude trust fund surpluses--as some argue we should--then the 
Federal Government has not had a surplus since the Kennedy 
administration. Since that time, the on-budget deficit has risen from 
$4 billion in 1961 to $26 billion in 1971, $74 billion in 1981, and 
$321 billion in 1991. According to the CBO, despite recent 
improvements, the deficit will continue to be a problem--over $200 
billion per year out into the future.
  Uninterrupted deficits mean rising debt and debt service costs. The 
gross debt right now is over $5 trillion. By 2002, it will be over $6 
trillion. At that time, as we all have been warned, interest payments 
on the debt will be the largest single portion of the Federal budget. A 
child born today faces close to $200,000 in extra taxes over his/her 
lifetime just to pay interest on the Federal debt.
  In other words, Mr. President, after 35 years of uninterrupted 
presence, I

[[Page S1398]]

think we can call the Federal deficit an institution here in Washington 
and admit that there's an institutional bias toward operating in the 
red. The legislation I am reintroducing today would create an 
institutional bias in the other direction--toward balance.
  Specifically, the bill provides that the salary of Members of 
Congress be reduced by 10 percent whenever the Federal Government is 
unable to balance the budget at the close of a fiscal year. It further 
provides that such a reduced salary level remain in effect until the 
Government is successful in achieving a balanced budget. The bill's 
requirements would sunset, however, upon passage of a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment by both Houses of the Congress.
  Mr. President, I believe it is a fundamental responsibility of 
Government to live within its means. Yet, Members of Congress find it 
tempting to spend more money than they are willing to take from 
taxpayers. On the one hand, they reap the benefits by pleasing their 
constituents. On the other hand, they avoid displeasing the taxpayers 
who have to foot the bill. In the end, it is future generations of 
taxpayers who will pick up the tab.
  Last Congress, we came close to reversing this destructive trend. We 
came within one vote of adopting a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, and we came within one Presidential veto of instituting a 
plan to reduce spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget by the year 
2002. As we all know, however, close does not count, and the debt we 
impose upon our children continues to rise.
  For that reason, I will continue to fight for a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment and I will continue to work as a member of the 
Budget Committee to enact a balanced budget plan. Until either of these 
initiatives is adopted, however, I will continue to propose holding 
Members collectively responsible for year-end deficits by reducing 
their pay.
  Mr. President, as I said last year, the Congressional Fiscal Policy 
Act of 1997 is not a panacea for our current fiscal problems. However, 
until such time as a balanced budget amendment is placed into the 
Constitution, it would effect a small but potentially important step 
toward more responsible Government.
                                 ______
                                 

 By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Conrad, 
         Mr. Craig, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Daschle):

  S. 331. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide a 
minimum allocation of highway funds for States that have low population 
densities and comprise large geographic areas; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a 
piece of legislation on behalf of myself, Senator Kempthorne, Senator 
Bingaman, Senator Conrad, Senator Craig, Senator Domenici, Senator 
Thomas, and Senator Daschle.
  At the conclusion of my remarks I will send a copy of the bill and 
the statement to the desk.
  Mr. President, we will have in this Congress a lot of debates about a 
lot of issues. One of them that will be very interesting and have great 
consequence will be the issue of reauthorizing the highway bill. And 
the question of how much money is available to which States and under 
what conditions will the money be available to build, to construct, and 
to maintain highways, roads, and bridges across our country. And to 
some that may seem like kind of a dull uninteresting subject. But the 
development, the building, and the maintenance of highways and bridges 
is critically important to regions of our country. It determines where 
people live, and where people can travel. It determines economic 
development, jobs and opportunity.
  I come from a rural State. I recognize that there will be a formula 
fight, as there always is--a formula fight about how to apportion the 
highway dollars, and who gets what. I do not intend to take sides 
between one big State and another big State. But I come from a State 
that is rather large in geography but small in population simply to say 
that when all of the fighting is over we want to make certain that 
States like North Dakota and others, where you have large expanses of 
territory and relatively few people living in those States, are not 
left out of this process.
  Some may not understand the frame of reference to a North Dakota. Let 
me describe it, if I might, as I begin talking about this bill.
  I come from southwestern North Dakota, a town of 300 people, and 
graduated from a high school class of 9. The county I come from is 
called Hettinger County. The county next to Hettinger is Slope County, 
a wonderful territory. Southwestern North Dakota is ranching country 
with wonderful people. Slope County has fewer than 1,000 people. It is 
a land mass the size the State of Rhode Island. Slope County is the 
size of the State of Rhode Island but has fewer than 1,000 people.
  There were a lot of births in Slope County last year. There were 
7,900 calves born. There were 2,500 pigs born. There were about 1,500 
lambs born. And there were seven children born in Slope County; seven 
children born in Slope County, a land expanse the size of the State of 
Rhode Island.
  I have said--and I do it just I guess because it is obvious--that 
there is not a lot of childbearing going on in the Medicare years. The 
fact is that the average age of the population in counties like Slope 
County, a rural county, is increasing, and there just are not a lot of 
children born in those counties. In North Dakota, we have 11 counties 
that are growing and 42 counties that are shrinking. Slope County is an 
example of that.
  I mention all of this to you for one reason. Roads are important. How 
hard do you think it is to support road building or road maintenance in 
a county that size with so few people? I can say the same thing about 
Hettinger County not only in North Dakota, but in South Dakota, New 
Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, and other States as well. It is very hard 
with a small population base and a lot of miles of road to support them 
with our current circumstance.
  As we have a fight about highway funding here in the Congress--and 
the fight is a big-stakes fight over billions and tens of billions of 
dollars to be sliced up and divided between 50 States, and the big 
States have an enormous amount of money at stake, New York, Florida, 
California, and others--an enormous amount of money is at stake for 
these States. I am going to be someone who helps move this along by 
saying that I think highway building, highway maintenance, highway 
construction, and bridge repair is very important for our country's 
future. We must rebuild our country's infrastructure. We must pay 
attention to these kinds of things. All you have to do is go to some 
less-developed country and drive the first mile and understand how 
important infrastructure is and what we have here versus what they have 
in many other areas of the world.
  But much of our infrastructure is in trouble, and we must reauthorize 
a highway funding bill that gives us the resources across this country 
to rebuild our infrastructure.
  How do we divide up the money? Well, that then becomes part of this 
formula fight. How much does one State get versus another?
  There are about eight States in this country where you have a large 
land mass, and only a few people. That makes it very difficult for the 
few people living in those States to maintain the network of highways 
necessary. Why is it necessary? It is necessary for the country. It is 
necessary for an entire transportation system.
  You can imagine perhaps President Eisenhower sitting at the White 
House probably having Speaker Rayburn down to talk about his idea of an 
Interstate Highway System across our country connecting various parts 
of our country. And, if someone in that meeting when they talked about 
building an interstate highway program had said, ``Well, gee, how could 
you conceivably support building a four-lane, expensive interstate 
highway that goes among other places from Fargo, ND, in the east and 
exits at Beach, ND, in the west as it enters Montana, for the number of 
people it serves in North Dakota, how on Earth could this country 
justify that investment in the interstate highway program?'' the answer 
was simple. It was a national program. And the fact that you build a 
highway across a State with low populations such as North Dakota means 
that frozen fish and fresh fruit move from Boston to Seattle, not 
across gravel roads

[[Page S1399]]

in the center of the country because there are only a few people living 
there, but across an interstate highway system that is part of a 
national network of highways and roads that are important for our 
entire country. That is the purpose of all of it this.
  Those of us that come from the less-densely populated States drive a 
lot. Gas taxes mean a lot to us. The price of gasoline means a lot to 
us. In North Dakota, for example, we drive exactly twice as much per 
person as they do in New York.
  Why? Well, if you are going to go someplace in North Dakota, it is 
not two blocks to the hospital. It might be 50 miles to the hospital. 
It might not be a block and a half to a movie. It might be 10 miles or 
15 miles from the farmstead to the small town with a theater.
  The fact is we drive just almost exactly twice as much in North 
Dakota per person as they do in New York City. Therefore, per person we 
pay twice as much in highway taxes as they do, for example, in New York 
City or the State of New York. Is that unfair, unfortunate? Probably 
unfortunate. We do not like that necessarily, but we choose where we 
live.
  The point I am making with that is that in terms of burden, we have a 
very substantial burden with respect to highway taxes. Our burden is 
much higher than the burden per person in other States.
  The contribution to the Federal highway trust fund in terms of gas 
taxes by the average North Dakotan is $116 a year; the average Florida 
resident, $73; Massachusetts, $61; Rhode Island, $55, and the list goes 
down. We are fourth from the top in per person contribution to the 
Federal highway trust fund.
  Some will come to this floor in all of this fight about money and 
they will say, well, there are donor States and donee States, and the 
donor States are the ones that pay more into the highway trust fund 
than they get back and that ought to change; it is unfair. The donee 
States are the recipient States and they are the ones that get more 
back than they paid in and they ought not to.
  That is one way of looking at it. I suppose if you want to look at 
that in the context of funding the Coast Guard, we do not have any 
coast to guard up in North Dakota so whatever our taxpayers in North 
Dakota are paying into the Federal Government for the purpose of 
running a Coast Guard, I suppose we are a donor State. We are a donor 
State for the Coast Guard. But so what. That is not the way you ought 
to measure this, nor should you measure it that way from a highway 
funding standpoint. Measure it in terms of what citizens are having to 
contribute to the highway trust funds relative to the amount of driving 
they are doing and the amount of tax they are having to pay, and what 
you will see is a State such as North Dakota is right near the top.
  A group of us who come from States similarly situated, States with 
very large expanses of land and not as many people, and therefore not 
having the tax base to raise the funds necessary to meet the needs of 
road maintenance and road building and bridge making, and so on, want 
to be a part of this debate on the reauthorization of ISTEA or the 
highway reauthorization bill in a manner that says the following. We 
want at the end of this discussion for these eight States that are 
situated in this manner not to be a part of the juggling between the 
formula fights that will go on on this floor from time to time this 
year on highway funding, but instead to be a part of a solution that 
says with respect to those States with unique circumstances, we will 
provide a guarantee that those States will receive what they have 
received in the past in terms of the percentage of the highway funds 
that have gone to these eight States with large expanses of land, many 
miles of highway to maintain and a lower population base, and in 
addition to that we will have a highway preservation fund of 1 
percent--1 percent out of 100 percent of the money that is available--
to be put in a pool to be distributed back to those eight States on a 
need basis to preserve those highways, roads and bridges, build and 
maintain and preserve that infrastructure in those eight States that 
face this unique challenge and face these unique circumstances.
  That is all we say in this legislation--two things. One, North 
Dakota's share, for example, of the current formula is about .62 of 1 
percent. North Dakota and the other seven States would be guaranteed 
that allocation at the end of the reauthorization bill for the coming 
years, plus we would be the recipients on a need basis of a pool equal 
to 1 percent of the highway fund that would then be reallocated on a 
need basis to the eight States that face these special and unique 
challenges.
  There are a number of us, 16 Senators specifically that come from 
these 8 States, who have already cosponsored this legislation. I hope 
others will. And when we do, I hope we will be able to make a case to 
the rest of the Congress that we want to be helpful to others. We want 
to be helpful to all of those who believe there ought to be a robust 
highway funding program, that funding for it ought to be certain, that 
funding for it ought to be adequate to meet the needs in this country 
and we are prepared to support that. But that when the larger formula 
fights are completed, those eight States, uniquely situated, the eight 
States which include North Dakota, situated in a circumstance where 
their population base does not allow them to raise the resources to 
meet their infrastructure and transportation needs, they will be dealt 
with in a fair and equitable way. That is what our legislation does. It 
is what it would provide. And we hope that when this is over at the end 
of this Congress, we will look back and say we did something that was 
important for our States.
  I want to mention one additional point. Some say let us not have a 
Federal highway program anymore. Let us abolish the Federal gas tax, 
and then say to the States, you go ahead and raise your own money. All 
that I have been discussing so far describes the unique problem we have 
raising our own money with a large road network to deal with and a 
smaller population base. If we were required under a program like that, 
a devolution of the highway program, saying we will not have a Federal 
program, let us let the States do it, and therefore a State like North 
Dakota, we were told, you go ahead and raise this yourself, just to 
meet the current revenue stream we now have from the Federal highway 
program in North Dakota, we would be required to raise the current 
State gas tax by 27 cents per gallon simply to replace the revenue the 
State currently receives. Other States would not fare the same way. 
Other States would be able to decide they could raise their gas tax at 
the State level by a very small amount of money.

  For example, Florida would have to raise their State gas tax 11 cents 
to raise the amount of money they now have under their road program. So 
when you take a look at the impact and the burden on taxpayers here, 
that approach, the devolution approach, saying let us not have a 
Federal highway program, let us tell the States raise your own money by 
your own gas tax, would say to Florida, you raise your gas tax by 11 
cents, and would say to North Dakota, you raise yours by 27 cents.
  That is the inequity of it. That moves us away from the notion that 
highways represent a national need, that transportation is a national 
system and is part of a unifying force in this country that we have 
always felt should work to meet our country's universal needs, and that 
includes especially the area of transportation.
  Mr. President, this year the Congress will be debating the 
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
[ISTEA]. Some have focused the debate around the question of the ratio 
between how much States receive in highway funding related to what they 
pay in. However, framing the debate around the donor verses donee State 
concept fails to address the real issues in the reauthorization of 
ISTEA: that is, how do we allocate resources to maintain a national 
transportation system and ensure that all States have the necessary 
resources to participate in that system. If the heavily populated 
States want to ship their frozen fish and fresh fruit from coast to 
coast in trucking convoys, they don't want to be shipping it on gravel 
roads in parts of the country where the local tax base is not 
sufficient to maintain a national network of good roads. It is in the 
interest of all Americans to have a national network. That is why the

[[Page S1400]]

donor verses donee formula fights are so counterproductive.
  If we are interested in maintaining a national transportation system, 
the question should be how do we allocate resources to meet all the 
Nation's highway needs. This includes meeting the unique needs of rural 
States with low-density populations and large geographic areas. If 
there is a national need, there's a national responsibility and we 
ought not to have formula fights in ways that hurt small population 
States with large networks of highways to maintain.
  I am not a bit uncomfortable that North Dakota receives more money 
back in highway funding than it sends into the highway trust fund 
through gas taxes. In fact, if measured on a per capita basis, North 
Dakota is actually one of the highest contributors to the Federal 
highway trust fund. Some of the so-called ``donor States'' contribute 
has as much in gas taxes per capita than many of the ``donee States'' 
contribute. That happens because we have a small population and are 
required to maintain a large highway system on a small local tax base. 
Without a Federal program to make up for scarce local resources in low-
density States, we could not have a national network of highways.
  Those who frame the debate as one between donor or donee States beg 
the question as to why does this notion only apply to highway funding. 
Should we treat all transportation programs the same way? Why single 
out only highway funding? Why not apply the same ``return to the 
states'' approach for mass transit, disaster relief for hurricanes and 
earthquakes, or the Airport Improvement Program? Should the same 
principle be applied to funding the Coast Guard and the Maritime 
Administration whose services are almost entirely used by coastal 
States? We don't have much of a Coast Guard in North Dakota, but our 
taxpayers still help pay for it. Thus, North Dakota is a donor State 
when it comes to these programs. Why should landlocked States support 
these programs?

