```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7918-S7924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. STEVENS:
  S. 888. A bill to extend the authority of the Federal Communications 
Commission to use auctions for the allocation of radio spectrum 
frequencies for commercial use, to provide for private sector 
reimbursement of Federal governmental user costs to vacate commercially 
valuable spectrum, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

                    THE SPECTRUM AUCTION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to send to the desk this morning a 
bill to extend the Federal Communications Commission's authority to use 
auctions to award radio spectrum licenses. I want to state to the 
Senate that for several Congresses, I had suggested spectrum auctions 
to deal with the problem of allocating this very valuable space in our 
airways. Congress did not pass those bills, but finally, in the last 
Congress, Congress did accept the amendment that I had offered. Since 
that time, the Federal Government has received over $9 billion in money 
that has been bid for the use of this spectrum which is allocated by 
the FCC.
  I am introducing this bill now so that the Senate will be aware of 
it, because I intend to offer it as an amendment to the 
telecommunications bill when it is presented to the Senate. This bill 
will raise an estimated minimum amount of $4.5 billion over a 5-year 
period. It will be used to partially offset the cost of the 
telecommunications bill as computed by the Congressional Budget Office.
  I might say on the bright side, the Congressional Budget Office has 
stated that enactment of the telecommunications bill will result in a 
$3 billion reduction in the payments, that are made by the private 
sector I might add, for universal service in this country. But there is 
still a remaining expenditure that will be made in the 7-year period of 
the budget that is before the Congress, and in order that that budget 
may remain in balance and still have us be able to enact the 
telecommunications bill, we are presenting amendments that will provide 
offsetting revenues on the Federal side.
  It is a strange thing about this, Mr. President, because it is the 
private sector that makes the support payments under existing law and 
will continue to make smaller payments under the telecommunications 
bill as the Commerce Committee will present it. But there is no 
question that the CBO has decided it still has a budgetary impact as 
far as the economy is concerned, and, therefore, an offset is required.
  I urge Senators to review this proposed bill, which, as I said, will 
become an amendment to be offered by me to the telecommunications bill 
when it is on the floor.
  This bill has five sections. Section 1 is the short title, which is 
the ``Spectrum Auction Act of 1995.'' Section 2 contains findings drawn 
from two NTIA reports, which state that the U.S. will need at least 180 
megahertz of additional spectrum for cellular, PCS, and satellite 
services over the next 10 years, and that less than that amount will be 
available without the bill. Section 3 extends the FCC's auction 
authority from 1998 until 2002, and would allow the FCC to use auctions 
for all licenses except public safety radio services and new digital TV 
licenses. Section 4 of the bill allows federal agencies to accept 
reimbursement from private parties for the costs of relocating to new 
spectrum frequencies, so that the private sector can pay to move 
government stations off valuable frequencies; it also requires NTIA to 
move government stations if all costs are paid and the new frequency 
and facilities are comparable. Section 5 requires the Secretary of 
Commerce to submit a plan to reallocate three additional frequency 
bands that NTIA has identified for transfer from government to private 
use.
  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. 888

       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 ``Spectrum Auction Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration of the Department of Commerce recently 
     submitted to the Congress a report entitled ``U.S. National 
     Spectrum Requirements'' as required by section 113 of the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
     Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 923);
       (2) based on the best available information the report 
     concludes that an additional 179 megahertz of spectrum will 
     be needed within the next ten years to meet the expected 
     demand for land mobile and mobile satellite radio services 
     such as cellular telephone service, paging services, personal 
     communication services, and low earth orbiting satellite 
     communications systems;
       (3) a further 85 megahertz of additional spectrum, for a 
     total of 264 megahertz, is needed if the United States is to 
     fully implement the Intelligent Transportation System 
     currently under development by the Department of 
     Transportation;
       (4) as required by Part B of the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration 
     Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 921 et seq.) the Federal 
     Government will transfer 235 megahertz of spectrum
      from exclusive government use to non-governmental or mixed 
     governmental and non-governmental use between 1994 and 
     2004;
       (5) the Spectrum Reallocation Final Report submitted to 
     Congress by the National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration states that, of the 235 megahertz of spectrum 
     identified for reallocation from governmental to non-
     governmental or mixed use--
       (A) 50 megahertz has already been reallocated for exclusive 
     non-governmental use,
       (B) 45 megahertz will be reallocated in 1995 for both 
     exclusive non-governmental and mixed governmental and non-
     governmental use,
       (C) 25 megahertz will be reallocated in 1997 for exclusive 
     non-governmental use,
       (D) 70 megahertz will be reallocated in 1999 for both 
     exclusive non-governmental and mixed governmental and non-
     governmental use, and
       (E) the final 45 megahertz will be reallocated for mixed 
     governmental and non-governmental use by 2004;
       (6) the 165 megahertz of spectrum that are not yet 
     reallocated, combined with 80 megahertz that the Federal 
     Communications Commission is currently holding in reserve for 
     emerging technologies, are less than the best estimates of 
     projected spectrum needs in the United States;
       (7) the authority of the Federal Communications Commission 
     to assign radio spectrum frequencies using an auction process 
     expires on September 30, 1998;
       [[Page S7919]] (8) a significant portion of the reallocated 
     spectrum will not yet be assigned to non-governmental users 
     before that authority expires;
       (9) the transfer of Federal governmental users from certain 
     valuable radio frequencies to other reserved frequencies 
     could be expedited if Federal governmental users are 
     permitted to accept reimbursement for reallocation costs from 
     non-governmental users; and
       (10) extension of the authority to use auctions and non-
     governmental reimbursement of Federal governmental users 
     relocation costs would allow the market to determine the most 
     efficient use of the available spectrum.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF AUCTION AUTHORITY.

       Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     309(j)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof 
     the following:
       (``1) General authority.--If mutually exclusive 
     applications or requests are accepted for any initial license 
     or construction permit which will involve a use of the 
     electromagnetic spectrum, then the Commission shall grant 
     such license or permit to a qualified applicant through a 
     system of competitive bidding that meets the requirements of 
     this subsection. The competitive bidding authority granted by 
     this subsection shall not apply to licenses or construction 
     permits issued by the Commission for public safety radio 
     services or for licenses or construction permits for new 
     terrestrial digital television services assigned by the 
     Commission to existing terrestrial broadcast licensees to 
     replace their current television licenses.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and renumbering paragraphs 
     (3) through (13) as (2) through (12), respectively; and
       (3) by striking ``1998'' in paragraph (10), as renumbered, 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``2002''.
       (3) by striking `1998'' in paragraph (10), as renumbered, 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``2002''.

     SEC. 4. REIMBURSEMENT OF FEDERAL RELOCATION COSTS.

       Section 113 of the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration Act (47 U.S.C. 923) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(f) Relocation of Federal Government Stations.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to expedite the efficient use 
     of the electromagnetic spectrum and notwithstanding section 
     3302(b) of title 31, United States Code, any Federal entity 
     which operates a Federal Government station may accept 
     reimbursement from any person for the costs incurred by such 
     Federal entity for any modification, replacement, or 
     reissuance of equipment, facilities, operating manuals, 
     regulations, or other expenses incurred by that entity in 
     relocating the operations of its Federal Government station 
     or stations from one or more radio spectrum frequencies to 
     any other frequency or frequencies. Any such reimbursement 
     shall be deposited in the account of such Federal entity in 
     the Treasury of the United States. Funds deposited according 
     to this section shall be available, without appropriation or 
     fiscal year limitation, only for the
      operations of the Federal entity for which such funds were 
     deposited under this section.
       ``(2) Process for relocation.--Any person seeking to 
     relocate a Federal Government station that has been assigned 
     a frequently within a band allocated for mixed Federal and 
     non-Federal use may submit a petition for such relocation to 
     NTIA. The NTIA shall limit the Federal Government station's 
     operating license to secondary status when the following 
     requirements are met--
       ``(A) the person seeking relocation of the Federal 
     Government station has guaranteed reimbursement through money 
     or in-kind payment of all relocation costs incurred by the 
     Federal entity, including all engineering, equipment, site 
     acquisition and construction, and regulatory fee costs;
       ``(B) the person seeking relocation completes all 
     activities necessary for implementing the relocation, 
     including construction of replacement facilities (if 
     necessary and appropriate) and identifying and obtaining on 
     the Federal entity's behalf new frequencies for use by the 
     relocated Federal Government station (where such station is 
     not relocating to spectrum reserved exclusively for Federal 
     use); and
       ``(C) any necessary replacement facilities, equipment 
     modifications, or other changes have been implemented and 
     tested to ensure that the Federal Government station is able 
     to successfully accomplish its purposes.
       ``(3) Right to reclaim.--If within one year after the 
     relocation the Federal Government station demonstrates to the 
     Commission that the new facilities or spectrum are not 
     comparable to the facilities or spectrum from which the 
     Federal Government station was relocated, the person seeking 
     such relocation must take reasonable steps to remedy any 
     defects or reimburse the Federal entity for the costs of 
     returning the Federal Government station to the spectrum from 
     which such station was relocated.
       ``(g) Federal Action To Expedite Spectrum Transfer.--Any 
     Federal Government station which operates on electromagnetic 
     spectrum that has been identified for reallocation for mixed 
     Federal and non-Federal use in the Spectrum Reallocation 
     Final Report shall, to the maximum extent practicable through 
     the use of the authority granted under subsection (f) and any 
     other applicable provision of law, take action to relocate 
     its spectrum use to other frequencies that are reserved for 
     Federal use or to consolidate its spectrum use with other 
     Federal Government stations in a manner that maximizes the 
     spectrum available for non-Federal use. Notwithstanding the 
     timetable contained in the Spectrum Reallocation Final 
     Report, the President shall seek to implement the 
     reallocation of the 1710 to 1755 megahertz frequency band by 
     January 1, 2000. Subsection (c)(4) of this section shall not 
     apply to the extent that a non-Federal user seeks to relocate 
     or relocates a Federal power agency under subsection (f).
       ``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Federal entity.--The term `Federal entity' means any 
     Department, agency, or other element of the Federal 
     government that utilizes radio frequency spectrum in the 
     conduct of its authorized activities, including a Federal 
     power agency.
       ``(2) Spectrum Reallocation Final Report.--The term 
     `Spectrum Reallocation Final Report' means the report 
     submitted by the Secretary to the President and Congress in 
     compliance with the requirements of subsection (a).''.

     SEC. 5. REALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM.

