[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.
____________________