[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 89 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7678-S7682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 2272. A bill to amend the boundaries of Grant-Kohrs Ranch National 
Historic Site in the State of Montana; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


                GRANT-KOHRS RANCH NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today and introduce 
legislation which will amend the boundaries of the Grant-Kohrs Ranch 
National Historic Site in the State of Montana.
  Congress authorized the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site on 
August 25, 1972 to preserve the Grant-Kohrs Ranch that operated from 
1860-1972. Preserving the ranch also preserved a historic reminder of 
our Nation's frontier cattle era. The ranch's

[[Page S7679]]

intact 120-year archive, 26,000 artifacts, and 88 historic structures 
capture the heritage of the American cowboy and cattlemen.
  Today the area is the hub of a thriving tourism industry and also 
provides unique educational opportunities. Tourists are constantly in 
search of a feel for the true American West. The Grant-Kohrs Ranch 
offers a vivid recollection of life on the frontier while providing a 
great experience for visitors and jobs for local residents. The ranch 
has been designated a National Historic Landmark and is a true asset to 
Montana.
  The legislation that I am proposing will incorporate an additional 
120 acres of land into the authorized boundary of the Grant-Kohrs Ranch 
National Historic Site. The 120 acres that will be included in the new 
boundary of the ranch are already owned by the National Park Service 
and their inclusion in the ranch's boundary is recommended as a means 
of conserving the property of the original ranch from future 
development.
  I ask unanimous consent that the administration's letter of 
transmittal, the bill, and a section-by-section analysis of the 
legislation be printed in the Record for the information of my 
colleagues.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2272

       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 ``Grant-Kohrs Ranch National 
     Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act of 1997.''

     SEC. 2 ADDITIONS TO GRANT-KOHRS RANCH NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

       The Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the establishment of 
     the Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site in the State of 
     Montana, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1972 
     (86 Stat. 632) is amended by striking the last sentence in 
     the first section and inserting:
       ``The boundary of the National Historic Site shall be as 
     generally described on a map entitled, ``Boundary Map, Grant-
     Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site'', numbered 80030-B, and 
     dated January, 1998, which shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the local and Washington, District of 
     Columbia, offices of the National Park Service, Department of 
     the Interior.''.
                                  ____


 Section by Section Analysis--Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site 
                    Boundary Adjustment Act of 1997

       Section 1: Short title.
       Section 2: Amends the Historic Site's enabling Act by 
     incorporating 120 acres of land already owned by the National 
     Park Service into the boundaries of Grant-Kohrs Ranch 
     National Historic Site.
                                  ____

                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 1998.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a draft bill ``to amend the 
     boundaries of Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site in the 
     State of Montana.''
       We recommend the bill be introduced, referred to the 
     appropriate committee for consideration, and enacted.
       The enclosed draft bill would incorporate 120 acres of 
     land, purchased by the Federal government as an uneconomic 
     remnant in 1988 and administered by the National Park 
     Service, into the authorized boundary of Grant-Kohrs Ranch 
     National Historic Site. Adjusting the boundary to incorporate 
     this tract is recommended by the site's 1993 General 
     Management Plan and 1995 Management Assessment, both of which 
     had extensive public involvement and review.
       This parcel is a critical component of the cultural 
     landscape and a defining character of Grant-Kohrs Ranch 
     implicit in its National Register designations as a National 
     Historic Landmark and Agricultural Historic District. The 
     property also augments the Ranch in conserving open space 
     amid the continued growth of Deer Lodge and Powell County, 
     Montana.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection to the enactment of the enclosed draft 
     legislation from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program.
           Sincerely,

                                                 ------ ------

                                    Acting Assistant Secretary for
                                      Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
       Enclosures.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2273. A bill to increase, effective as of December 1, 1998, the 
rates of disability compensation for veterans with service-connected 
disabilities, and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation 
for survivors of certain service-connected disabled veterans, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.


      Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 1998

 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I introduce legislation today to grant 
a Cost-of-Living-Adjustment (COLA) increase, to take effect at the 
beginning of next year, to recipients of certain Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA) benefits.
  Mr. President, this legislation is simple and straightforward. It 
would grant a COLA increase to recipients of various VA benefits--most 
notably, compensation benefits received by veterans with service-
connected disabilities, and the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 
or ``DIC'' benefits received by the survivors of veterans who died in 
service or died after service as a result of service-connected injuries 
or illnesses. The COLA to be awarded under this legislation would be, 
as in past years, the same COLA awarded to recipients of Social 
Security benefits.
  It is a matter of great importance that VA compensation checks keep 
pace with inflation. I know this from personal experience; in 
Depression days, all that kept the wolf from the door of the Specter 
household was a small veterans disability check. The Congress has not 
failed to grant cost-of-living adjustments in past years, and I know it 
will not fail now. 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. 2273

       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 ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-
     of-Living Adjustment Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN COMPENSATION RATES AND LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall, as provided in paragraph (2), increase, effective 
     December 1, 1998, the rates of and limitations on Department 
     of Veterans Affairs disability compensation and dependency 
     and indemnity compensation.
       (2) The Secretary shall increase each of the rates and 
     limitations in sections 1114, 1115(1), 1162, 1311, 1313, and 
     1314 of title 38, United States Code, that were increased by 
     the amendments made by the Veterans' Compensation Rate 
     Amendments of 1997 (Public Law 105-98; 111 Stat. 2155). This 
     increase shall be made in such rates and limitations as in 
     effect on November 30, 1998, and shall be by the same 
     percentage that benefit amounts payable under title II of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) are increased 
     effective December 1, 1998, as a result of a determination 
     under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)).
       (3) In the computation of increased dollar amounts pursuant 
     to paragraph (2), any amount which as so computed is not an 
     even multiple of $1 shall be rounded to the next lower whole 
     dollar amount.
       (b) Special Rule.--The Secretary may adjust 
     administratively, consistent with the increases made under 
     subsection (a), the rates of disability compensation payable 
     to persons within the purview of section 10 of Public Law 85-
     857 (72 Stat. 1263) who are not in receipt of compensation 
     payable pursuant to chapter 11 of title 38, United States 
     Code.
       (c) Publication Requirement.--At the same time as the 
     matters specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) are required to be 
     published by reason of a determination made under section 
     215(i) of such Act during fiscal year 1998, the Secretary 
     shall publish in the Federal Register the rates and 
     limitations referred to in subsection (a)(2) as increased 
     under this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 2274. A bill for relief of Richard M. Barlow of Santa Fe, New 
Mexico; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 private relief bill for richard barlow

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I introduce a private relief bill 
on behalf of a constituent from Sante Fe, New Mexico, Mr. Richard 
Barlow. It appears to me that his case represents a misuse of authority 
within the government in response to a public servant's concern that 
the Congress receive accurate information about important matters of 
national security. In recent years, the Congress has adopted measures 
to protect ``whistle blowers'' who step forward to identify grievous 
errors or abuses that occur within the government. Mr. Barlow's case 
involves government reprisal against a man who never actually blew the 
whistle, but indicated to his superiors that he might do so if they 
failed to correct misinformation that they had supplied to

[[Page S7680]]

the Congress. Let me provide you with a brief outline of the case that 
I believe justifies filing this bill on his behalf.
  In the summer of 1989 officials from the Department of Defense 
provided information to the Congress on the sale of F-16 aircraft to 
Pakistan. Mr. Barlow concluded that the information provided was 
incorrect and misleading and indicated to his supervisor that he 
intended to correct that information. What followed is a history of 
reprisal leading to the loss of career, family, and income. The 
Department of Defense (DoD) suspended Mr. Barlow's high level security 
clearances and transferred him to other duties, while conducting its 
own investigation into the matter. When that investigation led to DoD's 
decision to terminate his employment, Mr. Barlow resigned. Because of 
that experience, Mr. Barlow has had significant personal problems 
including the dissolution of his marriage and long periods of under- 
and unemployment.
  As a constituent, Mr. Barlow asked for our help. In 1993, I asked the 
Inspector General of the DoD to review this case to see if it had been 
handled fairly. Because of the nature of the issue, Inspectors General 
(IG) from DoD, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the State 
Department reviewed the matter. The former two concluded that DoD had 
handled the matter fairly; the IG from the State Department disagreed.
  Mr. Barlow again appealed for my assistance to enlist the support of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee in investigating the case. Senators 
Thurmond and Nunn requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) to 
review the findings of the IG offices. Last summer, the GAO concluded 
that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings of the DoD 
and CIA Inspectors General that Mr. Barlow's case had been handled 
fairly.
  Given those findings, I requested the Secretary of Defense to review 
the case to determine if Mr. Barlow should be compensated for the 
losses he incurred. The Secretary replied that, after a careful review, 
no compensation was warranted.
  Mr. President, I continue to believe that from the evidence I have 
reviewed, Mr. Barlow has been unfairly treated and is worthy of 
compensation for the price he has paid.
  Mr. President, I am introducing this bill today not only because I 
believe a constituent has been wronged, but because this case involves 
an issue that's virtually important to the effective functioning of the 
government. In my view, private relief bills are not undertaken 
lightly. They are appropriate in cases of individuals who have been 
wronged, who have exhausted all possible remedies for resolution, and 
whose case represents matters of important legal or policy matters. In 
Mr. Barlow's case, in order for the Congress to do its job, it must 
rely on timely and accurate information from all the agencies of the 
government, particularly when it involves matters of national security. 
In 1989 Mr. Barlow was very concerned about efforts in Pakistan to 
initiate a nuclear weapons program and that the Congress needed to know 
the full implications of selling nuclear capable F-16 aircraft to 
Pakistan. Recent history indicates how important those concerns were.
  Mr. President, although I believe compensation may be due to Mr. 
Barlow, I believe that such judgments require careful review by those 
experienced in such matters such as the Court of Claims. The Court will 
report its findings back to the Senate to guide our deliberations 
before determining the outcome of this bill. I hope that the Court will 
perform its review quickly and report their findings to the Senate in 
order for us to resolve this matter before the end of this session of 
the Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2274

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

     SECTION 1. COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN LOSSES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, 
     out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
     to Mr. Richard M. Barlow of Santa Fe, New Mexico, the sum of 
     $1,100,000 for compensation for losses incurred by Mr. 
     Richard M. Barlow relating to and a direct consequence of--
       (1) personnel actions taken by the Department of Defense 
     affecting Mr. Barlow's employment at the Department 
     (including Mr. Barlow's top secret security clearance) during 
     the period of August 4, 1989, through February 27, 1992; and
       (2) Mr. Barlow's separation from service with the 
     Department of Defense on February 27, 1992.
       (b) No Inference of Liability.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed as an inference of liability on the part 
     of the United States.
       (c) Limitation on Agents and Attorneys Fees.--No more than 
     10 percent of the payment authorized by this Act may be paid 
     to or received by any agent or attorney for services rendered 
     in connection with obtaining such payment, any contact to the 
     contrary notwithstanding. Any person who violates this 
     subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be 
     subject to a fine in the amount provided in title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (d) Non-Taxability of Payment.--The payment authorized by 
     this Act is in partial reimbursement for losses incurred by 
     Mr. Barlow as a result of the personnel actions taken by the 
     Department of Defense and is not subject to Federal, State, 
     or local income taxes.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 2276. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate 
El Camino Real de los Tejas as a National Historic Trail; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


    el camino real de los tejas national historic trail act of 1998

 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on 
behalf of myself and Senator Breaux that is very important to the 
States of Texas and Louisiana, as well as to our neighboring country of 
Mexico. This bill will designate the El Camino Real de los Tejas Trail 
in Texas and Louisiana as a National Historic Trail. This legislation 
is the culmination of efforts by interested parties in Texas, Louisiana 
and Mexico, including legislators and members of academia, to study the 
feasibility and suitability of designating this exceptional complex of 
roads as part of the National Trails System.

  El Camino Real, comprised of economically important roads in Mexico 
and the United States, was used by Native Americans and the colonial 
powers of Spain, France and England during the seventeenth, eighteenth 
and nineteenth centuries. These viceregal roads were used for 
exploration, conquest, mission supply, settlement, cultural exchange 
and military campaigns, connecting a series of Spanish missions and 
posts between Monclova, Mexico and Los Adaes, the first capital of the 
province of Texas, now located in the Red River Valley of Louisiana. In 
the late seventeenth century, French interests expanded westward from 
the Mississippi River Valley into Spanish Texas. The official Spanish 
response was retaliatory. As a result, routes were extended from Mexico 
north and east into Louisiana. The historic remnants of these efforts 
can be found today at the Spanish outpost of Los Adaes in northwest 
Louisiana and the French frontier post of Fort St. Jean the Baptiste 
near Natchitoches, Louisiana.
  El Camino Real de los Tejas, named for the Indian tribes living in 
what is now east Texas and northwest Louisiana, begins in Maverick 
County, Texas and extends into Sabine and Natchitoches Parishes in 
Louisiana. Historically, the trail was composed of several routes, 
including Camino Pita, Upper Presidio Road, Upper Road, Lower Road, 
Lower Presidio Road, Camino de en Medio, and the Laredo Road. These 
roads were established beginning in 1689. The Old San Antonio Road, 
sometimes called the Camino de Arriba, the nineteenth century route 
between San Antonio and Natchitoches, is a separate road system that in 
part followed El Camino Real and overlaps it in many segments. It was 
used by famous politicians and expansionists, such as Sam Houston and 
Davy Crockett. Altogether, the roads in the United States make up 
approximately 2,500 miles of changing routes in Texas and eighty miles 
in Louisiana. As an important observation, there may well be evidence 
procured in the future that will show that El Camino Real de los Tejas 
extended all the way to the Natchez Trace.
  In July, the National Park Service will complete its study of the El 
Camino Real de los Tejas with a positive determination of suitability 
and feasibility for establishment of a national historic trail. This 
comes after enthusiastic support from the Natchitoches

[[Page S7681]]

community, including Northwestern State University and the Louisiana 
Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. Strong support and 
contribution to the research and potential of trail designation came 
from the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Historical 
Commission, consultants, and many others. Trail designation would make 
possible coordination of activities along the length of the trail. It 
also would mean increased opportunities for coordination with the 
Mexican government on respective resource preservation and research, as 
well as enhanced opportunities for cooperative educational programs and 
tourism related to El Camino Real de los Tejas. The study anticipates 
little, if any, federal acquisition of private land, and only on a 
willing seller basis. Instead, the management of the trail would depend 
on cooperative partnerships between the National Park Service and other 
administering agencies, interested property owners or land managers, 
and other entities.
  Mr. President, this bill represents truly successful efforts on 
behalf of the National Park Service and State and local governments and 
associations to commemorate the settlement of Texas and Louisiana. The 
El Camino Real de los Tejas will make a fine addition to the National 
Trails System, and I urge its speedy consideration and approval by this 
body. 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. 2276

       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 ``El Camino Real de los Tejas 
     National Historic Trail Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) El Camino Real de los Tejas (the Royal Road to the 
     Tejas), served as the primary route between the Spanish 
     viceregal capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial 
     capital of Tejas at Los Adaes (1721-1773) and San Antonio 
     (1773-1821).
       (2) The seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth 
     century rivalries among the European colonial powers of 
     Spain, France, and England and after their independence, 
     Mexico and the United States, for dominion over lands 
     fronting the Gulf of Mexico, were played out along the 
     evolving travel routes in this immense area.
       (3) The future of several American Indian nations, whose 
     prehistoric trails were later used by the Spaniards for 
     exploration and colonization, was tied to these larger forces 
     and events and the nations were fully involved in and 
     affected by the complex cultural interactions that ensued.
       (4) The Old San Antonio Road was a series of routes 
     established in the early 19th century sharing the same 
     corridor and some routes of El Camino Real, and carried 
     American immigrants from the east, contributing to the 
     formation of the Republic of Texas, and its annexation to the 
     United States.
       (5) The exploration, conquest, colonization, settlement, 
     migration, military occupation, religious conversion, and 
     cultural exchange that occurred in a large area of the 
     borderland was facilitated by El Camino Real de los Tejas as 
     it carried Spanish and Mexican influences northeastward, and 
     by its successor, the Old San Antonio Road, which carried 
     American influence westward, during a historic period which 
     extended from 1689 to 1850.
       (6) The portions of El Camino Real de los Tejas in what is 
     now the United States extended from the Rio Grande near Eagle 
     Pass and Loredo, Texas and involved routes that changed 
     through time, that total almost 2,600 miles in combined 
     length, generally coursing northeasterly through San Antonio, 
     Bastrop, Nacogdoches, and San Augustine in Texas to 
     Natchitoches, Louisiana, a general corridor distance of 550 
     miles.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1244(a) is amended--
       (1) by designating the paragraphs relating to the 
     California National Historic Trail, the Pony Express National 
     Historic Trail, and the Selma to Montgomery National Historic 
     Trail as paragraphs (18), (19), and (20), respectively; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) El camino real de los tejas.--
       ``(A) In general.--El Camino Real de los Tejas (The Royal 
     Road to the Tejas) National Historic Trail, a combination of 
     routes totaling 2,580 miles in length from the Rio Grande 
     near Eagle Pass and Laredo, Texas to Natchitoches, Louisiana, 
     and including the Old San Antonio Road, as generally depicted 
     on the maps entitled `El Camino Real de los Tejas', contained 
     in the report prepared pursuant to subjection (b) entitled 
     `National Historic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental 
     Assessment: El Camino Real de los Tejas, Texas-Louisiana', 
     dated ______ 1998. A map generally depicting the trail shall 
     be on file and available for public inspection in the Office 
     of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. The 
     trail shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. 
     No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries 
     of any federally administered area may be acquired by the 
     United States for the trail except with the consent of the 
     owner of the land or interest in land.
       ``(B) Coordination of activities.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior may coordinate with United States and Mexican public 
     and non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, 
     and, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the 
     government of Mexico and its political subdivisions, for the 
     purpose of exchanging trail information and research, 
     fostering trail preservation and educational programs, 
     providing technical assistance, and working to establish an 
     international historic trail with complementary preservation 
     and education programs in each nation.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 2278. A bill to exclude veterans' educational benefits from being 
considered a resource in the computation of financial aid; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