       The Secretary of Commerce shall, within 9 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, prepare and submit to the 
     President and the Congress a report and timetable 
     recommending the reallocation of the three frequency bands 
     (225-400 megahertz, 3625-3650 megahertz, and 5850-5925 
     megahertz) that were discussed but not recommended for 
     reallocation in the Spectrum Reallocation Final Report. The 
     Secretary shall consult with the Federal Communications 
     Commission and other Federal agencies in the preparation of 
     the report, and shall provide notice and an opportunity for 
     public comment before submitting the report and timetable 
     required by this section.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. MURRAY:
  S. 889. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Wolf Gang II, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.

                 jones act waiver for ``wolf gang ii''

 Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that 
grants a Jones Act waiver to the vessel Wolf Gang II. This vessel is 
owned by Robert L. Wolf, a Washington State resident who, after 30 
years of service, retired in 1992 as a colonel in the U.S. Army.
  After his retirement, Wolf decided to operate a charter boat business 
on Puget Sound and bought Wolf Gang II, a 1985 Bayliner 4518 
motoryacht. Although Wolf can document the boat was built in the United 
States, he cannot verify all of the boat's previous owners were U.S. 
citizens. As a result, Wolf's boat fails to meet all of the 
requirements in the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, and he is unable to gain 
certification for coastwise trade.
  I understand how frustrating this situation is for Mr. Wolf. He 
simply wants to run a charter boat business in the beautiful waters of 
Puget Sound, and he has waited 3 years for an exemption from the 
unintended consequences of the Jones Act. My bill addresses this 
complication and waives the Jones Act requirements so that Mr. Wolf can 
begin operating his charter business this year. I look forward to swift 
passage of this legislation, and I expect to see Barnacle Bob's Cruises 
operating soon.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Simon, Mrs. Feinstein, 
        Mr. Bradley, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 890. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to 
gun free schools, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

                 the gun-free school zones act of 1995

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with my colleagues Senators Specter, Simon, 
Feinstein, Bradley, Lautenberg, Chafee, and Kerrey, we rise today to 
introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. This common-sense 
measure, which replaces the original Gun Free School Zones Act, is 
needed to send a strong message to teachers, State law enforcement 
officers and State prosecutors: the Federal Government stands behind 
you and will support you in getting guns out of our school grounds.
  Let me begin by reminding you that the original version of this bill 
passed by unanimous consent in 1990. The measure was kept in conference 
where any one member's objection could have struck the bill. That 
conference was attended by the senior members of the Judiciary 
Committee, among them Senators Biden, Hatch, Thurmond, Simpson, and 
Kennedy. It was signed into law by then-President Bush. It is a 
[[Page S7920]] measure that was supported by all of us. And we should 
continue to support it.
  But in April, a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down the 
original Gun-Free School Zones Act in the case of United States versus 
Lopez. It did so on the grounds that the commerce clause of the 
Constitution did not support the act. As long as we can address the 
Supreme Court's concerns, there is no reason why the decision should 
alter the support this bill had in 1990.
  The original act made it a Federal crime to knowingly bring a gun 
within 1,000 feet of a school or to fire a gun in these zones, with 
carefully crafted exceptions. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 
does exactly what the old act did. However, it adds a requirement that 
the prosecutor prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in 
or affected interstate or foreign commerce.
  That is the only change to the legislative language of the original 
bill. The only change. We place only a minor burden on prosecutors 
while simply and plainly assuring the constitutionality of the act.
  The goal of this bill is simple: to heed the Supreme Court's decision 
regarding Federal power and yet to continue the fight against school 
violence. The Lopez decision cannot be used as an excuse for 
complacency.
  Mr. President, this bill is a practical approach to the national 
epidemic of gun violence plaguing our education system. In 1990, the 
Centers For Disease Control found that 1 in 20 students carried a gun 
in a 30-day period. Three years later, it was 1 in 12. Even worse, the 
National Education Association estimates that 100,000 kids bring guns 
to school every day. How can Congress turn its back on our children 
when their safety is being threatened on a daily basis?
  My home State, Wisconsin, is not immune to this wave of violence. 
According to Gerald Mourning, the former director of school safety for 
Milwaukee, ``[K]ids who did their fighting with their fists, and 
perhaps knives, are now settling their arguments with guns.'' In the 
1993-94 school year half of the students expelled from the Milwaukee 
Public Schools were thrown out for bringing a gun to school. In Dane 
County, WI, the number of juvenile weapons offenses tripled--from 75 in 
1989 to 220 in 1993.
  The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 is a simple, straightforward, 
effective and construction approach to this problem. In the Lopez 
decision, the Supreme Court held that the original act exceeded 
Congress' commerce clause power because it did not adequately tie guns 
found in school zones to interstate commerce. Much as I disagree with 
the 5 to 4 decision and strongly agree with the dissenters--Justices 
Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg--our new legislation will clearly 
pass muster under the majority's Lopez test. By requiring that the 
prosecutor prove that the gun brought to school ``moved in or affected 
interstate commerce,'' the act is a clear exercise of Congress' 
unquestioned power to regulate interstate activities. In fact, the 
Lopez decision itself suggested that requiring an explicit connection 
between the gun and interstate commerce in each prosecution would 
assure the constitutionality of the act.
  Mr. President, there is no doubt that the guns brought to schools are 
part of a interstate problem. After all, almost every gun is made with 
raw material from one State, assembled in a second State, and 
transported to the school yards of yet another State. One 14-year-old 
in a Madison, WI, gang told the Wisconsin State Journal that the older 
leaders of his gang brought carloads of guns from Chicago to Madison to 
pass out to the younger gang members to take to school. In short, this 
act regulates a national, interstate problem. Numerous Supreme Court 
cases have upheld similar regulations.
  When the act was first passed, less than a dozen States had laws 
dealing with guns on school grounds. Now, more than 40 have such 
legislation. Our original Federal law served as an example and a spur 
to these State laws, and all of us in Congress should be proud of that. 
Their presence, however, does not eradicate the need for a Federal law.
  In light of these State laws, a few of my colleagues have asked me 
why we need a Federal statute. The answer is simple. Some States still 
do not have State Gun-Free School Zones Acts; others simply have laws 
that supplement the Federal statute; still more have laws that are 
weaker than the Federal law. Alabama, for example, only prohibits 
bringing a gun to a public school with the intent to cause bodily harm. 
That means you can bring a gun to school, frighten and disrupt 
everyone, but still get off because you did not intend to cause injury. 
And in Alabama you can bring a gun to private school without any 
worries. That is unacceptable. With a Federal law, we can fill in these 
loopholes. And where there are not State laws, we can fill in the even 
larger gaps. In short, the Gun-Free School Zones Act gives prosecutors 
the flexibility to bring violators to justice under either State or 
Federal statutes, whichever is appropriate--or tougher.
  Mr. President, Congress cannot ignore the epidemic of school 
violence. The epidemic is undermining our educational system and 
threatens to cripple our Nation's competitiveness. It is turning our 
schoolyards into sanctuaries for armed criminals and drug gangs. We 
have repeatedly recognized that our Nation's classrooms deserve special 
protection and attention from the Federal Government. Gun-Free school 
zones are not a panacea, to be sure, but they are an important step 
toward fighting gun violence and keeping our teachers and children 
safe.
  Five years ago we all agreed unanimously on this bill. It was 
sensible then, and it is sensible now.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Gun-Free School Zones Act 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 890

       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 ``Gun-Free School Zones Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

       Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that--
       ``(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, 
     is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
       ``(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the 
     interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
       ``(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate 
     commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and 
     around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both 
     the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives and 
     the Judiciary Committee of the Senate;
       ``(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, 
     its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from 
     which they are made have considerably moved in interstate 
     commerce;
       ``(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, 
     ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to 
     or through certain parts of the country due to concern about 
     violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to 
     send their children to school for the same reason;
       ``(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has 
     resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our 
     country;
       ``(G) this decline in the quality of education has an 
     adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign 
     commerce of the United States;
       ``(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost 
     impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves; even 
     States, localities, and school systems that have made strong 
     efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find 
     their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or 
     inability of other States or localities to take strong 
     measures; and
       ``(I) Congress has power, under the interstate commerce 
     clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact 
     measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation's 
     schools by enactment of this subsection.
       ``(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly 
     to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise 
     affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the 
     individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a 
     school zone.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession of 
     a firearm--
       ``(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
       ``(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed 
     to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or 
     a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the 
     State or political subdivision requires that, before an 
     individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement 
     authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that 
     the individual is qualified under law to receive the 
     license; [[Page S7921]] 
       ``(iii) which is--
       ``(I) not loaded; and
       ``(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack 
     which is on a motor vehicle;
       ``(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a 
     school in the school zone;
       ``(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract 
     entered into between a school in the school zone and the 
     individual or an employer of the individual;
       ``(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her 
     official capacity; or
       ``(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual 
     while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining 
     access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the 
     entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall 
     be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless 
     disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt 
     to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise 
     affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the 
     person knows is a school zone.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the discharge of 
     a firearm--
       ``(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
       ``(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the 
     school zone, by an individual who is participating in the 
     program;
       ``(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract 
     entered into between a school in a school zone and the 
     individual or an employer of the individual; or
       ``(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her 
     official capacity.
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as 
     preempting or preventing a State or local government from 
     enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as 
     provided in this subsection.''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor 
of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1995.
  This bill makes it a criminal offense to knowingly bring a gun or 
fire a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. The penalty for violating the 
law would be up to 5 years in prison or a fine of $5,000.
  Mr. President, I believe that this bill is critical to protect the 
sanctity of our schools and the safety of our students.
  In 1993, the Centers for Disease Control found that 1 in 12 students 
carried a gun to school within a 30-day period.
  Each day, an estimated 135,000 pack a gun with their books on their 
way to school.
  At a time when guns are becoming more and more prevalent on 
neighborhood streets, we cannot simply stand by and allow our 
playgrounds to become battlegrounds. We cannot expect our students to 
thrive in an atmosphere where they must fear for their lives and for 
their safety.
  In 1990, Congress passed the original Gun Free Schools Act with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. As many of you know, a sharply divided 
Supreme Court recently invalidated that bill, saying that it exceeded 
congressional power.
  I personally disagreed with the Supreme Court decision, and signed an 
amicus brief supporting its validity. But that is not the issue before 
us today. Today, the issue is the safety of our children.
  The 1995 act ensures the constitutionality of the Gun Free Schools 
Act by requiring the prosecutor to prove as part of each prosecution 
that the gun moved in, or affected, interstate commerce. That provision 
will place only a small burden on prosecutors and will ensure our power 
to keep America's schools safe.
  Mr. President, this bill has the support of the law enforcement and 
education communities.
  It has been endorsed by the National Education Association, the 
American Association of School Administrators, the National School 
Boards Association, the National Association of Elementary School 
Principals, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
  Certainly this bill is not a panacea, but it is a worthwhile attempt 
to keep our children away from the dangers of guns and violence.
  Mr. President, the National Rifle Association likes to say that guns 
don't kill; people do. But the gun statistics I've seen belie their 
contentions.
  Just consider these numbers.
  In 1992, handguns killed 33 people in Great Britain, 36 in Sweden, 97 
in Switzerland, 60 in Japan, 13 in Australia, 128 in Canada, and 13,220 
in the United States.
  The problem, Mr. President, isn't that we have more people. It's that 
we have more guns.
  We need to fight back the wave of gun violence that's overtaking our 
streets and neighborhoods once and for all. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to support this worthy bill and to help protect 
our children and our teachers from the dangers of violence.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 891. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to convey certain 
real property at Fort Ord, CA, to the city of Seaside, CA, in order to 
foster the economic development of the city, which has been adversely 
impacted by the closure of Fort Ord; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.

                THE FORT ORD CLOSURE IMPACT ACT OF 1995

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I introduce important legislation 
to convey surplus real property at the former Fort Ord Army reservation 
to the city of Seaside, CA. The sale of this property, which includes 
two golf courses and surrounding property, is in accordance with the 
reuse plan prepared by the Fort Ord Reuse Authority. This legislation 
enjoys strong community support. An identical bill has been introduced 
in the House of Representatives by Congressman Sam Farr.
  This legislation would help implement the 1993 recommendation of the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. In the Commission's 
1993 report to the President, it made specific recommendations for the 
disposal of Army property. These recommendations balanced the need for 
property reuse with the Army's legitimate need to support the military 
personnel remaining on the Monterey Peninsula.
  Specifically, the Commission directed the Department to dispose of 
all property, including the golf courses, not required to support the 
Presidio of Monterey and the Naval Postgraduate School. Accordingly, in 
1993, the Acting Secretary of the Army decided to sell the two Fort Ord 
golf courses to the city of Seaside, CA.
  Unfortunately, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act does not 
permit the Commission to consider the nonappropriated fund revenue 
needs which are supported by the golf course revenues. This legislation 
addresses this problem by allowing funds received by the Army from the 
sale of golf courses to be deposited into the Army's morale, welfare, 
and recreation account.
  This legislation conveys approximately 477 acres, which consist of 
the two Fort Ord golf courses, Black Horse and Bayonet, and neighboring 
the surplus housing facilities. This property has been screened through 
the Pryor process established in the fiscal year 1994 Defense 
Authorization Act.
  Importantly, this legislation requires the city of Seaside to pay 
fair market value for the property. I want to repeat that point: this 
is not a giveaway program; the city of Seaside is required to pay full 
market value. The proceeds from the sale of the golf course will be 
deposited in the Department of the Army's morale, welfare, and 
recreation fund, and the proceeds from the housing sale will be 
deposited in the BRAC account.
  This legislation is another important step in implementing the highly 
successful Fort Ord Reuse Plan. By enacting this legislation, the 
Congress will help implement the BRAC Commission's 1993 recommendations 
and simultaneously foster economic development in the city of Seaside.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 891

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

     SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Conveyance Required.--The Secretary of the Army shall 
     convey to the City of Seaside, California (in this section 
     referred to as the ``City''), all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to a parcel of real property 
     (including improvements thereon) consisting of approximately 
     477 acres located in Monterey County, California, and 
     comprising a portion of the former Fort Ord Military Complex. 
     The real property to be conveyed to the City includes the two 
     Fort Ord Golf Courses, Black Horse and Bayonet, and the Hayes 
     Housing Facilities.
       (b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance of 
     the real property and improvements under subsection (a), the 
     City shall pay to the United States an amount equal to the 
     fair market value of the property to be conveyed, as 
     determined by the Secretary under such terms and conditions 
     as are determined to be fair and equitable to both parties.
       (c) Use and Deposit of Proceeds.--(1) From the funds paid 
     by the City under subsection (b), the Secretary shall deposit 
     in the [[Page S7922]] Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Fund 
     Account of the Department of the Army an amount equal to the 
     portion of such funds corresponding to the fair market value 
     of the two Fort Ord Golf Courses conveyed under subsection 
     (a), as established under subsection (b).
       (2) The Secretary shall deposit the balance of the funds 
     paid by the City under subjection (b), after deducting the 
     amount deposited under paragraph (1), in the Department of 
     Defense Base Closure Account 1990.
       (d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property (including improvements 
     thereon) to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be 
     determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary and the 
     City. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the City.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under this section as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Coats, Mr. McConnell, 
        Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Nickles):
  S. 892. A bill to amend section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, 
to punish transmission by computer of indecent material to minors; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.

    the protection of children from computer pornography act of 1995

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Protection 
of Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995. I believe this bill 
would provide children with the strongest possible protection from 
computer pornography. I would like to thank the majority leader for his 
crucial support of this important piece of legislation. Currently, 
child molesters and sexual predators use computer networks to locate 
children and try to entice them into illicit sexual relationships. 
Accordingly, my bill would make it a crime to knowingly or recklessly 
transmit indecent pornographic materials to children over computer 
networks. Some so-called access providers facilitate this by refusing 
to take action against child molesters, even after other computer users 
have complained. So, my bill would make it a crime for access providers 
who are aware of this sort of activity to permit it to continue.
  Mr. President, I have carefully drafted this bill so that it will 
withstand the inevitable court challenge. This bill focuses only on 
protecting children from material which the Supreme Court has 
repeatedly stated is harmful to children. The Protection of Children 
from Computer Pornography Act of 1995 would not tell any adult what 
type of computerized material they may view or obtain.
  Finally, Mr. President, due to time constraints, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of my remarks be printed into the Record.

Analysis of the Protection of Children From Indecent Pornography Act of 
                                  1995

       At the outset, this initiative, which amends 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1464 (1984), defines several technical terms. For 
     ``remote computer facility'' and ``electronic communications 
     service,'' the definitions used in the ``Protection of 
     Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995'' are taken 
     from existing sections of the criminal code. Because it was 
     unclear whether the terms ``remote computer service'' and/or 
     ``electronic communications service'' would include an 
     electronic bulletin board, the Grassley initiative creates a 
     specific definition for electronic bulletin board systems. 
     This was done to avoid the possibility that electronic 
     bulletin boards, some of which specialize in providing 
     pornographic materials, would be exempt from the bill.
       Substantively, this creates two distinct criminal offenses. 
     First, it is a crime to knowingly or recklessly transmit 
     indecent pornography to minors. The Grassley bill deals 
     exclusively with indecent pornography provided to children 
     because there are already federal laws against providing 
     obscene material and child pornography to anyone, including 
     children. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252 (Supp. 1994); 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1465 (Supp. 1995). The definition of indecent material 
     has been established by the Supreme Court and is discussed 
     below.
       Second, the bill would make it a crime for an on-line 
     service which permits users to access the Internet or 
     electronic bulletin board to willfully permit an audit to 
     transmit indecent pornography to a minor. In the criminal 
     law, ``willful'' has a specific meaning which is uniquely 
     suited to on-line access providers. See ``Manual of Modern 
     Criminal Jury Instructions for the Ninth Circuit'' Sec. 5.05 
     (West 1989). A willfulness standard is more appropriate for 
     on-line service providers because those services can only 
     monitor customer communications in narrow circumstances, or 
     face criminal prosecution for invasion of privacy. See 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. 2510 (Supp. 1995).
       To prove a violation under the bill for permitting adults 
     to transmit indecent material to children, the Justice 
     Department would have to show that the access provider was 
     actually aware that a particular recipient was a child and 
     that the access provider's customers were using the on-line 
     service to transmit indecent material to minors. Importantly, 
     although this burden of proof appears to be high, it could 
     easily be met by prosecutors, given the current practice.

               legal background: the concept of indecency

       Basically, there are three categories of sexually explicit 
     expression which are subject to congressional regulation 
     notwithstanding the First Amendment. See New York v. Ferber, 
     458 U.S. 747 (1982); Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 
     (1973). The Grassley initiative focuses exclusively on 
     indecent material because existing federal laws largely cover 
     the transmission of obscene and child pornographic material 
     in interstate commerce. See U.S.C. Sec. 2252 (Supp. 1995); 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1465 (Supp. 1995); U.S.C. Sec. 1462 (Supp. 1995).
       For present purposes, indecent material can be defined as 
     depictions of sexual activity or sexual organs which are 
     patently offensive according to contemporary community 
     standards. See FCC v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726, 732 (1978); 
     Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 10 F.3d 812 (D.C. Cir. 
     1993), rehearing en banc granted, 15 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 
     1994); Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 932 F.2d 1504 
     (D.C. Cir. 1991). This test is basically the second prong of 
     the ``Miller Test.'' 413 U.S. 24-25. It is important to note 
     that while indecent material is not constitutionally 
     protected for children, indecency is protested for and among 
     adults. Thus, laws intended to protect children must not 
     ``reduce the adult population . . . [to viewing] . . . only 
     what is acceptable to children.'' Butler v. Michigan, 352 
     U.S. 380, 383 (1957). While some court have applied the 
     indecency in slightly different ways depending on the medium, 
     (see Pacifica, supra; Sable Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 492 
     U.S. 115 (1989)), the central purpose of the indecency 
     standard is to prohibit or to regulate the display of 
     patently offensive representations of sexually explicit 
     material which is openly available to the public. As the 
     Court stated in Pacifica, see 438 U.S. at 748-49, this means 
     a medium, like computers, which has ``a uniquely pervasive 
     presence in the lives of all Americans'' and is ``uniquely 
     accessible to children'' can be regulated to protect 
     children.
       That is precisely what the ``Protection of Children from 
     Computer Pornography'' initiative would do--prohibit 
     transmission of computerized indecent pornography to children 
     while permitting adults to access otherwise constutitionally 
     protected material.
       In some respects indecency is similar, though not 
     identical, to the concept of ``harmful to juveniles'' laws, 
     which exist in nearly every state. These laws prohibit the 
     sale (and sometimes the display) of certain sexually explicit 
     material to minors. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 
     (1968). In order to determine whether material is harmful to 
     juveniles, the material must be found to satisfy a three-part 
     test. One part of this test involves a showing that the 
     material depicts or describes sexual activity in terms 
     patently offensive according to contemporary community 
     standards for what is acceptable for children. In a sense, 
     the federal indecency standard is designed to protect 
     children from harmful depictions of sexual activity, similar 
     to the goal of the harmful to juveniles test.
       Traditionally, the federal government has not regulated 
     extensively to protect children from inappropriate exposure 
     to pornography because it is primarily a matter of local 
     concern. With the rise of global, international computer 
     networks, however, it has become clear that Congress has a 
     more extensive role to play in protecting children. The 
     Grassley initiative responds to this changed environment by 
     ``filing in the gaps'' created by new technology.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement 
from the Family Research Council and the bill be printed in the Record.
  It has the coauthorship of Senators Dole, Coats, McConnell, Shelby, 
and Nickles.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 892

           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 ``Protection of Children From 
     Computer Pornography Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSMISSION BY COMPUTER OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO 
                   MINORS.

       (a) Offenses.--Section 1464 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the heading by striking ``Broadcasting obscene 
     language'' and inserting ``Utterance of indecent or profane 
     language by radio communication; transmission to minor of 
     indecent material from remote computer facility, electronic 
     communications service, or electronic bulletin board 
     service'';
       (2) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting ``(a) Utterance 
     of Indecent or Profane Language by Radio Communication.--A 
     person who''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: [[Page S7923]] 
       ``(b) Transmission to Minor of Indecent Material From 
     Remote Computer Facility, Electronic Communications Service, 
     or Electronic Bulletin Board Service Provider.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--As used in this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `remote computer facility' means a facility 
     that--
       ``(i) provides to the public computer storage or processing 
     services by means of an electronic communications system; and
       ``(ii) permits a computer user to transfer electronic or 
     digital material from the facility to another computer:
       ``(B) the term `electronic communications service' means 
     any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo optical, or 
     photoelectronic system for the transmission of electronic 
     communications, and any computer facility or related 
     electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such 
     communications, that permits a computer user to transfer 
     electronic or digital material from the service to another 
     computer; and
       ``(C) the term `electronic bulletin board service' means a 
     computer system, regardless of whether operated for 
     commercial purposes, that exists primarily to provide remote 
     or on-site users with digital images, or that exists 
     primarily to permit remote or on-site users to participate in 
     or create on-line discussion groups or conferences.
       ``(2) Transmission by remote computers facility operator, 
     electronic communications service provider, or electronic 
     bulletin board service provider.--A remote computer facility 
     operator, electronic communications service provider, 
     electronic bulletin board service provider who, with 
     knowledge of the character of the material, knowingly--
       ``(A) transmits or offers or attempts to transmit from the 
     remote computer facility, electronic communications service, 
     or electronic bulletin board service provider a communication 
     that contains indecent material to a person under 18 years of 
     age; or
       ``(B) causes or allows to be transmitted from the remote 
     computer facility, electronic communications service, or 
     electronic bulletin board a communication that contains 
     indecent material to a person under 18 years of age or offers 
     or attempts to do so,

     shall be fined in accordance with this title, imprisoned not 
     more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(3) Permitting access to transmit indecent material to a 
     minor.--Any remote computer facility operator, electronic 
     communications service provider, or electronic bulletin board 
     service provider who willfully permits a person to use a 
     remote computing service, electronic communications service, 
     or electronic bulletin board service that is under the 
     control of that remote computer facility
      operator, electronic communications service provider, or 
     electronic bulletin board service provider, to knowingly 
     or recklessly transmit indecent material from another 
     remote computing service, electronic communications 
     service, or electronic bulletin board service, to a person 
     under 18 years of age, shall be fined not more than 
     $10,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The item for section 1464 in the 
     chapter analysis for chapter 71 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

``1464. Utterance of indecent or profane language by radio 
              communication; transmission to minor of indecent material 
              from remote computer facility.''.
              
                                                                    ____
                                      Family Research Council,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 1995.
     Statement of Legal Director Family Research Council
       Pursuant to your request, the Family Research Council has 
     reviewed the constitutionality of the ``Protection of 
     Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995.'' It is our 
     opinion that the Act is fully consistent with the Supreme 
     Court's indecency precedents.
       Before providing more extensive analysis, it is prudent 
     that I state my qualifications to render this opinion. I have 
     practiced in the area of pornography law and have 
     participated in extensive litigation before the Supreme 
     Court, federal courts of appeal, and state courts on 
     pornography-related controversies. I am thus very familiar 
     with the manner in which courts have treated statutes aimed 
     at regulating pornographic materials.
       The seminal cases applicable to the Act are FCC v. 
     Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) and Sable Communications, Inc. 
     v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989). Taken together, these cases 
     clearly and unambiguously establish the principle that 
     society may prohibit the transmission of indecent material to 
     children. As the Act only attempts to do that, in my view it 
     presents no serious constitutional concerns.
       Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.
                                        Cathleen A. Cleaver, Esq.,
                                         Director of Legal Policy.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 893. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a credit for charitable contributions, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.

              THE CHOICE IN WELFARE TAX CREDIT ACT OF 1995

 Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing the choice 
in welfare tax credit bill.
  The goal of our welfare reforms should be to continue to focus 
antipoverty efforts not just to the States but to local, private 
charities as well. With the choice in welfare tax credit, taxpayers 
would be allowed a 100 percent tax credit up to $100 per wage earner 
each year for contributions to charities engaged in antipoverty 
efforts. This would go a long way toward transferring antipoverty 
efforts from the inefficient and ineffective Federal Government to 
nonprofit charities who are more efficient and have a much better sense 
for what their local population needs.
  I have faith in the ability of people living in the communities to 
know what works best and to provide prompt, temporary assistance to 
those who need it most. The emphasis here is on temporary. Private 
charities view antipoverty assistance not as a right or a way of life 
but as a tool by which to change behavior and encourage personal 
responsibility for one's own life.
  I want to give the people that pay the bills and provide the services 
in the local community a much larger role in how poverty relief efforts 
are structured. This bill would also empower taxpayers to have some 
direct influence on how their tax dollars are spent. In fact, it will 
expand the number of people donating to charities. Currently, about 28 
percent of taxpayers take the tax deduction for charitable 
contributions. This bill will allow all taxpayers, whether they itemize 
or not, to receive a credit for contributing. Inspiring more taxpayers 
to contribute to local charities will make people more aware of 
antipoverty efforts in their community, and may inspire them to 
volunteer their time as well.
  So I want to encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this 
bill, and lend their support to an idea that truly returns power to the 
individual taxpayer and the community in which they live.
  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. 893

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN 
                   PRIVATE CHARITIES PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THE 
                   POOR.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 22 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 23. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, there 
     shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified 
     charitable contributions which are paid by the taxpayer 
     during the taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The credit allowed by subsection (a) for 
     the taxable year shall not exceed $100 ($200 in the case of a 
     joint return).
       ``(c) Qualified Charitable Contribution.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `qualified charitable contribution' 
     means any charitable contribution (as defined in section 
     170(c)) made in cash to a qualified charity but only if the 
     amount of each such contribution, and the recipient thereof, 
     are identified on the return for the taxable year during 
     which such contribution is made.
       ``(d) Qualified Charity.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `qualified charity' means, with respect to the taxpayer, any 
     organization described in section 501(c)(3) and exempt from 
     tax under section 501(a)--
       ``(A) which is certified by the Secretary as meeting the 
     requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3),
       ``(B) which is organized under the laws of the United 
     States or of any State in which the organization is qualified 
     to operate, and
       ``(C) which is required, or elects to be treated as being 
     required, to file returns under section 6033.
       ``(2) Charity must primarily assist the poor.--An 
     organization meets the requirements of this paragraph only if 
     the predominant activity of such organization is the 
     provision of services to individuals whose annual incomes 
     generally do not exceed 150 percent of the official poverty 
     line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget).
       ``(3) Minimum expenditure requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--An organization meets the requirements 
     of this paragraph only if the Secretary reasonably expects 
     that the [[Page S7924]] annual exempt purpose expenditures of 
     such organization will not be less than 70 percent of the 
     annual aggregate expenditures of such organization.
       ``(B) Exempt purpose expenditure.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `exempt purpose expenditure' 
     means any expenditure to carry out the activity referred to 
     in paragraph (2).
       ``(ii) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include--

       ``(I) any administrative expense,
       ``(II) any expense for the purpose of influencing 
     legislation (as defined in section 4911(d)),
       ``(III) any expense primarily for the purpose of 
     fundraising, and
       ``(IV) any expense for litigation on behalf of any 
     individual referred to in paragraph (2).

       ``(e) Time When Contributions Deemed Made.--For purposes of 
     this section, at the election of the taxpayer, a contribution 
     which is made not later than the time prescribed by law for 
     filing the return for the taxable year (not including 
     extensions thereof) shall be treated as made on the last day 
     of such taxable year.
       ``(f) Coordination With Deduction for Charitable 
     Contributions.--
       ``(1) Credit in lieu of deduction.--The credit provided by 
     subsection (a) for any qualified charitable contribution 
     shall be in lieu of any deduction otherwise allowable under 
     this chapter for such contribution.
       ``(2) Election to have section not apply.--A taxpayer may 
     elect for any taxable year to have this section not apply.''
       (b) Qualified Charities Required To Provide Copies of 
     Annual Return.--Subsection (e) of section 6104 of such Code 
     (relating to public inspection of certain annual returns and 
     applications for exemption) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Charities receiving creditable contributions required 
     to provide copies of annual return.--
       ``(A) In general.--Every qualified charity (as defined in 
     section 23(d)) shall, upon request of an individual made at 
     an office where such organization's annual return filed under 
     section 6033 is required under paragraph (1) to be available 
     for inspection, provide a copy of such return to such 
     individual without charge other than a reasonable fee for any 
     reproduction and mailing costs. If the request is made in 
     person, such copies shall be provided immediately and, if 
     made other than in person, shall be provided within 30 days.
       ``(B) Period of availability.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply 
     only during the 3-year period beginning on the filing date 
     (as defined in paragraph (1)(D) of the return requested).''
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 22 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 23. Credit for certain charitable contributions.''

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after the 90th day after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years ending 
     after such date.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CERTAIN CHANGES MADE IN THE EARNED INCOME 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) Repeal of Credit for Individuals Without Children.--
     Subparagraph (A) of section 32(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining eligible individual) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible individual' means any 
     individual who has a qualifying child for the taxable year.''
       (b) Repeal of Increases in Amount of Credit.--
       (1) Subsection (b) of section 32 of such Code is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Percentages.--
       ``(1) In general.--The credit percentage and the phaseout 
     percentage shall be determined as follows:

                                                                        
                                            The credit                  
 ``In the case of an eligible individual    percentage     The phaseout 
                  with:                        is:        percentage is:
                                                                        
1 qualifying child......................  34...........       15.98     
2 or more qualifying children...........  36...........       20.22     
                                                                        

       
       ``(2) Amounts.--The earned income amount and the phaseout 
     amount shall be determined as follows:

                                                                        
                                            The earned                  
 ``In the case of an eligible individual  income amount    The phaseout 
                  with:                        is:          amount is:  
                                                                        
1 qualifying child......................  $6,000.......     $11,000
```