S7918 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 1995

voting rights for Wyoming women and in

celebrating the 75th anniversary of the 19th

Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote

to all women in the United States.

‘‘Section 2. That the Secretary of State of

Wyoming transmit copies of this resolution

to the President of the United States, to the

President of the Senate and the Speaker of

the House of Representatives of the United

States Congress and to the Wyoming Congressional Delegation.’’

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND

JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

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

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.

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.

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.

By Mrs. BOXER:

S. 891. A bill to require the Secretary of

the Army to convey certain real property at

Ford Ord, California, to the City of Seaside,

California, 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.

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.

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.

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED

fBy 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;
June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7919

(8) a significant portion of the reallocated

spectrum will not yet be assigned to nongovernmental 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 nonFederal 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
S7920 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 1995

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 GunFree 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;
June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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
S7922 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 1995

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. § 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. § 2252 (Supp.

1994); 18 U.S.C. § 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’’

§ 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. § 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.

§ 2252 (Supp. 1995); U.S.C. § 1465 (Supp. 1995);

U.S.C. §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:
June 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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 onsite 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
S7924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 1995

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:

‘‘In the case of an

eligible individual

with:

The credit

percentage

is:

The phaseout 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:

‘‘In the case of an

eligible individual

with:

The

earned in- come amount is:

The phaseout amount is:

1 qualifying child ..... $6,000 .......... $11,000

2 or more qualifying

children ................ $8,425 .......... $11,000.’’

(2) Paragraph (1) of section 32(i) of such

Code is amended by striking ‘‘subsection

(b)(2)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (b)(2)’’.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments

made by this section shall apply to taxable

years beginning after December 31, 1995, except that adjustments shall be made under

section 32(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of

1986 to the section 32(b)(2) of such Code (as

amended by this section) for such taxable

years.∑

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 91

At the request of Mr. COVERDELL, the

name of the Senator from Oklahoma

[Mr. NICKLES] was added as a cosponsor

of S. 91, a bill to delay enforcement of

the National Voter Registration Act of

1993 until such time as Congress appropriates funds to implement such Act.

S. 234

At the request of Mr. CAMPBELL, the

names of the Senator from Kansas [Mr.

DOLE] and the Senator from Oklahoma

[Mr. INHOFE] were added as cosponsors

of S. 234, a bill to amend title 23,

United States Code, to exempt a State

from certain penalties for failing to

meet requirements relating to motorcycle helmet laws if the State has in

effect a motorcycle safety program,

and to delay the effective date of certain penalties for States that fail to

meet certain requirements for motorcycle safety laws, and for other purposes.

S. 426

At the request of Mr. SARBANES, the

names of the Senator from Connecticut

[Mr. LIEBERMAN] and the Senator from

Rhode Island [Mr. PELL] were added as

cosponsors of S. 426, a bill to authorize

the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to establish a memorial to Martin Luther

King, Jr., in the District of Columbia,

and for other purposes.

S. 581

At the request of Mr. FAIRCLOTH, the

name of the Senator from Utah [Mr.

HATCH] was added as a cosponsor of S.

581, a bill to amend the National Labor

Relations Act and the Railway Labor

Act to repeal those provisions of Federal law that require employees to pay

union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and for other purposes.

S. 603

At the request of Mr. FAIRCLOTH, the

name of the Senator from Indiana [Mr.

COATS] was added as a cosponsor of S.

603, a bill to nullify an Executive order

that prohibits Federal contracts with

companies that hire permanent replacements for striking employees, and

for other purposes.

S. 735

At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, her

name was added as a cosponsor of S.

735, a bill to prevent and punish acts of

terrorism, and for other purposes.

S. 768

At the request of Mr. GORTON, the

name of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. PRESSLER] was added as a cosponsor of S. 768, a bill to amend the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 to reauthorize the act, and for other purposes.

S. 773

At the request of Mrs. KASSEBAUM,

the names of the Senator from Texas

[Mrs. HUTCHISON], the Senator from

Mississippi [Mr. LOTT], and the Senator

from Kansas [Mr. DOLE] were added as

cosponsors of S. 773, a bill to amend the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

to provide for improvements in the

process of approving and using animal

drugs, and for other purposes.

S. 838

At the request of Mr. D’AMATO, the

name of the Senator from Kentucky

[Mr. MCCONNEL] was added as a cosponsor of S. 838, a bill to provide for additional radio broadcasting to Iran by

the United States.

S. 874

At the request of Mr. GRAMS, the

name of the Senator from Colorado

[Mr. BROWN] was added as a cosponsor

of S. 874, a bill to provide for the minting and circulation of $1 coins, and for

other purposes.

S. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 11

At the request of Ms. SNOWE, the

names of the Senator from Iowa [Mr.

HARKIN], the Senator from Maryland

[Ms. MIKULSKI], the Senator from New

Jersey [Mr. LAUTENBERG], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SPECTER]

were added as cosponsors of Senate

Concurrent Resolution 11, a concurrent

resolution supporting a resolution to

the longstanding dispute regarding Cyprus.

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

fTHE COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM

PREVENTION ACT OF 1995

HATCH AMENDMENT NO. 1252

Mr. HATCH proposed an amendment

to amendment No. 1199 proposed by Mr.

DOLE to the bill (S. 735) to prevent and

punish acts of terrorism, and for other

purposes; as follows: