May 4, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6165 

very serious solution recommended by 

trustees, four of whom were the President’s, two of whom are private citizens. I think our Republican leader has 

outlined an approach which might resolve this issue. 

On the other hand, I came for another purpose. Obviously, most of my 

time and attention these days is devoted to how we get a balanced budget 

by the year 2002. But I do not choose to 

speak about that today. 

f 

UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT 

CORPORATION PRIVATIZATION 

ACT 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

want to speak about a bill I introduced 

yesterday and I did not get a chance to 

speak on it. It has been introduced and 

has been referred. It is now known as 

S. 755. It has a very uninteresting caption and name: United States Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act. 

Actually, while that does not sound 

like much, we hear a lot these days 

about Russia, Iran, and Russian scientists having to find some way to earn 

a living. We hear a lot about the fact 

that Russia has a very significant 

amount of enriched uranium and that 

we have agreed, in a sense, to buy it. 

Now we find ourselves kind of in a 

quagmire. Our own trade laws do not 

let us buy and resell the material because that is dumping. So we have a $4 

billion commercial transaction going 

and the Russians are saying, ‘‘Fine, we 

made a deal, let’s do it.’’ And so we 

have an entity here, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, currently in existence. It is Government owned, and thus 

it is corporate only in the sense that 

we call it a corporation. The U.S. Enrichment Corporation, when we sell 

it—and what we propose here has been 

cleared by and looked at by a lot of 

marketplace people—we believe it will 

generate $1.5 billion for the Treasury of 

the United States, when we take the 

existing Government corporation and 

put it on the market, make it a corporation. 

One of the most difficult issues facing this enrichment corporation and 

the uranium industry as a whole is how 

uranium from the Soviet Union is allowed to enter the United States market. Currently, the Department of 

Commerce enforces a suspension agreement that limits the amount of uranium we can import from the Soviet 

Union. The suspension agreement enforces U.S. trade laws. Obviously, a 

straight purchase and resale into the 

U.S. market would result in dumping. 

So it will not work. 

In 1993, Russia and the United States 

signed an agreement under which the 

United States would purchase up to $4 

billion worth of natural uranium derived from highly enriched uranium 

from Soviet nuclear weapons. However, 

as I indicated, the U.S. trade law prevents that natural uranium from being 

sold in the United States. The enrichment corporation is responsible, nonetheless, for implementing the Russian 

agreement. As a result, the $4 billion 

obligation falls squarely on the enrichment corporation, the one we now 

have, the Government corporation, because the enrichment corporation is 

prevented from selling the natural uranium into the U.S. market, which 

would be illegal since the material is 

below market price. As a result, the 

United States Enrichment Corporation 

cannot pay the Russians. In turn, the 

Russians argue that they are being 

shortchanged $4 billion. I do not think 

one can blame them for that. We have 

an agreement. But our enrichment corporation cannot buy it, because if they 

buy it, they cannot use it. 

So this legislation solves that problem by enabling the creation of a futures market for natural uranium derived from the Russian agreement. The 

material could only enter the U.S. 

market in a controlled manner starting 

in 2002. Thus, it is not inconsistent 

with our trade laws. 

So this proposal preserves the United 

States trade commitment, protects the 

United States uranium industry from 

unfair dumping, and encourages Russia’s important work of dismantling 

nuclear weapons to continue. This proposal enables the Russians to be able to 

pay the people that are doing the dismantlement work that with some of 

the fruits of the disarmament, namely 

the revenue from the natural uranium. 

The money would provide the cash flow 

necessary to keep the Russian 

minatom employees working to dismantle the Russian nuclear capability 

and, in turn, the Russians might not be 

so adamant about selling reactors to 

Iran for a billion dollars. 