          veterans educational benefits protection act of 1998

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue which 
is of vital importance to our nation's brave veterans and their 
families.
  The Montgomery GI bill, which was made permanent on June 1, 1987, 
guarantees basic educational assistance for most persons who are, or 
have been, members of the Armed Forces or the Selected Reserve for 
significant periods of time.
  The Montgomery GI bill was created to help veterans in their 
readjustment to civilian life, to aid in recruitment and retention of 
qualified personnel in the Armed Forces, and to develop a more highly 
educated and productive work force.
  Currently, Montgomery GI benefits are considered ``other financial 
aid'' in the determination of need.
  In other words, when a veteran applies for financial aid, colleges 
and universities are required to consider veterans' educational 
benefits as a resource when computing the financial award.
  The ultimate result is that the total financial aid award is reduced.
  This penalty does not exist for other Americans who serve our 
country.
  The National Community Service Act of 1990 decrees that a national 
service educational award or post-service benefit shall not be treated 
as financial assistance.
  Mr. President, this inequity is an affront to the many veterans who 
have sacrificed to defend our nation from harm.
  Today, I am introducing the Veterans Educational Benefits Protection 
Act of 1998 to prevent GI bill benefits from being considered a 
resource in the computation of financial aid.
  Let me read to you from a letter that I received from a Florida 
veteran. He writes:

       I do not think that VA education benefits should be 
     calculated into the financial aid equation for two reasons.
       First, I paid for the Montgomery GI Bill, albeit only 
     $1200, but more so with a sacrifice of time serving my 
     country.
       I previously paid for these benefits and am currently being 
     penalized for that through financial aid . . . I did not 
     qualify for any type of federal educational grant this year 
     in part because my veterans benefits were counted as 
     financial aid in my package.

  It's ironic, Mr. President.
  We created the Montgomery GI bill to reward veterans for their 
dedication to the defense of our liberties.
  They earn its benefits through years of service and help to finance 
them through paycheck deduction.
  But current law unfairly penalizes the 94 percent of veterans who 
sign up for the program and the 40 percent who actually use the 
benefits to which they are entitled.
  Our bill will revoke this self-defeating approach and restore common 
sense to this important veterans educational program.
  If it is enacted, Montgomery GI bill benefits will no longer be 
treated as other financial assistance for purposes of the need analysis 
formula.
  This is a critical change.
  It is well-known and well-documented that education has a dramatic 
impact on earning potential and employment success.
  Employees with a college education are more likely to earn higher 
salaries--and less likely to become unemployed--than those workers who 
did not advance beyond high school.

[[Page S7682]]

  Even worse, failure to enact this legislation will harm our efforts 
to attract our best and brightest young people to the armed services.
  The Department of Defense has identified the Montgomery GI bill as 
its best available recruitment tool.
  Mr. President, just over fifty years ago, in 1945, tens of thousands 
of American servicemen returned home from defeating totalitarian 
aggression around the globe.
  Because Congress had enacted the original GI bill a year earlier, 
they arrived with the assurance that the federal government would 
reward their brave defense of freedom and heroic sacrifice with a 
chance for a better life.
  When Congress passed that first GI bill, it made a covenant with the 
men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our cherished 
freedom and democracy.
  By making it more difficult for veterans to finance higher education 
once they leave the armed services, current law has undermined that 
compact.
  I am confident that the Veterans Education Benefits Protection Act 
will help us reaffirm our commitment to these courageous Americans, and 
give veterans access to the higher education that they so richly 
deserve.
  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. 2278

       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 ``Veterans' Educational 
     Benefits Protection Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Having served their country with honor, veterans of the 
     Armed Forces deserve the Nation's gratitude and support.
       (2) Recognizing that education is a key element of economic 
     success and reintegration into civilian life, Congress has 
     for more than 50 years provided aid to veterans seeking 
     postsecondary education.
       (3) The escalating costs of postsecondary education make 
     veterans more dependent than ever on veterans' educational 
     benefits.
       (4) Recipients of veterans' educational benefits should not 
     be disadvantaged with respect to any other recipients of 
     Federal educational aid programs.

     SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF VETERANS' EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS.

       Section 480(j)(3) (20 U.S.C. 1087vv(j)(3)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``paragraph (1),'' the following: ``a post-
     service benefit under chapter 30 of title 38, United States 
     Code, or''.

                          ____________________