[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11708-S11714]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FEDERAL BENEFIT VERIFICATION AND INTEGRITY ACT

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Benefit

[[Page S11709]]

Verification and Integrity Act. This legislation takes a government-
wide approach to improving eligibility verification and debt collection 
in Federal benefit and assistance programs by identifying, testing, 
evaluating, and, in some cases, implementing ``data sharing'' 
information technologies. Federal agencies would be encouraged to make 
use of federal, state, and private databases such as the National 
Directory of New Hires and credit bureau data to help ensure that the 
government delivers benefits to the right person, at the right time, 
for the right amount. This bill mirrors Title VI of H.R. 4243, a bill 
introduced in the House by Representatives Steve Horn and Carolyn 
Maloney.
  The President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency has found that 
the federal government loses billions of dollars each year by not 
adequately verifying information in applications for federal benefit 
programs. For example, an audit by the Department of Education's Office 
of Inspector General disclosed that approximately $109 million in Pell 
grants had been over-awarded in 1996 because students failed to report 
or under-reported their income. The Department of Housing and Urban 
Development projected that during the same year it had paid out at 
least $600 million in excess rental subsidies because of tenants' 
under-reporting of income.
  News reports confirm the pervasiveness of this type of fraud against 
the government. One story in the Wall Street Journal described how 
``student-aid consultants'' charged clients $350 each for phony tax 
returns, which would under-report the student's family income. Because 
the government does not compare the tax return accompanying the student 
loan application with the tax forms that had been submitted to the IRS, 
the student can fraudulently apply to the government for financial aid 
and receive thousands of dollars in Pell grants. In another example, 
the Washington Post reported that an owner of a California trade school 
was indicted on allegations that he stole $1 million in federal Pell 
grants by creating imaginary students. Since the government never 
compared the names of these students with information it already had, 
the school was able to hide its crimes for years.
  The report of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency 
concluded that federal agencies need eligibility verification to deter 
and detect the growing fraud in federal benefit and assistance 
programs. Several federal agencies do have procedures to try to verify 
information submitted by applicants by comparing it with information 
contained in various federal and state government databases. 
Unfortunately the legislative authority for gaining access to this 
verifying data often does not encompass many of the most useful 
government sources: there is no comprehensive authority to share data 
among agencies. Private industry has made great strides in improving 
eligibility information accuracy, and the federal government could 
clearly learn from the best business practices of companies like 
American Express, Visa, Citicorp and Nationsbank. This bill contains 
provisions to encourage the government to test and incorporate best 
commercial business practices for eligibility verification.
  Similarly, information contained in the National Directory of New 
Hires and other databases could be a vital aid to the Department of 
Education's efforts to locate debtors under its student loan programs, 
and to other agencies trying to locate and collect from debtors. The 
Department of Education devotes 70% of its debt collection efforts to 
locating debtors. The National Directory of New Hires, a comprehensive 
database that lists where virtually all Americans are employed, was 
recently established as part of the legislation to find and crack down 
on ``deadbeat dads''. The Directory is maintained by the Department of 
Health and Human Services, and the data contained in the database 
cannot be shared with other agencies without explicit legislative 
authorization. As with child support collection, the Department of 
Education could use the New Hires directory as an enormously helpful 
tool to locate where a debtor lives and works. Once a debtor is found, 
the Department could then use its existing authority to notify the 
debtor, and then as a last resort and after meeting all due process 
requirements, the Department could garnish the debtor's wages.
  To improve government-wide data-sharing coordination, this 
legislation creates a ``Federal Benefit Verification and Payment 
Integrity Board'' which would provide oversight and foster agency 
interest in pursuing data sharing ideas and technologies. Once an 
agency tests an idea and obtains a positive result, the Board can 
recommend to the Congress that permanent authorizing legislation be 
enacted. Federally funded benefit programs that could use data-sharing 
technologies include: the Pell Grant program, federal student loan 
programs, Medicaid, the Food Stamp program, USDA and HUD housing 
programs, veterans compensation programs, Social Security programs, the 
Railroad Retirement Survivor program, the Civil Service Retirement 
Program, Small Business Administration programs, and USDA business 
programs. While this list is not exhaustive, the legislation would 
promote data-sharing between agencies that have the current statutory 
authority to do so.
  In addition, this legislation balances the need for data in verifying 
eligibility with the paperwork burden and privacy intrusion that data 
sharing imposes. In fact, this legislation contains a number of 
increased privacy protections, including requiring that agency 
proposals contain administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to 
ensure the security and confidentiality of records; prohibiting 
nonessential duplication and re-disclosure of records within or outside 
an agency receiving information for a test; expanding encryption and 
electronic signature technology to protect the confidentiality and 
integrity of information; and doubling the penalty for willfully 
violating the privacy act to $10,000. Existing computer matching and 
privacy act laws will not be changed.
  The act also expands on the present full due process rights of 
beneficiaries, including all rights under the Fair Debt Collection 
Practices Act. The bill ensures that agencies administering federally 
funded benefit programs adequately inform applicants applying for 
benefits that their data can be shared to verify their eligibility for 
those benefits. The agency will be required to maintain a record of 
each applicant's acknowledgment. In this way, agencies can encourage 
individuals to provide accurate information when applying for benefits. 
Moreover, applicants will be given the opportunity to explain 
inconsistencies.
  Finally, the Committee recognizes the importance of keeping the 
National Directory of New Hires data secure and private. Consequently, 
this legislation intends that any agency requesting access to the 
National Directory of New Hires have the statutory authorization to 
access the same kind of data from other data sources. Also, all data 
matches with the New Hires database must occur under the Department of 
Health and Human Services, the agency who owns this information. This 
way, the government would be able to centralize all data matches at one 
location--where the data resides.
  By using data-sharing technologies, agencies can deter and prevent 
fraud while becoming more accurate and efficient. This bill promotes 
data-sharing tools which can save taxpayers substantial resources and 
at the same time encourage beneficiaries of government programs to deal 
honestly with their government. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  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. 2571

       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 ``Federal Benefit Verification 
     and Integrity Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are the following:
       (1) To reduce errors in Federal benefit programs that lead 
     to waste, fraud, or abuse and encourage agencies to work 
     together to identify common sources of errors.
       (2) To identify solutions to common problems that will save 
     money for the taxpayer and demonstrate the Government's 
     ability to deliver Federal benefits to the right person, at 
     the right time, for the right amount.

[[Page S11710]]

       (3) To focus on increasing accuracy and efficiency for 
     Federal benefit program eligibility, financial and program 
     management, and debt collection.
       (4) To improve the coordination of Government information 
     resources across Government agencies to strengthen the 
     delivery of Federal benefits.
       (5) To balance the need for data in verifying eligibility 
     with the paperwork burden and privacy intrusion that data 
     sharing imposes.
       (6) To emphasize deterring and preventing fraud in the 
     provision of Federal benefits, rather than seeking to detect 
     fraud after Federal benefits have been provided.
       (7) To ensure that agencies administering federally funded 
     benefit programs inform applicants applying for benefits 
     under those programs that their data can be shared to verify 
     their eligibility for those benefits.
       (8) To encourage individuals to provide accurate 
     information when applying for benefits under federally funded 
     benefit programs.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Federal Benefit 
     Verification and Payment Integrity Board established under 
     this Act.
       (2) Federal benefit program.--The term ``Federal benefit 
     program'' means any program administered or funded by the 
     Federal Government, or by any agent or State on behalf of the 
     Federal Government, providing cash assistance or in-kind 
     assistance in the form of payments, grants, loans, or loan 
     guarantees to or for the benefit of any person.

  TITLE I--NOTIFICATION OF FEDERAL BENEFIT RECIPIENTS REGARDING DATA 
                              VERIFICATION

     SEC. 101. PROGRAM AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE CORRECT 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--An agency that administers a Federal 
     benefit payment program shall provide notice informing 
     applicants under the program, in information material and 
     instructions accompanying program application forms, that 
     applicants' data may be verified to the extent permitted by 
     law.
       (b) Agency Compliance.--An agency may comply with 
     subsection (a) by modifying program materials and 
     applications to include such notice as part of their normal 
     reissuance cycle for reprinting forms, but in no case later 
     than December 31, 2000.
       (c) Record of Acknowledgments.--The head of each agency 
     that administers a Federal benefit program shall maintain a 
     record of each applicant's acknowledgment that the applicant 
     has received notice of the uses and disclosures to be made of 
     the applicant's information, for as long as the applicant 
     receives benefits from or owes a debt to the Government under 
     the program.

     TITLE II--FEDERAL BENEFIT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT TESTS

     SEC. 201. TESTS OF PRACTICES AND TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING 
                   FEDERAL BENEFIT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Authority To Conduct Tests.--
       (1) In general.--A Federal agency that administers a 
     Federal benefit program may conduct a test of information 
     technology practices or techniques to improve income 
     verification, debt collection, data privacy and integrity 
     protection, and identification authentication in the 
     administration of the program, in accordance with a proposal 
     approved by the Federal Benefit Verification and Payment 
     Integrity Board established by this title.
       (2) Waiver of regulations.--Upon the request of the Board, 
     the head of an agency may waive the enforcement of any 
     regulation of the agency for the purposes of carrying out a 
     test under this section.
       (3) Identification of test areas.--The Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget and the Chief Information 
     Officers' Council shall each recommend to the Board, within 
     120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, various 
     information technology practices and techniques that should 
     be tested under this title.
       (b) Approval of Agency Proposals.--
       (1) In general.--The head of a Federal agency may develop 
     and submit to the Board a proposal for carrying out a test 
     under this section for a specific Federal benefit program 
     administered by the agency. The proposal shall contain 
     specific goals, including a schedule, for improving customer 
     service and error reduction in the program and other 
     information requested by the Board.
       (2) Contents.--The proposal shall provide for the testing 
     of information sharing in an integrated manner where feasible 
     of electronic practices and techniques for improving Federal 
     benefit program management, including the following:
       (A) Use of encryption and electronic signature technology 
     consistent with techniques acceptable to the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, to protect the 
     confidentiality and integrity of information.
       (B) Use of other security controls and monitoring tools.
       (C) Use of risk profiles and risk alert technologies, 
     including use of Federal, State, and private databases such 
     as the National Directory of New Hires, Federal and State tax 
     data, and credit bureau data.
       (D) Establishment of a management framework for exploring 
     and reducing the information security risks associated with 
     Federal agency operations and technologies, including risk 
     assessments and disaster recovery planning.
       (3) Consultation.--Any agency whose proposals would require 
     access to another agency's database shall consult with that 
     agency prior to submission of the proposal to the Board, 
     including consultation with the appropriate data integrity 
     board.
       (4) Privacy safeguards.--A proposal submitted to the Board 
     must contain a description of appropriate administrative, 
     technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security and 
     confidentiality of records and to protect against any 
     anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity 
     which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, 
     inconvenience, or unfairness to any individual with respect 
     to whom information is maintained. The proposal shall 
     include, in particular, prohibitions on duplication and 
     redisclosure of records provided by the source agency within 
     or outside the recipient entity, except where required by law 
     or essential to the conduct of the test.
       (5) Agency reimbursement.--The proposal shall include an 
     estimate for reimbursement that may be charged by a Federal 
     agency to another agency in conducting tests under the 
     proposal.
       (6) Review of proposals.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of receipt of a proposal under this subsection, the 
     Board shall review and recommend disposition of the proposal 
     to the heads of the data sharing agencies under the proposal. 
     The head of the agency shall respond to the Board within 90 
     days. Such a response shall include findings as appropriate 
     by the data integrity board.
       (c) Cooperative Agreements and Contracts.--The head of an 
     agency participating in a test under this section, in 
     consultation with the Board, may enter into a cooperative 
     agreement with a State or contract with a private entity 
     under which the State or private entity, respectively, may 
     provide services on behalf of the Federal agency in carrying 
     out the test.
       (d) General Implementation Plan.--The Board shall prepare a 
     plan for the implementation of this section, including for 
     the coordination of the conduct of tests under this title and 
     the procedures for submission of proposals for those tests.
       (e) Reports on Results of Tests.--
       (1) Annual report.--Beginning not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Board shall submit 
     annually to the Congress a report on the tests conducted 
     under this section.
       (2) Content.--The report shall include--
       (A) an estimate of potential cost savings and other impacts 
     demonstrated by the tests;
       (B) an analysis of the feasibility of applying the 
     practices and techniques demonstrated in each test within the 
     Federal Government, including analysis of what was the least 
     amount of information that was necessary to verify 
     eligibility of applicants under each Federal benefit program 
     that participated in the tests;
       (C) an assessment of the value of State data in those 
     tests. and
       (D) such recommendations as the Board considers 
     appropriate.
       (f) Recommendations on Implementation of Act.--The 
     Chairperson of the Board shall make recommendations annually 
     to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     regarding how savings resulting from the implementation of 
     the Federal Benefit Verification and Integrity Act may be 
     used to enhance program integrity in high-risk programs such 
     as Medicare and to reduce the potential of waste, fraud, and 
     erroneous payments.
       (g) Authority To Request Test.--The Board may request the 
     head of a Federal agency that administers a Federal benefit 
     program to conduct a test under this section, including the 
     preparation and submission of a proposal for such a test in 
     accordance with this section. The head of an agency shall 
     respond within 30 days by approving or disapproving such a 
     request of the Board.
       (h) Use of Test Information.--Information on any individual 
     obtained in the course of a test under this section shall not 
     be used as the exclusive basis of a decision concerning the 
     rights, benefits, or privileges of any individual.

     SEC. 202. SHARING OF INFORMATION IN NATIONAL DIRECTORY OF NEW 
                   HIRES.

       (a) Availability of Information.--Notwithstanding section 
     453(l) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653(l)), the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services may disclose 
     information to another Federal agency from the National 
     Directory of New Hires established pursuant to section 453(i) 
     of that Act (42 U.S.C. 653(i)) based on matches conducted by 
     the Department of Health and Human Services for purposes of 
     conducting a test under this title. In determining whether to 
     disclose such information to a Federal agency for such a 
     test, the Secretary shall take into consideration the 
     potential negative impact of the disclosure or use of such 
     information on the effective operation of the Federal Parent 
     Locator Service under section 453 of such Act, and of other 
     Federal and State child support enforcement activities under 
     part D of title IV of such Act.
       (b) Fee.--The head of an agency to which information is 
     disclosed pursuant to subsection (a) shall reimburse the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services in accordance with 
     section 453(k)(3) of the Social Security Act.
       (c) Authority To Disclose Information.--The head of an 
     agency to whom information is disclosed under this section 
     may disclose the information to another Federal agency for 
     use by the agency only as specified under a test proposal 
     under this title. The head of

[[Page S11711]]

     a Federal agency to whom information is disclosed under this 
     subsection may disclose such information to a State agency 
     administering a federally funded benefit program, a public 
     housing authority, or a guaranty agency (as that term is 
     defined in section 435(j) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965) only for the purpose of conducting the test.
       (d) Redisclosure Limitation.--An entity that receives 
     information for use in a test under this title that it was 
     not otherwise authorized by law to obtain may not redisclose 
     the information or use it for any other purpose.
       (e) Sharing of State Information.--The provision of 
     information pursuant to subsection (a) shall not affect any 
     determination of whether a State meets the requirements of 
     section 303(h)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 203. INCREASED PENALTIES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER 
                   PRIVACY ACT.

       (a) Increased Penalties.--Section 552a(i) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and 
     (3) by striking ``shall be guilty'' and all that follows 
     through the period and inserting ``shall be fined not more 
     than $10,000, imprisoned for not more than one year, or 
     both.''.
       (b) Punitive Damages.--Section 552a(g)(4) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (2) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(4)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

     ``(B) In any such suit in which the court determines that the 
     agency acted in a manner that was willful and intentional, 
     the court may award punitive damages in addition to damages 
     and costs referred to in subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 204. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FEDERAL BENEFIT VERIFICATION 
                   AND PAYMENT INTEGRITY BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Federal 
     Benefit Verification and Payment Integrity Board.
       (b) Membership.--The Board shall be composed of 10 members 
     appointed from among Federal or State employees, as follows:
       (1) 3 members, of whom one shall be appointed by the head 
     of each of 3 Federal agencies designated by the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget. The Director shall 
     designate agencies under this paragraph from among the 
     Federal agencies responsible for administering Federal 
     benefit programs.
       (2) 2 members appointed by the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, of whom at least one shall be a State 
     employee appointed to represent federally funded State 
     administered benefits programs.
       (3) 1 member appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services.
       (4) 1 member appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (5) 1 member appointed by the Commissioner of Social 
     Security.
       (6) 1 member appointed by the Secretary of Labor.
       (7) 1 member appointed by the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget to address privacy concerns.
       (c) Chairperson.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall designate one of the members of the Board as 
     the chairperson of the Board.
       (d) Administrative Support.--The heads of Federal agencies 
     having a member on the Board may provide to the Board such 
     administrative and other support services and facilities as 
     the Board may require to perform its functions under this 
     title.
       (e) Travel Expenses.--Members of the Board shall receive 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (f) Reports.--The Board shall periodically report to the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget regarding its 
     activities.

     SEC. 205. RECIPIENT BENEFIT ACCESS; IMPLEMENTATION OF TESTED 
                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES OR TECHNIQUES.

       (a) Commercial Services for Electronic Submissions.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of General Services may 
     acquire on behalf of Federal agencies commercial services for 
     accepting electronic payments for grants or loans and 
     electronic claims submissions from the public. Such services 
     shall be based on accepted commercial practices for 
     electronic identification, authentication, and income 
     verification.
       (2) Agency regulations.--The head of each Federal agency 
     shall promulgate regulations providing for the use of the 
     services described in paragraph (1) by program recipients.
       (3) Funding.--The Administrator may expend such funds as 
     may be required for the design, testing, and pilot of a 
     standard method by which the public may be provided 
     consistent, secure, and convenient electronic access in 
     applying to Federal agencies for loans and grants and in 
     submitting claims. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, the 
     Administrator may finance the acquisition and management of 
     the commercial services described in paragraph (1).
       (4) Definition of electronic.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``electronic'' means through the 
     Internet or telephonically.
       (b) Recommendations.--If the Board determines that any 
     information technology practice, technique, or information 
     sharing initiative tested under this title was successfully 
     demonstrated in the test and should be implemented in the 
     administration of a Federal benefit program, the Board 
     shall--
       (1) recommend regulations or legislation to implement that 
     practice, technique, or initiative, if the Board determines 
     that implementation is not otherwise prohibited under another 
     law; or
       (2) include in its annual report to the Congress under 
     section 201 recommendations for such legislation as may be 
     necessary to authorize that implementation.
       (c) Requirements Regarding Data Processing Systems.--The 
     Board shall include in any recommendation of regulations 
     under subsection (a)--
       (1) provisions that ensure use of generally accepted data 
     processing system development methodology; and
       (2) provisions that will result in system architecture that 
     will facilitate information exchange, increase data sharing, 
     and reduce costs, by elimination of redundancy in development 
     and acquisition of data processing systems.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES:
  S. 2572. A bill to amend the International Maritime Satellite 
Telecommunications Act to ensure the continuing provision of certain 
global satellite safety services after the privatization of the 
business operations of the International Mobile Satellite Organization, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


              international mobile satellite organization

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation to authorize continued U.S. participation in the 
International Mobile Satellite Organization, currently known as 
``Inmarsat'', during and after its restructuring, scheduled to take 
place April 1. The United States is currently a member of this 
organization, but its structure and functions are slated for 
significant reform. Rather than actually owning and operating mobile 
satellite telecommunications facilities, the intergovernmental 
institution will retain the much more limited role of overseeing the 
provision of global maritime distress and safety services, ensuring 
that this important function is carried out properly and effectively 
under contract. U.S. participation in the organization--which will keep 
the same name but change its acronym to ``IMSO''--will not require a 
U.S. financial contribution and will not impose any new legal 
obligations upon the U.S. government. Privatization of Inmarsat's 
commercial satellite business is an objective broadly shared by the 
legislative and executive branches, American businesses, COMSAT, which 
is the U.S. signatory entity, and the international community.
  To give some brief background, Inmarsat was established in 1979 to 
serve the global maritime industry by developing satellite 
communications for ship management and distress and safety 
applications. Over the past 19 years, Inmarsat has expanded both in 
terms of membership and mission. The intergovernmental organization now 
counts 84 member countries and has expanded into land-mobile and 
aeronautical communications.
  Inmarsat's governing bodies, the Inmarsat Council and the Assembly of 
Parties, recently reached an agreement to restructure the organization, 
a move that has been strongly supported and encouraged by the United 
States. This restructuring will shift Inmarsat's commercial activities 
out of the intergovernmental organization and into a broadly-owned 
public corporation by next spring. The new corporation will acquire all 
of Inmarsat's operational assets, including its satellites, and will 
assume all of Inmarsat's operational functions. All that will remain of 
the intergovernmental institution is a scaled-down secretariat with a 
small staff to ensure that the new corporation continues to meet 
certain public service obligations, such as the Global Maritime 
Distress and Safety System (GMDSS). It is important to U.S. interests 
that we participate in the oversight of this function, as well as that 
we be fully represented in the organization throughout the process of 
privatization.
  The legislation I am introducing will enable a smooth transition to 
the new structure. It contains two major provisions. First, it 
authorizes the President to maintain U.S. membership in IMSO after 
restructuring to ensure the continued provision of global maritime 
distress and safety satellite communications services. Second, it 
repeals those provisions of the International

[[Page S11712]]

Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act that will be rendered 
obsolete by the restructuring of Inmarsat, including all those relating 
to COMSAT's role as the United States' signatory. The bill's provisions 
will take effect on the date that Inmarsat transfers its commercial 
operations to the new corporation.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
measure and ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be 
included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2572

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

     SECTION 1. CONTINUING PROVISION OF GLOBAL SATELLITE SAFETY 
                   SERVICES AFTER PRIVATIZATION OF BUSINESS 
                   OPERATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL MOBILE SATELLITE 
                   ORGANIZATION.

       (a) Authority.--The International Maritime Satellite 
     Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. 751 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:


  ``global satellite safety services after privatization of business 
                         operations of inmarsat

       ``Sec. 506. In order to ensure the continued provision of 
     global maritime distress and safety satellite 
     telecommunications services after the privatization of the 
     business operations of INMARSAT, the President may maintain 
     on behalf of the United States membership in the 
     International Mobile Satellite Organization.''.
       (b) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--
       (1) Repeal.--That Act is further amended by striking 
     sections 502, 503, 504, and 505 (47 U.S.C. 751, 752, 753, and 
     757).
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the date on which the International 
     Mobile Satellite Organization ceases to operate directly a 
     global mobile satellite system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 2573. A bill to make spending reductions to save taxpayers money; 
to the Committee on Armed Services.


    Saving Taxpayers from obsolete programs and spending act of 1998

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I introduce the Saving 
Taxpayers from Obsolete Programs and Spending Act of 1998 also known as 
the STOP Spending Act of 1998. This legislation cuts or eliminates over 
25 unnecessary federal programs and would save approximately $80 
billion over the next five years.
  This legislation targets programs throughout the government--from the 
Pentagon, to the Departments of Agriculture, Interior and Energy, to 
NASA. If this legislation were to be enacted, we would have a leaner, 
better, smarter government. Many of these programs, like the peanut 
quota program, are outdated relics of a different era. Others, like the 
cancellation of an unnecessary tactical aircraft program, just 
represent new thinking that more properly reflects a changing 
international security environment.
  Mr. President, the federal government spends about $1.7 trillion each 
year. Much of this is for important programs that provide health care 
to American families, Social Security and Medicare to senior citizens, 
education for our kids, roads for our cars, security for our nation, 
housing for families with modest incomes, protection for the 
environment, and research to advance our civilization. However, there 
also is too much waste in government. And we must constantly reassess 
our spending priorities.
  Many of the programs targeted in this legislation represent bad 
policy and bad economics. The benefits go primarily to a narrow group 
of beneficiaries, while the costs are borne by consumers, taxpayers, 
and in some cases, the environment. The U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's sugar program is one example of a program which 
interferes with the proper functioning of the marketplace at the 
expense of consumers and the general public. This program guarantees 
U.S. sugar growers a price that is well above the world price of sugar 
and results in American consumers paying over $1 billion extra for 
sugar products each year. In addition, since the artificially high 
sugar prices that result from the sugar program encourages cultivation 
of marginal agricultural lands near the Florida Everglades, much 
environmental damage has been done as a result of increased pollution 
and runoff from these lands. Unfortunately, the benefits from this 
program primarily go to very few large and politically powerful 
corporations, not small farmers.
  This is but one example of the many wasteful and outdated programs 
cut or eliminated as part of this legislation. There are many more 
examples which I will not detail at this time. However, the bottom line 
is that we can make our government more effective and save money at the 
same time if we make the commitment to do so.
  Mr. President, I understand that with the limited time remaining in 
the 105th Congress, this legislation is not likely to be approved 
before the end of this session. And I realize that many of these 
proposals would face strong opposition. But I hope my colleagues will 
review this legislation and support my efforts to reduce government 
spending in the future by cutting these outdated and wasteful programs.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the spending cuts 
included in this legislation be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                      THE STOP SPENDING ACT OF 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Five-year
                                                                 total
                         Progran cut                            savings
                                                                  (In
                                                               Billions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminate Agricultural subsidies in 2003.....................      $4.00
Eliminate the Market Access Program..........................       0.45
Phase out the sugar program..................................       0.00
Phase out the peanut program.................................       0.00
Elimnate Wildlife Services Predator Control Program..........       0.05
Extend deficit reduction assessment on tobacco farmers.......       0.15
Eliminate Rural Utilities Service electricity loan subsidies.       0.18
Means-test irrigation subsidies..............................       0.05
Update domestic livestock grazing fees.......................       0.25
Update hardrock mining royalties.............................       1.00
Sell Power Marketing Administrations.........................       6.60
Terminate funding for DOE's Plutonium Pyroprocessing program.       0.23
Terminate DOE's Petroleum R&D Program........................       0.24
Cut funding for construction of new forest roads.............       0.25
Adjust price of timber sold by Forest Service................       1.00
Abolish the Forest Service Salvage Fund......................       0.18
Cancel tactical aircraft program & procure current generation
 plan (e.g., F-22)...........................................      13.70
Close Uniformed Services University of the Health Services...       0.30
Return inflation windfall in DoD funds to the Treasury.......      23.00
Delay next stage funding of THAAD............................       1.10
Reform troop transport to deployed ships.....................       7.00
Accelerate Start II implementation...........................       5.10
Discontinue D5 missile.......................................       3.00
Reduce excess DoD inventory..................................       0.50
Eliminate Navy's ELF Communications System...................       0.07
Consolidate pilot training programs..........................       0.60
Terminate Space Station......................................      10.65
                                                              ----------
      Total savings..........................................  $79.65 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to create an Advisory Committee for the National Museum of Women's 
History. And I am pleased to be joined by 20 of my colleagues: Senators 
Mikulski, Collins, Dodd, Jeffords, Rockefeller, D'Amato, Hutchison, 
Kerrey (NB), Lieberman, Moseley-Braun, Murray, Reid, Torricelli, 
Durbin, Sarbanes, Kerry (MA), Lautenberg, Boxer, Inouye, and Leahy.
  For far too long, women have contributed to history, but seem to have 
largely been forgotten in our history books, as well as our monuments 
and museums. It is long past time that the roles women have played be 
removed from the shadows of indifference and given a place where they 
can shine.
  The bill we are introducing today will create a 26 member Advisory 
Committee will look at the following three issues and report back to 
Congress on (1) identifying a site for the museum in the District of 
Columbia; (2) developing a business plan to allow the creation and 
maintenance of the museum to be done solely with private contributions 
and (3) assistance with the collection and program of the museum.
  It is important to note that this bill does not commit Congress to 
spending any money for this museum. The Committee's report will tell us 
the feasibility of funding the museum privately. And I believe that the 
Museum's Board

[[Page S11713]]

has shown that they have the ability to do just that.
  The concept for the National Museum of Women's History (NMWH) was 
created back in 1996. Since that time, the Board of Directors, lead by 
President Karen Staser, has worked tirelessly to build support and 
interest for this project. And judging by the fact that they have 
raised close to $10 million for the project, lent their support to the 
moving of the Suffragette statute from the crypt to the Rotunda, and 
raised $85,000 for that effort, I'd say they are well on their way to 
success.
  In fact, just this summer they donated a bust of Sojourner Truth that 
was unveiled during the 150th anniversary of the Suffragette movement. 
And on September 28 they opened their ``cyber museum'' to the computer-
going public (www.nmwh.org), which will serve as the Museum's ``home'' 
until there is a building. To steal a line from a song, these sisters 
are truly ``doing it for themselves''!
  They have also spent a lot of time answering the question ``why do we 
need a women's museum when we have the Smithsonian.'' The first answer 
to that comes from Edith Mayo, Curator Emeritus of the Smithsonian 
National Museum of American History, who notes that since 1963 only two 
exhibits--two--were dedicated to the role of women in history.
  Is it any wonder, then, that Congress got in the habit of designating 
March as National Women's History Month? The fact is, in the story of 
America's success, the chapter on women's contributions has largely 
been left on the editing room floor.
  Here's what I mean: We all know that John Glenn, the distinguished 
Senator from the State of Ohio, was the first American to orbit the 
earth on board Friendship 7 in 1962--and we wish him godspeed as he 
embarks on his second journey into space at the end of this month. But 
how many people know that Margaret Reha Seddon was the first U.S. woman 
to achieve the full rank of astronaut, and flew her first space mission 
aboard the Space Shuttle ``Discovery'' in 1985, twenty three years 
after Senator Glenn's historic flight?
  And I can guarantee you more people know the last person to hit over 
.400 in baseball--Ted Williams--than can name the first woman elected 
to Congress--Jeannette Rankin of Montana, who was elected in 1916, four 
years before ratification of the 19th Amendment gave women the right to 
vote. And how many people can tell you that, in 1924 Nellie Ross of 
Wyoming was the first woman elected governor of a state? Or that it 
wasn't until 1974 --50 years later--that the first woman governor was 
elected in her own right: Connecticut's Ella Grasso?
  History is filled with such little known but important milestones: 
like the first woman elected to the United States Senate was Hattie 
Wyatt Caraway from Louisiana in 1932. That Maine's own Margaret Chase 
Smith was the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate in her own right 
in 1948, and in 1962 became the first woman to run for the U.S. 
Presidency in the primaries of a major political party. Or that the 
first female cabinet member was Frances Perkins, who was Secretary of 
Labor for FDR.
  Hardly household names. But they should be. And with a place to 
showcase their accomplishments, perhaps one day they will take their 
rightful place beside America's greatest minds, visionary leaders, and 
groundbreaking figures.
  But until then, we have a long way to go. Many of us know that women 
fought and got the vote in 1920, with the ratification of the 19th 
Amendment to the Constitution. But how many know that Wyoming gave 
women the right to vote in 1869, 51 years earlier, and that by 1900 
Utah, Colorado and Idaho had granted women the right to vote? Or that 
the suffragette movement took 72 years to meet its goal? And few know 
that the women of Utah sewed dresses made from silk for the 
Suffragettes on their cross country tour.
  Rosie the Riverter was the name given to the hundreds of thousands of 
women who entered the workforce to help the war effort during World War 
II on the home front. But our history books don't discuss Jacquline 
Cochran and Nancy Harkness Love.
  Jackie was a pilot who went to Great Britain with 21 other women and 
ferried planes. In fact, she created quite a stir when she ferried a 
new bomber from Canada to England on the trip overseas.
  Nancy created a ferrying program in Connecticut, known as the Women's 
Auxiliary Ferrying Squadron, which also ferried planes in the states. 
They made an important contribution to our war effort, yet both of them 
have ``flown under the radar screen'' of history for far too many 
years.
  We now have two women on the Supreme Court; Sandra Day O'Conner 
appointed in 1981, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg who joined her in 1993. But 
what we never learned is that in 1870, Iowa became the first state to 
admit a woman to the bar: Arabella Mansfield. Or that the first woman 
was allowed to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1879, and her 
name was Belva Lockwood.
  Whatever period of history you chose--women played a role. Sybil 
Ludington, a 16 year old, rode through parts of New York and 
Connecticut in April of 1777 to warn that the Redcoats were coming. 
Sacajawea, the Shoshone Indian guide, helped escort Lewis and Clark on 
their 8000 mile expedition. Rosa Parks, Jo Ann Robinson and Myrlie 
Evers played important roles in the civil rights movement in the 50's 
and 60's. And as we move into the 21st century, the role of women--who 
now make up 52 percent of the population--will continue to be integral 
to the future success of this country.
  In fact the real question about the building of a women's museum is 
not so much where it will be built--although that remains to be 
explored. And it's not even who will pay for it--as I've said, it will 
be done entirely with private funds. The real question when it comes to 
a museum dedicated to women's history is, where will they put it all!
  I would argue that we have a solemn responsibility to teach our 
children, and ourselves, about our rich past--and that includes the 
myriad contributions of women, in all fields and every endeavor. These 
women can serve as role models and inspire our youth. They can teach us 
about our past and guide us into our future. They can even prompt young 
women to consider a career in public service--as Senator Smith of Maine 
did for me.
  Instead, today in America, more young women probably know the names 
of the latest super models then the names of the female members of this 
Administration's Cabinet. That is why we need a National Museum of 
Women's History, that is why I am proud to sponsor this legislation, 
and that is why I hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting 
the creation of this Advisory Committee as a first step toward writing 
the forgotten chapters of the history of our nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 2575. A bill to expand authority for programs to encourage Federal 
employees to commute by means other than single-occupancy motor 
vehicles to include an option to pay cash for agency-provided parking 
spaces, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


            the ``federal employee flexibility act of 1998''

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senator 
Moynihan, the ``Federal Employee Flexibility Act of 1998,'' a bill that 
would provide flexibility and choices for Federal employees. This 
flexibility was provided to private sector employees in the Taxpayer 
Relief Act of 1997 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century, so-called TEA 21. We believe that these provisions provide to 
employers and employees important new flexibility which should reduce 
single occupant vehicle trips from our highways and therefore 
contribute to reduced congestion, a cleaner environment, and increased 
energy conservation.
  The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century include significant changes to the way the Internal 
Revenue Code treats employer-provided transportation fringe benefits. 
Unfortunately, we have become aware that personnel compensation law for 
Federal employees restricts implementation of this new flexibility.
  Prior to enactment of these two bills, the Federal tax code provided 
that employer-provided parking is not subject

[[Page S11714]]

to Federal taxation, up to $170 per month. However, this tax exemption 
was lost for all employees if the parking was offered in lieu of 
compensation for just one employee. In other words, if an employer gave 
just one employee a choice between parking and some other benefit (such 
as a transit pass, or increased salary), the parking of all other 
employees in the company became taxable. It goes without saying that no 
employers jeopardized a tax benefit for the overwhelming majority of 
their employees to provide flexibility to others. In effect, the tax 
code prohibited employers from offering their employees a choice. 
Parking was a take-it or leave-it benefit.

  The changes in these two laws make it possible for employers to offer 
their employees more choices by eliminating the take-it or leave-it 
restriction in the Federal tax code. Employees whose only 
transportation benefit is parking can now instead accept a salary 
enhancement, and find other means to get to work such as car pooling, 
van pooling, biking, walking, or taking transit.
  Unfortunately, Federal employees will not be able to benefit from the 
increased flexibility available to private sector employees, unless 
Federal compensation law is modified. Current Federal law provides that 
a Federal employee may not receive additional pay unless specifically 
authorized by law. Therefore, a Federal employee could not ``cash out'' 
a parking space at work, and instead receive cash or other benefits.
  To address this limitation for transit passes and similar benefits, 
the ``Federal Employees Clean Air Incentives Act'' allows the Federal 
government to provide transit benefits, bicycle services, and non-
monetary incentives to employees. However, when this legislation was 
enacted, the Federal tax code prohibited the so-called ``cash out'' 
option discussed above, and therefore was not included in the list of 
transportation-related exemptions in that statute.
  The short and simple bill we introduce today would add ``taxable cash 
reimbursement for the value of an employer-provided parking space'' to 
the list of benefits that can be received by Federal employees.
  Let me assure my colleagues and Federal employees that this bill 
would not require that Federal employees lose their parking spaces, as 
may be feared when there is discussion of Federal employee parking 
spaces. The bill simply provides Federal employees the same flexibility 
that is available to private sector employees. Employees who want to 
retain their tax-free parking space would be free to do so.
  We think it is vital that the Federal government show leadership on 
the application of new and innovative ways to solve our transportation 
and environmental problems. I hope that my colleagues will join me in 
supporting this bill and that we can act swiftly on it in the next 
session of Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask 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. 2575

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

     SECTION 1. CASH PAYMENT TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR PARKING 
                   SPACES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal 
     Employee Flexibility Act of 1998''.
       (b) In General.--Section 7905(b)(2) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (C) by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon and ``and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) taxable cash payment to an employee in lieu of an 
     agency-provided parking space.''.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and 
colleague Senator Chafee to introduce the ``Federal Employee 
Flexibility Act of 1998,'' a bill to provide Federal employees with the 
commuting benefits that were created in the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century, known as TEA-21, and are now available for 
private sector employees.
  This Act is part of an ongoing effort that we started over seven 
years ago in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act to 
introduce pricing and economic incentives into our national 
transportation policy. Traditionally, U.S. transportation policy has 
favored new highway construction over repair and maintenance and auto 
travel over transit and other modes. Our tax code also reflected this 
bias by providing large incentives to employers to offer their 
employees tax-free parking spaces, while making it less attractive to 
provide transit or cash benefits in lieu of parking.
  The Finance Committee first set out to tackle this problem in the 
National Energy Policy Act of 1992. That Act capped non-taxable monthly 
parking benefits at $155, increased monthly transit benefits from $21 
to $60, and added an annual COLA adjustment for both. However, because 
of the ``constructive receipt'' principle in the tax code, under the 
1992 Act, an employer could not offer his employees the tax-free 
commuting benefits in lieu of taxable salary.
  In other words, if an employer offered to provide his employees non-
taxable $65 monthly transit passes but lower their salaries by $65 a 
month, and any employee chose to keep the salary--maybe they walk to 
work--under the ``constructive receipt'' principle, the transit passes 
for the other employees would lose their tax-free status. This made the 
transit benefit program of only limited attractiveness to employers 
since they could only offer it as part of a negotiated increase in 
salary, not as a benefit in lieu of existing salary.
  Likewise, Federal tax code allowed an employer to offer tax-free 
parking up to a value of 4170 per month per employee. However, if an 
employer gave just one employee a choice between parking and some other 
taxable benefit--such as increased salary--the parking of all other 
employees in the company became taxable. The result--employers have had 
no incentive to offer employees the opportunity to ``cash out'' their 
parking, perhaps taking an increase in salary and using mass transit or 
carpooling. That hidden pro-parking bias in the tax code has likely 
resulted in far too many employees choosing to drive to work over 
riding transit and other modes.
  The tax title of TEA-21 now contains the proper language and offsets 
in place to eliminate this ``constructive receipt'' requirement--and 
increase the transit benefit from its current $65 to $100 in 2002. It 
means that employers who provide the transit benefit in lieu of salary 
will pay less in payroll taxes, while employees will receive a benefit 
worth a full $65, instead of taxable income of $65. Likewise employers 
can now offer employee cash instead of a tax-free parking parking 
space, and we hope reduce the number of employees who drive to work. 
The measure is ``paid for,'' in Budget Act parlance, by a one-year 
freeze in the COLA adjustments for parking benefits, currently at $175 
per month, and transit benefits.
  But, unfortunately, the job is not quite done. Federal employees will 
not be able to benefit from the increased flexibility available to 
private sector employees, unless Federal compensation law is modified. 
Current Federal law provides that a Federal employee may not receive 
additional pay unless specifically authorized by law. Therefore, a 
Federal employee could not ``cash out'' a parking space at work, and 
instead receive cash or other benefits. This has particularly 
unfortunate consequences here in Washington, one of the most congested 
cities in the country, with an enormous Federal workforce, the great 
majority of whom drive single-occupancy vehicles to work every day.
  The simple bill that Senator Chafee and I introduce today would add 
``taxable cash reimbursement for the value of an employer-provided 
parking space'' to the list of benefits Federal employees can receive. 
I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill and that we 
can act swiftly on this bill in the next session of Congress.

                          ____________________