Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today Senator Shelby and I are introducing the Private Securities Enforcement Improvement Act of 1995 to improve the Federal securities litigation process. I believe our legislation provides a balance between protecting the rights of defrauded investors and providing relief to honest companies who may find themselves the target of a frivolous lawsuit. I have serious concerns that in a rush to judgment Congress may err too far and end up curtailing suits that have merit and thus undermine the American public's confidence in the integrity of our financial markets. There is no greater harm Congress could do to the capital markets. The issue of securities litigation reform came to my attention several years ago when a constituent was defrauded in a real estate limited partnership. On numerous occasions he raised concerns over the time periods individuals had to file securities lawsuits. Little could he have known that Lampf case that the statute of limitations in a major section of securities law would be shortened to 1 year after discovery or 3 years after the fraud actually took place--whichever came first. I do not believe the Court felt this was the appropriate amount of time to uncover financial fraud but was all they could provide in a strict interpretation of the statute. To make matters worse, the Court applied the shortened time period retroactively, thereby imperiling hundreds of legitimate fraud cases--many of which were in the midst of years of litigation. In 1992, we were successful in fixing the retroactive cases by applying the statute of limitations that was applicable when the cases were filed. Unfortunately, we were not able to fix the standard prospectively. The legislation we are introducing today would help rectify this problem by establishing a statute of limitations of 2 years after discovering the fraud or 5 years after the fraud took place. I find it hard to believe reasonable people could object to such a timetable. Our experience with financial crooks like Charlie Keating have demonstrated how easy it is to conceal financial crimes. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that financial crimes are on the decline. In fact, the evidence shows financial crimes are escalating. This legislation is designed to improve private securities litigation in a number of ways: eliminating certain abusive litigation practices; deterring and providing sanctions against the filing of meritless cases; instituting procedural reforms to screen out weak cases nearly in the judicial process and enhancing the detection of financial fraud. These measures are carefully crafted so as not to discourage meritorious suits yet attack several areas of potential abuse. As Securities and Exchange Chairman Arthur Levitt recently noted that ``[p]rivate securities litigation plays a prominent role in checking the market excesses. To change that, we would need to recalibrate our entire system checks and balances.'' The fundamental purpose of Federal securities laws is to provide investor protection and thereby foster investor confidence and encourage the investment necessary for capital formation, economic growth and job creation. Our system of private litigation under the Federal securities laws has functioned effectively as a necessary and essential supplement to the enforcement program of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The provisions of this bill should ensure that defrauded investors can recover their damages, that criminals are brought to justice, and that corporations are protected from unwarranted litigation in a system that is quicker, less costly and more fair to all concerned. Mr. President, I look forward to passing legislation that will correct some of the abuses present in the current securities litigation system and address the issues raised by Supreme Court rulings in legislation that President Clinton can sign.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of Nevada's outstanding citizens, who, through a courageous act has given another person a chance to live. It is my privilege today to honor a man from Carson City, Paul Saucedo. In 1989, Paul was diagnosed with Hepatitis C he believes was contracted from a blood transfusion. His condition began to deteriorate and soon, the disease had scarred his liver so badly he began to suffer from increased pain and mental confusion. In 1994, Paul was hospitalized a half-a-dozen times. Paul soon had to retire as an engineer at the Nevada Department of Transportation, because he was too tired during his illness to do much of anything. Last summer, he was given a 30 percent chance of survival. A liver transplant was needed to save Paul's life. In August of last year, California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco contacted Paul and informed him a liver was available. When both Paul and his wife learned of a baby girl in the hospital that also needed a liver, Paul decided to give it to the little girl. Even though doctors gave him little chance of surviving another year, Paul never expressed regret about passing the first donated liver to the little girl. Another liver was finally available in early February and Paul underwent a successful 15 hour transplant surgery. Paul, is now at his home in Carson City doing well. Through his story, Paul has sparked interest in the donor program and blood drives in northern Nevada. Paul could have chosen to take the first donated liver to save his own life. Instead, he chose to put a little girl's life ahead of his own. Paul's altruism serves as an inspiration to all of us. I wish him will in the future and commend him for his heroic act.