[Pages S1102-S1111]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Breaux):
S. 281. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a mechanism for taxpayers to designate $1 of any overpayment of income
tax, and to contribute other amounts, for use by the United States
Olympic Committee; to the Committee on Finance.

THE UNITED STATES OLYMPIC CHECKOFF ACT

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I bring to the Senate the United
States Olympic Checkoff Act. This bill would provide significant--and
needed--new funding for our Nation's amateur athletic movement. This
will present a way for Americans to show support for the United States
Olympic Committee, the USOC, and for our amateur athletes. Simply by
checking a box on their tax returns, American taxpayers could designate
a dollar from their refunds to go to the USOC, or they could enclose a
contribution to the USOC when they mail their tax forms. This concept
is similar to the existing Presidential checkoff. It is different
though, in that this deduction for the Olympic Committee would come
from the taxpayers' own money, their refunds or their contributions,
and not from the money destined for the Federal Treasury.
The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 made the USOC the central coordinating
body for amateur sports in the United States. The responsibilities of
the act, that is the responsibilities given by the act to the USOC,
include training and selecting athletes to represent the United States
at international competitions and, equally important, encouraging
athletic activities for all amateur athletes in the United States
through grassroots sports opportunities.
What the Amateur Sports Act does not do is authorize Federal funding
of the USOC. In almost every other nation in the world, Olympic and
amateur sports receive substantial government funding. That is not true
in our country. The USOC's primary means of raising money to support
U.S. athletes and to carry out the purposes of the act is through
charging sponsors a fee to use the words ``Olympics'' or ``Olympiad,''
and to display the Olympic symbol of five interlocking rings. Sponsors'
fees do not come close to providing the funds necessary to train our
growing legions of athletes. Our athletes at the grassroots level are
not getting a fair chance to be competitive with their counterparts
from nations that provide funding from government sources.
My bill would create a new trust fund in the Treasury called the
United States Olympic Trust Fund. The amounts voluntarily contributed
by Americans would be deposited into the trust fund. At least once
quarterly, the Secretary of Treasury would distribute the amounts in
the trust fund to the USOC, after deducting reasonable administrative
costs.
I look forward to working with the Senate Finance Committee and all
of the Senate and the House to achieve enactment of this valuable
legislation in this Congress. I hope this bill will be welcomed by all
Americans who believe in the importance of our country's athletic
programs.
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. 281

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 ``United States Olympic
Checkoff Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF OVERPAYMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
UNITED STATES OLYMPIC TRUST FUND.

(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 61 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to returns and records) is
amended by adding at the end the following new part:

``PART IX--DESIGNATION OF OVERPAYMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNITED
STATES OLYMPIC TRUST FUND

``SEC. 6097. AMOUNTS FOR UNITED STATES OLYMPIC TRUST FUND.

``(a) In General.--With respect to each taxpayer's return
for the taxable year of the tax imposed by chapter 1, such
taxpayer may designate that--
``(1) $1 of any overpayment of such tax for such taxable
year, and
``(2) any cash contribution which the taxpayer includes
with such return,

be paid over to the United States Olympic Trust Fund.
``(b) Joint Returns.--In the case of a joint return showing
any overpayment of $2 or more, each spouse may designate $1
of such overpayment under subsection (a)(1).
``(c) Manner and Time of Designation.--A designation under
subsection (a) may be made with respect to any taxable year
only at the time of filing the return of the tax imposed by
chapter 1 for such taxable year. Such designation shall be
made on the first page of the return.
``(d) Overpayments Treated as Refunded.--For purposes of
this title, any overpayment of tax designated under
subsection (a) shall be treated as being refunded to the
taxpayer as of the date prescribed for filing the return of
tax imposed by chapter 1 (determined without regard to
extensions) or, if later, the date the return is filed.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of parts for subchapter
A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:

``Part IX. Designation of overpayments and contributions for United
States Olympic Trust Fund.''.

[[Page S1103]]

years beginning with the first full taxable year after the
date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITED STATES OLYMPIC TRUST FUND.

(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to trust fund code) is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 9512. UNITED STATES OLYMPIC TRUST FUND.

``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
`United States Olympic Trust Fund', consisting of such
amounts as may be appropriated or credited to the United
States Olympic Trust Fund as provided in this section or
section 9602(b).
``(b) Transfer to United States Olympic Trust Fund of
Amounts Designated.--There is hereby appropriated to the
United States Olympic Trust Fund amounts equivalent to the
amounts designated under section 6097 and received in the
Treasury.
``(c) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--
``(1) Payments.--Not less often than quarterly, the
Secretary shall pay to the United States Olympic Committee an
amount from the United States Olympic Trust Fund equal to the
amount in such Fund as of the time of such payment, less any
administrative expenses of the Secretary which may be paid
under paragraph (2), for the purposes of carrying out the
Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (36 U.S.C. 371 et seq.).
``(2) Administrative expenses.--Amounts in the United
States Olympic Trust Fund shall be available to pay the
administrative expenses of the Department of the Treasury
directly allocable to--
``(A) modifying the individual tax return forms to carry
out section 6097,
``(B) carrying out this chapter with respect to such Fund,
and
``(C) processing amounts received under section 6097 and
transferring such amounts to such Fund.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
subchapter A is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:

``Sec. 9512. United States Olympic Trust Fund.''.
______

By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Murkowski,
and Mr. Breaux):
S. 282. A bill to establish a recurring bi-annual Olympic
commemorative coins program, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