So in a very real way, the notion of 

privatization, which is given sort of a 

rebirth because of the last election, 

finds itself settling in on this situation. I happen to have the privilege of 

chairing the Subcommittee on Energy 

Research and Development that has 

this as one of its responsibilities. So 

the idea of privatizing it fell on our 

subcommittee, and with the work of 

some experts and some really exciting 

ideas encapsulated in this bill, we may 

indeed retain the enrichment corporation, that is privately owned, privately 

run, that can indeed make money, and 

we will succesfully implement the Russian agreement using the futures approach. I do not think we have seen a 

nicer fit and match than this. In the 

meantime, we pick up $1.5 billion for 

the U.S. Treasury. 

Now, obviously, there will be a lot of 

questions about this, and we are understanding of that. We hope that within a 

month, as soon as we get the budget 

behind us a little bit here, we can have 

some hearings on this and get it to the 

floor this year. We think it is an exciting idea of privatization which accomplishes so many good things at one 

time that we want to move full speed 

ahead and see if we cannot get it done. 

I have good cosponsors. I invite other 

Senators to take a look. Mr. FORD is a 

cosponsor. He is ranking member of the 

subcommittee. We have Senators JOHNSTON, CAMPBELL, THOMAS, and SIMPSON. 

I am sure we will have others as soon 

as they understand it. I look for some 

of those who work in foreign relations 

and are worried about Iran and the 

growing relationships of a monetary 

nature between Iran and Russia, I look 

to them to analyze this, and perhaps 

they can see fit to join us. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized. 

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I come 

to the floor—and I listened with great 

interest earlier to the majority leader, 

the distinguished Senator from Kansas, 

talking about a letter that he and the 

Speaker of the House have written to 

the President asking for some bipartisan cooperation having to do with 

Medicare. 

Mr. President, for 12 years when we 

had a Republican President, any time 

anyone would say, gee, how come Ronald Reagan does not submit a balanced 

budget, or George Bush does not, the 

standard response that would come is—

mostly, I must say, from Republicans 

in defense of their Republican President—they would say, ‘‘Gee, the President does not spend any money, Congress spends the money.’’ I must say, 

the Republican defense is accurate. 

Congress does spend the money. For us 

to say, gee, the President has the responsibility for spending the money is 

inaccurate. It is the Congress of the 

United States of America that passes 

laws that determine how much money 

we are going to collect and in what 

manner we are going to collect it from 

the American people and how we are 

going to allocate that money across a 

whole range of programs. 

In fact, the Budget Enforcement Act 

requires the Congress to produce a 

budget resolution by the 15th of April, 

which is several weeks past. 

Mr. President, if the majority leader 

wants to get a bipartisan movement to 

do something about deficit reduction, 

there are a number of us on this side of 

the aisle who are all too willing to do 

exactly that. It seems to me that is 

what we need. If we are going to get 

movement, it ought to be movement 

inside of the U.S. Congress. There is a 

ferocious debate. There are ideological 

differences. The biggest task that faces 

us is that deficit reduction is tough. 

The problem with Medicare is not 

caused by mean and nasty Republicans 

or mean and liberal Democrats; it is 

caused by demographics and technology. 

The good news is that we are living 

longer. The bad news is that it is getting more and more expensive for us to 

pay for the health care for those where 

we have made a commitment. If you 

think it is bad over the next 4, 5 years, 

you ought to see what the entitlement 

commission says this looks like when 

my generation begins to retire. This 

thing goes clear off the charts after the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6166 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

year 2008. So the insolvency of the year 

2002 forecast by the trustees is only the 

tip of the iceberg, Mr. President. 

Deficit reduction is difficult precisely because it forces us to make 

tough choices. This Congress needs to 

get about the business of doing that. I 

was disappointed when the President’s 

budget did not address the issue of entitlements. Our Presidential commission worked for an entire year. We 

made recommendations to the President to try to do something. But I 

think the President made a calculated 

judgment. He has to say, I have a Republican Congress and I had a 1993 deficit reduction act and did not get a single Republican to vote for it. In fact, 

part of the Contract With America 

promises to take the increase in taxes 

on a small number of Social Security 

beneficiaries, about 15 percent, reduce 

that tax which reduces the flow in 

Medicare and makes the problem 

worse. For that and other reasons, perhaps the President decided not to address the issue of entitlements. We 

know what we need to do in this Congress. 