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senator Shelby, Senator Mack, and Senator D'Amato to reduce the paperwork burden for our Nation's financial services companies. I believe we can streamline paperwork burdens and at the same time improve the usefulness of disclosures to consumers. Anyone who has recently gone through financing or refinancing a mortgage knows that too much paperwork can overwhelm consumers and defeat the purpose of these consumer disclosures. I applaud the Clinton administration's efforts at regulatory relief and believe this bill will complement their efforts. For instance, the administration is expected to shortly release their revision of the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA], that should address many of the concerns we have over the application of the act. Once we have the opportunity to review the proposed revision, I expect we will make changes to the CRA provisions in this legislation. We all support the goals of CRA but feel its implementation can be improved. I have heard from smalltown Nevada bankers who have to take personnel away from providing loans in order to meet paperwork requirements. I believe there are better ways to achieve the goals of CRA that don't entail the diversion of valuable resources. I look forward to working with the administration in crafting an effective CRA mechanism. I believe this bill builds on the success of efforts last year to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. In the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act, Public Law 103-325, a number of paperwork burdens were streamlined. I was particularly proud of the reforms we accomplished in the area of currency transaction reports [CTR's]. The law requires a 30-percent reduction in the number of CTR's financial institutions must file while, at the same time, improving law enforcement's ability to track down money launderers. These kinds of reforms are critical if we are to keep American industry competitive. While I do not believe this legislation is perfect, I do believe it raises a number of areas which must be worked on and improved. The administration is aware of this need and will be working with us every step of the way. I am confident that we can craft legislation that both reduces unnecessary paperwork and improves consumer protection at the same time. That is my goal and will be my guiding principle throughout this process. The thrust of this legislation is in the right direction. I do not support all of its provisions and, in fact, have difficulty with the magnitude of some of these changes. However, I believe this legislation starts us down the path of coming up with a compromise bill which President Clinton can sign.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of Nevada's dedicated citizens, on the event of his retirement. It is my privilege to recognize the accomplishments and achievements of John Byrne, a native of Nevada, as he is retiring from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. John comes from a pioneering family in Virginia City, a small community in northern Nevada. He has played an enormous role in the restoration of Virginia City and continues to play an active role as he serves on the Governors Committee For the Restoration of Virginia City. John is also a member of the Nevada State Industrial Safety Code Revision Committee and a board member and coordinator of Construction Opportunity Trust. I know John as one of the most respected labor leaders in northern Nevada. He served as business manager and financial secretary for the local Northern Nevada International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for almost 25 years. His professional accomplishments also include his appointment in 1966 as secretary, and business representative of Northern Nevada Building Trades Council where he was reelected in 1967 and 1969. John also served an interim appointment as secretary business representative of the Honolulu Building Trades Council. John's abundant leadership capabilities have benefited many groups in the State. His many accomplishments in the community include his election to serve on the Nevada Employment Security Board of Review, where he served under numerous Governors, including myself. John is the only labor representative in Nevada to receive the Service, Integrity & Responsibility (SIR] Award which is presented by the northern Nevada chapter of the Associated General Contractors. On March 30, friends, family, union, and community members will join in honoring John, thanking him for the many contributions he has made to the community. I am disheartened that I will be unable to attend, but I would like to extend him my best wishes.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield back any time I may have remaining. (Mr. GORTON assumed the chair.)

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to focus my colleagues' attention on a subject that has consumed a good bit of my energy now for more than a decade. It is the subject of a high-level nuclear waste repository and an ill-conceived proposal by the nuclear power industry that Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the ideal place to do that. I want to further call to my colleagues' attention the front page article in the New York Times yesterday which, in my judgment, says it all. I have had it blown up here. ``Scientists Fear Atomic Explosion of Buried Waste, Debate by Researchers, Argument Strikes New Blow Against a Proposal for a Repository in Nevada.'' That does pretty well sum it up, because for the past 13 years, there has been an unremitting, relentless effort to locate a high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, assuring us in Nevada that it is perfectly safe, nothing to worry about. This article reveals that, since last summer, Department of Energy scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the most distinguished laboratories in America, have been studying a premise advanced by one of their colleagues that nuclear waste stored in a geologic repository in volcanic tuff risks ``going critical.'' That is nuclear jargon--``going critical.'' To those of us who are laymen, it means an explosion, a detonation, in which radioactive material would be scattered for miles and miles. Needless to say, the consequences of a spontaneous nuclear explosion 90 miles from the city of Las Vegas would have a devastating impact. I must say, Mr. President, I continue to be shocked and outraged that the Department of Energy and the nuclear power industry continue to force the acceptance of a dump on Nevada when it appears that their own scientists cannot reach consensus on the most fundamental safety questions related to nuclear waste. As the New York Times article points out, ``even if scientists can debunk the new argument that buried existence of so serious a dispute so late in the planning process might cripple the plan or even kill it.'' Nevadans are no strangers to the uncertainties of science when it comes to nuclear matters. I must say, the distinguished occupant of the chair and the great State that he represents are no strangers to this issue either. It has been 41 years since the first atmospheric detonation occurred at the Nevada test site outside of Las Vegas. Nevadans, Utahans, and Americans alike were assured there was absolutely no risk, no safety hazard, nothing to be concerned about. Let us in the scientific community reassure you that you have nothing to be concerned about. Mr. President, I have used this opportunity on the floor to share my own reaction. I was initially in the eighth grade at that time. Our science teachers had us go out and, using a scientific calculation after seeing that flash that was embellished in the early morning dawn and feeling the seismic impact, you could actually ascertain the distance from ground zero to where that flash was being received. We were pretty excited about it. I was 13 at the time. By the time we were in high school, it had become such a part of the southern Nevada culture that businesses, wishing to demonstrate their own patriotism, were renaming business establishments atomic this and atomic that. Some may recall there was a fashion in America, an atomic hair-do. We who were students of Las Vegas High School were so enthralled by the experience that the cover of our annual, the Wildcat Echo, had the nuclear mushroom cloud on it. We thought we were part of something that was very exciting and important to the country and that it contained no risk for us. The constituents of the distinguished occupant of the chair were told this as well. We know, decades later, that the people who were downwind--most of them, fortunately for us in Nevada, were not in Nevada; unfortunately for our sister State to the east, they were in Utah. They suffered the genetic effects, the cancer and the other serious illnesses because we were all told, and as good Americans we believed, there is absolutely no risk to health or safety. Well, fast forward, Mr. President. We are now told that burying high- level nuclear waste is absolutely safe. As I have indicated, there is a relentless drumbeat of pressure and publicity, coordinated, if you will, between the Department of Energy, which on this issue simply serves as a surrogate of a nuclear power industry. But why are the public officials in Nevada opposed to this, because is it really safe? Is it just a matter of science and nothing to be concerned about? Mr. President, if I am appearing a bit cynical, it is because that has, sadly, been my experience. My senior colleague and I, Senator Reid, have lived in southern Nevada. This has been part of our experience from the time of our youth until the time we entered public life, and now as we have service together in the U.S. Senate. Last Thursday, before this story broke, the Senate Energy Committee held a hearing. May I say to the new chairman, the distinguished chairman from Alaska, it was a very fair hearing. We in Nevada had a chance to express our view, and the Secretary of Energy and the civilian radioactive waste manager, Mr. Dreyfus, was there, and those in the nuclear power industry were there. This was last Thursday. Let me put this in context. In this debate in the scientific community in which there are three teams comprised of 10 scientists-- that is 30 scientists--they have been unable to rebut the assertion that there is genuine fear that an explosion can occur in a geologic repository. This discussion has been going on for months and months and months. I knew nothing about this discussion. Like Senator Reid, I have meetings at least monthly, probably more frequently, asking, ``What is the latest?'' ``What is happening?'' ``What are you going to do?'' My point is that as recently as this past Thursday, the nuclear power industry and its advocates repeatedly assert that there is no scientific or engineering basis holding back progress at Yucca Mountain, that all of the opposition to Yucca Mountain is purely political. Bunk. These people that have formulated this premise, which has been unable to be rebutted, are not people that have been hired by Senator Reid, myself, the Governor of Nevada, or antinuclear activists. These are people within the Department of Energy's own distinguished laboratory at Los Alamos. Not a word of this was shared with us. We learned it, as did millions of Americans, by becoming aware of the story yesterday in the New York Times and in subsequent news accounts that have followed. For 13 years, blindly they have proceeded on the premise that it has to be a deep geological burial and Yucca Mountain is the only place it has to be. I must say that some public officials from my own State came to the hearing last Thursday to say, look, maybe we ought to cop out, sell out for a few bucks and see what we can get--the so-called benefits argument. That is to their disgrace, Mr. President. There can be no compromise with the health and safety of the citizens of our State. And I must say that the nuclear power industry, in its cynicism, continues to advocate ``just negotiate for benefits; just negotiate for benefits.'' Well, the newest proposal now is that we have to have an interim storage facility; not a permanent, but an interim is what we need. And, you guessed it, the interim storage proposal, well, that should go to Nevada, too. And the premise for that is because Yucca Mountain is going