  The reason is simple--we have a national economy, not a State-by-
State economy. If such approach were adopted, it would represent a 
dramatic abandonment from the basic principle that has been vital to 
our national economic and social well being: a quality national 
transportation system. And that is why the debate about the 
reauthorization of ISTEA must meet the unique needs of rural States.
  A network of efficient and well-maintained roads in rural areas is 
just as important to densely population urban centers that export 
products across the country as the roads are to middle America.
  We need a national transportation system that reflects a commitment 
to all regions of the Nation as the principle priority. To do this, 
highway funding formulas must provide for the unique needs of every 
region. Currently, the needs of States with small populations but that 
maintain highways for large geographic areas are not reflected under 
ISTEA formulas and this ought to be changed. ISTEA formulas need to 
reflect the needs of the national system and the unique circumstances 
of various geographic regions. While major urban areas need support for 
relieving congestion and heavy traffic loads, rural States with low 
populations need additional assistance to maintain long stretches of 
roads with smaller local tax bases.
  Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to ensure that rural 
States with low-density populations and large geographic land areas get 
an adequate share of Federal support under the Federal Aid to Highways 
Program. There are two major provisions under this legislation. First, 
low-density States with large geographic land areas will be held 
harmless under the same percentage distribution of total highway funds 
as they received under ISTEA. In addition, these same States would 
qualify for a rural State adjustment, which would be established by 
setting aside 1 percent of the total highway program for rural States. 
These funds would be distributed by a formula that takes into account 
the number of National Highway System [NHS] miles of road in a 
qualifying State and the number of NHS vehicle miles traveled in that 
State. Certainly, this legislation does not resolve the matter as to 
how Federal highway funds will be distributed to all States. Rather, 
this bill only focuses on one aspect of the picture--that is, it 
emphasizes the unique circumstances of a small number of States that 
ought to have their needs recognized in the final formula.
  Those of us from rural States are not suggesting that all we care 
about is meeting our unique needs. Much to the contrary. We desire to 
work cooperatively with all our colleagues to develop a strong and 
effective highway bill that meets the needs of all regions. Our 
objective is to have a fair formula that ensures that our Nation 
maintains a truly national system. To that end, we pledge our good 
faith and determination to develop the best reauthorization of ISTEA 
possible.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kempthorne, Senator Conrad, and 
I in supporting this legislation. It is our hope that the Congress will 
succeed this year in passing a strong reauthorization of ISTEA and 
hopefully, that legislation will reflect the concerns raised in the 
bill we are introducing today.
  So, Mr. President, I am sending the legislation to the desk, and I 
hope in the coming week or so to add cosponsors to the legislation. I 
hope when the debate occurs on the reauthorization of the highway 
program, the ideas embodied in this bipartisan piece of legislation 
will be ideas that we will see incorporated in the final legislation 
passed by 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. 331

       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 ``Rural States Highway 
     Preservation Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) a national surface transportation system that includes 
     a national network of highways and that provides for 
     efficient and safe interstate travel in every State is vital 
     to the economic and social wellbeing of the United States;
       (2) Federal policy for allocating resources to maintain an 
     efficient and safe national surface transportation system 
     should reflect the unique needs and circumstances of each 
     State's ability to participate in the transportation system;
       (3) low-density States that comprise large geographic land 
     areas--
       (A) bear unique financial burdens in maintaining their 
     share of the national surface transportation system; and
       (B) typically support higher per-mile costs of maintaining 
     highways and contribute more per capita to the Highway Trust 
     Fund than other States;
       (4) many rural States have to maintain large highway 
     systems, which provide interstate access between major 
     population centers, but have small local populations to 
     support their highways;
       (5) since the approval and implementation of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement, many rural States along the 
     northern border of the United States have experienced 
     increased use of, and demands on, their share of the national 
     surface transportation system due to increased international 
     trade activities;
       (6) Federal funding for surface transportation should 
     include adjustments that reflect reasonable and appropriate 
     resource allocations to ensure that rural, low-density States 
     that comprise large geographic land areas can adequately 
     participate in the national surface transportation system; 
     and
       (7) contributions from all States permit the Federal 
     Government to provide support for essential intermodal 
     national priorities, such as a national system of highways, 
     mass transit, maritime activities, airports and air service, 
     and passenger rail service.

     SEC. 3. MINIMUM HIGHWAY FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR CERTAIN TYPES 
                   OF STATES.

       Section 157(a)(4) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``In fiscal'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--In fiscal''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Low-density, large-geographic-area states.--
       ``(i) Definition of eligible state.--In this subparagraph, 
     the term `eligible State' means a State that--

       ``(I) has a population density of less than 20 individuals 
     per square mile; and
       ``(II) comprises a land area of 10,000 square miles or 
     more.

       ``(ii) Historical apportionments.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, for fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, the Secretary shall increase the amount of 
     funds that, but for this clause, would be apportioned to an 
     eligible State

[[Page S1401]]

     under section 104(b)(3) so that each eligible State receives 
     not less of the apportioned and allocated funds described in 
     section 1015(a)(1) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 104 note; 105 Stat. 1943) 
     (as in effect on October 1, 1996) than the percentage listed 
     for the State in section 1015(a)(2) of that Act (as in effect 
     on October 1, 1996).
       ``(iii) Set-aside.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, on October 1 of fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall--

       ``(I) before making any funds available out of the Highway 
     Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for the 
     fiscal year, set aside from the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
     Mass Transit Account) for the fiscal year an amount equal to 
     1 percent of the funds that were made available out of the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for 
     the preceding fiscal year;
       ``(II) after making any increase for an eligible State 
     necessary to carry out clause (ii), allocate 50 percent of 
     the amount set aside under subclause (I) among eligible 
     States in the ratio that--

       ``(aa) the number of miles of highways on the National 
     Highway System in the eligible State; bears to
       ``(bb) the number of miles of highways on the National 
     Highway System in all eligible States; and

       ``(III) after making any increase for an eligible State 
     necessary to carry out clause (ii), allocate 50 percent of 
     the amount set aside under subclause (I) among eligible 
     States in the ratio that--

       ``(aa) the number of vehicle miles traveled on the National 
     Highway System in the eligible State during the latest 1-
     year-period for which data are available; bears to
       ``(bb) the number of vehicle miles traveled on the National 
     Highway System in all eligible States during the latest 1-
     year-period for which data are available.''.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I might say to my friend from North Dakota 
that he raises a most important issue, and it is obviously one that we 
are going to have a tremendous tug-of-war on around here. It is my 
hope, representing a State with very old infrastructure and with 
enormous public works projects, a very large population in an urban 
area, that as we approach this we are not going to get dragged into a 
fractionalized, regionalized, State-versus-State, haves-versus-have-
nots issue. But, rather, that we are going to think this through in 
terms of the overall needs of the Nation which he has appropriately 
addressed with respect to his State and his region. I think the key 
here is to make sure we come out with an adequate amount of 
infrastructure investment for the country as a whole and with an 
appropriate division of that. I certainly intend to work with him and 
others, but I think we need to guarantee that.

