[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 46 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3535-S3544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. COCHRAN:
  S. 1971. A bill to amend the American Folklife Preservation Act to 
permanently authorize the American Folklife Center of the Library of 
Congress; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


           The American Folklife Center Creation Act of 1998

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, a little more than 20 years ago, Congress 
enacted legislation which created the American Folklife Center at the 
Library of Congress. The legislation enjoyed broad bipartisan and 
bicameral support. The legislation I am introducing today will provide 
permanent authorization for the Center so that the Center may continue 
its work to preserve and share the collections of traditions which 
exemplify the diverse heritage of millions of ordinary Americans.
  The collections of the American Folklife Center contain rich and 
varied materials from my state of Mississippi and every state in the 
Nation. These materials document the diversity of the folk traditions 
of the many people who make up our nation. The Folklife Center serves 
as a national repository of traditional culture and is used by scholars 
from around the world as well as schoolchildren, teachers, and 
genealogists.
  The Congress has charged the American Folklife Center to preserve and 
present American Folklife for future generations. Providing the Center 
with permanent authorization will give the Center the security it needs 
to carry on its good work, continue its educational services, and 
strengthen its world-class collections. Permanent authorization will 
also allow the Center to engage the public's support of its collections 
through long-range planning and fundraising.
  American folklife is the traditional expressive culture shared within 
the many familial, ethnic, occupational, religious, and regional groups 
in the United States. It is the very basis of family and community 
life. I hope we can permanently authorize the Folklife Center so that 
these wonderful collections will be available to future generations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN:
  S. 1972. A bill to reform the laws relating to Postal Service 
Finances, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


                THE POSTAL FINANCING REFORM ACT OF 1998

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a bill that I 
originally introduced last fall--the Postal Financing Reform Act of 
1998. This bill is designed to do three things: allow the Postal 
Service to deposit funds in private sector institutions, invest in open 
markets--with Treasury approval of investment choices, and allow the 
Postal Service to borrow from private credit markets.
  For almost two decades now, the Postal Service has been self-
supporting. With a yearly budget near $60 billion, and just $100 
million appropriated to provide free mailing for the blind, free 
overseas voting, and reduced postage rates for certain nonprofit 
mailers, continuing U.S. Treasury control over Postal Service banking, 
investing, and borrowing is no longer necessary or justified. 
Nonetheless, when I first introduced the Postal Financing Reform Act 
last fall, specific concerns were raised by some in the postal 
community, and I agreed to make changes that were suggested. The Postal 
Financing Reform Act of 1998 incorporates these changes. Specifically, 
the revised 1998 Act reverts back to existing law bill language that 
would have potentially allowed the Postal Service to invest in its 
private sector competitors, and to benefit from an increased borrowing 
ceiling at the U.S. Treasury.
  Current law prevents the Postal Service from obtaining the most 
favorable combination of prices and services and results in added 
operating costs. Under this new approach, the Treasury Department would 
retain much of its current oversight, but it would no longer be the 
sole provider of certain financial services to the Postal Service.
  The Postal Financing Reform Act of 1998 proposes four significant 
changes to current law. First, section two of the bill amends Title 39 
of the U.S. Code to authorize the Postal Service to deposit its 
revenues in the Postal Service Fund within the U.S. Treasury or any 
Federal Reserve banks or depositories for public funds. The requirement 
to obtain the Secretary of the Treasury's approval before any funds be 
deposited elsewhere would be eliminated, just as this approval is no 
longer necessary for other quasi-public agencies like the Tennessee 
Valley Authority (TVA).
  Section three continues the provision of existing law which requires 
that the Secretary of the Treasury approve any investments the Postal 
Service may make in non-Government securities. At the same time, it 
would permit the Postal Service to invest in U.S. Government 
obligations on its own accord, without unnecessary constraints, thus 
enabling the Postal Service to take advantage of favorable conditions 
in the Government securities market.
  Section four removes the control of the Secretary of the Treasury 
over the Postal Service's financial borrowing decisions. The Postal 
Service would still be required to consult with the Secretary regarding 
the terms and conditions of the sale of any obligations issued by the 
Postal Service under section 2006(a) of Title 39, and the Secretary 
would still exercise a power of approval over the timing of a sale of 
obligations.
  Finally, section five of the bill removes the ability of the Postal 
Service to require the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase Postal 
Service obligations. It merely permits the Secretary of the Treasury to 
buy Postal Service obligations upon the Postal Service's request.
  I have heard from many sources that reforms in the Postal Service 
should be made. Though I have decided to refrain from undertaking 
comprehensive reform, I have selected instead a simple, straightforward 
correction of an out of date practice that would reduce costs and help 
hold down future rate increases, without increasing risk to the 
taxpayers.
  Those who believe the Postal Service should operate as efficiently as 
possible, thus reducing fees charged to consumers, should support this 
bill. So, too, should those who profess to see the Postal Service 
treated more like a business.
  I think it is time to act on this issue. I invite Senators to 
consider this proposal for reform and support this effort to ensure a 
more efficient and financially sound U.S. Postal Service.
  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:

    Section-by-Section Analysis--Postal Financing Reform Act of 1998


                         section 1. short title

       The short title of this Act is the Postal Financing Reform 
     Act of 1998.


      section 2. end of treasury control of postal service banking

       This provision would amend 39 U.S.C. 2003(d) by enabling 
     the Postal Service to have sole discretion to deposit its 
     revenues in the Postal Service Fund within the U.S. Treasury 
     or any Federal Reserve banks or depositories for public 
     funds. This amendment enables the Postal Service to deposit 
     its funds as it deems appropriate, and take advantage of 
     banking and other modern financial services in the open 
     market that are unavailable from the Treasury Department.

[[Page S3536]]

                 section 3. postal service investments

       This amendment to 39 U.S.C. 2003(c) ensures continued 
     oversight of any non-Government investments made by the 
     Postal Service. It continues the provision of existing law 
     which requires that the Secretary of the Treasury approve any 
     investments the Postal Service may make in non-Government 
     securities. At the same time, it would permit the Postal 
     Service to invest in U.S. Government obligations on its own 
     accord, without unnecessary constraints, thus enabling the 
     Postal Service to take advantage of favorable conditions in 
     the Government securities market.


   section 4. elimination of treasury preemption of borrowing by the 
                             postal service

       This amendment to 39 U.S.C. 2006(a) removes the control of 
     the Secretary of the Treasury over the Postal Service's 
     financial borrowing decisions. The Postal Service, however, 
     must consult with the Secretary of the Treasury for a 
     reasonable period of time, as determined by the Postal 
     Service, regarding the terms and conditions of the sale of 
     any obligations issued by the Postal Service under section 
     2006(a). The specification of a ``reasonable'' time, rather 
     than a specific number of days, is intended to ensure that 
     the consultation process is concluded in a commercially 
     reasonable time, and does not unduly restrict the borrowing 
     flexibility of the Postal Service. The Secretary will 
     exercise a power of approval over the timing (but not the 
     other terms) of a sale of obligations. At the end of the 
     consultation period, the Postal Service may proceed to issue 
     obligations to a party other than the Secretary, and the 
     Secretary cannot block such action, regardless of whether the 
     Secretary has approved such third-party sale. This provision 
     should allow the Postal Service to minimize interest expense 
     by obtaining the most cost efficient service available.