to be a permanent repository, let us just have them all next door. That will require a statutory legislative change to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And, I must say, in light of this concern here, I do not know how any fair-minded Member of the U.S. Senate cannot take a look and say, ``Maybe we ought to take a little time out and take a pulse on this.'' Even before this revelation, the testimony before the committee on Thursday was that there is about a 50-50 chance of the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain ever being licensed. As I say, this most recent revelation should put that into further context. Senator Reid and I for some time, joined by our government and district political officeholders, Democrat and Republican alike, in our State, have called for an independent review, an independent review. We have been joined by the GAO, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and many, many others in the community. Secretary O'Leary has simply refused our request. We waste billions on the program--proponents of the dump and opponents of the dump agree on that--more than $4 billion. And now, Mr. President, it is time to insist upon this independent review. I do not expect Secretary O'Leary will change her position, but it will be my purpose to introduce an independent review process by legislation later this week. I thank my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Nevada. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Sunday New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the chiropractic profession which was founded on September 18, 1895, and is celebrating 100 years of providing chiropractic services to Americans across the country. The chiropractic profession was founded in Davenport, IA, when the first chiropractic adjustment was performed in an office building on a janitor named Harvey Lillard. One hundred years later, the chiropractic profession is now recognized by Congress which included chiropractic care under Medicare and authorized the commissioning of chiropractors as officers in the military. Today, the chiropractic profession is practiced by doctors throughout the world, including 50,000 chiropractic physicians throughout the United States. As the number of chiropractors continues to grow, so do the standards in chiropractic education, research, and practice. This has led to broadening acceptance of the benefits of chiropractic health care by the public and the health care community. According to health care experts, as many as 80 percent of Americans will suffer back pain at some point in their lives. Low back problems are the most common health complaints experienced by working Americans today. For this reason, every year millions of Americans choose chiropractic health care for the restoration and maintenance of their health. For many who suffer from pain, chiropractic care is a natural method of alleviation that does not require the use of drugs or surgery. Chiropractors around the country have made and continue to make a significant contribution to the health and welfare of many people whose lives would not be the same without their services. On March 18, members of the chiropractic profession will gather in Las Vegas to honor those dedicated to enhancing the quality of life for many thanks and appreciation to the devoted professionals involved in this occupation for their commitment and service. Chiropractors have made many Nevadans' lives better through their practice.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bryan pertaining to the introduction of S. 429 are located in today's Record under Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.)

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again legislation I have introduced in each of the past two Congresses, the Independent Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Act. As many of my colleagues are aware, since 1987, contrary to Nevada State law, and against the wishes of the vast majority of Nevadans, Nevada has been the sole site considered for the ultimate disposal of the United States' high-level nuclear waste. Today, in spite of the expenditure of billions of dollars, the Yucca Mountain site is no closer to accepting waste from our Nation's nuclear reactors than it was 13 years ago, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was enacted. I strongly oppose the purely political decision made by Congress in 1987 to identify Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be characterized for a permanent repository. Now that the permanent repository program is an obvious failure, with the Department of Energy saying there is no hope of opening any type of storage facility before 2010, the nuclear power industry and its allies have conceived a new strategy. Contrary to all objective scientific judgment, and general common sense, the nuclear industry's new effort is to instruct the DOE to build an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site. As offensive as the 1987 act, commonly referred to in Nevada as the ``screw Nevada bill,'' was, the new effort of the nuclear power industry is even more of an outrage to Nevadans. The nuclear power industry's newest proposal is nothing less than a direct assault on the health and safety of Nevadans. Frustrated by its inability to overcome the insurmountable safety concerns raised in relation to a permanent repository, the industry is now seeking to circumvent the objections of credible, objective scientists to a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. I am convinced, like many others, that any centralized interim storage facility will become the de facto permanent repository. Funding for an interim storage program will necessarily come at the expense of the permanent repository program. The expression ``out of sight, out of mind'' could not be truer. Once the waste is removed from the reactor sites, the nuclear industry's commitment to finding a permanent solution to the waste problem will vanish. And since it is the nuclear power industry's obsession with moving this waste off the reactor sites that drives the Federal Civilian Nuclear Waste Program, the Federal commitment to permanent storage will vanish as well. The nuclear power industry as much as concedes this--every version of their interim storage legislation I am aware of provides for licensing the interim site for 100 years, subject to renewal. The permanent repository program is a failure. The nuclear power industry and its advocates, including the Department of Energy, have created a program which was bound to fail. Careless science, poor management, unreasonable deadlines and timetables, and the ill-fated decision to pursue only one site for characterization, thus leaving the program with no options or alternatives, have all contributed to the failure of the program. The industry's suggestion to build an interim storage facility in Nevada is simply one more in a long series of irresponsible and ill- founded proposals by the nuclear power industry to solve their high level waste problem at the expense of the health and safety of all Nevadans. I will concede that the nuclear power industry has a waste problem. I strongly object, however, to the industry's solution, which is simply to send their problem, their waste to Nevada. The question arises, do we need a centralized interim storage site? If we are truly talking about interim storage, the answer is obviously no. A few nuclear utilities, looking at the future uncertainty of the Federal nuclear waste program, have done the responsible thing and built interim dry cask storage at the reactor site. In dry cask storage, spent fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor pools and stored in various systems of canisters, casks, and concrete shells. I recently visited one of these dry cask storage facilities, at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, and, I must say, I was impressed by the simplicity and efficiency of the spent fuel management operation. It is a responsible action taken by the industry, and I commend their example to others. The Calvert solution to the interim storage problem, the spent fuel is stored on site, where security and safety precautions already exist, until a safe plan for the long-term disposition of the waste can be finalized. A centralized interim storage facility is simply not needed, or desirable. The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act recognized this fact, and placed restrictions on the DOE's authority to accept responsibility for interim storage. The nuclear power industry, faced with the reality of the failure to build a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, is now engaged in yet another exercise of political muscle with one purpose: to make Nevada the final destination for their toxic and highly dangerous waste. Even if we concede, which we do not, that there is a need for a centralized interim storage facility, there is no defensible reason to site the facility in Nevada. A simple look at a map easily shows that Nevada is one of the least central sites to store nuclear waste. The great majority of the reactor sites producing high-level waste are east of the Mississippi--93 reactors out of the U.S. total of 118. Shipping thousands of tons of high level waste to Nevada will create dramatic threats to the safety of communities throughout the United States. An analysis of one proposal supported by the nuclear power industry reveals that interim storage in Nevada will require 15,000 shipments by rail and truck through 43 States to begin as early as 1998 and continue for 30 years. Interim storage in Nevada is not the answer to the nuclear power industry's waste problem. The responsible answer to the waste problem, if the nuclear utilities choose to continue to run their reactors, is on-site, dry cask storage. Unfortunately, most nuclear utilities appear to be unwilling to develop dry cask storage facilities for a variety of reasons, both political and financial. There is not much we can do about the local political opposition faced by utilities. The utilities, and communities, that benefited from the operation of the powerplant should bear responsibility for their own waste. High-level waste storage is not popular, and there are political costs to the utilities for living up to their responsibilities. Asking Nevada to solve the political problems in the communities they serve places the nuclear utilities on completely indefensible ground. The outright hypocrisy of the nuclear power industry's advocates, and their shameless attempts to exert political influence to solve complex scientific and environmental problems, has created an atmosphere of complete distrust and antagonism for the industry in Nevada. There are also financial barriers to on-site, dry cask storage. Ratepayers have been making contributions to the nuclear waste trust fund with the exception that the Federal Government will dispose of their nuclear waste. I am somewhat sympathetic to the ratepayers' concerns. The Federal disposal program is a failure. The civilian nuclear waste program has been so poorly managed, and so misguided, that Congress has had good reason not to release the full balance of the trust fund to the program. The ratepayers deserve some financial relief while the Federal Government attempts to meet its obligations, and while the utilities invest the needed capital to store their own waste. The legislation I am introducing today recognizes the nuclear power industry's need for interim storage, as well as the financial impact on ratepayers caused by delays in the repository program. The legislation provides credits against utilities' payments to the nuclear waste trust fund for costs incurred for on-site, dry cask storage. The legislation provides an equitable solution to a difficult problem. It recognizes the financial contributions of the utilities' ratepayers to the trust fund, and recognizes the reality that a permanent repository will not be available to meet the needs of the nuclear power industry. Mr. President, together with their advocates in Congress and the Department of Energy, the nuclear power industry has spared no expense or effort in moving its waste to Nevada. I have attempted to fight the industry at every turn. I hope that Congress will not take the failure of the permanent repository program as a signal to bow to the nuclear power industry once again, and accelerate plans to store nuclear waste in Nevada, but instead to take this opportunity to find an equitable solution to a difficult problem which does not threaten the health and safety of future generations of Nevadans. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation I am introducing today.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which repeals a restriction on the ability of limited-purpose banks to increase their assets by more than 7 percent per year. I believe that a removal of this restriction will promote increased credit availability, and will enhance the safety and soundness of the 22 institutions that are subject to the growth limitation. This asset growth limitation was adopted in 1987, in legislation which stated that the restriction was being imposed temporarily. It remains in place nearly 8 years later, although the objectives it was intended to accomplish have been achieved by subsequent legislation, regulatory act on and judicial decisions. For example, supporters of this limitation said that it would help offset full-service banks' inability to establish interstate branches, an issue that has now been addressed. Today, the growth restriction is not needed to protect the banks, their customers, or competitors. To the contrary, the growth cap harms these banks, by imposing enormous and unnecessary compliance costs and by forcing them to dispose of assets despite adverse marketplace conditions and negative safety and soundness implications. It hurts their depositors and borrowers--and other consumers--by reducing limited-purpose banks' ability to offer competitive banking services. And it provides no legitimate benefit to full service banks, whose ability to compete will not be impaired if a small number of limited- purpose banks are permitted to grow assets on their balance sheets rather than outside of the banks. The legislation I am introducing addresses only one of the restrictions on limited-purpose banks: The 7-percent asset growth cap. These banks will continue to be subject to the same requirements as other banks, including the provision enacted in 1991 requiring the asset growth of any undercapitalized institution to be curtailed. And they will remain subject to additional restrictions unique to limited- purpose institutions, such as a limitation on engaging in new banking activities, and a restrictions on cross marketing with affiliates. The need to retain these restrictions is an issue that should be addressed in the near future, as we consider broader legislation addressing bank ownership, affiliations and permissible powers. But the asset growth restriction is a regulatory burden unrelated to these issues, and needs to be addressed now. In the last Congress, a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle supported the removal of the 7-percent growth cap. I am especially pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and others are joining me today as original cosponsors of their bill. I look forward to prompt action on this legislation.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if the Chair and the acting floor manager will indulge me, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business and to extend the time before the recess.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair and my colleague from Iowa. Mr. President, I want to call the attention of my colleagues a situation, which I discovered during our recent December recess, dealing with public housing. Since 1980, the law has been clear that those who are illegal immigrants are not entitled to occupy public housing. So I was somewhat astonished in visiting with a housing authority director in my own State and to have him tell me that in the city of Reno, he would estimate that approximately 10 percent, maybe a little more, maybe a little less of those who occupy public housing are, in fact, illegal immigrants. At the same time, in the city of Reno--and I think this is replicated throughout the country--there are some 500 families waiting to occupy public housing. So I asked the question, well, if it is illegal for them to occupy public housing, why have you not done something about it? That, Mr. President, is an astonishing story. In 1982, 1984, and 1986, apparently, efforts were made to implement by regulation what the statute establishes by way of policy. Through a series of administrative or bureaucratic delays and obfuscation, in fact, none of these regulations have been implemented. So currently the housing authority directors in America are told that although the 1980 law remains in effect, you may not inquire and you may not verify the resident status of those persons who seek to make application to occupy public housing. May I say, Mr. President, this is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. The law says that they ought not to be eligible--those who are illegal immigrants--to occupy public housing. Nevertheless, they are permitted to do so. There is a glimmer of hope. That is, that there is a rule making its way through the Office of Management and Budget, and I urge OMB to implement that regulation immediately so that the policy since 1988 may be carried out. I thank you, Mr. President for your courtesy and that of the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again sing on as a cosponsor to the bill introduced by Senator Pryor, the taxpayer bill of rights II. I was a cosponsor of this important legislation in both the 102d and 103d Congress. Over the years, many have cited abused by the IRS during tax audits and collection. Aware of these types of problems, Congress passed the taxpayer bill of rights in 1988. While