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the 
Rural States Highway Preservation Act. This is an act that would ensure 
fairness in the distribution of funds from the Highway Trust Fund. But 
more importantly, Mr. President, this bill ensures that we continue our 
commitment to maintain a national transportation system, that in doing 
so, we meet all the Nation's transportation needs and, just as 
importantly, the unique needs of our States that have small populations 
and very large geographic areas, States such as New Mexico, North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Alaska, Nevada, Montana, and Wyoming.
  My home State of New Mexico has only 14 people per square mile and 
its total land area is 121,335 square miles. Residents of large, rural 
States like New Mexico pay more per person in gas taxes because of the 
long driving distances. It is not uncommon for New Mexicans to travel 
50 or more miles to their nearest large town or country seat, where 
they have to go to get essential supplies, health care, school, or 
interact with their government. To maintain this infrastructure, New 
Mexicans currently pay one of the highest per capita State taxes to 
maintain the same highways used by interstate trucks or the tourists 
who visit our beautiful State. Under any eventual ISTEA reauthorization 
that does not address these unique characteristics, New Mexico and 
similar States would lose highway funding that it could never recover. 
Under devolution, for example, New Mexico would have to impose at least 
a 17.8-cent gas tax just to generate the same revenue as it received 
from the Highway Trust Fund in 1995. Such a proposal would be 
devastating not only for our residents, but for the many trucks that 
cross our State, and for the increasing traffic between Mexico and the 
United States. Such a proposal would impair new Mexico's highways, but 
because we are but one part of a national transportation system, it 
would impair our national system.
  The Rural States Highway Preservation Act would ensure that 
transportation funds that will be distributed under a reauthorized 
ISTEA will be done fairly, with consideration to the uniqueness of 
States with low population density and high geographic area, and with 
our national transportation needs as a priority.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dorgan, 
        Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 332. A bill to prohibit the importation of goods produced abroad 
with child labor, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                 THE CHILD LABOR DETERRENCE ACT OF 1997

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Child Labor 
Deterrence Act of 1997. The bill I am introducing today prohibits the 
importation of any product made, whole or in part, by children under 
the age of 15 who are employed in manufacturing or mining. This is the 
fourth time I have come to the floor of the Senate to introduce this 
bill, and I will continue to introduce it until it becomes law.
  Mr. President, recently, the International Labor Organization [ILO] 
released a very grim report about the number of children who toil away 
in abhorrent conditions. The ILO estimates that over 200 million 
children worldwide under the age of 15 are working instead of receiving 
a basic education. Many of these children begin working in factories at 
the age of 6 or 7, some even younger. They are poor, malnourished, and 
often forced to work 60-hour weeks for little or no pay.
  Child labor is most prevalent in countries with high unemployment 
rates. According to the ILO, some 61 percent of child workers, nearly 
153 million children, are found in Asia; 32 percent, or 80 million, are 
in Africa and 7 percent, or 17.5 million, live in Latin America. Adult 
unemployment rates in some nations runs over 20 percent. In Latin 
America, for example, about 1 in every 10 children are workers. 
Furthermore, in many nations where child labor is prevalent, more money 
is spent and allocated for military expenditures than for education and 
health services.
  The situation is as deplorable as it is enormous. In many developing 
countries children represent a substantial part of the work force and 
can be found in such industries as rugs, toys, textiles, mining, and 
sports equipment manufacturing.
  For instance, it is estimated that 65 percent of the wearing apparel 
that Americans purchase is assembled or manufactured abroad, therefore, 
increasing the chance that these items were made by abusive and 
exploitative child labor. In the rug industry, Indian and Pakistan 
produce 95 percent of their rugs for export. Some of the worst abuses 
of child labor have been documented in these countries, including 
bonded and slave labor.
  Venezuela and Colombia exported $6,084,705 and $1,385,669 worth of 
mined products respectively to the United States in 1995. Both were 
documented by the Department of Labor as using child labor in mining. 
Mining hazards for children include exposure to harmful dusts, gases, 
and fumes that cause respiratory diseases that can develop into 
silicosis, pulmonary fibrosis, asbestosis and emphysema after some 
years of exposure. Child miners also suffer from physical strain, 
fatigue and musculoskeletal disorders, as well as serious injuries from 
falling objects.
  Children may also be crippled physically by being forced to work too 
early in life. For example, a large scale ILO survey in the Philippines 
found that more than 60 percent of working children were exposed to 
chemical and biological hazards, and that 40 percent experienced 
serious injuries or illnesses.
  These practices are often underground, but the ILO report points out 
that children are still being sold outright for a sum of money. Other 
times, landlords buy child workers from their tenants, or labor 
contractors pay rural families in advance in order to take their 
children away to work in carpet weaving, glass manufacturing or 
prostitution. Child slavery of this type has long been reported in 
South Asia,

[[Page S1402]]

South East Asia and West Africa, despite vigorous official denial of 
its existence.
  Additionally, children are increasingly being bought and sold across 
national borders by organized networks. The ILO report states that at 
least five such international networks trafficking in children exist: 
from Latin America to Europe and the Middle East; from South and South 
East Asia to northern Europe and the Middle East; a European regional 
market; an associated Arab regional market; and, a West Africa export 
market in girls.
  In Pakistan, the ILO reported in 1991 that an estimated half of the 
50,000 children working as bonded labor in Pakistan's carpet-weaving 
industry will never reach the age of 12--victims of disease and 
malnutrition.
  I have press reports from India of children freed from virtual 
slavery in the carpet factories of northern India. Twelve-year-old 
Charitra Chowdhary recounted his story--he said, ``If we moved slowly 
we were beaten on our backs with a stick. We wanted to run away but the 
doors were always locked.''
  Mr. President, that's what this bill is about, children, whose dreams 
and childhood are being sold for a pittance--to factory owners and in 
markets around the globe.
  It is about protecting children around the globe and their future. It 
is about eliminating a major form of child abuse in our world. It is 
about breaking the cycle of poverty by getting these kids out of 
factories and into schools. It is about raising the standard of living 
in the Third World so we can compete on the quality of goods instead of 
the misery and suffering of those who make them. It is about assisting 
Third World governments to enforce their laws by ending the role of the 
United States in providing a lucrative market for goods made by abusive 
and exploitative child labor and encouraging other nations to do the 
same.
  Mr. President, unless the economic exploitation of children is 
eliminated, the potential and creative capacity of future generations 
will forever be lost to the factory floor.
  Mr. President, the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1997 is intended to 
strengthen existing U.S. trade laws and help Third World countries 
enforce their child labor laws. The bill directs the U.S. Secretary of 
Labor to compile and maintain a list of foreign industries and their 
respective host countries that use child labor in the production of 
exports to the United States. Once the Secretary of Labor identifies a 
foreign industry, the Secretary of the Treasury is instructed to 
prohibit the importation of a product from an identified industry. The 
entry ban would not apply if a U.S. importer signs a certificate of 
origin affirming that they took reasonable steps to ensure that 
products imported from identified industries are not made by child 
labor. In addition, the President is urged to seek an agreement with 
other governments to secure an international ban on trade in the 
products of child labor. Further, any company or individual who would 
intentionally violate the law would face both civil and criminal 
penalties.
  This legislation is not about imposing our standards on the 
developing world. It's about preventing those manufacturers in the 
developing world who exploit child labor from imposing their standards 
on the United States. They are forewarned. If manufacturers and 
importers insist on investing in child labor, instead of investing in 
the future of children, I will work to assure that their products are 
barred from entering the United States.
  Mr. President, as I said when I first introduced this bill 4 years 
ago, it is time to end this human tragedy and our participation in it. 
It is time for greater government and corporate responsibility. No 
longer can officials in the Third World or U.S. importers turn a blind 
eye to the suffering and misery of the world's children. No longer do 
American consumers want to provide a market for goods produced by the 
sweat and toil of children. By providing a market for goods produced by 
child labor, U.S. importers have become part of the problem by 
perpetuating the impoverishment of poor families. Through this 
legislation, importers now have the opportunity to become part of the 
solution by ending this abominable practice.
  Mr. President, countries do not have to wait until poverty is 
eradicated or they are fully developed before eliminating the economic 
exploitation of children. In fact, the path to development is to 
eliminate child labor and increase expenditures on children such as 
primary education. In far too many countries, governments spend 
millions on military expenditures and fail to provide basic educational 
opportunities to its citizens. As a result, over 130 million children 
are not in primary school.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, my bill places no undue burden on U.S. 
importers. I know of no importer, company, or department store that 
would willingly promote the exploitation of children. I know of no 
importer, company, or department store that would want their products 
and image tainted by having their products produced by child labor. And 
I know that no American consumer would knowingly purchase something 
made with abusive and exploitative child labor. These entities take 
reasonable steps to ensure the quality of their goods; they should also 
be willing to take reasonable steps to ensure that their goods are not 
produced by child labor.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 333. A bill to increase the period of availability of certain 
emergency relief funds allocated under section 125 of title 23, United 
States Code, to carry out a project to repair or reconstruct a portion 
of a Federal-aid primary route in San Mateo, CA.


                      THE DEVIL'S SLIDE TUNNEL ACT

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Devil's 
Slide Tunnel Act to allow previously appropriated funds to be used for 
a tunnel project in San Mateo County, CA. This bill is essentially a 
technical change to a 1984 emergency spending bill to provide relief 
for heavy winter storms that occurred during the winter of 1982-83. 
These rains caused a mountain mud slide to block the use of California 
Highway 1, a key coastal highway linking San Mateo County to San 
Francisco.
  This section of highway has become known as Devil's Slide because it 
crosses a sea cliff 600 feet above the Pacific Ocean surf about 12 
miles south of San Francisco. Perennial closures because of mud slides 
have cut off coastal communities, particularly access to emergency 
services during disasters as well as to local businesses. Congress 
approved the supplemental appropriations for permanent repair after 
exhaustive study, including field hearings by the House Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee.
  The California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] made temporary 
repairs and proposed a bypass construction. The bypass was opposed by 
environmental interests and construction was blocked in court for 
years. This battle fortunately ended in November when voters 
overwhelming approved a referendum calling for construction of a mile-
long tunnel as a project alternative.
  Congressman Tom Lantos has introduced legislation in the House to 
carry out the voters' request. I am introducing an identical bill. Our 
legislation simply amends the law to allow for previously appropriated 
funds to be used for a project alternative and that the amount is 
available until expended.
  It is time that we fix this dangerous highway section that threatens 
many people's lives and livelihoods. I urge my colleagues to join me 
and take swift action to allow the project alternative to proceed.
  I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 333

       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 ``Devil's Slide Tunnel Act''.

     SEC. 2. PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY.

       Section 6 of the Act entitled ``An Act to apportion certain 
     funds for construction of the National System of Interstate 
     and Defense Highways for fiscal year 1985 and to increase the 
     amount authorized to be expended for emergency relief under 
     title 23, United States Code, and for other purposes'', 
     approved March 9, 1984 (98 Stat. 55), is amended--

[[Page S1403]]

       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``A 
     project''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Availability of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, sums that are allocated under section 3 for 
     any project alternative selected under this section before, 
     on, or after the date of enactment of this subsection shall 
     remain available until expended.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 334. A bill to amend section 541 of the National Housing Act with 
respect to the partial payment of claims on health care facilities; to 
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                 partial payment of claims legislation

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that makes a 
small but significant change in the hospital mortgage program and the 
nursing home mortgage program administered by the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. The Section 242 Program, as it is known, enables 
HUD to guarantee to private lenders that they will not lose money on a 
construction loan to a hospital. If the hospital cannot make its 
payments, HUD will assume the mortgage. The program insures loans for 
renovation, modernization, and new construction, and also covers the 
refinancing of existing mortgages. The Section 232 program does the 
same for nursing home projects.
  In August, 1995 the portfolio included 100 projects in 18 States. It 
is particularly important in New York where State regulations require 
hospitals to secure such insurance and where construction costs are 
high. Further, because New York is deregulating its hospitals, in the 
next few years the hospitals need as much flexibility as possible, 
including the ability to refinance existing debt. The program will be 
more important than ever.
  Ensuring hospital mortgages may seem to be a risky venture, but this 
program is successful. Since 1969 it has made a net contribution to the 
government of $221 million through fees it charges the hospitals, and 
in only three years has it had a negative net cash flow. The most 
recent was 1991.
  The bill I am offering today would strengthen the program by giving 
HUD partial payment of claims authority. Currently, if a hospital or 
nursing home cannot make a mortgage payment, HUD must assume the entire 
mortgage at considerable cost and administrative effort. Partial 
payment of claims would prevent this. If, for example, a hospital owes 
a $10 million payment and only has $6 million available, HUD would 
simply provide the $4 million shortfall. There would be no requirement 
nor necessity of assuming the mortgage.

  HUD already has partial payment of claims authority in most of its 
other mortgage insurance programs, such as the multifamily housing 
program, and it works well. There is no reason for the Agency not to 
have this authority in the hospital and the nursing home program, and 
in fact it makes eminent sense.
  My friend and colleague, Senator D'Amato, joins me as a cosponsor of 
this bill. I ask my other colleagues to join us in supporting this 
bill.
  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. 334

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

     SECTION 1. PARTIAL PAYMENT OF CLAIMS ON HEALTH CARE 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 541(a) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1735f-19) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by adding ``and health care 
     facilities'' at the end; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``or a health care facility (including a 
     nursing home, intermediate care facility, or board and care 
     home (as those terms are defined in section 232)), a hospital 
     (as that term is defined in section 242), or a group practice 
     facility (as that term is defined in section 1106))'' after 
     ``1978''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or for keeping the health care facility 
     operational to serve community needs,'' after ``character of 
     the project,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hollings, Mr. 
        Faircloth, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Helms, Mr. Coats, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
        Shelby, Mr. Bond, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hutchinson, 
        Mr. Gramm, Mr. Robb, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Cleland and Mr. Grams):
  S. 335. A bill to authorize funds for construction of highways, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


              THE STEP-21 ISTEA INTEGRITY RESTORATION ACT

 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by 
Senator Bob Graham and so many of my colleagues in introducing the 
STEP-21, ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act, to reauthorize our Nation's 
surface transportation programs.
  The current legislation--commonly known as ISTEA--expires on 
September 30 of this year. New legislation must be passed for our 
States and local governments to receive any transportation funds on the 
beginning of the new fiscal year on October 1.
  Mr President, my bill presents a regionally balanced, multimodal 
approach for establishing a new transportation policy that will 
successfully carry us into the 21st century.
  STEP-21 is a 5-year authorization bill that maintains a strong 
Federal role in transportation. It responds to the mobility and 
accessibility needs of all Americans to a modern and safe 
transportation system. It provides the resources and policies necessary 
for our American products to compete in a global marketplace. And, we 
continue the guiding principles of ISTEA committed to a system that is 
economically efficient and environmentally sound.
  Our STEP-21 proposal is grounded in two fundamental principles--
funding equity and a streamlined program.
  Already much attention has focused on the regional disparities in the 
funding distribution formulas. But, our legislation recognizes that all 
regions of the Nation have important transportation needs. We are 
committed to devising a program that--for the first time--responds to 
our transportation demands using current needs information. In doing 
so, we provide a program that acknowledges that sparsely populated 
States with large land areas or States with small populations cannot go 
it alone. We are committed to continuing a national transportation 
system--to provide effective connections among the States. I believe 
the needs of these States must be addressed and we do so in our 
legislation.
  STEP-21 has a much broader focus than just the single issue of 
funding distribution.
  STEP-21 moves us beyond the advances of ISTEA with further 
streamlining of the current bureaucratic maze of Federal programs. We 
reduce the number of program categories, thus increasing the 
flexibility permitted for our State and local partners to determine 
their own transportation priorities.
  STEP-21 also continues and builds upon the many successes of ISTEA.
  Mr. President, this legislation maintains our national focus on 
multimodal solutions to moving people and goods efficiently.
  We continue the flexibility of State and local decisionmakers to 
invest their resources in nonhighway alternatives--such as transit or 
commuter rail options.
  We continue the important role of metropolitan planning organizations 
and their need to have an identified funding source.
  We recognize a full and open planning process that stimulates public 
participation at both the State and local level will foster 
transportation solutions that respond to larger community goals.
  We provide a program that is environmentally sound, recognizing that 
transportation plays an important part in our national goal to improve 
the quality of the air we breathe. States can continue to invest in 
those transportation choices that move people and goods without 
degrading air quality. The enhancements program that invests in 
alternative forms of transportation--bike paths and pedestrian 
walkways--and mitigates the impacts of past transportation choices on 
our communities quality of life will be continued.
  In brief, STEP-21 ensures that we have a national multimodal 
transportation policy that is ready to meet the economic demands of a 
global marketplace. It provides solutions to the regional disparities 
of the current program and the Federal second-guessing of State and 
local transportation

[[Page S1404]]

choices. It does not retreat from the principles of ISTEA to provide 
for an open decisionmaking process permitting States and localities to 
invest in different modes of transportation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES:
  S. 336. A bill to convert certain excepted service positions in the 
United States Fire Administration to competitive service positions, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                  u.s. fire administration legislation

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation to convert eight remaining excepted service positions at 
the U.S. Fire Administration to competitive service status.
  During its first few years of operation, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency used an excepted service authority provided under the 
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 in order to quickly staff the 
National Fire Academy with personnel who were uniquely qualified in 
fire education.
  In the early 1980's, after the Academy's original vacancies had been 
filled and the Academy was up and running, it became FEMA's policy to 
fill openings at the NFA through a competitive civil service hiring 
system. Today, 91 of the NFA's 99 employees are under the general 
schedule with only eight employees who were hired in the 1970's and 
early eighties remaining in excepted service status. As a result, these 
remaining eight are subject to significant limitations within the USFA. 
Although they each average over 17 years of Federal service and were 
hired solely because of their strong backgrounds and unique 
qualifications in fire education, they are legally barred from 
competing for management positions within the Fire Administration. The 
remaining eight excepted service employees are not even allowed to 
serve on details to competitive service jobs--even within their own 
organization--without an official waiver from the Office of Personnel 
Management.
  Mr. President, I am proposing to remedy this situation. The 
legislation which I am introducing will enable the Director of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Director of the Office of 
Personnel Management to convert any employees appointed to the Fire 
Administration under the Federal Fire Protection and Control Act, to 
competitive service--without any break in service, diminution of 
service, reduction of cumulative years of service, or requirement to 
serve any additional probationary period with the Administration. Those 
converted under this legislation shall also remain in the Civil Service 
Retirement System and retain their seniority. This practice is 
consistent with other federally supported training academies. The 
Congressional Budget Office has indicated that there would be no cost 
for this conversion, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of 
this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
        Nickles, and Mr. Helms):
  S. 337. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to 
restrict assistance to foreign organizations that perform or actively 
promote abortions; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


        the foreign assistance act of 1961 amendment act of 1997

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. 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. 337

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

     SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN ORGANIZATIONS 
                   THAT PERFORM OR ACTIVELY PROMOTE ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(h) Restriction on Assistance to Foreign Organizations 
     That Perform or Actively Promote Abortions.--
       ``(1) Performance of abortions.--
       ``(A) Restriction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no funds appropriated for population planning activities 
     under subsection (b) or other population assistance may be 
     made available for any foreign private, nongovernmental, or 
     multilateral organization until the organization certifies to 
     the President that it will not, during the period for which 
     the funds are made available, perform abortions in any 
     foreign country, except where the life of the mother would be 
     endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term or in cases 
     of forcible rape or incest.
       ``(B) Statutory construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) 
     may be construed to apply to the treatment of injuries or 
     illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions or to 
     assistance provided directly to the government of a country.
       ``(2) Lobbying activities.--
       ``(A) Restriction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no funds appropriated for population planning activities 
     under subsection (b) or other population assistance may be 
     made available for any foreign private, nongovernmental, or 
     multilateral organization until the organization certifies to 
     the President that it will not, during the period for which 
     the funds are made available, violate the laws of any foreign 
     country concerning the circumstances under which abortion is 
     permitted, regulated, or prohibited, or engage in any 
     activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental policies 
     of any foreign country concerning the circumstances under 
     which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited, except 
     as provided in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 
     activities in opposition to coercive abortion or involuntary 
     sterilization.
       ``(3) Application to subcontractors and subgrantees.--The 
     prohibitions of this subsection shall apply to funds made 
     available to a foreign organization either directly or as a 
     subcontractor or subgrantee, and the certifications required 
     by this subsection shall apply to activities in which the 
     organization engages either directly or through a 
     subcontractor or subgrantee.''.
       (b) Appropriations Covered.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall apply to appropriations made before, on, 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. Abraham, Mr. President: I rise to join my colleague, Senator 
Hutchinson, as an original cosponsor of S. 337, his amendment to the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
  This legislation, Mr. President, will subject our nation's funding of 
international population control programs to appropriate restrictions, 
seeing to it that American monies are not used to promote or perform 
abortions.
  In adopting this amendment we will continue our country's long 
established policy of opposing the use of our taxpayer's money to fund 
controversial procedures. First, this bill prohibits funding to any 
foreign organization, whether nongovernmental, multilateral or private, 
that performs or actively promotes abortion. Second, it prohibits 
organizations receiving U.S. funds from violating any of the host 
country's laws concerning abortion and from engaging in efforts to 
alter the host country's abortion laws. There is an exception for 
activities in opposition to coercive abortions or involuntary 
sterilizations. Third, this legislation extends these prohibitions to 
subcontractors and subgrantees of foreign organizations which receive 
funding under the population assistance program.
  I strongly support this legislation because I believe that it will be 
insure that U.S.-funded population planning programs are administered 
in an appropriate manner. By this I mean that they will abide by the 
guidelines Congress laid down for 10 years, under both the Reagan and 
the Bush administrations. S. 337 will continue our established practice 
of protecting taxpayers from misuse of their funds and protecting 
unborn children around the world. It is a worthy piece of legislation. 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Helms and 
        Mr. Robb:)

  S. 339. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to revise the 
requirements for procurement of products of Federal Prison Industries 
to meet needs of Federal agencies, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


      THE FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the 
Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. This bill, 
which is cosponsored by Senators Abraham, Akaka, Helms, and Robb, would 
implement the recommendation of the National Performance Review that we 
should ``require [Federal Prison Industries] to compete commercially 
for federal agencies' business'' instead of having a legally protected 
monopoly. Our bill would ensure that the taxpayers get the best 
possible value for their Federal procurement dollars. If a Federal 
agency could get a better product at a lower

[[Page S1405]]

price from the private sector, it would be permitted to do so--and the 
taxpayers would get the savings.
  Mr. President, many in both Government and industry believe that FPI 
products are frequently overpriced, inferior in quality, or both. For 
example, I understand that the Veterans Administration has sought 
repeal of FPI's mandatory preference on several occasions, on the 
grounds that FPI pricing for textiles, furniture, and other products 
are routinely higher than identical items purchased from commercial 
sources. Most recently, VA officials estimated that the repeal of the 
preference would save $18 million over a 4-year period for their agency 
alone, making that money available for veterans services.
  Similarly, the Deputy Commander of the Defense Logistics Agency, 
wrote in a May 3, 1996, letter to Members of the House that FPI has had 
a 42 percent delinquency rate in its clothing and textile deliveries, 
compared to a 6 percent rate for commercial industry. For this record 
of poor performance, FPI has charged prices that were an average of 13 
percent higher than commercial prices.
  On July 30, 1996, the master chief petty officer of the Navy 
testified before the House National Security Committee that the FPI 
monopoly on Government furniture contracts has undermined the Navy's 
ability to improve living conditions for its sailors. Master Chief 
Petty Officer John Hagan stated, and I quote:

       In order to efficiently use our scarce resources, we need 
     congressional assistance in changing the Title 18 statute 
     that requires all the Services to obtain a waiver for each 
     and every furniture order not placed with the Federal Prison 
     Industry/UNICOR. * * * Speaking frankly, the FPI/UNICOR 
     product is inferior, costs more, and takes longer to procure. 
     UNICOR has, in my opinion, exploited their special status 
     instead of making changes which would make them more 
     efficient and competitive. The Navy and other Services need 
     your support to change the law and have FPI compete with GSA 
     furniture manufacturers. Without this change, we will not be 
     serving Sailors or taxpayers in the most effective and 
     efficient way.
  In the last Congress this bill was supported by the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
National Federation of Independent Business, the Business and 
Industrial Furniture Manufacturers' Association, the American Apparel 
Manufacturers' Association, the Industrial Fabrics Association 
International, and the Competition in Contracting Act Coalition. It has 
also received support from hundreds of small businesses from Michigan 
and around the country that have seen FPI take jobs away from their 
businesses and give them to FPI with a guaranteed purchase--regardless 
of price and quality.
  We all want to do what we can to ensure that we make constructive 
work available for Federal prisoners, but the way we are doing it is 
wrong. As one small businessman in the furniture industry put it in 
emotional testimony at a House hearing last year:

       Is it justice that Federal Prison Industries would step in 
     and take business away from a disabled Vietnam veteran who 
     was twice wounded fighting for our country and give that work 
     to criminals who have trampled on honest citizens' rights, 
     therefore effectively destroying and bankrupting that hero's 
     business which the Veteran's Administration suggested he 
     enter?

  At the end of the last Congress, I received a letter indicating the 
Administration's agreement that the process by which Federal agencies 
purchase products from Federal Prison Industries needs to be reformed. 
That letter states:

       The Administration favors reform of Federal Prison 
     Industries to improve its customer service, pricing, and 
     delivery while not endangering its work program for Federal 
     inmates. * * * The Administration will present reform 
     proposals for the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in 
     the next session of Congress.

  With this letter, the administration has promised to join us in a 
serious reevaluation of the process by which Federal Prison Industries 
sells its products to other Federal agencies. The heart of that process 
is, of course, FPI's mandatory source status. The administration has 
made a commitment to work with us on reforming the Federal Prison 
Industries procurement process in this Congress, and I intend to hold 
the administration to that commitment.
  Mr. President, our bill would not require FPI to close any of its 
facilities, force FPI to eliminate any jobs for Federal prisoners, or 
undermine FPI's ability to ensure that inmates are productively 
occupied. It would simply require FPI to compete for Federal contracts 
on the same terms as all other Federal contractors. That is 
simple justice to the hard-working citizens in the private sector, with 
whom FPI would be required to compete.

  Mr. President, I am a supporter of the idea of putting Federal 
inmates to work. A strong prison work program not only reduces inmate 
idleness and prison disruption, but can also help build a work ethic, 
provide job skills, and enable prisoners to return to productive 
society upon their release.
  However, I believe that a prison work program must be conducted in a 
manner that does not unfairly eliminate the jobs of hard-working 
citizens who have not committed crimes. FPI will be able to achieve 
this result only if it diversifies its product lines and avoids the 
temptation to build its work force by continuing to displace private 
sector jobs in its traditional lines of work. We need to have jobs for 
prisoners, but it is unfair and wasteful to allow FPI to designate 
whose jobs it will take, and when it will take them. Competition will 
be better for FPI, better for the taxpayer, and better for working men 
and women around the country.
  I had hoped to get a vote on this bill last year, but the 
parliamentary situation at the end of the Congress made that 
impossible. However, this issue is not going to go away. The issue is 
too important to the taxpayers, and too important to the many small 
businesses adversely affected by unfair competition from Federal Prison 
Industries, to be ignored. I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to make reform of the Federal Prison Industries procurement process a 
reality in this Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 341. A bill to establish a bipartisan commission to study and 
provide recommendations on restoring the financial integrity of the 
Medicare Program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act; to the 
Committee on Finance.


      the national bipartisan commission on the future of medicare

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Moynihan, the ranking member of the Senate Committee 
on Finance, to introduce legislation establishing a National Commission 
on the Future of Medicare.
  This Medicare Commission will serve as an essential catalyst to 
congressional action, and ultimately lead to a solution that will 
preserve and protect the Medicare Program for current beneficiaries, 
their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
  Mr. President, we have two immense challenges presented by the 
Medicare crisis. First, we have the short-term problem, the looming 
insolvency date of 2001. Second, in the not distant future, the vast 
numbers of baby boomers will challenge the long-term viability of 
Medicare. Congress must take action immediately on the short-term 
bankruptcy crisis, where the Commission will help us solve the longer 
term problem.
  I am encouraged that President Clinton has moved in our direction by 
offering in his budget package a $100 billion reduction in Medicare 
spending growth over the next 5 years. I must admit, however, that I 
was somewhat concerned when the President, in his State of the Union 
Address last week, devoted only one sentence to discussing his plans 
for Medicare. And half of that sentence was devoted to expanding the 
program.
  The President stated that his plan extends the life of the Medicare 
trust fund until 2007. However, in order to achieve this, the 
President's budget resorts to a budgetary sleight of hand. If we truly 
are to consider taking steps to preserve and protect the Medicare 
Program as a whole for future generations, shifting money from one 
trust fund account to the other does nothing for its long-term health. 
It only buys us a little extra time. Instead, we should take steps to 
extend the short-term solvency without budget accounting gimmicks.
  Relying on a gimmick like the home health transfer has a certain 
appeal--it buys us some time by extending the short-term life of the 
Medicare hospital insurance, HI or part A, trust

[[Page S1406]]

fund which is headed for bankruptcy in 2001. Quite simply, Medicare is 
spending more than it collects from all sources of revenues. 
Transferring the majority of the outlays for home health care extends 
the life of the HI trust fund without having to make any real 
decisions.

  Gail Wilsnsky, a well-known health economist, stated recently ``[t]he 
terms of the transfer of 480 billion of home care should be considered 
carefully because of the precedent it sets in transferring an 
obligation into what effectively is the general revenue of the 
Treasury. Normally, when an expense is brought into part B, a portion 
of the total spending becomes part of the premium paid by the elderly 
and the expense itself is subjected to a 20 percent coinsurance charge. 
This is not being done for the home health care transfer. While an 
argument can be made that the separation of Medicare into parts A and 
B, with two separate streams of funding is an archaic holdover from 
Medicare's inception, removing the limited cost constraints that now 
exist without reforming the entire program is very risky.''
  The anticipated bankruptcy of the trust fund in 2001 means there will 
not be money to pay the hospital, skilled nursing care, home health 
care, and hospice care bills of our senior citizens and disabled 
individuals who reply on Medicare. If we change current law, Medicare 
trends will continue on a collision course.
  In 1995, expenditures out of the HI trust fund exceeded all sources 
of revenues into the trust fund. The Congressional Budget Office 
predicts that in 2001 Medicare will out spend its revenues and spend 
down its current surplus, becoming insolvent with a $4.5 billion 
shortfall. This shortfall grows rapidly to over one half trillion 
dollars--$556 billion--in 2007. And, this is before the baby-boomers 
begin to retire in 2010.
  In the long-term, demographic trends will continue to increase 
financial pressure on the trust fund, challenging its ability to 
maintain our promise to beneficiaries. Today, there are less than 40 
million Americans who qualify to receive Medicare. By the year 2010, 
the number will be approaching 50 million, and by 2020, it will be over 
60 million. While these numbers are increasing, the number of workers 
supporting retirees will decrease. Today, there are almost four workers 
per retiree, but in 2030 there will be only about two per retiree.
  The supplemental medical insurance [SMI] trust fund does not have the 
same solvency problem, as it has an unlimited claim on the U.S. 
Treasury. The SMI trust fund is financed by a monthly premium paid by 
beneficiaries, which covers 25 percent of the cost of Medicare part B. 
The remaining costs are paid by general revenues. The SMI trust fund is 
solvent because the Federal Government is obligated to make up the 
difference between beneficiary premium amounts and part B costs.
  Spending for the SMI trust Fund is unsustainable. According to CBO, 
SMI spending is expected to increase at an annual rate of 9.1 percent 
between 1997 and 2007, while its premium receipts will grow by only 4.5 
percent a year. Under current law, the percentage of costs paid from 
general revenues will steadily increase. In recent testimony, Joseph 
Antos, the Assistant Director for Health and Human Resources at CBO, 
described this situation precisely, ``The SMI program is no more 
financially sound than the HI program, in the sense that both 
components of Medicare are growing more rapidly than the economy's 
capacity to finance them.''

  The Commission should also consider that since Medicare's enactment 
in 1965, there has been a great deal of change in the private health 
care system in the United States, yet Medicare has remained 
fundamentally unchanged. Indeed, Medicare beneficiaries do not enjoy 
the same benefits private sector plans often offer their enrollees. 
This rigid 31-year-old program is unable to offer the private sector 
improvements in alternative systems of delivery of care or many 
technological advances. If Medicare were a television, it would be a 
30-year-old, 12-inch black and white model.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is modeled 
after two well-known previous bipartisan, bicameral national 
commissions.
  First, the mission of the Commission is similar to the 1983 National 
Commission on Social Security Reform, established by President Reagan 
by Presidential Executive Order, December 16, 1981. As was the charge 
to this 1983 Blue Ribbon Commission, the Medicare Commission is 
directed to thoroughly review Medicare and make appropriate 
recommendations. The Medicare Commission will review and analyze the 
long-term financial condition of both the Federal hospital insurance, 
HI or Part A, trust fund and the Federal supplementary medical 
insurance, SMI or Part B, trust fund.
  Second, the structure of the 15-member Medicare Commission follows 
more closely the model established by the 1990 U.S. Bipartisan 
Commission on Comprehensive Health Care, known as the Pepper 
commission. The Pepper commission was chaired by Senator Rockefeller 
and issued a report making recommendations on comprehensive health care 
reform.
  The Medicare Commission will facilitate our ability to address the 
Medicare crisis. Ultimately, I hope to see the Medicare Commission put 
forward a proposal after thoroughly analyzing the options that will 
truly preserve and protect the Medicare Program, not just through the 
next 5 years, but for the next generation so that we can leave a legacy 
of a robust Medicare Program for our children and our grandchildren.
  Mr. President, now is the time to put partisanship aside. Time is 
running short, and we need to work together to avert the crisis.
  Given the very short time that Medicare will remain solvent, and 
given the demographic facts of the American population, we cannot 
afford more delay. We need to preserve and protect the Medicare 
Program. We need to make sure we leave a solid legacy for the next 
generations. It is no longer time for rhetoric, but time for action. 
Playing politics with Medicare is simply wrong. Putting off what needs 
to be done is the cruelest tactic.
  I encourage my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring 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:

Summary of Legislation Establishing the National Bipartisan Commission 
                       on the Future of Medicare

       Establishes a 15 member commission.
       Based on the membership structure of the 1990 US Bipartisan 
     Commission on Comprehensive Health Care (also known as The 
     Pepper Commission), the 15 members are appointed in the 
     following manner: 3 by the President; 6 by the House of 
     Representatives (not more than 4 from the same political 
     party); 6 by the Senate (not more than 4 from the same 
     political party); and the Chairman is designated by the joint 
     agreement of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
     the Majority Leader of the Senate.
       Duties are similar to the 1983 National Commission on 
     Social Security Reform:
       1. review and analyze the long-term financial condition of 
     both Medicare Trust Funds;
       2. identify problems that threaten the financial integrity;
       3. analyze potential solutions that ensure the financial 
     integrity and the provision of appropriate benefits;
       4. make recommendations to restore solvency of the HI Trust 
     Fund and the financial integrity of the SMI Trust Fund;
       5. make recommendations for establishing the appropriate 
     financial structure of the program as a whole;
       6. make recommendations for establishing the appropriate 
     balance of benefits covered and beneficiary contributions; 
     and
       7. make recommendations for the time periods during which 
     the Commission recommendations should be implemented.
       Must submit a report to the President and Congress no later 
     than 12 months from the date of enactment.
       Commission terminates 30 days after report is submitted.
       Funding authorized to be appropriated from both Medicare 
     Trust Funds.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the 
chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, in introducing a bill that 
would establish a commission to address the long term problems 
confronting the Medicare Program.
  In 1983, I joined with then-Senator Bob Dole as a member of the 
Greenspan Commission, which proposed a series of reforms and 
improvements in the Social Security program. Congress' ability to 
resolve the complex and controversial issues facing Social Security

[[Page S1407]]

at that time were in doubt up until the last minute. In the end, it was 
the bipartisan nature of the Greenspan Commission that allowed Congress 
to agree on a solution.
  This year, combined tax income to the Medicare and OASDI trust funds 
has been less than the amount paid out of these trust funds. The 
trustees of the Federal hospital insurance trust fund, the independent 
actuaries at the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] and the 
Congressional Budget Office all agree that the HI trust fund will run 
out of money in the year 2001.
  Near-term insolvency can be resolved by reducing the rate of growth 
in the Medicare Program in legislation implementing the federal budget 
for fiscal year 1998. Yet current proposals do not address the 
demographic and structural factors that threaten the solvency of the 
Medicare Program over the longer term. Approaching changes in our 
Nation's demographics are well known. The so-called ``baby boom,'' 
consisting of individuals born between 1946 and 1964, will begin 
turning 65 in the year 2011. The sheer number of people in this 
demographic bulge will be overwhelming to the Medicare Program.
  At the same time, the number of people in the generations that follow 
is significantly smaller, such that by the year 2030 there will be only 
2.2 workers for each individual over 65, and thus eligible for 
Medicare. In 1995 there were 3.9 workers per beneficiary. These 
demographic changes, combined with projected growth in program costs 
under its current structure, guarantee an imbalance between the amount 
of money we will have to pay for the program and the cost of the 
benefits that it is expected to cover.
  During the recent Presidential campaign, the Republican candidate, 
Bob Dole, asked if I would sit on a Medicare Commission that he wanted 
to set up if he were elected President. I responded that I would be 
happy to serve on any such commission, regardless of which candidate 
won the White House. In the meantime, President Clinton has also called 
for a bipartisan process to address the long term difficulties facing 
Medicare. The President's most recent call for such a process came in 
his State of the Union Address last week.
  The bipartisan bill we are introducing today will begin this process. 
We urge our colleagues to join this important effort.

                          ____________________