      section 5. elimination of postal service ``put'' on treasury

       Section 2006(b) of Title 39 allows the Postal Service to 
     require the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase obligations 
     of the Postal Service up to a limit of $2 billion. The 
     amendment removes the ability of the Postal Service to 
     require the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase Postal 
     Service obligations. It merely permits the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to buy Postal Service obligations upon the Postal 
     Service's request. Removing this ``put'' on the Treasury will 
     be consistent with the purpose of directing the Postal 
     Service borrowing to the private sector where it will be able 
     to take advantage of a broader market, albeit with the 
     requisite constraints.
       Since the decision to buy is at the discretion of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, there is no longer a need to place 
     a dollar limit on the amount of Postal Service obligations 
     that the Treasury can purchase. The total limit on Postal 
     Service debt in Section 2005 should apply.


                       section 6. effective date

       This Act will become effective 90 days after enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1973. A bill to amend section 2511 of title 18, United States 
Code, to revise the consent exception to the prohibition on the 
interception of oral, wire, or electronic communications; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                   the telephone privacy act of 1998

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Chafee, 
Hollings, Boxer, Torricelli, and Wellstone, to introduce the Telephone 
Privacy Act of 1998. The issue of telephone privacy thrusts itself into 
the news every so often. I have introduced similar legislation twice 
before, because these concerns have been with us since Alexander Graham 
Bell installed the first party line.
  In the early '80s Charles Wick was the head of USIA. He freely 
admitted that he had recorded more than eighty conversations with then 
President Reagan and former President Carter, cabinet members and many 
others. None of those people knew that Mr. Wick had recorded their 
conversations. I was absolutely appalled to learn that such conduct is 
perfectly legal. I have been trying to correct that gap in the law ever 
since.
  Usually, we hear about this issue after some incident where an 
unsuspecting person has suffered harsh personal consequences after a 
private conversation has been recorded and disseminated. The Speaker of 
the House himself was recently recorded by a third party while speaking 
on a cellular phone. If that call had been made on an ordinary phone, 
any party to the call could have recorded it without informing the 
Speaker or anyone else--and it would have been perfectly legal. He 
could have broadcast it on the evening news and published the 
transcript in the New York Times. This should be repugnant to almost 
everyone and yet it is all quite legal. My two previous efforts to make 
such conduct illegal failed. I believe that in the present environment 
a majority of our people think it is time to correct this abomination.
  Sixteen states have outlawed the taping of phone conversations 
without the consent of all parties to the call, but the federal law has 
not caught up with those states. Until a bill like mine becomes law, 
recording of personal conversations will be legal, so long as one party 
to the conversation is aware of such recording.
  How many Americans are aware that it is legal for the private 
telephone conversations of any person in this country to be monitored 
and even recorded without his or her consent? Indeed, how many Senators 
know?
  Americans cherish their privacy as nothing else. One of the reasons 
the President's popularity is so high is people believe his privacy and 
the First Lady's privacy has been unfairly invaded.
  How many times have we heard a recording on television or read a 
transcript in the newspaper where one of the parties makes some 
embarrassing revelation, confident that the conversation is 
``private,'' never suspecting that he or she was being recorded?
  I am not talking about authorized law enforcement surveillance. I'm 
not talking about calls to 911. I'm not talking about employers who 
must monitor calls made by employees in the course of their duties and 
my bill makes no change in the law regarding Caller ID technologies. My 
bill would also allow victims of phone threats to record 
threatening calls. This bill retains all of the existing exceptions to 
the law that allow our law enforcement agencies and intelligence 
gathering agencies to carry out their important duties unimpeded.

  I want to emphasize that the only change this bill is intended to 
make to the status quo is this: subject to existing exceptions, under 
my bill, the interception of wire and electronic communications will be 
permitted only where all parties have consented, rather than allowing 
only one party to make that determination. Existing penalties for 
violations of the law will remain unchanged.
  The current law leaves a huge hole in the rights of telephone users. 
We have tolerated that gap for many years, but those have been years in 
which communications technology has exploded. In 1998, the technology 
to intercept and record telephone calls and other wire communications 
is available to almost everyone--you can do it with an ordinary 
answering machine. Much of our lives is now conducted over the 
telephone. Too much of our privacy is at risk. Too much mischief can be 
made to allow this flaw in our right to privacy any longer.
  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. 1973

       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 ``Telephone Privacy Act of 
     1998''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF CONSENT EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION ON 
                   INTERCEPTION OF ORAL, WIRE, OR ELECTRONIC 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 2511(2)(d) of title 18, United States Code, shall 
     be revised to read as follows:
       ``(d)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a 
     person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, 
     oral, or electronic communication where all parties to the 
     communication have given prior consent to such interception 
     unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of 
     committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the 
     Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
       ``(ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (i), a person may 
     intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where 
     such person is party to the communication and the 
     communication conveys threats of physical harm, harassment or 
     intimidation.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1974. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from gross income any Alaska Permanent Fund dividend received by a 
child under age 14; to the Committee on Finance.


                            tax legislation

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that 
would

[[Page S3537]]

alleviate an IRS paperwork hassle that confronts every citizen of 
Alaska who has a child. I am pleased to be joined by the distinguished 
senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, in introducing this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, when this nation was facing the oil crisis of the 
1970s, Alaskan oil from Prudhoe Bay was in large part responsible for 
allowing our nation to bridge the oil crisis and overcome the blackmail 
the world faced from the OPEC cartel. The state of Alaska made a 
foresighted decision at that time that it would take a portion of the 
oil royalty money and place it into a trust fund for the benefit of the 
citizens of our State.
  This trust fund has grown significantly in the past two decades and 
has allowed the state to issue dividends to every citizen of the state 
each year. Mothers, fathers and children are all entitled to an equal 
share of the dividend. Yet when it comes time to file tax returns, 
every family with a child in Alaska is forced to file a separate tax 
return for the child based on the fact that the child's only income is 
the permanent fund dividend.
  Children under 14 must pay income tax it they have investment income 
of more than $650. If their investment income is greater than $1,400, a 
special ``kiddy tax'' is levied that taxes the child's income at the 
parents' highest tax rate. The kiddy tax was designed for one simple 
purpose: To prevent high income taxpayers from shifting income to their 
children for tax avoidance purposes.
  Mr. President, in the case of nearly every child in Alaska, there is 
no effort for parents to shift income to their children. A two-year old 
is required to file a tax return simply because the state had the 
foresight to invest state oil royalty income for the benefit of all 
it's citizens.
  In recent years, the annual Permanent Fund dividend checks have 
averaged nearly $1,000 per person. For a two-year old child who 
received that dividend, the child's parents are responsible for having 
a tax return prepared for the child that will show a tax liability of 
$52.50. As all of my colleagues know, filling out tax returns has 
become ever more complicated. Fewer and fewer individuals are filling 
out their own returns. Instead, they are having to pay professional 
prepares to fill out these returns.
  In fact, IRS reports that returns filled out by paid prepares are a 
record high this year--54% of all returns filed had been prepared by 
professionals. For an Alaskan family with two children, that means a 
paid preparer must fill out three separate tax forms--one for the 
mother and father and one for each of the two children. How much 
additional cost does the prepare charge for the additional returns? The 
simplest form to file--the 1040 EZ costs $16.50 at the local H&R block. 
For two children that's an additional $33, on top of the costs of the 
parents' return.
  And what does it cost the IRS to process that return? I've heard 
costs that range from $5 to $30. I don't think anyone knows the real 
answer.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is that families with children under 
14 in Alaska are subjected to additional IRS paperwork and filing 
requirements simply because their children's permanent fund dividends 
are subject to a few dollars of federal income tax.
  The legislation we are introducing today would exclude from income 
permanent fund dividends received by children under 14. This will 
eliminate the paperwork burdens that families in our state face simply 
because their children receive a dividend from the state. Although I am 
sure this will be scored as losing a modest amount of revenue, about 
$50 for every Alaskan child, IRS will have to process far fewer tax 
returns from Alaska's children and parents in Alaska will not have to 
incur additional tax preparation fees.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being not objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1974

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

     SECTION 1. INCOME TAX EXCLUSION FOR ALASKA PERMANENT FUND 
                   DIVIDENDS RECEIVED BY CHILDREN UNDER AGE 14.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by 
     redesignating section 138 as section 139 and by inserting 
     after section 137 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 138. ALASKA PERMANENT DIVIDENDS TO CHILDREN UNDER AGE 
                   14.