I am very much concerned that this 

thing is going to degenerate into merely an attempt by Republicans to say, 

‘‘No, we are right and the Democrats 

are wrong,’’ or the Democrats saying, 

‘‘No, we are right and the Republicans 

are wrong.’’

For Members to do that for very 

much longer, Mr. President, maybe we 

can survive for a week or two or three 

with partisan blasts back and forth 

across the bow, but at some point we 

have a lot of educating, a lot of explaining, and a lot of leading to do. 

I spoke last week to the National 

Press Club and unfortunately the answers that I gave to some questions 

afterwards got most of the attention. 

But at the heart of my message is that 

in deficit reduction, there is not a free 

lunch. Deficit reduction is not something that we are doing just to seek political advantage or curry favor with 

the voters, because the voters want 

deficit reduction. Deficit reduction has 

a positive effect upon our economy because it increases savings. 

The majority leader indicated we do 

not need to do anything with Social 

Security. With great respect, I disagree. I believe Social Security also 

needs to be reformed, because unlike 

the common perception of Social Security, Social Security itself is not a savings program. 

I inform anyone who might be listening to this right now that Social Security is a commitment on the part of 

those generations that are in the work 

force to allow themselves to be taxed 

at a fixed percentage of their wages, 

the money going to those generations 

that are out of the work force, who are 

retired. 

The program started off as a 1-percent tax on wages. The retirement age 

was 6 years after normal life expectancy when the program started. Today, 

it is 12 percent of our wages. And 12 

percent of our wages, promised to pay 

beginning in the year 65, which is 11 

years this side of normal life expectancy. 

It is a demographic problem, Mr. 

President. I appreciate the majority 

leader saying we do not need to address 

it because we have enough money coming in, but do not tell that to a 20-yearold, a 30-year-old, or a 40-year-old. 

We had Director Rivlin before the 

Treasury Postal Subcommittee on Appropriations this afternoon, and I 

asked her about the deletion of 

intergenerational accounting in last 

year’s budget. She expects the report 

to come out. 

My effective tax rate over the course 

of my lifetime is about 34 percent—my 

generation. But the generation right 

behind, if we do not take action with 

Social Security and with Medicare relatively quickly, they are looking at an 

effective tax rates in excess of 80 percent—in excess of 80 percent—in an 

economic environment where their 

lives are apt to be more difficult to 

begin with. 

I believe what is needed is for Members of Congress to come and say, OK, 

we will fire a few shots across the bow 

here at Democrats, pointing out that 

Republicans, for 12 years when a Republican President was in the White 

House, said it was Congress’ responsibility. Now that we have a Democrat in 

the White House they are not looking 

across the aisle and saying, as Congress 

we should fix it. They sent a letter to 

the President and said, ‘‘How come you 

are not doing something about this?’’

I believe it is our responsibility 

under the Budget Enforcement Act to 

deal with this budget problem, and it is 

going to be tough. I note with great 

alarm a poll—in fact it has been distributed not just to Democrats but to 

Republicans as well, and may, in fact, 

have contributed not just to the President’s address to his Conference on 

Aging, but to a remarkable address on 

the part of the Speaker of the House, 

going to the seniors coalition. He got 

several standing ovations, I might 

point out. 

Why would he not? He made it sound 

like the Medicare solution is easy. ‘‘We 

will give seniors choices. We will let 

you keep the savings of 10 percent. If 

you find waste, fraud and abuse, it will 

be easy. We do not have it get Medicare 

all tied up in that nasty old budget deficit debate, we will move it aside, and 

it is all going to get real easy.’’

It is not easy. We either ask Americans to pay more or we give them less, 

or some combination of the two. Or we 

turn and honestly say to our kids that 

their effective tax rates will be higher. 

It will not be 15 percent of wages. That 

is what it is today. But if we do not 

take action in the next couple of years, 

that tax rate will be 20 percent. Or 

they will have to look to their parents 

and cut their benefits enormously. 