the original bill was in many ways successful, it is clear that further action is necessary. The taxpayer bill of rights II builds on the success of the original bill, and provides taxpayers with expanded protections against improper collection techniques. This legislation expands protection for taxpayers by requiring the IRS to pay legal fees when it loses in court, increases from $100,000 to $1 million the cap on damages a taxpayer can collect from the IRS, and revokes the agencies authority to issue retroactive regulations. The bill also establishes a better taxpayer advocate within the IRS who will have the authority to intervene and help taxpayers cases, and increases taxpayers' ability to get a fair hearing in disputes with the IRS. It is unfortunate that this bill is necessary; however, in such a monumental task as collecting taxes it is inevitable that there will be mistakes made. This bill will help to ensure that taxpayers are not forced to pay for the mistakes for which they had no control over. I have heard too many times from anguished constituents in Nevada regarding their dealings with the IRS. While dealing with discrepancies with the IRS is never an enjoyable experience, once this bill becomes law taxpayers will finally have their rights protected. In past sessions of Congress, this bill has received overwhelming bipartisan support. I am hopeful that we can again join together, pass this bill and give taxpayers the rights that they deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I will introduce legislation that will put congressional retirement benefits and that of our employees--I think it is important for Members, as well as the public generally, to understand that what we are talking about is not only Members of Congress but our employees are in this same system--that will put our benefits and those of our employees on a parity with other Federal employees. Under current law, as has been alluded to on the floor moments ago, the pensions Members of Congress and our employees receive are considerably more generous than those of other Federal employees. It is my judgment this practice is not justifiable and, in fact, is unacceptable.Under the present retirement system, Members of Congress and other Federal employees who were part of the Federal work force prior to 1984 are enrolled in the Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS]. Under 1984 legislation, all Members of Congress, our employees, and other Federal employees are enrolled in FERS or the Federal Employee Retirement System. This chart illustrates the point that my colleague from Pennsylvania was making just a moment ago. The accrual rate is significant because the accrual rate multiplied by the number of years of service and the final high-3 salary determines your pension. For example, an individual under the old system, who has been a Member of Congress or congressional employee, has an accrual rate of 2.5 percent. So for a 10-year period of time, that Member would receive a pension of 25 percent of their final high-3 salary. Under FERS, the accrual rate for Members is 1.7 percent, therefore, a Member who serves 10 years would have pension of 17 percent of their final high-3 salary. You can see that the old system is considerably more generous than the new system. The accrual rate for other Federal employees under the CSRS system is 1.5 percent for their first 5 years; 1.75 percent in second 5 years; after 10 years of service, 2 percent. You can see that throughout the entire system, Members of Congress are treated more favorably for purposes of the retirement system. Now, it is fair to point out that under the Civil Service Retirement System, Members do contribute 8 percent, non-Members of Congress, nonemployees of Congress, contribute only 7 percent. Even though there is a 1- percent differential in contribution, the Member's pension is a substantially enhanced benefit. That same disproportionate formula carries through under the FERS system where Members of Congress and our employees get a 1.7-percent accrual rate, which means in 10 years we would receive a pension of 17 percent of our final high-3 salary. The accrual rate for other federal employees is 1 percent, so they would only receive a pension of 10- percent of their final high-3 salary. Once again, the contribution rate for Members of Congress and our employees is 1.3 percent, which is slightly higher than the .8 percent that non-Members of Congress and our employees would be contributing. The thrust of this legislation, Mr. President and my colleagues, is simply to put everybody on a level playing field prospectively. Any accrued benefit would not be taken away. Service under the old system would be calculated under the old formula. Only future service would be calculated under the new formula. I think it is only fair that we not treat ourselves, as Members of Congress, differently from other dedicated public servants who may serve in the Park Service or the Department of Transportation, in which their devotion to public service is no less than our own. Let me give you the practical impact of that, and then I will yield the floor here in a moment. Members will recall I described the FERS system as one for those of us who have been hired since 1984. For 10 years of service as a Member of Congress, our pension would be 17 percent of the average of the last 3 years of our service prior to retirement. Those in a 10-percent pension of their average of the last 3 years. In 20 years, Members of Congress get a 34-percent pension; other Federal employees under the FERS system get 20 percent. For 30 years, it is 44 percent, and other members that are not Members of Congress or their employees receive substantially less. Under the old system, which existed prior to 1984, 10-year Members of Congress get a 25-percent pension of the average of their last 3 highest years; other executive branch employees get 16.4 percent. For 20 years, Members of Congress get 50 percent and executive branch gets 36.5 percent. For 30 years, it is 75 percent, and other federal employees receive 56.3 percent. My point is that we seek equality of treatment. It is a principle embraced, I think, in the Congressional Accountability Act. That is one of the reasons why I had proposed to offer it as an amendment at that time. Let me just say, based upon the assurances of the majority leader, which I accept, I have agreed to forbear and not to offer this amendment. I said by Easter, we would take a look and see if this legislation is moving. If it is, I am willing to give some additional time. This is not an issue that we will be able to dodge. I intend to bring it to the floor. I know a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle share a similar perspective. Mr. President, let me just conclude by saying that I think it is absolutely essential to show the American people that we are not treating ourselves differently from other members of the Federal civil service. Members of Congress should not receive a more generous retirement. This is a matter of fairness. I would have to say that in townhall meetings we have in Nevada, this issue comes up many times. I have asked why this exists. That is why I introduced legislation along these lines in the last session of Congress. How is it that Members of Congress are treated differently than other civil service employees? I think the answer is, it is not defensible. We cannot justify it, in my view. We have an obligation to change it prospectively. I am persuaded by the show of bipartisan interest and support. I think we can change it. We ought to change it. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to eliminate what I consider one of the major areas of inequality that exists between the Congress and others who serve in Federal service positions outside of Capitol Hill. We should do it as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the leader. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, yesterday I was prepared to offer an amendment to the Congressional Accountability Act, S. 2, which would have made congressional pensions and that of our employees on a parity with other Federal civil servants. The distinguished majority leader and I had several conversations on the floor yesterday evening. I received an assurance from him that he believed that this is an important issue for the Senate to address. I know that it is his intention to do so, and I accept his representation that this is a matter that is going to come before the body. I indicated to the majority leader that I would forbear in offering the amendment. However, if I saw no action by the Easter recess of this year, it would be my intention to offer an amendment on congressional pension reform, to any piece of legislation which might then be pending on the floor of the Senate for action. I am satisfied in my own mind that the majority leader shares my commitment to address this and I accept his representation and I thank him for his comments. But I think that our colleagues need to understand, that although we are not going to be voting on this today because of the commitment that I have had from the distinguished majority leader, this is not an issue we are going to be able to postpone and bury. It is going to come before the Senate very shortly. I want to acknowledge and express my appreciation to the distinguished majority leader for his assurances along that line. I look forward to working with him and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I thank the leader.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the distinguished majority leader. I might just inquire, in terms of procedure, it originally was my intention to make a statement about the bill. I know you have a rollcall vote scheduled at this time. I am prepared to make about a 5- or 10-minute statement, if that is agreeable to you.

Mr. BRYAN. As the majority leader prefers. I am willing to do it either way.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of Senator John McCain's ``Older Americans' Freedom to Work Act'' to repeal the Social Security earnings limitation test. I understand the frustration of seniors who want to work without being penalized by a reduction in their Social Security earnings limitation test, and since coming to the Senate in 1988, I have supported efforts to repeal this test. During the last Congress, Senator McCain tried to add this same bill as an amendment to the Unemployment Compensation Act. Unfortunately, only 45 Senators joined me in voting in favor of the amendment. As seniors live healthier and longer lives, we have a tremendous human resource that wants to continue to play a positive role in our workforce. These seniors represent incredible knowledge and work experience, skills our Nation very much needs to remain competitive both at home and abroad. But for those seniors, ages 65 through 69, who want to contribute by continuing to work, their decision to remain in the workplace means they face reduced Social Security benefits because of the Social Security earnings limitation test. We should not place such financial penalties in their way. The Social Security earnings limitation test must go. The Social Security earnings limitation test reduces the Social Security benefits of senior beneficiaries, if their earned income from work is above a certain sum. After Social Security beneficiaries reach age 70, they are no longer subject to the test. In 1995, the maximum amount of money that beneficiaries, between the ages 65 and 69, can earn without reducing the amount of their Social Security benefits is $11,280. For every $3 a person earns over this limit, $1 is withheld from his or her benefit. The exempt amounts are currently adjusted each year to rise in proportion to average wages in the economy. I am optimistic this Congress will pass and enact this important legislation to repeal this earnings limitation test. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in this effort to free seniors to continue to work, without penalty, for as long as they choose.