       ``Gross income shall not include any Alaska Permanent Fund 
     dividend received by an individual during a taxable year if 
     the individual has not attained age 14 before the close of 
     the taxable year.''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1(g)(7)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking ``(including Alaska permanent 
     fund dividends)''.
       (2) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 138 and inserting:

``Sec. 138. Alaska Permanent Fund dividends to children under age 14.
``Sec. 139. Cross references to other Acts.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWine (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1976. A bill to increase public awareness of the plight of victims 
of crime with developmental disabilities, to collect data to measure 
the magnitude of the problem, and to develop strategies to address the 
safety and justice needs of victims of crime with developmental 
disabilities; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


           the crime victims with disabilities awareness act

  Mr. DeWine. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senator 
Leahy to introduce the Crime Victims With Disabilities Awareness Act. 
The purpose of this legislation is to achieve three basic goals: first, 
to increase public awareness of the plight of crime victims with 
developmental disabilities; second, to start collecting data to measure 
the extent and nature of the problem; and third, to develop strategies 
to address the safety and justice needs of these victims.

  Research in foreign countries has found that persons with 
developmental disabilities are at a 4 to 10 times higher risk of 
becoming crime victims than those without disabilities. Studies in 
Canada, Australia, and Great Britain consistently show that crime 
victims with developmental disabilities suffer repeated victimization, 
because so few of the crimes against them are reported. Unfortunately, 
even when crimes against victims with disabilities are reported, there 
is sometimes a reluctance by justice officials to rely on the testimony 
of a disabled person, further making these victims a target for 
criminal predators.
  What do we know about similar crimes in the United States? Amazingly, 
little if any. No significant studies have been conducted in the United 
States. In fact, the Bureau of Justice Statistics in their annual 
National Crime Victims Survey does not specifically collect data about 
crimes against persons with disabilities.
  Research needs to be done in the United States to (1) understand the 
nature and extent of crimes against persons with developmental 
disabilities; (2) assess how the law enforcement and justice systems 
currently respond to crimes against the developmentally disabled; and 
(3) identify programs, policies, or laws that hold promise for making 
our law enforcement and justice systems more responsive to crimes 
against persons with developmental disabilities.
  Our legislation today would accomplish these three research goals. 
Our legislation would direct the Attorney General to contract with the 
National Research Council through the National Academy of Sciences' 
Committee on Law and Justice to develop a research agenda to increase 
the understanding and control of crime against persons with 
developmental disabilities. The National Academy of Sciences would 
develop a research agenda that includes convening an interdisciplinary 
panel of nationally recognized experts on crime victims with 
disabilities and related fields, to define and address critical issues 
to understanding crimes against people with developmental disabilities. 
Their research would focus on preventive, educative, social, and legal 
strategies, and recommend methods for addressing the needs of 
underserved populations.

[[Page S3538]]

  An authoritative report resulting from this process should provide 
some important answers.
  In addition, the bill would direct the Attorney General to begin 
collecting data for the National Crime Victims Survey of crime victims 
with developmental disabilities. The Attorney General is asked to study 
and report to the States and to Congress on how the States may collect 
centralized databases on the incidences of crimes against the disabled.
  One reason why this issue is so important, and why this legisation is 
necessary is because there are more and more people with developmental 
disabilities. The factors behind this rising population include poor 
prenatal nutrition and care, increases in child abuse, and substance 
abuse during pregnancy.
  I am hopeful that the research called for in this legislation will 
have broad, positive national policy implications. Greater knowledge 
about victims with developmental disabilities will help service 
providers target programs more effectively. Victims and their families 
will have a better understanding of crime risks. Justice and social 
service policy makers will have a greater understanding of how, where, 
and when these crimes occur, the characteristics of victims, and how 
these crimes affect victims and their families. Law enforcement may 
gain information on how to improve investigative and prosecution 
strategies, and how to use victims' testimony in conjunction with other 
case evidence. Clearly, what we're trying to do with this legislation 
is to raise considerably the national profile of this issue among 
research agencies and the academic community, and to continue to define 
and develop solutions to this problem.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
record, as follows:

       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 ``Crime Victims With 
     Disabilities Awareness Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) although research conducted abroad demonstrates that 
     individuals with developmental disabilities are at a 4 to 10 
     times higher risk of becoming crime victims than those 
     without disabilities, there have been no significant studies 
     on this subject conducted in the United States;
       (2) in fact, the National Crime Victim's Survey, conducted 
     annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the 
     Department of Justice, does not specifically collect data 
     relating to crimes against individuals with developmental 
     disabilities;
       (3) studies in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain 
     consistently show that victims with developmental 
     disabilities suffer repeated victimization because so few of 
     the crimes against them are reported, and even when they are, 
     there is sometimes a reluctance by justice officials to rely 
     on the testimony of a disabled individual, making individuals 
     with developmental disabilities a target for criminal 
     predators; and
       (4) research in the United States needs to be done to--
       (A) understand the nature and extent of crimes against 
     individuals with developmental disabilities;
       (B) describe how the justice system responds to crimes 
     against the developmentally disabled; and
       (C) identify programs, policies, or laws that hold promises 
     for making the justice system more responsive to crimes 
     against individuals with developmental disabilities.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to increase public awareness of the plight of victims 
     of crime who are individuals with developmental disabilities;
       (2) to collect data to measure the extent of the problem of 
     crimes against individuals with developmental disabilities; 
     and
       (3) to develop strategies to address the safety and justice 
     needs of victims of crime who are individuals with 
     developmental disabilities.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY.

       In this Act, the term ``developmental disability'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 102 of the Developmental 
     Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6001).

     SEC. 4. RESEARCH AGENDA.

       (a) Request for Contract.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall 
     submit a request to the National Research Council, that the 
     Committee on Law and Justice of the National Academy of 
     Sciences, acting through the National Research Council, enter 
     into a contract with the Attorney General to develop a 
     research agenda to increase public awareness of crimes 
     against individuals with developmental disabilities and to 
     reduce the incidence of crimes against those individuals.
       (b) Research Agenda.--The research agenda developed under 
     this section shall--
       (1) address such issues as--
       (A) the nature and extent of crimes against individuals 
     with developmental disabilities;
       (B) the risk factors associated with victimization of the 
     developmentally disabled;
       (C) strategies to reduce crimes against individuals with 
     developmental disabilities;
       (D) the manner in which the justice and social service 
     systems respond to crimes against the developmentally 
     disabled, and the means by which that response can be 
     improved;
       (E) the personal and social consequences of victimization;
       (F) the importance of place and context in understanding 
     crimes against the developmentally disabled; and
       (G) the means by which to achieve a better understanding of 
     the interaction between caregiver, victim, and other 
     circumstances in improving public safety; and
       (2) include an analysis of various methodologies for 
     addressing the issues described in paragraph (1), which may 
     include--
       (A) appropriate longitudinal designs to increase 
     understanding of its causes;
       (B) rigorous evaluation research designs to inform and 
     improve prevention, intervention, and control efforts;
       (C) a multidisciplinary approach to measuring the nature 
     and frequency of crimes against the developmentally disabled, 
     and the personal and social consequences of those crimes;
       (D) survey data and analysis efforts that better describe 
     the victimization experiences of the developmentally 
     disabled, the context in which victimization occurs, and the 
     social and institutional responses to these experiences; and
       (E) the development of a Federal research response and a 
     coordinated research strategy by Federal agencies.
       (c) Panel of Experts.--In developing the research agenda 
     under this section, the Committee on Law and Justice shall--
       (1) convene and consult with a panel, which shall be 
     composed of--
       (A) nationally recognized experts on victims of crime who 
     are individuals with disabilities, in the fields of--
       (i) law;
       (ii) services to individuals with disabilities;
       (iii) criminology;
       (iv) education;
       (v) direct services to victims of crime; and
       (vi) the social sciences; and
       (B) crime victims with disabilities who are members of 
     diverse ethnic, social, and religious communities; and
       (2) focus primarily on preventive, educative, social, and 
     legal strategies, including addressing the needs of 
     underserved populations.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives a report describing the research agenda 
     developed under this section.
       (2) Report.--The Attorney General shall ensure that--
       (A) the report submitted under paragraph (1) is 
     disseminated widely in governmental, nonprofit, and academic 
     arenas, including by seminars, briefings, and the Internet; 
     and
       (B) shall make not less than 100 copies of the report 
     available upon request to nonprofit organizations free of 
     charge.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $375,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS SURVEY.

       (a) Survey.--As part of each National Crime Victims Survey, 
     the Attorney General shall include statistics relating to the 
     nature and characteristics of victims of crime who are 
     individuals with developmental disabilities.
       (b) Consultation.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Attorney General shall use a methodology developed in 
     consultation with experts in the collection of criminal 
     justice data, statistics, services to individuals with 
     disabilities, and victims of crime.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000 for 
     fiscal year 1999.

     SEC. 6. STATE DATABASES.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall conduct a study 
     and submit to Congress and to each State a report on the 
     means by which each State may establish and maintain a 
     centralized computer database on the incidence of crimes 
     against individuals with disabilities within the State.
       (b) Consultation.--In conducting the study under subsection 
     (a), the Attorney General shall consult with--
       (1) individuals who are experts in the collection of 
     criminal justice data;
       (2) State statistical administrators;
       (3) law enforcement personnel;
       (4) nonprofit nongovernmental agencies that provide direct 
     services to victims of crime who are individuals with 
     disabilities; and
       (5) such other individuals and entities as the Attorney 
     General considers to be appropriate.

[[Page S3539]]

       (c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives, a report describing the results of the 
     study under subsection (a), which report shall include the 
     views of the individuals and agencies consulted under 
     subsection (b).

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator DeWine in 
introducing the Crime Victims With Disabilities Awareness Act. This 
legislation will address and strengthen our services for disabled 
victims of crime throughout our country.
  It is important that we focus attention on the needs and rights of 
crime victims not only during this week, National Crime Victims Rights 
Week, but throughout the year. For the past several years, I have 
worked hard with others to make improvements in the law and provide 
greater assistance to victims of crime.
  My involvement with crime victims rights began more than three 
decades ago when I served as State's Attorney for Chittenden County, 
Vermont, and witnessed first-hand the devastation of crime. I have 
worked ever since to ensure that the criminal justice system is one 
that respects the rights and dignity of victims of crime and domestic 
violence, rather than presents additional ordeals for those already 
victimized.
  The needs of victims of crime are many and must be addressed in a 
number of ways, including strengthening law enforcement and education, 
improving and increasing services for victims, and protecting the 
rights of victims. Today I am proud to again have the support of the 
Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services in focusing attention on the 
needs of crime victims with disabilities with the Crime Victims With 
Disabilities Awareness Act.
  Research conducted abroad has shown that individuals with 
disabilities have a four to 10 times higher risk of becoming a victim 
than do individuals without disabilities. Despite these findings, there 
have been no significant studies on this subject conducted in the 
United States. The Crime Victims With Disabilities Awareness Act we are 
introducing today will rectify this omission.
  The Crime Victims With Disabilities Awareness Act proposes to have 
the Committee on Law and Justice of the National Academy of Sciences 
conduct research so as to increase public awareness of victims of crime 
with disabilities, to understand the nature and extent of such crimes, 
and to develop strategies to address the safety and needs of victims of 
crime with disabilities. This Act directs the Attorney General to 
utilize statistics gathered from this study for inclusion in the 
National Crime Victims Survey. The Crime Victims With Disabilities 
Awareness Act also directs the Attorney General to submit a report 
detailing the means by which each State can establish and maintain a 
database on the incidence of crimes against individuals with 
disabilities.
  Over the last 20 years we have made strides in recognizing crime 
victims' rights and providing much needed assistance. I am proud to 
have played a role in passage of the Victims and Witness Protection Act 
of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, and the Victims' Rights and 
Restitution Act of 1990 and the other improvements we have been able to 
make.
  In the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, Congress acted to ensure a 
right of allocation for victims of crimes of violence or sexual abuse 
and to make tens of millions of dollars available to crime victims. No 
amount of money can make up for the harm and trauma of being the victim 
of a crime, but we should do all that we can to see that victims are 
assisted, compensated and treated with dignity by the criminal justice 
system.
  I was the author of the Victims of Terrorism Act that was passed by 
the Senate in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing and became the 
basis for the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act signed into law in 
April 1996. We were able to make funds available through supplemental 
grants to the States to assist and compensate victims of terrorism and 
mass violence, which incidents might otherwise have overwhelmed the 
resources of Oklahoma's crime victims compensation program or its 
victims assistance services. We also filled a gap in our law for 
residents of the United States who are victims of terrorism and mass 
violence that occur outside the borders of the United States. In 
addition, we allowed greater flexibility to our State and local 
victims' assistance programs and some greater certainty so that they 
can know that our commitment to victims programming will not wax and 
wane with events. And we were able to raise the assessments on those 
convicted of federal crimes in order to fund the needs of crime 
victims.
  Last year, I cosponsored the Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997. 
That legislation reversed a presumption against crime victims observing 
the fact phase of a trial if they were likely to provide testimony 
during the sentencing phase of that trial. As a result of that 
legislation, not only were victims of the Oklahoma City bombing able to 
observe the trial of Timothy McVeigh, all those who were able to 
witness the trial and were called as witnesses to provide victim impact 
testimony at the sentencing phase of that trial were able to do so.
  The Crime Victims Assistance Act, legislation that I introduced this 
past July with Senator Kennedy, builds upon the progress made over the 
last several years. It provides for a wholesale reform of the Federal 
Rules and Federal law to establish additional rights and protections 
for victims of federal crime. This bill would provide crime victims 
with an enhanced right to be heard on the issue of pretrial detention 
and plea bargains, an enhanced right to a speedy trial and to be 
present in the courtroom throughout a trial, an enhanced right to be 
heard on probation revocation and to give a statement at sentencing, 
and the right to be notified of a defendant's escape or release from 
prison. The Crime Victims Assistance Act would also strengthen victims' 
services by increasing Federal victim assistance personnel, enhancing 
training for State and local law enforcement and Officers of the Court, 
and establishing and ombudsman program for crime victims.

  With a simple majority of both Houses of Congress, the Crime Victims 
Assistance Act could be enacted this year and we could mark a 
significant and immediate difference in the lives of victims throughout 
our country. I hope that the Senate will turn to this important measure 
without further delay. Unfortunately, one consequence of the effort to 
focus attention on proposals to amend the Constitution has been to 
dissipate efforts to enact effective victims rights legislation over 
the past two years. The momentum we had built over the last several 
years has been dissipated by this focus to the exclusion of statutory 
reform.
  While we have made great improvements in our law enforcement and 
crime victims assistance programs and have made advances in recognizing 
crime victims' rights, we still have work to do. This week is National 
Crime Victims' Rights Week. Crime victims advocates across Vermont and 
the nation are commemorating this week with ceremonies, awards and 
proclamations. I am honored to have received recognition from the 
Vermont Center for Crime Victims Services and the Vermont Network for 
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault during National Crime Victims 
Rights Week in 1996 and a Congressional Leadership Award from the 
National Organization for Victim Assistance. Each year at this time our 
hearts go out to the families and victims of crime. Each year I try to 
help focus attention on those who work so hard every week of the year 
on behalf of all crime victims in crime victims' assistance and 
compensation programs.
  There are many individuals in Vermont who I would like to thank for 
their expertise and advice in addressing victims' rights and services, 
including Lori Hayes, Executive Director of the Vermont Center for 
Crime Victim Services, and Marty Levin, Coordinator of the Vermont 
Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. Their hard work 
and dedication have made a real difference in the lives of people who 
suffer from violence and abuse.
  In May 1997, the Department of Justice Office for Victims of Crime 
concluded that ``Vermont's programs are setting the standard for 
outreach to undeserved populations and service coordination among 
providers and allied professionals.'' Vermont's leadership

[[Page S3540]]

was also recently recognized with its selection for participation in 
the Department of Justice Rural Victim Services 2000 project. The 
Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services will administer this grant to 
conduct the first systematic survey of what rural crime victims need. 
The more informed we become of the needs of victims, the more we can 
adapt services to make them more effective and efficient.
  I commend all those in Vermont and across the country who are 
committed to assisting crime victims.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself and Mr. Reid):
  S. 1977. A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct 
a study and issue a report on predatory and discriminatory practices of 
airlines which restrict consumer access to unbiased air transportation 
passenger service and fare information; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


         the consumer access to travel information act of 1998

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that 
will benefit consumers and small businessmen and women who must travel 
by air. The bill I am introducing today, the Consumer Access to Travel 
Information Act of 1998, will reverse an increasingly anti-consumer, 
anti-competitive trend in airline travel across the country.
  For three years, the major airlines have been moving to gain more 
control over the airline travel ticket distribution system. While this 
effort may seem harmless, the ramifications to consumers are 
significant. Currently, most air travelers get their information from 
one of the 33,000 travel agencies around the country. These agencies 
provide consumers with unbiased and comprehensive air travel 
information, i.e., the best flight at the cheapest fare. Without that 
independent source of travel information, there is no doubt that 
consumers will be paying more, in many cases, substantially more for 
air travel.
  The Consumer Access to Travel Information Act of 1998 is a 
reasonable, and balanced bill that is significant not only for what it 
does, but also for what it doesn't do. This legislation would simply 
require the Secretary of Transportation to investigate the behavior of 
major airlines, including discriminatory and predatory practices of 
airlines which target travel agents, other independent distributors, 
and small airlines. This is authority that the Secretary currently has 
under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, but has thus far not 
elected to use. This bill makes certain this investigation is 
undertaken. If it is determined that anti-competitive, discriminatory 
or predatory practices exist, the Secretary must report to Congress 
those steps the Department intends to take to address such practices.
  What this legislation does not do is regulate the airline industry. 
In fact, this legislation is a wake up call for the industry. As the 
for-profit hospital and HMO industries discovered, if consumers are 
disregarded, and anti-competitive activities are encouraged, the heavy 
hand of regulators and anti-trust remedies will soon follow. This 
investigation by DOT may bring to light practices that the airlines 
themselves may not even realize exist. It is far better to have DOT 
look into these issues and have them addressed now, than to have 
Congress begin pursuing more proactive legislative remedies in the 
future.
  Travel agents provide critical services to air travelers, and air 
travelers depend heavily upon travel agents to provide an accurate, 
broad selection of schedules, fare quotes, and ticketing services for 
all airlines. Agents quote schedules and fares, and provide ticketing 
services, to consumers on major U.S. airlines, small U.S. airlines, 
large and small international airlines, and start-up airlines.
  The travel agency community and other independent ticket distributors 
are the only efficient, independent and comprehensive sources of 
information for airline travel options. Travel agencies and other 
independent distributors comprise a considerable portion of the small 
business sector in the United States, employing over 250,000 people. 
Over 50% of travel agencies are owned by women or minorities.
  Every industry study conducted since the 1960's has concluded that 
travel agents can process reservation and ticketing transactions in any 
medium more efficiently than can airlines. Just this year, one of the 
world's largest and most efficient airlines announced the closing of 
all of its U.S. ticket offices in favor of the efficiencies of the U.S. 
travel agency industry.
  So why are multi-billion dollar airlines putting the squeeze on the 
mom and pop travel agencies? Unfortunately, the answer lies beyond just 
sucking more revenue from the travel agent. The biggest threat to the 
current airline oligopoly is the young, upstart airlines. Wherever 
these airlines operate, the major air carriers' prices are competitive. 
Wherever these airlines do not operate, the consumer pays monopoly 
prices. Small domestic airlines, many international airlines, and 
start-up airlines heavily depend upon the travel agency distribution 
system. There is no alternate distribution system available to these 
types of airlines. A less ubiquitous, less independent travel agency 
means less business for, and less competition from, the smaller 
airlines.
  As part of the effort to consolidate their market power, the airlines 
began to focus on the ticket distribution system. Twice in the last 
three years, the major airlines have initiated and supported reductions 
in travel agent commissions on the sale of air travel. In February 
alone, total travel agent commissions on domestic travel dropped 21%. 
More reductions from airlines, and greater travel agent losses, are 
expected. The number of travel agencies has decreased for the first 
time since World War II, and many more closings are expected as agency 
operating reserves are exhausted.
  As travel agents are forced out of the industry and airlines secure 
more direct consumer business, consumer alternatives will continue to 
decrease, resulting in significantly higher consumer travel costs. 
Major airlines have generally misrepresented the reason for agency 
commission cuts, citing a need to reduce expenses and pass savings on 
to consumers. In fact, airline ticket prices have steadily increased, 
there have been no consumer benefits, airlines are posting record 
profits quarter-after-quarter, and consumers are paying the highest 
airfares in history.
  Commissions are not the only way in which the airlines are using 
anti-competitive practices to pressure the travel agents. For example, 
confidential business information generated by travel agents, such as 
marketing, bookings, and sales data, is routinely shared by the 
airlines.
  Considering airlines regard themselves as competitors of travel 
agents, this is an intolerable situation for the travel agents.
  Another example of unfair treatment is the use of promotions, 
concessions, and benefits that airlines can pass on to consumers that 
are denied to travel agents. In addition the airlines operate the 
Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), which controls both who can 
become a travel agent and the settlement of funds between travel agents 
and the airlines.
  Internet travel servicing, one ticket distribution alternative which 
holds great promise for consumers, is also being dominated by the major 
air carriers. As a practical matter, travel agents have already been 
excluded by airlines from selling tickets booked by electronic means. 
As with conventional distribution, Internet consumers have very limited 
ability to view consolidated electronic schedule and fare information, 
much less interpret the rules, restrictions and penalties attached to 
such lower fares as might be found.
  That is why, Mr. President, Congress must pass the Consumer Access to 
Travel Information Act of 1998 before consumers are hurt further, and 
before there is an overwhelming cry to reregulate air travel.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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. 1977

       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 ``Consumer Access to Travel 
     Information Act of 1998''.

[[Page S3541]]

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) To foster and preserve competition, national 
     transportation policy should support the continuation of 
     widespread, convenient, and efficient public access to 
     unbiased comparative air transportation passenger service and 
     fare information.
       (2) The traveling public relies upon unbiased comparative 
     air transportation passenger service and fare information 
     provided by independent retail travel agents and other 
     independent sources.
       (3) Concentrations of market power, restrictions on entry, 
     and predatory and discriminatory practices of airlines impair 
     consumer access to independently distributed unbiased 
     comparative information about air transportation passenger 
     services or fares.
       (4) If not corrected, such practices will seriously 
     restrict consumer access to the independent and unbiased 
     service and fare information provided by travel agents and 
     other independent sources.

     SEC. 3. POLICY.

       Section 40101(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) Ensuring that consumers may obtain unbiased 
     comparative information from travel agents and other 
     independent sources about air transportation passenger 
     services and fares in an efficient and convenient 
     manner.''.

     SEC. 4. STUDY; REPORT.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation 
     (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall undertake a study of the availability to consumers of 
     adequate unbiased information about air transportation 
     passenger services and fares. The study shall include an 
     investigation of the following practices:
       (1) Air carrier policies that deter or prevent travel 
     agents or other independent sources from using competitively 
     efficient phone systems, computer reservation systems, or 
     other electronic systems to communicate or consummate 
     transactions with the public.
       (2) Air carrier policies that deter or prevent travel 
     agents and other independent sources from offering the public 
     the same or greater concessions, benefits, or services than 
     those offered by air carriers directly to those consumers.
       (3) Discriminatory collective or joint operation of assets 
     used to offer concessions, benefits, or services to the 
     public while denying comparable access to such concessions, 
     benefits, or services through travel agents and other 
     independent sources, including joint sales activities, denial 
     of competitive tools, and denial of distribution 
     efficiencies.
       (4) Sharing of competitively significant sales transaction 
     data in violation of the confidentiality interests of the 
     travel agents or other independent sources that generated 
     such data.
       (5) As the Secretary considers appropriate, any other 
     practices which may impair consumer access to independently 
     distributed unbiased comparative information about air 
     transportation passenger services or fares.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report of the conclusions of the study required by 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 5. CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS.

       The Secretary shall, after notice and hearing, order any 
     air carrier or other party engaged in any practice or policy 
     which constitutes a predatory, unfair, or deceptive practice 
     or unfair method of competition which restricts the 
     widespread, convenient, and efficient access by the public to 
     unbiased comparative air transportation passenger service and 
     fare information or the sale, booking, or distribution of air 
     transportation passenger services or products, to cease and 
     desist therefrom.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1978. A bill to designate the auditorium located within the Sandia 
Technology Transfer Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as the ``Steve 
Schiff Auditorium''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          the steve schiff auditorium designation act of 1998

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is a real honor today to introduce 
legislation, together with Senator Bingaman, to honor Representative 
Steve Schiff. This legislation designates a special auditorium at the 
Sandia National Laboratories as the ``Steve Schiff Auditorium.'' Steve 
spoke in this Auditorium on several occasions, as part of his long 
service to the people of New Mexico.
  I think everyone knows that Steve Schiff exemplified all that was 
good about public service: integrity of the highest order, deep and 
fundamental decency, and an acute and open mind. He went about his 
business quietly, but with wonderful efficiency. He was great at 
telling stories, usually about himself. He was a model for all 
politicians to admire.
  Steve came to New Mexico from Chicago, where he was born and raised. 
He served the people of New Mexico in different capacities since 1972, 
when he graduated from the Law School at the University of New Mexico. 
Before election to Congress in 1988, he served as District Attorney for 
eight years.
  One of Steve's favorite local programs was his Tree Give-Away 
Program. For eight years, Steve held a Saturday tree give-away day at 
the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center. He gave away more than 115,000 
trees. Through those trees, he shared his own hope, faith, and love. 
Those trees now flourish throughout the Albuquerque area in New Mexico 
as lasting symbols of this man. In a similar way, his legislative 
achievements continue to serve the American people as another reminder 
of this great American.
  Along with those trees and his legislation, the Steve Schiff 
Auditorium will serve as a lasting memorial. I am happy and honored to 
have been a part of his life.
  I think he would be pleased that this major facility at Sandia 
National Laboratories, an auditorium where many events occur, many 
events he has sponsored, that he desires that we talk about in our 
Federal Government as it pertains to nuclear weapons and research, that 
it be designated after him.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I feel very honored today to rise with 
my colleague, Senator Domenici, to introduce legislation to honor 
Representative Steven H. Schiff, who died last month. This bill names 
the Auditorium in the Technology Transfer Center at Sandia National 
Laboratories as the Steven H. Schiff Auditorium. I have visited 
Sandia's Technology Transfer Center (TTC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 
It is a beautiful building dedicated to furthering collaborations 
between the fine staff of scientists and engineers at Sandia and their 
counterparts in American universities and industry.
  It is altogether fitting that we dedicate the TTC Auditorium to the 
memory of Steven Schiff. Steve was a strong champion of collaborations 
and making the resources of our national laboratories available to US 
industry to help us compete in the global economy.
  Mr. President, Sandia National Laboratories has 6,000 employees. The 
lab is one of the nation's premier national security facilities with 
major responsibilities for our nation's energy research and development 
projects. Part of Sandia's mission includes technology transfer. The 
emphasis is on partnerships between industry and the lab to collaborate 
on emerging new technologies.
  Today, Sandia's vast technical expertise is being applied to solve a 
variety of technical problems that will benefit working Americans. A 
number of exciting collaborations between Sandia's engineers and 
private industry have come about as a direct result of Steve's efforts. 
Some of these collaborations include projects to improve 
microelectronics and computers, airline and airport safety, lightweight 
materials for automobiles, robots for advanced manufacturing, and 
automobile tires that are safer and provide consumers better fuel 
economy. Madam President, I could go on and on.
  Perhaps the one area of Sandia's work that Steve was the most proud 
of was the lab's application of its 20 years of experience in state-of-
the-art physical security technologies to the important areas of 
fighting crime and terrorism. Today, Sandia's vital and highly visible 
programs are helping to assure the safety and security of every 
American. In particular, Steve's efforts were instrumental in creating 
a satellite facility of the National Institute of Justice at Sandia. 
This linkage was especially satisfying to Steve because of his 
leadership positions on both the House Science and Judiciary 
Committees.
  In a short time, Sandia's efforts for the Department of Justice and 
the FBI are helping to combat crime and terrorism. These programs are 
having a major impact on the safety and security of all Americans. 
These efforts are truly one of Steve Schiff's greatest legacies to New 
Mexico and the nation.
  I'd like to cite just a few examples of Sandia's programs for the 
National Institute of Justice. Because of Steve's efforts, Sandia was 
able to play a vital role in disarming a bomb left in the unabomber's 
cabin. Sandia also has a school safety and security program

[[Page S3542]]

that has dramatically increased the safety of high school students in 
Belen, New Mexico. I had a chance to visit the school, and it is truly 
remarkable what Sandia has accomplished there. Another example of 
Sandia's innovative technologies is the development of a ``smart gun'' 
that can only be fired in the hands of someone authorized to use it. 
And Sandia is developing explosive detectors for increased airport 
security and new ways of detecting illegal drugs.
  Perhaps the culmination of Steve's efforts was last August, when 64 
of the world's top bomb squads came to Operation Albuquerque '97 for 
hands-on experience with the latest science and methods for disabling 
terrorist bombs.
  Madam President, using our national laboratories' unique resources to 
save lives and protect the safety of ordinary people is surely a proper 
memorial for Steve Schiff. Naming the auditorium at Sandia National 
Laboratories in his honor is another. I am proud to co-sponsor this 
legislation, and I thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for his 
efforts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Faircloth):
  S. 1979. A bill to ensure the transparency of International Monetary 
Fund operations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


            THE IMF TRANSPARENCY AND EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1998

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``International 
Monetary Fund Transparency and Efficiency Act of 1998.'' When bailing 
out failing economies, the International Monetary Fund often requires 
countries to make their markets more transparent, efficient and 
accountable. In the wake of the Asian economic crisis, it has become 
clear that the IMF itself also sorely needs the very same increased 
transparency, efficiency, and accountability that the IMF demands of 
others.
  I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues from North Carolina 
and Alabama, Senators Faircloth and Shelby, who are original cosponsors 
of this legislation.
  On March 17, 1998, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 
1769, which would provide Supplemental Appropriations for the IMF for 
Fiscal Year 1998. Although I voted against the amendment which would 
provide $18 billion to bail out the IMF, the Senate ultimately adopted 
this amendment. While S. 1769 contains a few provisions calling for IMF 
reforms, like increased transparency and calling on countries receiving 
IMF loans to end market distorting government subsidies, S. 1769 
contains much weaker enforcement mechanisms than those contained in the 
bill I am introducing today. Also, S. 1769 does not curtail the IMF's 
subsidized interest rates, something this bill will do.
  Just last week, the IMF itself freely admitted the need for increased 
openness and accountability. On April 14, 1998, on the eve of the IMF's 
annual spring meeting, Managing Director, Michel Camdessus, promised 
more openness and accountability at the IMF. Furthermore, during a 
National Journal interview earlier this month, Deputy Treasury 
Secretary Lawrence Summers was quoted as saying, ``Equally, we cannot 
be satisfied with the IMF that we now have. And that is why it is 
important to build consensus as rapidly as possible on efforts to make 
the IMF a more transparent institution.'' I believe the American 
taxpayers deserve no less.
  We in Congress must act to ensure that just such IMF reforms become 
reality. By sending the IMF's established hierarchy a clear and 
immediate reason to implement these reforms we will ensure that these 
long overdue reforms will actually take place.
  This legislation is also timely. When the IMF bails out failing 
economies, it regularly calls for increased transparency and 
governmental efficiency as a precondition for receiving financial aid. 
The IMF is right on target in this respect. Increased transparency and 
accountability are crucial to give the American taxpayers reasonable 
assurances that the problems that cause these economic breakdowns are 
being directly addressed. Obviously, if these troubled economies had 
been transparent, efficient and open to American exports from the 
start, Congress would not be debating about making another $18 billion 
available to the IMF. Clearly, the IMF itself should live up to the 
standards it sets for others.
  This legislation would withhold U.S. federal funding from the IMF 
until the Treasury Secretary certifies that the IMF has met four 
specific reform requirements, and then Congress enacts a joint 
resolution approving this certification.
  First, the IMF would be required to make the minutes of its board of 
Governors or Executive Board available for public inspection within 
three months of the meeting. Second, the IMF would release copies of 
loan and program documents, written reviews, and other pertinent 
documents related to proposed and ongoing programs within three months. 
Third, the IMF would establish an independent board to review the IMF's 
operations, research and loan activities and then issue annual reports 
for public inspection. Finally, when granting financial assistance, the 
IMF would charge interest rates that are comparable to market interest 
rates rather than the subsidized interest rates it currently charges. 
Naturally, this bill includes special exemptions to protect classified 
U.S. information, information which would disrupt markets, and 
proprietary information.
  The administration and IMF have requested that the American taxpayers 
make an additional $18 billion of their hard-earned dollars available 
to the IMF to replenish its fund that has been depleted by the Asian 
financial crisis. My bill will bring accountability to an institution, 
funded in large part by the American people that has--for the last 50 
years--eluded true accountability. Increased transparency and 
efficiency will finally enable the American taxpayers to clearly see 
how their tax dollars are being used by the IMF.
  For the reasons stated above and more, I introduce this bill as the 
Senate companion to H.R. 3331, recently introduced by our colleagues in 
the House, Congressman Saxton of New Jersey, the Chairman of the Joint 
Economic Committee, Congressman Tom Campbell from California, and House 
Majority Leader Dick Armey. The Heritage Foundation has described this 
legislation as a compromise with a lot of merit. It is time for 
increased transparency and efficiency at the IMF, and I urge my 
colleagues to support passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1979

       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 ``IMF Transparency and 
     Efficiency Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. DENIAL OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY 
                   FUND IF ITS OPERATIONS ARE NOT MADE MORE 
                   TRANSPARENT.

       Title XV of the International Financial Institutions Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 262o-262o-1) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1503. DENIAL OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO THE INTERNATIONAL 
                   MONETARY FUND IF ITS OPERATIONS ARE NOT MADE 
                   MORE TRANSPARENT.

       ``(a) In General.--An officer, employee, or agent of the 
     United States may not, directly or indirectly, provide 
     Federal funds to, or for the benefit of the International 
     Monetary Fund unless--
       ``(1) there is in effect a written certification, made by 
     the Secretary of the Treasury to the Committee on Banking and 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate, that the International Monetary Fund has met the 
     requirements of subsection (b); and
       ``(2) the Congress has enacted a joint resolution approving 
     the certification.
       ``(b) Requirements.--The requirements of this subsection 
     are the following:
       ``(1) Within 3 months after any meeting of the Board of 
     Governors or the Executive Board of the International 
     Monetary Fund, an edited copy of the minutes of the meeting 
     shall be made available for public inspection, with the 
     following information redacted:
       ``(A) Information which, if released, would adversely 
     affect the national security of a country, and which is of 
     the type that would be classified by the United States 
     Government.
       ``(B) Information which, if released, would disrupt 
     markets.
       ``(C) Proprietary information.
       ``(2) Within 3 months after the staff of the International 
     Monetary Fund makes a loan document, written review, program 
     document, or assessment of any proposed or ongoing loan 
     program of the International

[[Page S3543]]

     Monetary Fund, a copy of the review, document, or assessment, 
     and all related and supporting materials, shall be made 
     available for public inspection, with the following 
     information redacted:
       ``(A) Information which, if released, would adversely 
     affect the national security of a country, and which is of 
     the type that would be classified by the United States 
     Government.
       ``(B) Information which, if released, would disrupt 
     markets.
       ``(C) Proprietary information.
       ``(3) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
     of this section:
       ``(A) The International Monetary Fund shall establish an 
     independent advisory board to review the research, 
     operations, and loan programs of the International Monetary 
     Fund.
       ``(B) The legislature of each country which is represented 
     on the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund 
     shall each appoint to the advisory board 1 individual with 
     expertise in private sector finance gained in the private 
     sector or in academia.
       ``(C) The advisory board shall issue annual reports 
     summarizing its activities, which shall be available 
     immediately for public inspection.
       ``(4) The annual rate at which the International Monetary 
     Fund charges interest on loans made after the date of 
     enactment of this section shall be comparable to the average 
     annual rate of interest in financial markets for loans of 
     comparable maturity, adjusted for risk.
       ``(c) Effective Period of Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     certification made under this section shall cease to be in 
     effect 1 year after the date the certification is made.
       ``(2) Revocation.--
       ``(A) In general.--A certification made under this section 
     shall cease to be in effect if the Secretary of the Treasury 
     revokes the certification.
       ``(B) Cause for revocation.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall revoke a certification made under this section if the 
     Secretary of the Treasury is made aware that the 
     International Monetary Fund has ceased to meet a requirement 
     of subsection (b).''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX:
  S. 1980. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
certain coins to be acquired by individual retirement accounts and 
other individually directed pension plan accounts; to the Committee on 
Finance.


               individual retirement account legislation

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
allowing certain U.S. legal tender coins to be qualified investments 
for an individual retirement account (IRA).

  Congress excluded ``collectibles'', such as antiques, gold and silver 
bullion, and legal tender coinage, as appropriate for contribution to 
IRAs in 1981. The primary reason was the concern that individuals would 
get a tax break when they bought collectibles for their personal use. 
For example, a taxpayer might deduct the purchase of an antique rug for 
his/her living room as an IRA investment. Congress was also concerned 
about how the many different types of collectibles are valued.
  Over the years, however, certain coins and precious metals have been 
excluded from the definition of a collectible because they are 
independently valued investments that offer investors portfolio 
diversity and liquidity. For example, Congress excluded gold and silver 
U.S. American Eagles from the definition of collectibles in 1986, and 
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 took the further step of excluding 
certain precious metals bullion.
  My legislation would exclude from the definition of collectibles only 
those U.S. legal tender coins which meet the following three standards: 
certification by a nationally-recognized grading service, traded on a 
nationally-recognized network, and held by a qualified trustee as 
described in the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, only investment 
quality coins that are independently valued and not held for personal 
use may be included in IRAs.
  There are several nationally-recognized, independent certification or 
grading services. Full-time professional graders (numismatists) examine 
each coin for authenticity and grade them according to established 
standards. Upon certification, the coin is sonically-sealed (preserved) 
to ensure that it remains in the same condition as when it was graded.
  Legal tender coins are then traded via two independent electronic 
networks--the Certified Coin Exchange and Certified CoinNet. These 
networks are independent of each other and have no financial interest 
in the legal tender coinage and precious metals markets. The networks 
function in precisely the same manner as the NASDAQ with a series of 
published ``bid'' and ``ask'' prices and last trades. The buys and 
sells are enforceable prices that must be honored as posted until 
updated.
  Mr. President, the liquidity provided through a bona fide national 
trading network, combined with published prices, make legal tender 
coinage a practical investment that offers investors diversification 
and liquidity. Investment in these tangible assets has become a safe 
and prudent course of action for both the small and large investor and 
should be given the same treatment under the law as other financial 
investments. I urge the Senate to enact this important legislation as 
soon as possible.
  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. 1980

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

     SECTION 1. CERTAIN COINS NOT TREATED AS COLLECTIBLES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 408(m)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception for 
     certain coins and bullion) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) any coin certified by a recognized grading service 
     and traded on a nationally recognized electronic network, or 
     listed by a recognized wholesale reporting service, and--
       ``(i) which is or was at any time legal tender in the 
     United States, or
       ``(ii) issued under the laws of any State, and''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 1981. A bill to preserve the balance of rights between employers, 
employees, and labor organizations which is fundamental to our system 
of collective bargaining while preserving the rights of workers to 
organize, or otherwise engage in concerted activities protected under 
the National Labor Relations Act; read the first time.


                      the truth in employment act

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, small businesses are under attack in 
this country, and the United States government, through the National 
Labor Relations Board and other regulatory agencies, is aiding in this 
unprecedented assault. This battle is being waged against small 
employers by paid and unpaid union operatives who get access to non-
union workplaces by seeking employment in these companies. Because 
employers are not allowed to refuse to hire union labor, they are 
usually hired. Once on job, these union agents put economic pressure on 
their employers by causing workplace disruptions that increase their 
employer's cost of doing business. This union guerilla warfare against 
employers is known as ``salting.''
  The weapon of choice for these union operatives is to file unfair 
labor charges against their merit shop employers at the National Labor 
Relations Board or to file complaints against their employers at the 
EEOC, OSHA, or other regulatory agencies. Defending against these 
charges and complaints costs the employers in both legal fees and in 
lost time. As an added benefit, these cases often net union employees 
large damage awards or settlements because their employers can ill-
afford the expense of defending themselves against the barrage of 
frivolous charges being filed against them.
  Consider the following examples: Gaylor Electric of Carmel, Indiana 
has had 96 charges filed against it. While each and every one of these 
cases has been dismissed without merit, Gaylor Electric has had to bear 
the cost of these cases to the tune of $250,000 per year. Likewise, hth 
Companies in Union, Missouri has had 48 unfair labor charges filed 
against it. Again, while all but one of these cases was dismissed, hth 
Companies has wasted $150,000 defending itself against these frivolous 
charges. Bay Electric in Cape Elizabeth wasted over $100,000 defending 
itself against 14 unfair labor charges--each of which was dismissed 
without merit. Wright Electric in Delano, Minnesota has lost almost 
$500,000 defending itself against 15 unfair labor charges, 14 of which 
have been dismissed, and one of which is still pending.

[[Page S3544]]

  In my home state, Little Rock Electrical, of Little Rock, Arkansas 
has been flooded with 72 unfair labor cases in just one year, 20 of 
which have already been dismissed, and 45 which have been set for 
trial. Finally, R.D. Goss in Clearfield, Pennsylvania has suffered the 
worst, having been hit with 20 unfair labor cases, all but one of which 
was dismissed--but which forced them out of business after 38 years.
  Mr. President, I support the right of workers to organize, and I am 
always reluctant to propose federal legislation that interferes in 
private matters--particularly private contractual relationships between 
employers and employees. However, in this case, as the above examples 
show, the federal government, particularly through the National Labor 
Relations Board, is wreaking havoc on merit shop contractors through 
this unfair, but legal, practice.
  Evidence as to the true nature and intent of union salting was best 
explained in the Organizing Manual of the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers (IBEW), which stated that the true goal of 
``salting'' is 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 activities, 
     leave the union's jurisdiction, go out of business, and so 
     on.

  Or, more bluntly, in the words of an IBEW organizing flyer, the goal 
is:

       . . . infiltration, confrontation, litigation, disruption, 
     and hopefully annihilation of all non-union contractors.

  On February 13, 1997, I introduced legislation that addresses the 
issue of salting. This legislation, The Truth in Employment Act of 
1997, would have allowed employers to reject an applicant that has no 
intention of actually working for the company, but who was instead 
solely interested in organizing and harassing their employer and fellow 
employees. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed 
their own version of the Truth in Employment Act, under the able 
leadership of Chairman Bill Goodling of Pennsylvania and Chairman 
Harris Fawell of Illinois, both of whom I had the privilege of serving 
with when I was a Member of the House.
  Today, I am introducing new legislation to address this issue of 
salting. My new bill, the Truth in Employment Act of 1998 is identical 
to the House passed version.
  Mr. President, the strength of this country rests on the freedom of 
individuals to pursue their dreams and ideas, and to risk their own 
capital to open and operate small businesses. Likewise, this country is 
built on the principle that workers are free to sell their labor, and 
if they deem necessary, to join fellow workers to negotiate higher pay 
or better working conditions. This measure will not undermine either of 
these legitimate rights. This bill only seeks to stop the destructive 
practice of ``salting'' to protect employers who operate non-union 
shops, and to protect employees who freely choose to work for these 
non-union employers.
  I would urge my fellow Senators to join our colleagues in the House 
and pass the Truth in Employment Act. The survival of America's small 
businesses demand that we act.

                          ____________________