Time is on our side right now, Mr. 

President, but it is not going to be on 

our side for very much longer. 

I genuinely hope that after we fired 

our few little political rounds here that 

the Democrats and the Republicans 

can, in fact, get together. We are the 

ones that by law have the responsibility for passing not only authorizing 

legislation but appropriation legislation and we have to change our laws. 

I was very alarmed to read in the 

newspaper this polling data that shows 

that 45 percent of the American people 

would not vote for any representative 

who voted to reduce the increases in 

Medicare. Fifteen percent would vote 

for them, if they did. 

I note again in Gerald Seib’s piece in 

the Wall Street Journal, I believe yesterday, saying that a full 48 percent of 

the American people think that we are 

not spending enough on seniors, 48 percent. 

If we think that is greedy seniors, it 

is not. Only 34 percent of the people 

over 65 say we are not spending enough. 

It is people 18 to 34, by over 50 percent. 

Less than 5 percent say we spend too 

much. 

That is not what our budget shows, 

Mr. President, whether it is at the 

State or Federal level. No one who seriously examines our budget believes 

that the problem is we are not spending enough on people over the age of 65. 

That is not the problem we face. 

I sincerely hope—I must say it may 

require me to do more than hope. I 

may have to raise my voice and do a 

lot of praying before we can bridge the 

rhetorical gap that divides the Republicans and Democrats on the Senate 

floor. I think there is a bipartisan 

group that is willing to come to the 

American people and begin by simply 

saying ‘‘This is the truth,’’ not 

hyperventilate and say things that 

sound like we are on the side of the angels and the other side is on the side of 

devil, but just say, ‘‘This is the truth.’’

Look at the numbers. We do not fix 

this thing by getting rid of waste, 

fraud, and abuse. We will not fix this 

thing by sort of tinkering at the edge 

and say, ‘‘I will give you choice. We 

will put it off into managed care.’’

That is not going to work. 

We either accept responsibilities that 

we have as citizens to say that if we 

ask for something we will pay for it. 

And we are not going to ask for any 

subsidy that we neither need or deserve. That is part of the problem now. 

We have an awful lot of people in 

America, whether corporations or individuals, that do not need subsidies and 

we are giving them subsidies. They 

make a good case for it for social or 

economic reasons, and we shovel the 

money out and find ourselves when it 

comes time to taking care of people 

who need it, we are woefully short of 

either the resources of trying to do 

anything. 

I am down here right now to offer a 

constructive engagement to the majority leader saying that this is not the 

President’s problem. This is not his 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 4, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6167 

fault. The President of the United 

States submits his budget. I was critical of it for leaving entitlements out 

and not doing the intergenerational accounting, but by law it is the Congress 

of the United States of America that 

must make these decisions. 

We are now almost 4 weeks late, according to the Budget Enforcement 

Act, of coming up with a budget resolution. I trust that when the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico 

comes up with a budget, that he will 

need Democrats on this Senate floor to 

come with him and say, ‘‘We will join 

to make an effort to go out and explain 

it to the American people.’’

I will say what my price is, Mr. 

President, so it can be clear. I do not 

want anybody saying, ‘‘I wonder what 

KERREY wants?’’ We will not do a $300 

billion, 7-year tax cut. That is for openers. That is my price. Want to negotiate a bipartisan fashion? Have to give 

the $300 billion tax cut? That is nonsense. What kind of nonsense is that? 

Give up $300 billion? 

Only yourself to blame when people 

get up and say, ‘‘Gee, $300 billion tax 

cut and $300 billion Medicare cut. 

Aren’t you paying with Medicare for 

the tax breaks to individuals?’’ It looks 

that way. We do not have to do much 

in the way of pumping hot air into that 

argument. It looks like that is what is 

going on. 

Republicans have to take that $300 

billion tax cut and forget it. Democrats 

on the other hand, will have to say we 

will give on entitlements. We will tell 

the truth on entitlements. We will inform the American people. 