THE OLYMPIC COMMEMORATIVE COINS ACT

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a second bill pertaining to
amateur sports I would like to present to the Senate today. This will
create a recurring Olympic Commemorative Coins Program in the United
States to provide valuable souvenirs to amateur sports enthusiasts, and
a new source of revenue to the United States Olympic Committee, the
USOC. These are sort of companion bills. The second bill would require
the Secretary of the Treasury to consult with the USOC and the Citizens
Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee on the design of a $1 silver coin
which would commemorate each summer and winter Olympic games held
outside the United States. Only 500,000 of such coins would be minted.
Under the bill, a new commemorative coin would be issued every 2
years. The summer and winter Olympics are now staggered, so that, as we
all know, now there is an Olympic games every 2 years.
Each coin would carry a surcharge of $10 and that money would be
transferred by the Secretary of the Treasury to the USOC. The Secretary
of Treasury would be required to include in the sale price of each coin
an additional amount to pay for the costs of the program. If the coins
sell as they have in the past, and these have been very successful
programs in the past, the USOC could receive a total of about $5
million for each Olympic games, in other words every 2 years. This
would go a long way toward supporting our amateur athletes and carrying
out our responsibilities of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. In years
when the Olympics are held inside the United States, the Secretary of
the Treasury would be required to develop an expanded multicoin program
to commemorate our Olympic Games. This program, designed by the
Secretary, with the USOC and the Coins Committee, could provide 4 or 5
different gold, silver or other coins in numbers larger than the
500,000 for the games that are held outside the United States. These
would be of special interest to travelers who would come to the United
States for the Olympic games.
My bill also provides discretion with respect to the surcharge in
each coin. This would make it possible for U.S. athletes and the USOC
to receive an even greater benefit from each coin. In the first 2
months after the new Olympic Coins Program begins, the Secretary of
Treasury would be prohibited from issuing other commemorative coins. In
other words, we would like to have one period, every 2 years, of 2
months in which the USOC's coins, the Olympic coins, would be the only
coins available.
The Amateur Sports Act made the USOC, as I said before, the central
coordinating body for amateur sports in the United States. It does give
the USOC the duty to not only select and train athletes to represent
the United States at international competitions, but to encourage
athletic activities through a grassroots sports program.
I believe that the USOC carries out the Amateur Sports Act well, in
view of the fact it does not receive support from Federal
appropriations. As I said before, the act does not authorize such
appropriations.
I repeat, Mr. President, unless we find a source of revenue for the
USOC, we are going to have a situation where it cannot carry out the
responsibilities that were given it by Congress in 1978.
Last year, the Senate Commerce Committee began a review of the
Amateur Sports Act. During our first two hearings, we determined
additional revenues are needed to provide greater grassroots sports
opportunities in our country.
Toward this end, the bill I am introducing would require at least 25
percent of the revenues received by the USOC under the coins program
would be used solely for promoting grassroots sports opportunities, and
it would require USOC to use at least 25 percent of the revenues to
promote and encourage physical fitness and public participation in
amateur athletic activities; to assist organizations and persons
concerned with sports in the development of special amateur athletic
programs for amateurs in our country; and it would also foster the
development of amateur athletic facilities for use by amateur athletes,
as well as assist in making existing amateur athletic facilities
available and to modernize them, Mr. President, which is necessary for
their use by amateur athletes now in this country.
I look forward on this bill to working with the chairman and ranking
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I believe this bill will be
sent to that committee. It is important legislation to be enacted in
this Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 282

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 referred to as the ``Olympic Commemorative
Coins Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``Corporation'' shall mean the corporation by
the name of ``United States Olympic Committee'' created by
the Act entitled ``An Act to incorporate the United States
Olympic Association'', approved September 21, 1950 (36 U.S.C.
371 et seq.), as amended; and
(2) the term ``Secretary'' shall mean the Secretary of the
Treasury.

SEC. 3. COMMEMORATIVE COINS PROGRAMS.

(a) Bi-Annual Olympic Coins.--Beginning in 1977, in each
six month period prior to the date upon which the Summer or
Winter Olympic Games are held in a nation other than the
United States, the Secretary shall issue not more than
500,000 commemorative one dollar coins, each of which shall--
(1) weigh 26.73 grams;
(2) have a diameter of 1.5 inches;
(3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent alloy; and
(4) bear the design selected by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (f).
(b) Olympic Coins When Games Are Held in the United
States.--In each year prior to a year in which the Summer or
Winter Olympic Games are held in the United States, the
Secretary shall develop an expanded multi-coin commemorative
coins program in consultation with the Corporation and the
Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee. The Secretary
shall issue such coins in the six month period to the date
upon which such games are held.
(c) Exclusivity.--During the first two months of each
period in which coins are issued under this Act, the
Secretary shall not issue other commemorative coins.
(d) Surcharges.--(1) All sales of the coins issued under
subsection (a) shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.

[[Page S1104]]

(2) All sales of the coins issued under subsection (b)
shall include a surcharge of between $1 and $50 per coin as
determined by the Secretary in consultation with the
Corporation.
(e) Distribution and Use of Surcharges.--(1) All surcharges
received by the Secretary from the sale of coins under this
Act shall be promptly paid by the Secretary to the
Corporation.
(2) Funds received by the Corporation under this Act shall
be used to carry out the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (36
U.S.C. 371 et seq.), and not less than twenty-five percent of
such funds shall be used for the objects and purposes of
paragraphs (6), (7), and (9) of section 104 of such Act (36
U.S.C. 374).
(f) Design.--(1) The design for each coin issued under this
Act shall be selected by the Secretary after consultation
with the Corporation.
(2)(A) On each coin issued under this Act there shall be--
(i) a designation of the value of the coin;
(ii) an inscription of the year; and
(iii) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We
Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus
Unum''.
(B) On coins issued under this Act there may be, with the
consent of the Corporation under section 9 of the Act
entitled ``An Act to incorporate the United States Olympic
Association'', approved September 21, 1950 (36 U.S.C. 380),
the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, the emblem
of the Corporation, the words ``Olympic'', ``Olympiad'' or
other symbols, emblems, trademarks and names which the
Corporation has the exclusive right to use under that
section.

SEC. 4. LEGAL TENDER.

The coins issued under this Act shall be legal tender, as
provided in section 5103 of title 31, United States Code.

SEC. 5. SOURCES OF BULLION.

(a) Silver.--The Secretary shall obtain silver for minting
coins under this Act from sources the Secretary determines to
be appropriate, including stockpiles established under the
Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.
(b) Gold.--The Secretary shall obtain any gold for minting
coins under this Act pursuant to the authority of the
Secretary under other provisions of law.

SEC. 6. SALE PRICE.

Each coin issued under this Act shall be sold by the
Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
(1) the face value of the coin;
(2) the surcharge provided in section 3 with respect to
such coin;
(3) the cost of designing and issuing the coin (including
labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses,
marketing, and shipping); and
(4) the estimated profit determined under section 7(b) with
respect to such coin.

SEC. 7. DETERMINATION OF COSTS AND PROFIT.

(a) Determination of Costs.--The Secretary shall determine
the costs incurred with respect to coins issued under this
Act, including overhead costs.
(b) Determination of Profit.--Prior to the sale of each
edition of coin issued under this Act, the Secretary shall
calculate the estimated profit to be included in the sale
price of each such coin under section 6(4).
(c) Prohibition on Judicial Review.--Determinations made
under this section shall be made at the sole discretion of
the Secretary and shall not be subject to judicial review.

SEC. 8. GENERAL WAIVER OF PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.

Section 5112(j) of title 31, United States Code, shall
apply to the procurement of goods and services necessary to
carry out the programs and operations of the United States
Mint under this Act.

SEC. 9. AUDITS AND REPORT.

(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall have
the right to examine books, records, documents, and other
data of the Corporation related to the expnditure of amounts
it has received under section 3(e)(1).
(b) The Corporation shall biannually transmit a report to
Congress and to the Secretary which shall account for the
expenditure of funds received under section 3(e)(1).

SEC. 11. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.

It is the sense of Congress that each coin edition issued
under this Act should be self-sustaining and should be
administered so as not to result in any net cost to the
Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund.
______

By Mr. BURNS:
S. 283. A bill to establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives
for the Federal Court of Appeals; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

THE STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS COMMISSION
ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 1997

<bullet> Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I introduce a bill which would
establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Court
of Appeals.
This commission would study the present division of the United States
into the several judicial circuits, study the structure and alignment
of the Federal Court of Appeals system, with particular reference to
the ninth circuit, and report recommendations to the President and
Congress on appropriate changes in circuit boundaries or structure for
the expeditious and effective disposition of the caseload of the
Federal Court of Appeals, consistent with fundamental conceptions of
fairness and due process.
As you may know, I have cosponsored legislation in the past that
would have split the ninth circuit. I have not altered my opinion of
the need for this, however, it seems that some of my colleagues need a
little bit more convincing. That is why I believe having a well-formed
commission, which examines this issue closely and delivers a
nonpolitical response, will dispel the doubts that my colleagues have
about a split.
I believe that the commission will begin to answer some of the
concerns that Montanans have voiced that they are not obtaining the
same level of judicial consideration as others in the ninth circuit.
Considering the size of the district, I have the same doubts. The ninth
circuit is now comprised not only of Montana, but also, Alaska,
Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, the Northern Mariana Islands,
Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. That's nine States and two
principalities. The ninth circuit is about twice the size of the next
largest circuit, both in population and geography.
Its caseload is among the fastest growing in the Nation, and the time
to complete an average appeal, more than 14 months, is more than 4
months longer than the national average. Its 28 judges are about twice
the recommended number for an appellate circuit.
Any objective view of the ninth circuit is a case study in the phrase
``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' I am optimistic that a
commission that studies the ninth will come to the same conclusion:
This body will acknowledge this travesty and finally move for justice
for all.<bullet>
______

By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, and Mr. Coats):
S. 284. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to improve
safety at public railway-highway crossings, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

the highway rail grade crossing safety formula enhancement act

<bullet> Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce
legislation to provide a more effective method of targeting available
Federal funds to enhance safety at our Nation's most hazardous highway-
rail grade crossings.
I first introduced this measure during the 104th Congress following 2
years of work to address a pressing public safety problem occurring in
Indiana and other rail-intensive States. It is my hope this important
legislation will be given thoughtful and thorough consideration this
year as Congress moves to reauthorize the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. It is unclear what the final
program structure will look like, or what the specific Federal role
will be in the transportation decisionmaking process. I will work this
year to assure that the goals of this rail safety legislation are
incorporated as part of an ISTEA reauthorization bill that creates a
more streamlined, flexible Federal highway program to help States
maintain safe, effective, and efficient transportation networks.
In America today, several hundred people are killed and thousands
more injured every year as a result of vehicle-train collisions at
highway-rail grade crossings. A significant number of these accidents
occur in rail-intensive States such as Indiana, Illinois, Ohio,
California, and Texas. One quarter of the Nation's 168,000 public
highway-rail grade crossings are located in these 5 States. They
accounted for 38 percent of deaths and 32 percent of injuries caused by
vehicle-train collisions nationwide during 1991-1993.
My home State of Indiana ranks sixth in the Nation for number of
total public grade crossings with about 6,700, and is annually among
the top five States for numbers of accidents and fatalities caused by
vehicle-train crashes.
In 1994, I travelled across northern Indiana aboard a QSX-500
locomotive and witnessed what engineers see every day--motorists
darting across the railroad tracks before an oncoming train. From this
experience, and from my work to improve safety at highway-rail grade
crossings, I learned that engineering solutions, along with education
and awareness about grade crossing safety, are key strategies that can
effectively prevent grade crossing accidents.

[[Page S1105]]

Responding to this disturbing national trend, I began working in 1993
with Transportation Secretary Federico Pena and with the Indiana
Department of Transportation to address this serious safety problem. We
worked to find solutions that would help Indiana and other States make
better use of available funds to target the Nation's most hazardous
rail crossings.
The Federal Government has played an important role in helping States
eliminate accidents and fatalities at public highway-rail intersections
since passage of the Highway Safety Act by Congress in 1973. This act
created the Rail-Highway Crossing Program, also known as the Section
130 Program. Since the program's inception, more than 28,000
improvement projects have been undertaken--from installation of warning
gates, lights and bells, to pavement improvements and grade separation
construction projects.
During the 103d Congress, I introduced grade crossing safety
legislation to restore States' discretion over millions of Federal
highway dollars lost as a result of noncompliance with the Federal
motorcycle helmet law. Indiana and other States affected by this law
were prohibited from using a portion of their highway construction
dollars to improve safety at highway-rail grade crossings. I was
pleased the Congress repealed the helmet law penalty in 1995 as part of
the National Highway System designation legislation. States now have
greater flexibility to use their highway dollars for improvements at
rail crossings, and for other transportation priorities.
In March 1994, Senator Coats and I asked the General Accounting
Office to conduct a survey of rail safety programs in Indiana and other
rail intensive States experiencing a high number of accidents at
highway-rail grade crossings. Released in August 1995, the report
``Railroad Safety: Status of Efforts to Improve Railroad Crossing
Safety'' evaluated the best uses of limited Federal funds for rail
crossing safety, reviewed policy changes that help State and local
governments address rail safety issues, and recommended strategies to
encourage interagency and intergovernmental cooperation.
The report found that in addition to States' efforts to reduce
accidents and fatalities through emphasis on education programs,
engineering solutions, and enforcement of traffic laws, changes to the
Federal funding formulas would target highway funds to areas of
greatest risk.
Under, ISTEA, the Section 130 Program was continued--with a portion
of the 10 percent of a State's STP safety funds dedicated to highway-
rail crossing improvement and hazard elimination projects.
The GAO reported that key indicators or ``risk factors'' used to
assess rail-grade crossing safety are not taken into account when STP
funds are distributed among States. The GAO outlined the Federal
Highway Administration's [FHWA] work to review options for STP formula
changes that adjust the current flat percentage allocation to include
these risk factors. Applying these factors to the funding formula
creates a more targeted and focused process that maximizes the
effectiveness of Federal funds.
The risk factors criteria considered by FHWA include a State's share
of the national total for number of public crossings, number of public
crossings with passive warning devices, total number of accidents, and
total number of fatalities occurring as a result of vehicle-train
collisions at highway-rail grade crossings.
For example, while Indiana received 3.4 percent of section 130 funds
in fiscal year 1995, the Hoosier State experienced 6.1 percent of the
Nation's accidents and 5.9 percent of the fatalities as a result of
vehicle-train collisions from 1991 to 1993. In addition, Indiana has
about 4 percent of the Nation's public rail crossings.
Preliminary estimates of STP apportionments under a risk-based
apportionment formula indicate Indiana's share of section 130 funds
could increase by 49 percent, from the fiscal year 1997 level of $4.9
to $7.3 million. Overall, about 21 States would receive a substantial
increase in section 130 funds for grade crossing improvements,
including: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.
While the Indiana Department of Transportation [INDOT] spends over
$10 million a year to improve highway-rail grade crossings, a 49-
percent increase in section 130 funds would allow INDOT and other State
departments of transportation additional resources to improve hazardous
highway-rail grade crossings.
The Formula Enhancement Act addresses the allocation problem by
adjusting the funding formula for the STP to include an apportionment
of funds to States for the section 130 Program based on a 3-year
average of these risk factors. I want to express my appreciation to the
FHWA and to the Federal Railroad Administration for their valuable
assistance in preparing this legislation.

This legislation will help improve the way the Federal Government
targets existing resources to enhance safety on our Nation's highways
and along our rail corridors. This legislation does not call for new
Federal spending, but rather for a more equitable and effective
distribution of existing highway funds to States to enhance safety at
dangerous highway-rail grade crossings.
This legislation addresses one aspect of the grade crossing safety
problem by refining a key provision of the existing ISTEA law. Using
this proposal as a foundation, I am hopeful the Congress will craft
provisions for the highway reauthorization bill that recognize the
overall efforts of States to implement comprehensive rail safety
programs. An effective grade crossing safety program integrates
construction improvement projects with driver education and awareness
programs, crossing closures, vigorous enforcement of crossing traffic
laws and assessments of crossing inventories to identify the most
hazardous crossings in a State.
I will work with my colleagues this year to help assure Congress
passes highway reauthorization legislation that makes the best use of
available Federal resources while encouraging States to continue
pursuing comprehensive efforts to address their public grade crossing
safety requirements. My intent with this legislation is not to penalize
certain States or to create winners or losers in the process of
distributing Federal highway funds, but to find the best solution that
will eliminate these preventable tragedies.
At this time, it is unclear what direction the next highway
authorization bill will take, what the Federal role will be in
maintaining the national transportation infrastructure, and what
current ISTEA programs will be renewed. Last year, I endorsed Senator
Warner's reauthorization proposal to provide a more streamlined and
flexible highway program that returns resources and authority back to
the States. My intent with this legislation during this reauthorization
process is not to protect a particular highway program or specific
Federal set-aside requirement of the expiring ISTEA law, but rather to
continue emphasizing an issue of great importance to my State of
Indiana and to other States experiencing rail safety problems. I will
advocate grade crossing safety as a priority within the context of
other key funding and flexibility issues that are vital to the
continued safety and mobility of Hoosiers traveling on Indiana
roadways. I am hopeful this legislation will reinforce the importance
of highway-rail grade crossing safety as the Congress moves forward
with the national discussion of U.S. transportation policy for the 21st
century.
Continued emphasis on finding new and better ways to target existing
resources to enhance safety at highway-rail grade crossings will
contribute to the overall effort in Congress and in the States to
prevent accidents, save lives, and sustain a balanced and effective
transportation network for the Nation.<bullet>
<bullet> Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Senator Lugar and I are introducing
today legislation which will more effectively direct Federal funding to
those States which have the greatest needs with highway-rail grade
crossings.
We first introduced this bill in the 104th Congress after recognizing
a critical deficiency at rail grade crossings which has contributed
senseless, tragic deaths over the years.
This year as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
[ISTEA]

[[Page S1106]]

is reauthorized, it is my hope that the committee will seriously
consider the needs of rail-intensive States, such as Indiana. While the
final structure of ISTEA is still unknown, I will work to ensure that
the objectives of this legislation are incorporated in the final
highway bill.
Rail transportation is important in Indiana, playing a key role in
the State's agriculture and manufacturing economy. Much of the rail
activity goes through northwest Indiana which accounts for 75 percent
of the State's rail crossing accidents. In 1994, Indiana ranked third
in the Nation with 263 rail crossing accidents, resulting in the deaths
of 27 people. Six percent of all rail crossing accidents in America
took place in Indiana and 5.9 percent of the fatalities occurred there.
Several years ago, I became aware that Indiana and a number of other
States had a critical problem with rail accidents. Senator Lugar and I
asked the General Accounting Office [GAO] to examine the safety
conditions in States with a high concentration of rail crossings. The
GAO report, completed in August 1995, revealed that while Indiana had a
large number of rail crossings--6,700, the sixth largest number of all
States--the State received only 3.4 percent of the Federal funding
available specifically targeted to prevent such tragedies.
The Section 130 Program was established in 1973 to help States reduce
accidents, injuries, and fatalities at public railroad crossings. In
the first 10 years of the program, accidents declined by 61 percent and
deaths were reduced by 34 percent. Since 1985, little progress was made
toward further reducing these numbers.
The problem becomes apparent when you realize that many of the States
with the highest concentration of crossings, number of accidents, and
fatalities receive less money than States that do not have as great a
need. Thus, the GAO included that the Federal Government should examine
funding formulas and consider using risk factors in determining how to
distribute section 130 highway dollars to States for rail safety
purposes.
The current formula funding--based on 10 percent of a State's surface
transportation program [STP] funding--does not take into account such
essential criteria as a State's total number of crossing, amount of
train traffic, nor the number of accidents and fatalities. I believe it
is critical that these risk factors be considered in determining how
much money a State should receive for rail safety under the current
funding structure.
The formula enhancement bill would correct this flaw in the current
formula. Based on the GAO report and work with the Federal Highway
Administration, we crafted this legislation to ensure that States with
the greatest risk receive more money. This bill does not increase
Federal spending. Rather it ensures that money is targeted to those
States with the most serious safety concerns.
Using this more equitable way of disbursing funds, Indiana--which
received $4.9 million in fiscal year 1997--could receive $7.3 million
in fiscal year 1998. Overall, 21 States would benefit substantially
from increased funding to help reduce rail crossing accidents.
Clearly, this bill addresses one aspect of law, providing a fairer
distribution of resources. But money alone will not solve all the
problems related to rail crossing accidents. A comprehensive plan to
educate people about the dangers at rail crossings must be developed. I
support the efforts of programs like Operation Lifesaver which works
effectively to get information to citizens. Continued cooperation among
all levels of government: local, State, and Federal is essential to
stop these sort of tragedies.
There are many issues facing the Congress this year as we decide
funding levels, formulas, and determine the role of the Federal
Government in the context of the highway authorization. I supported
Senator Warner's legislation last year to provide for a streamlined,
flexible, and equitable highway program. I continue to believe this
approach is best for the States to address their fundamental needs and
priorities. The STEP-21 proposal would ensure that States receive a
fairer return on highway funding and the flexibility to spend the
resources according to State and local priorities. My purpose in
introducing this rail legislation at this time is to draw attention to
this serious problem facing Indiana and other States and to show my
determination to make rail crossing safety a priority as we make the
key decisions on ISTEA.
We cannot afford to neglect the safety of our citizens at rail grade
crossings. We must find ways to address these critical problems.
Overall, the safety of our highways and rail is essential as we examine
and make decisions on the future of our transportation system. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that our focus is
indeed comprehensive in addressing our transportation needs.<bullet>
______

By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Smith):
S. 285. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
from gross income any distribution from a qualified State tuition
program used exclusively to pay qualified higher education expenses
incurred by the designated beneficiary, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.

THE TUITION TAX ELIMINATION ACT

<bullet> Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing
legislation, the Tuition Tax Elimination Act, which will help make
college more affordable for thousands of young people all across
America. I am pleased that Senators Sessions, DeWine, Hutchinson,
Faircloth, Cochran, and Smith of New Hampshire have joined me as
original cosponsors. This bill will eliminate a new Federal tax on the
tuition expenses of students participating in State prepaid tuition
programs. Here is how the tax came about.
It is no secret that many families in our Nation are struggling to
finance their childrens' education. College tuition costs have
skyrocketed in the past decade increasing 95 percent at private
institutions and 82 percent at public institutions. Newsweek magazine
reported last year that some families will spend more than $100,000
just to send one child to college.
To combat the high cost of a college education, many States,
including Alabama, have set up prepaid tuition funds. These funds allow
parents to make a tax-free investment, years in advance of their
child's enrollment in college, with the guarantee that the child's
tuition will be paid for by the State when he or she enrolls in
college.
Last year, the IRS attempted to impose taxes on States operating
prepaid tuition funds by claiming that the funds were not legitimate
functions of the State and thus not exempt from Federal taxation. If
the IRS had been successful in their attempt, many States would have
been forced to terminate their prepaid tuition programs.
Fortunately, Senators McConnell, Graham, and I were able to get a
provision in the Small Business Job Protection Act which clarified that
prepaid tuition programs should not be subject to Federal taxes, since
they are a legitimate function of State governments.
At the same time, the IRS was also attempting to impose a tax on the
parents' contributions to these State prepaid tuition programs. What
the IRS wanted to do was to count the annual increased value of the
parents' contribution as income and tax it. Again, Senators McConnell,
Graham, and I put a provision in the minimum wage bill last year to
prevent the IRS from taking those actions.
However, there was a provision of that bill which I did not support.
It provided that when a student enrolls in college under a prepaid
tuition plan, the student must pay taxes on the difference between the
value of the tuition costs, which are paid by the State, and the amount
his or her parent paid for the contract. Essentially, this provision is
a new tax on students. I attempted to offer an amendment to strike this
provision, but unfortunately, no amendments were in order.
Mr. President, prepaid tuition programs are a creative way many
States all across the country have developed to help more young people
afford a college education. We need to do everything we can at the
Federal level to encourage these types of programs.
The Tuition Tax Elimination Act will do that by relieving students
from Federal taxes on their tuition expenses. This legislation will
provide

[[Page S1107]]

that distributions from qualified prepaid tuition funds are not to be
counted as taxable income for the student, as long as the money is
spent for the designated purpose.
This legislation is fully paid for with a provision which would
suspend the automatic inflation adjustments used to award the earned
income tax credit to individuals without children. President Clinton's
1993 tax bill expanded the EITC to cover individuals without children,
and currently, a childless individual earning between $4,220 and $5,280
is eligible for a maximum EITC amount of $323. Each year, these income
levels are adjusted upward for inflation. Many people have questioned
whether we should even be providing the EITC to individuals without
children. However, that is a question which can be addressed in other
legislation. This offset does not eliminate the EITC for individuals
without children; it simply eliminates the annual increase in the EITC
calculation for individuals who have no dependents. This provision
passed the Senate last year as a part of welfare reform, but it was
dropped in conference.
Mr. President, the cost of going to college is now more expensive
than ever, and is growing much faster than inflation. Eliminating the
tax students will face on their tuition expenses is a real step toward
making college more affordable for thousands of young people all across
America, and I hope my colleagues join me in support of this
legislation.<bullet>
______

By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. DeWine,
Mr. Bond, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Frist, Mr. Nickles, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Shelby, Mr. Coats, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 286. A bill to provide for a reduction in regulatory costs by
maintaining Federal average fuel economy standards applicable to
automobiles in effect at current levels until changed by law, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

THE CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS ACT OF 1997

<bullet> Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation with
Senators Levin and Ashcroft that would freeze the corporate average
fuel economy standards--known as CAFE--at current levels unless changed
by Congress.
Enacted in 1975, CAFE established Federal requirements regulating the
average fleet fuel economy of new passenger cars and light trucks. Now
there are a number of reasons why the CAFE standards should continue to
be frozen at their current level, and there is a great deal of
information available which documents CAFE's harmful effects. Rest
assured, I'll touch on both these topics in a moment. But there is one
overriding reason this legislation needs to be adopted: control of CAFE
standards must reside with the U.S. Congress.
Mr. President, the control of CAFE standards is too great a
responsibility to be entrusted to any entity other than the Congress.
CAFE requirements were initiated over 20 years ago in response to an
oil crisis that has long since disappeared. New standards would
constitute the most tremendous regulation foisted on the automobile
industry in over two decades and would require a massive retooling, at
great cost, by America's automakers.
This is an industry that employs 2.3 million Americans and is
estimated to provide 4.4 percent of this Nation's GDP. Should the
authority to impose upon this industry a new regulation with
questionable goals and dubious results reside with unelected
bureaucrats? Should regulators at the Department of Transportation have
the authority to change CAFE standards at any time, for any reason and
do so without congressional approval? The answer to these questions is
clearly no. Such a decision in my view belongs with this legislature,
the body entrusted by our Constitution with the duty to determine
whether any proposed policy change is in the best interests of the
American people.
The other question we need to ask is why a CAFE increase should be
considered at all. When CAFE was instituted, it was part of a larger
effort to regulate oil consumption and reduce America's dependence on
foreign oil. Today, however, it is clear that CAFE standards failed to
achieve this goal. Domestic manufacturers have increased passenger car
fuel economy 108 percent and light truck fuel economy almost 60 percent
since the mid-1970's. Rather than decreasing during this time, however,
oil imports have increased. In 1974 the United States imported 35
percent of its oil--last year this country imported between 45 and 50
percent of its oil.
Now, with CAFE's obvious failure to reduce oil imports, CAFE
proponents cite the threat of potential global warming as the major
rationale for increasing these standards further. Mr. President, the
argument that CAFE standards will prevent or reduce global warming is
as weak as the argument that CAFE would reduce this country's reliance
on foreign oil.
According to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, cars
and light trucks subject to CAFE standards account for only one and
1\1/2\ percent of global man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing
CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon, as has been discussed, would
result in minuscule reductions in emissions--less than one-half of 1
percent.
There can be no doubt, Mr. President, that CAFE standards have failed
to reduce America's dependency on foreign oil or significantly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. So what have they succeeded in doing? They
have succeeded in putting domestic automobile manufacturers at a
competitive disadvantage and putting American families at risk of
severe injury and even death.
First, on competitiveness. CAFE standards apply to the average fuel
consumption standards for a company's fleet of cars--that is, the fuel
economy for all cars sold in one model year is averaged together to
determine the fleet average. Due to the high price of gasoline in
Japan, the Japanese have traditionally engineered smaller cars.
Consequently their automobile fleets come in below the CAFE standards,
thus allowing them to make larger, less fuel-efficient cars and still
fall within the CAFE limits for their fleet. According to the National
Academy of Sciences, ``the CAFE system operated to the benefit of the
Japanese manufacturers, and at the expense of the domestic
manufacturers.'' This system continues to this day.
Despite this inequity, the Department of Transportation continues to
push for increased CAFE standards, and in 1994 issued an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rule Making that suggested setting light truck CAFE
standards for up to 9 years at levels up to 40 percent higher than they
are today.
Compounding their potential harm to our light truck industry, these
CAFE supporters fail to consider the differences between cars and
trucks. Many of the fuel efficient technologies used to make cars more
efficient, such as front wheel drive and increased aerodynamics, cannot
be used for trucks. Trucks are designed specifically for hauling
capacity, off-road use and durability. Only one or two very small
trucks currently provide the level of fuel efficiency sought by CAFE
proponents, and they account for less than 1 percent of light truck
sales. The Department of Transportation's CAFE-mandated changes would
negatively affect American manufacturers by reducing the segment of the
light-duty truck market--the full-size trucks consumers desire--in
which they predominate.
But, important as competitiveness is to our workers and consumers,
there is a more important reason to freeze CAFE standards: it will save
lives. Why? Because higher CAFE standards will force automobile
manufacturers to downsize cars and trucks, and smaller vehicles are
more dangerous. Automobile experts estimate that almost 50 percent of
the fuel economy gains made since the mid-1970's are attributable to
reductions in vehicle size and weight. And what was the cost? In 1991,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that
vehicle downsizing since the mid-1970's was responsible for an
additional 2,000 deaths and 20,000 serious injuries on America's
highways every year.
Other studies have reached the same, logical conclusion. To
illustrate the relationship between size and safety, the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety studied the occupant death rates of 11 car
models that had been downsized since 1977. It found that death rates
were higher for 10 of the 11 vehicle types after downsizing. More
recently, the institute has determined that, even when equipped with
airbags, smaller cars are still less safe than larger cars.

[[Page S1108]]

The National Academy of Sciences also understands that emissions
controls result in less protection in the event of an accident.
According to the Academy, ``safety and fuel economy are linked because
one of the most direct methods of increasing gas mileage is reducing
size and weight.''
And what would happen if the new, increased CAFE standards are
adopted? A study by the Harvard Injury Control Center estimates that an
increase to proposed CAFE levels would result in downsizing that would
produce an additional 1,650 deaths and 8,500 serious injuries on our
highways every year. This is absolutely unacceptable.
Mr. President, what I find most troubling about efforts to increase
CAFE standards is that they are simply unnecessary. American automobile
manufacturers are constantly striving to improve their current product
and develop innovative new ways to power cars and trucks. And these
efforts are beginning to show results. In recent weeks, Chrysler has
announced breakthroughs in fuel-cell technology. By converting gasoline
into hydrogen, Chrysler's new engine will increase fuel efficiency and
reduce tailpipe emissions. Similarly, all three auto makers are working
to develop a gas turbine engine that will combine better efficiency,
low emissions and quiet performance.
These technological advances are the result of open competition, not
Government mandate. This kind of innovation is only produced in a free
market. Thus, rather than shackling American manufacturers with costly,
outdated regulations, we should be encouraging them to develop new
technologies to take the automobile industry into the 21st century.
Mr. President, the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that,
``the CAFE approach to achieving automotive fuel economy has defects
that are sufficiently grievous to warrant careful reconsideration.''
This bill is a modest step in that direction. It will permit Congress
to carefully consider and debate any increases to CAFE standards rather
than allow the administration to change the standards, at any time and
for any reason without congressional approval, as is currently the
case.
Specifically, this bill will freeze CAFE standards at 27.5 miles per
gallon for passenger cars and 20.7 miles per gallon for light-duty
trucks. The transportation appropriations conference report we passed
last year included a 1-year freeze on CAFE standards. This bill would
make that freeze permanent unless changed by Congress.
CAFE standards did not reduce our country's reliance on foreign oil,
and they are not saving the planet from ozone depletion. CAFE standards
are hurting American manufacturers and putting American families at
increased risk of injury or death. All this when the automobile
industry has shown itself capable of producing the technological
advances necessary for increased efficiency on its own. Congress should
fulfill its responsibility as our Nation's law-making body by
protecting the American people from this instance of excessive and
counterproductive bureaucratic rule making.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 286

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

SECTION 1. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.

Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the average
fuel economy standards established (whether directly or
indirectly) under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of
Transportation under chapter 329 of title 49, United States
Code, prior to the date of enactment of this Act for
automobiles (as that term is defined in section 32901 of
title 49, United States Code) that are in effect on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act, shall apply without
amendment, change, or other modification of any kind (whether
direct or indirect) for--
(1) the model years specified in the regulations;
(2) the applicable automobiles specified in the regulations
last promulgated for such automobiles; and
(3) each model year thereafter;

until chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code, is
specifically amended to authorize an amendment, change, or
other modification to such standards or is otherwise modified
or superseded by law.<bullet>
______

By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 287. A bill to require congressional approval before any trade
agreements entered into under the auspices of the World Trade
Organization; to the Committee on Finance.

the approval of trade agreements act of 1997

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to restore the
constitutional balance to our trade policy and preserve the Congress'
constitutional obligation to regulate foreign commerce. The bill I
introduce requires that before a trade agreement negotiated under the
auspices of the World Trade Organization is accorded the force of law,
it must be ratified by the Congress. It is a simple bill, but I believe
it protects a fundamental principle of our democracy, the separation of
powers.
______

By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 288. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
families with estate tax relief, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.

The Family Estate Tax Relief Act of 1997

<bullet> Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I introduce the Family Estate Tax
Relief Act of 1997. This legislation is nearly identical to my bill
from the 104th Congress with one major change.
My new legislation still targets substantial estate tax relief to
help preserve one of our Nation's most important economic assets--its
family run small businesses. But it also increases the existing
$600,000 unified estate and gift tax credit, which is available to
everyone.
Of course, increasing the unified credit will further reduce the
estate tax burden now imposed on many families trying to transfer their
businesses to the next generation. It also will help any families
wishing to pass along to the children or grandchildren some stock,
proceeds from a life insurance policy or other assets acquired over
many years.
The main thrust of this legislation remains the preservation of
family farmers and other family run businesses. These businesses are
the major creators of new wealth and jobs in this country. However,
they face a number of obstacles to succeeding, ranging from price
gouging by tough international competitors to excessive U.S.
regulations. That is why it is not surprising to find, for example,
that we have lost some 377,000 family farms since 1980, a decline of
some 23,500 family farms every year.
Since 1980, we have lost some 9,000 of our family farms in North
Dakota. At the same time, we see that only a small fraction of other
family run businesses survive beyond the second generation.
When families have to sell their farms or board up their Main Street
businesses, those families lose their very livelihood. Moreover, our
communities lose the jobs and services those family businesses provide.
I have been approached on many occasions at town meetings by North
Dakotans who say it is virtually impossible for them to pass along
their farm or business--which has been the family's major asset for
decades--to their children because of the exorbitant estate taxes they
would pay. They think it is unfair, and I agree.
Unfortunately, our estate tax laws force many family members who
inherit a modestly sized farm, ranch, or other family business to sell
it, or a large part of it, out of the family in order to pay off estate
taxes. This is especially onerous when the inheriting family members
have already been participating in the business for years and depend
upon it to earn a living.
I think that we must take immediate steps to breathe new economic
life and opportunities into our family businesses and the communities
in which they operate. It seems to me that a good first step is
correcting our estate tax laws so they do not unfairly penalize those
working families.
There are a few provisions included in our estate tax laws to help a
family keep its business running long after the death of the original
owner. But for the most part, these provisions are either too modest or
too narrowly drawn to do much good.
Now I also understand that there are some complicated estate tax
planning techniques available for those wealthy

[[Page S1109]]

enough to hire sophisticated and costly tax advisors. Clearly some
estate planning devices may reduce the estate tax burden imposed on
some family businesses upon the death of a principal owner. But for
those less affluent families inheriting a family business--where such
estate planning tools were unavailable for whatever reason--the estate
taxes will ultimately force them to amass a pile of debt, or to sell
off all or a large part of a family business, just to pay off their
estate taxes. I think that this is wrong, and it runs counter to the
kinds of policies that we ought to be pursuing in support of our
family-owned businesses.
That is why I am introducing the Family Estate Tax Relief Act to
rectify this matter, and I urge my colleagues to consider joining me in
this endeavor.
The Family Estate Tax Relief Act of 1997 would provide three
significant measures of estate tax relief to those families hoping to
pass along their businesses or other assets to the next generation.
First, my bill would increase the existing unified estate and gift
tax credit from $600,000 today to $1,000,000 in the year 2004. The
amount of the existing credit has not been changed for nearly a decade,
and its benefit has been reduced by more than 35 percent due to
inflation over this period. Moreover, even 3-percent inflation for
another 7 years will rob an additional 20 percent of the real value of
the unified credit. This provision will prevent erosion of the credit's
real value by inflation.
Second, my bill allows a decedent's estate to exclude up to the first
$1,000,000 of value of the family business from estate taxes so long as
the heirs continue to materially participate in the business for many
years after the death of the owner. The full benefit of this new
$1,000,000 exclusion is available to couples trying to pass along the
family business without the complicated tax planning tailored to one
spouse or the other that is sometimes used today.

Together, these two proposals would eliminate estate tax liability on
qualifying family business assets valued up to $2.0 million. This would
eliminate the burden of estate taxes for the majority of family run
businesses.
Third, my bill would allow the executor of a qualifying estate who
chooses to pay estate taxes in installments to benefit from a special
4-percent interest rate on the payment of estate taxes attributable to
a family business worth between $2.0 and $3.0 million. In other words,
my bill would also lighten the estate tax burden on the next $1 million
of estate assets.
The parts of my legislation targeted to family run businesses expand
upon the well-tested approaches found in sections 2032A and 6601(j) of
the Tax Code.
For example, we currently provide a special-use calculation for
valuing real estate used in a farm or other trade or business for
estate tax purposes, where a qualifying business is passed along to
another family member after the death of the owner. To benefit from the
special-use formula under section 2032A, the inheriting family member
must continue to actively participate in the business operation. If the
heir ceases to participate in the business, he or she may face a
substantial recapture of the estate taxes which would have been paid at
the time of the original owner's death.
In enacting this provision, Congress embraced the goal of keeping a
farm or other closely held business in the family after the death of
the owner. However, in the case of family farms, special-use valuation
primarily helps those farms adjacent to urban areas, where the value of
the land for non-farm uses is often much higher. But section 2032A does
not help many farms located in truly rural areas of the country where
farming is the land's best use. This provision also provides little
help for families transferring other nonfarm small businesses under
similar circumstances. My legislation would correct these glaring
shortfalls in current law.
In addition, my bill would increase the benefit of the existing
preferential interest rates under section 6601(j) that apply to farms
and other closely held businesses. The benefits of the current
provision have been significantly reduced by inflation over the past
several decades, and my bill simply increases the amount of estate
taxes that qualify for a special 4-percent interest rate if paid to the
IRS in installment payments over time.
Moreover, my bill includes several safeguards to ensure that its tax
benefits are truly targeted at the preservation of most family
businesses.
Finally, I plan to offset any estimated revenue losses from this bill
by offering another legislative package to close a number of outdated
or unnecessary tax loopholes for large multinational corporations doing
business in the United States. As a result, passing my estate tax
relief proposals will not increase the Federal deficit. But passing the
Family Estate Tax Relief Act will help to preserve the economic
backbone of this country and to help thrifty parents to help their
children.
Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this much-needed
legislation.<bullet>
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Stevens, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 290. A bill to establish a visa waiver pilot program for nationals
of Korea who are traveling in tour groups to the United States; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

The Korea Visa Waiver Pilot Project Act of 1997

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Stevens,
Inouye, Akaka and Thomas, am introducing the Korea Visa Waiver Pilot
Project Bill of 1997.''
This bill addresses the problem of the slow issuance of United States
tourist visas to Korean citizens. Koreans typically wait up to 3 weeks
to obtain tourist visas from the United States Embassy in Seoul. As a
result, most of these spontaneous travelers decide to vacation in one
of the other 48 nations that allow them to travel to their country
without a visa, including both Canada and New Zealand.
This legislation provides a carefully controlled pilot program of
visa-free travel by small groups of Koreans to the United States. The
program seeks to capture the Korean tourism market lost due to the
cumbersome visa system. For example, New Zealand experienced a 2,400-
percent increase in tourism from Korea after easing its visa
requirements in 1993.
The pilot program is designed to allow visitors in a tour group from
South Korea to travel to the United States without a visa for up to 15
days. However, it does not compromise the security standards of the
United States. The program would allow selected travel agencies in
Korea to issue temporary travel permits based on applicants meeting the
same preset standards used by the United States Embassy in Seoul. The
travel permits could only be used by supervised tour groups.
While the pilot project would allow small Korean tour groups to
travel to the United States without visas, the project includes many
restrictions. These are:

The Attorney General and Secretary of State can terminate
the program if the overstay rates in the program are over 2
percent.
The stay of the visitors is less than or equal to 15 days.
The visitors must have a round-trip ticket and arrive by a
carrier that agrees to return them if they are deemed
inadmissible.
The Secretary of State should institute a bonding and
licensing requirement that each participating travel agency
post a substantial performance bond and pay a financial
penalty if a tourist fails to return on schedule.
The on-time return of each tourist in the group would be
certified after each tour.
Security checks will be done to ensure that the visitor is
not a safety threat to the United States.

This legislation's restrictions ensure that the pilot program will be
a successful program, and one that I hope will entice more Korean
tourists to visit the United States.
______

By Mr. BYRD:
S.J. Res. 15. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to clarify the intent of the
Constitution to neither prohibit nor require public school prayer; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.

public school prayer constitutional amendment

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the English word ``irony'' comes to us from
an Ancient Greek word meaning ``a dissembler in speech.''
The English word ``irony'' is defined as the contrast between
something

[[Page S1110]]

that somebody thinks to be true, as revealed in speech, action, or
common wisdom, and that which an audience or a reader knows to be true.
Mr. President, permit me to give an example.
If anyone in the hearing of my voice will take out a U.S. one-dollar
bill and turn that one-dollar bill over onto its obverse side, he or
she will read in clear script, ``In God We Trust.''
Permit me to introduce another example.
Every day of each new meeting of the Senate and House of
Representatives, an official chaplain of each of those two chambers of
Congress--or a designated substitute--will stride to the dais and
address a sometimes elegant prayer to the Deity.
Again, every day in courtrooms across this country, hundreds of
witnesses will take their place at the front of the court chamber, put
their hands on incalculable numbers of Bibles, and swear to tell the
truth, ``. . . so help me God.''
We do the same. I have done it many times in my 50 years of service
and elected office. We stand and swear on oath to support and defend
the Constitution of the United States, ``so help me God.''
Additionally, daily, thousands of men and women, in a variety of
groups and millions upon millions of boys and girls in our schools will
pledge allegiance to our flag, uttering, among other words, the words
``under God.'' I was a member of the House of Representatives in June
1954, when the House of Representatives, I believe on June 7th of that
year, added the words ``under God'' to the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag. The next day, the Senate adopted a similar amendment, and then,
on June 14, the measure was signed into law adding the words ``under
God.'' I will always be proud of the fact that I was a Member of the
Congress of the United States when those words were added to the Pledge
of Allegiance--``one nation under God.'' Both Houses added the words
``under God.''
Here is the irony. In spite of that chain of rituals I have just
related, in situation after situation, anecdotal and documented both,
public school authorities, ostensibly following rulings of the Supreme
Court dating from at least the 1960's, have prohibited the utterance of
prayers at school functions, in classrooms, or even in groups or
privately on public school property.
As I read my U.S. Constitution--and here it is--such a prohibition of
prayer in school flies in the face of the first amendment, which
declares that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .''
Please note those words again: ``. . . or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. . . .''
That passage was explicitly written into our Bill or Rights at the
insistence of none other than James Madison, based on direct appeals to
Madison by baptist ministers in Virginia, who had been forced to
support the official State church during the colonial era, and whose
practice of their own religious choice had been officially denied,
proscribed, or penalized by colonial officials.
It is ironic that from that understandable constitutional safeguard
in support of the free exercise of religious faith, opponents of any
religion have turned that passage of the First Amendment on its head to
prohibit--I say prohibit--the free exercise of religion in our public
life and, particularly, to drive religious faith out of our public
schools.
It is equally ironic that, as religion is making a public resurgence
in the long-atheistic former Soviet Union, our Nation, whose
protofoundations stand on the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of
early colonists whose primary inspiration in coming to America in the
first--Congregationalists, Calvinists, Baptists, Jews, Catholics,
Orthodox, and others--whose primary purpose in coming to America in the
first place, I repeat, was a yearning for religious liberty against
those who would deny them the right of religious liberty--that our
Nation should be embarked on a course which, in effect, denies
religious liberty to many of our citizens.
Mr. President, I have heard increasing concerns about the lack of
moral orientation among so many younger Americans--about a rising drug
epidemic among our children, about rampant sexual promiscuity, about
children murdering children, about gangs of teenage thugs terrorizing
their neighborhoods, and about a pervading moral malaise among youth in
both our inner cities and suburbs.
Is there any wonder that so many young Americans should be drifting
with seemingly no ethical moorings in the face of an apparent effort to
strip every shred of recognizable ethics, of teachings about values,
and spirituality from the setting in which those young Americans spend
most of their waking hours--our public schools?

Mr. President, in an effort to restore something of a spiritual
balance to our public schools and to extracurricular activities in our
public schools, I am today introducing a joint resolution to propose an
amendment to the Constitution clarifying the intent of the Constitution
with regard to public school prayer.
My amendment is an effort to make clear that neither the
Constitution, or the amendments thereto, require, nor do they prohibit,
voluntary prayer in the public schools or in the extracurricular
activities of the public schools.
Let me read my amendment. Let me read my proposed amendment. It is
very short, very brief, very much to the point:

Nothing in this Constitution, or amendments thereto, shall
be construed to prohibit or require voluntary prayer in
public schools, or to prohibit or require voluntary prayer at
public school extracurricular activities.

So anyone who fears that the language of this amendment would allow
public schools to mandate the recitation of daily prayer, or that
school administrators will become the authors of such prayers, need not
worry. Have no fear. You need not lose a moment of sleep. This
amendment does not supplant the clear proscription contained in the
``establishment'' clause of the First Amendment. My amendment is an
effort to make clear that the words that the Constitution uses with
regard to religious freedom do not mean that voluntary prayer is
prohibited from our public schools or our public school activities.
As I shall one day state on this floor, all of the Presidents in
their inaugural speeches, and/or in other documents and writings, have
referred to the Deity, referred to the Almighty God, to Providence, all
of them. I shall read from the words of each President's inauguration
speech in which he refers, in one way or another, to God Almighty, the
Great Judge of the world. We read those references in the Declaration
of Independence and the Mayflower Compact, and all of the State
constitutions, as I shall show upon another occasion. Then to say that
the schoolchildren of the Nation cannot enter into voluntary prayer in
the public schools, or during commencement exercises is absurd, absurd,
utter nonsense.
In short, I hope to end the three-decades-long tyranny of the
minority in denying to the majority of Americans the least vestige of
the exercise of a liberty otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution--the
right of believing children in our public school system to pray in
accordance with their own consciences and in the privacy of their
voluntary associations within our public schools. That right I
sincerely believe the Constitution already grants, but I want to spell
out in that same Constitution by way of an amendment that permission to
pray voluntarily in our public schools does not constitute ``an
establishment of a religion.''

To deny any schoolchild in this country the right to voluntarily pray
in academics maintaining that that constitutes establishment of
religion is pure nonsense.
With introduction, and I hope eventual adoption of my amendment, we
can finally begin the 7-year long process to answer the peoples'
concerns. We can begin to restore the spiritual compass that has been
lost in the lives of so many of our citizens. And, most importantly, we
can begin to return to our children the moral orientation they so
desperately desire.
Tennyson said, ``More things are wrought by prayer than this world
dreams of.''
So, Mr. President, I urge those who want to deliver on the wishes of
the American people to join me in this effort.

[[Page S1111]]

I send to the desk my amendment, and ask that it be printed and
referred appropriately to committee.
I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 15

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, which shall be
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution
when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
several States within seven years after the date of its
submission to the States for ratification:

``Article --

``Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution, or amendments
thereto, shall be construed to prohibit or require voluntary
prayer in public schools, or to prohibit or require voluntary
prayer at public school extracurricular activities.''.

____________________