I believe Republicans as well will 

have to say, OK, maybe we scored some 

great political point in last year’s election by alleging that when Democrats 

voted for the 1993 Deficit Reduction 

Act without a single Republican voting 

for it in the House or the Senate, we 

took a little political advantage by 

saying that every Social Security beneficiary had a tax increase. 

Do not tell me that Republicans were 

not saying that. I have heard it. I have 

seen it in advertisements. It worked. If 

I was a Republican and I had not voted 

for that, I would have done the same 

thing. It is an effective way to score 

political points. 

For gosh sakes, we cannot take that 

tax, I think, fairly applied at 85 percent 

of income, reduce it to 50 percent, that 

takes money out of the Medicare part 

A fund. That makes the problem worse, 

not better. That is my two opening 

steps. 

I also think, by the way, that those 

of us who worked in the mainstream 

group last year, Republicans and 

Democrats, led by the distinguished 

Senator from Rhode Island—who 

worked so very hard to hold that mainstream group together—were pretty 

close to being on target when it came 

to health care. We did ask people to 

pay the full bill. We did ask people to 

share the cost of health care. We did 

not say there is a free lunch here. 

We had a reasonable plan, it seems to 

me, that was in the middle. Today, of 

course, health care reform is not very 

fashionable. But we had a bipartisan 

group of Republicans and Democrats 

who worked long and hard and got very 

close to a piece of legislation that I 

think, frankly, had we had a little 

more time, we might have been able to 

pass and we might not be in this fix we 

are in right now, trying to figure out 

what we are going to do about Medicare. 

If we treat Medicare only as a budget 

issue and not as a health care issue, we 

are going to find ourselves doing what 

none of us wants to do, in my judgment, and that is taking that couple 

out there who is working really hard, 

that American couple out there, where 

you have both the husband and wife—

and we all know who we are talking 

about here—working for $5 and $6 and 

$7 an hour each and by the time they 

pay their payroll taxes and income 

taxes they have precious little money 

left; those individuals are, right now, if 

we treat Medicare only as a budget 

issue, going to find themselves paying 

a lot more money than they already 

are for health insurance. We are going 

to make their lives more miserable. 

Those Americans who say: I do not 

want to be on welfare; who say I do not 

want the Government of the United 

States of America to give me food 

stamps; I do not want to be on AFDC; 

I am willing to work at McDonald’s; I 

am willing to work at Radio Shack; I 

am willing to work wherever I have to, 

but I am going to earn my own way—

those are the individuals in the United 

States of America today that are in the 

greatest amount of trouble, the ones 

who are not asking us for anything. 

Those individuals are going to suffer, 

in my judgment, if we treat Medicare 

only as a budget issue. 

So I say, here is one Democrat who is 

willing to work with Republicans. I 

have worked with the Senator from 

New Mexico on budget issues before 

and was pleased to be able to join with 

him on his U.S.A. Tax, an item that I 

believe in fact will generate more 

money for the U.S. Treasury by allowing people not to pay taxes on their 

savings and businesses expense off 

their investments that they made. 

We have to look not just at how 

much money we are generating, we 

have to look at ways to generate tax 

money that encourage economic 

growth, because in the end that is 

going to determine whether or not we 

are able to pay for anything, whether 

it is defense, or Medicare, or Social Security, or whatever it is. 

So I hope in the end of perhaps the 

next 3 weeks, after we have all had a 

little political fun here and scored our 

political points, that Democrats come 

and say: Here are our values. I am a 

Democrat and I believe the laws of the 

United States of America ought to say 

every single American has an opportunity to move up the economic ladder. 

I am willing to say you have to make 

an effort. There is no free lunch here. 

You have to work hard to do it. 

But I understand, if you are making 

$5, $6, $7 an hour, you have a tough 

time paying for health insurance; that 

retirement does not mean much for 

you; you are having a difficult time 

with child care because it is $500 or $600 

a month for a couple of kids. I understand you are frustrated because you 

read in the newspaper and see there is 

an 80-percent differential between what 

you can earn with a college degree and 

what you can earn with a high school 

degree, and yet you are not setting 

enough money aside for your kids. 

Then, when it comes time for you to 

get a college loan, you are told you are 

maybe making too much money; you 

are no longer eligible. 

So I am prepared to come and say: 

Here are my Democratic values. Here is 

what I believe in as a Democrat. I will 

bring those arguments to the table. 

But when it comes to deficit reduction, 

we are going to have to act like Americans. At some point, I am going to 

have to be willing to give. I am willing 

to give on entitlements. I am willing to 

go out on Medicare, Medicaid, Social 

Security, and say to the American people: Here is the truth. 

This is not the time, it seems to me, 

for us merely to hope we can score political points over the other party. This 

is the time for us to surprise the marketplace—and it would be a surprise if 

the Congress of the United States of 

America, in spite of the fact that we 

have a budget recommendation that 

calls for $200 billion deficits and no action on entitlements, can somehow 

manage to get together, Republicans 

and Democrats who care about deficit 

reduction, and surprise the marketplace and enact this year a 5- or 6- or 

7-year deficit reduction plan that 

would get us to a balanced budget. 

I think the American people would 

not only be pleased—they may not like 

some of the cuts we put in place—but I 

think they would be pleased because 

the economy of the United States of 

America would grow, long-term interest rates would go down, the dollar 

would strengthen, and we would be creating more jobs again. 

I hope and pray in fact that this Congress does what the laws and the Constitution say we are supposed to do, 

and that is do the hard work of budgeting; make the hard choices that are 

required in budgeting. Then, once we 

have produced a budget resolution with 

both Republicans and Democrats on 

board, then it is time for us to challenge the executive branch, the President, to pony up and share some responsibility by going to the American 

people and saying he believes Congress 

has finally got it right. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I 

suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will please call the roll. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6168 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 4, 1995 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

EXECUTIVE AND OTHER 

COMMUNICATIONS 

The following communications were 

laid before the Senate, together with 

accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred as indicated: 

EC–833. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report under 

the Freedom of Information Act for calendar 

year 1994; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC–834. A communication from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, 

pursuant to law, the report under the Freedom of Information Act for calendar year 

1994; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC–835. A communication from the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report under the Freedom of 

Information Act for calendar year 1994; to 

the Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC–836. A communication from the Acting 

Executive Director of the National Mediation Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, 

the report under the Freedom of Information 

Act for calendar year 1994; to the Committee 

on the Judiciary. 

EC–837. A communication from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development’s 

Designee to the Federal Housing Finance 

Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report under the Freedom of Information Act 

for calendar year 1994; to the Committee on 

the Judiciary. 

EC–838. A communication from the President of the Inter-American Foundation, 

transmitting, pursuant to law, the report 

under the Freedom of Information Act for 

calendar year 1994; to the Committee on the 

Judiciary. 

EC–839. A communication from the Director of Selective Service, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report under the Freedom of 

Information Act for calendar year 1994; to 

the Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC–840. A communication from the Executive Director of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to 

law, the report under the Freedom of Information Act for calendar year 1994; to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC–841. A communication from the Senior 

Counsel and Negotiator of the Office of the 

U.S. Trade Representative, Executive Office 

of the President, transmitting, pursuant to 

law, the report under the Freedom of Information Act for calendar year 1994; to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC–842. A communication from the Secretary of the Judicial Conference of the 

United States, transmitting, a draft of proposed legislation entitled ‘‘The Federal 

Courts Improvement Act of 1995’’; to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC–843. A communication from the Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court, transmitting, 

pursuant to law, the report of amendments 

to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; 

to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC–844. A communication from the Attorney General, transmitting, pursuant to law, 

the annual report for fiscal year 1994; to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC–845. A communication from the President of the Foundation of the Federal Bar 

Association, transmitting, pursuant to law, 

the report of the audit for fiscal year 1994; to 

the Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC–846. A communication from the President of the American Academy of Arts and 

Letter, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 

report of activities for calendar year 1994; to 

the Committee on the Judiciary. 

EC–847. A communication from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to 

law, the report and recommendations of the 

Reporting and Disclosure Work Group for fiscal year 1994; to the Committee on Labor and 

Human Resources. 

EC–848. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, a draft of 

proposed legislation entitled ‘‘The Career 

Preparation Education Reform Act of 1995’’; 

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 

EC–849. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant 

to law, the report entitled ‘‘Summary of 

Chapter 2 Annual Reports 1992–93’’; to the 

Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 

EC–850. A communication from the Secretary of Labor and the Executive Director 

of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting jointly, pursuant to law, 

the report of financial statements for fiscal 

year 1994; to the Committee on Labor and 

Human Resources. 

EC–851. A communication from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the 

financial statements of the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation’s Single-Employer 

Fund for fiscal years 1993 and 1994; to the 

Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 

EC–852. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Education (Civil Rights), 

transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual report for fiscal year 1994; to the Committee on 

Labor and Human Resources. 

EC–853. A communication from the Board 

Members of the Railroad Retirement Board, 

transmitting, a draft of proposed legislation 

entitled ‘‘The Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Amendments 

Act of 1995′′; to the Committee on Labor and 

Human Resources. 

EC–854. A communication from the Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, 

the annual report for fiscal year 1994; to the 

Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 

EC–855. A communication from the President of the U.S. Institute of Peace, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of financial 

statements for fiscal years 1993 and 1994; to 

the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 

EC–856. A communication from the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs, transmitting, 

pursuant to law, the report on cases granted 

equitable relief in calendar year 1994; to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 

EC–857. A communication from the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Communications, Computers and Support Systems), transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a cost comparison study to reduce 

the cost of operating the Mess Attendant 

function; to the Committee on Armed Services. 

EC–858. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of State (Legislative Affairs), 

transmitting, pursuant to law, the annual report on the Panama Canal Treaties for fiscal 

year 1994; to the Committee on Armed Services. 

EC–859. A communication from the Chief of 

Legislative Affairs, Department of the Navy, 

transmitting, pursuant to law, notice of the 

intention to offer a grant transfer; to the 

Committee on Armed Services. 

EC–860. A communication from the Deputy 

Secretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant 

to law, the report of plans for the depot-level 

maintenance; to the Committee on Armed 

Services. 

EC–861. A communication from the Deputy 

Secretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant 

to law, a report relative to the Trident II (D5) missile program; to the Committee on 

Armed Services. 

EC–862. A communication from the General 

Counsel of the Department of Defense, transmitting, a draft of proposed legislation entitled ‘‘The Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996’’; to the Committee on Armed Services. 

EC–863. A communication from the General 

Counsel of the Department of Defense, transmitting, a draft of proposed legislation entitled ‘‘The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 1996’’; to the Committee 

on Armed Services. 

f 

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT 

Messages from the President of the 

United States were communicated to 

the Senate by Mr. Thomas, one of his 

secretaries. 

f 

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED 

As in executive session the Presiding 

Officer laid before the Senate messages 

from the President of the United 

States submitting sundry nominations 

which were referred to the appropriate 

committees. 

(The nominations received today are 

printed at the end of the Senate proceedings.) 

f 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 

The following reports of committees 

were submitted: 

By Mrs. KASSEBAUM, from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 

without amendment: 

S. 184. A bill to establish an Office for Rare 

Disease Research in the National Institutes 

of Health, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 

104–79). 

f 

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND 

JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first 

and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: 

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. SIMON, and Mr. 

LEVIN): 

S. 757. A bill to amend title 10, United 

States Code, to terminate the Civilian 

Marksmanship Program; to rescind funding 

for the National Board for the Promotion of 

Rifle Practice; and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on Armed Services. 

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. 

PRYOR, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. BREAUX, 

Mr. LUGAR, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. 

HUTCHISON, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BOND, 

Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. 

FORD, Mr. ROBB, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. 

KERREY, Mr. KYL, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. 

CRAIG, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COHEN, Mr. 

GRASSLEY, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. BENNETT, and Mr. BINGAMAN): 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS