[Pages S1944-S1961]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE HEALTH PARTNERSHIP ACT

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, on the first day of the 104th Congress,
I introduced a package of five bills--my legislative priorities for the
coming session. At that time, I stated that one of my main priorities
during the 104th Congress will be to look for ways to redefine Federal
programs to enhance the efforts toward reform already underway in the
States. The three bills I introduced on that first day are designed to
decrease the burden of Federal compliance and oversight measures in key
policy areas. In exchange for loosening the Federal regulatory
straitjacket, we will transform accountability from paperwork
requirements to performance-based results. I call this the flexibility
factor in Government and it entails finding a path through every
Federal agency where innovation at the State and local levels is
nurtured and rewarded.
It is in that context today that I join my good friend and colleague
from Florida, Mr. Graham, in introducing the Health Partnership Act of
1995. This bill is very similar to the legislation we introduced at the
end of the 103d Congress when it became apparent that efforts to pass
comprehensive reform would fail. Rather than federalizing health care,
this bill would encourage the States to innovate and help build the
best approaches to addressing our health care problems--a return to the
true essence of federalism.
To date, six States have enacted comprehensive health care reform
proposals--Hawaii, Massachusetts, Oregon, Minnesota, Florida, and
Washington. In addition, 44 States have enacted small group insurance
reform; 44 have enacted data collection systems, and 41 have Medicaid
managed care experiments underway.
Although many reforms are underway, States have often had to struggle
with the Federal Government to move forward with their reform plans.
Securing the necessary waivers from the Federal Government has become
an increasingly burdensome process. For example, it took nearly 3 years
and two administrations for Oregon to obtain the Medicaid waivers it
needed to implement its Medicaid expansion. This expansion has provided
health care for nearly 100,000 additional Oregonians since its
implementation in February 1994. And although there have been problems
that came with implementation, the overwhelming majority of Oregonians
continue to support the Oregon health plan.
Mr. President, I am fortunate to come from a State which is willing
to look at new and innovative approaches to reform in the public and
private sectors. Recently, Oregon was granted a welfare waiver to
implement their Jobs Plus Program. Oregon has also recently signed a
memorandum of understanding with the administration to move forward
with the Oregon Option, a partnership designed to deliver Government
services in a better and more efficient manner. We are also hopeful
that our State will be designed an ``ed-flex partnership State'' by
Secretary Riley as soon as the Goals 2000 process is in place. This
designation will allow our State to waive Federal law in certain areas
in which the State has already demonstrated a commitment to change.
Frankly, it seems like I am spending much of my time these days
pursuing waivers of Federal law for my State--nearly all of the
innovation that has come forth from my State in recent years has
required a Federal waiver for implementation. Oregon is willing to
persevere--but not all States are.
Due to the arduous process a State must go through to obtain Federal
waivers to enact comprehensive health care reform, many States have
held off in attempting comprehensive reform. In addition, one of the
biggest barriers to State reform is the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act [ERISA]. This Federal law is one of the broadest Federal
laws on the books, and it has effectively prevented States from
enacting reform that achieves universal coverage. ERISA waivers can
only be granted by the Congress and have been few and far between--only
Hawaii has one and it was granted 20 years ago.
The issue of ERISA reform is a sensitive one. On one hand, States
feel that ERISA preemption is a major roadblock to their reform
efforts. States argue that ERISA prevents them from reaching a
significant percentage of the insurance market in order to fully
implement reform proposals that increase access to health care and
control costs. On the other hand, business, especially employers with
businesses in many different States, argue that they need uniformity in
the administration of their employee health benefit plans. They argue
that their ability to manage their health care costs and assure that
all employees are getting equal benefits will be undermined by State
health care reform if the ERISA preemption is lifted.
Both sides raise compelling arguments, but where does that leave us?
In the absence of comprehensive national reform, the status quo is not
acceptable. Thus, in the bill we are introducing today, we have
included a mechanism which will hopefully lead to a fair and equitable
resolution of this problem. In order to allow States to move forward
with meaningful comprehensive health care reform, while fully
recognizing the needs of employers in administering self-funded plans
across State lines, an ERISA
Review Commission is established to find common ground, clarify what
is permissible under ERISA and ensure the interest of self-insured
plans are addressed. This limited duration Commission will be charged
with making recommendations on ERISA reform to the Secretary of Labor,
and will be composed of representatives from State and local
government, business, labor, and the Federal Government.

We consider this piece of our bill as work in progress. We firmly
believe that the dialog between the two sides must begin. And we look
forward to finding ways to improve and expand upon the proposal we put
forward in today's legislation.
I have long advocated that we look to the States to help develop the
database we need to determine the appropriate Federal role in health
care reform. In my opinion, this is the essence of the federalism on
which our country was founded. With no consensus on comprehensive
reform in Congress, we should turn to the States to lay the foundation
for reform. All of the ideas that we debated last session--from
insurance reform to universal coverage to malpractice reform--are being
tested in our States. We should then distill the information and data
obtained from these innovations and use it to reach consensus on
national reform.
[[Page S1945]] The bill that we are reintroducing today does that. It
says to the States, we believe in you. Put together a plan to expand
access to health care, control costs, to improve quality and health
outcomes in your State and we will give you the waivers you need to
implement your innovative ideas. We believe this should be a
partnership and so we will even provide you with some Federal funds to
help you achieve your goals. Then at the end of 5 years, we will
evaluate what you have done. Has it been successful? Have you met your
goals? How can we use this information to put together a plan that
works for the rest of the Nation?
And if a State wants to develop a more limited plan, the bill will
allow that State to apply for a limited project waiver. This will
encourage more of the limited reforms that are already proceeding so
successfully in many States, on a much more rapid basis.
In addition, the bill includes provisions to improve public health
services and access to health care in rural and underserved areas. This
will spur the development of our health care delivery infrastructure
and will lead to better health outcomes.
This bill also includes a proposal I have long-championed with
Senator Harkin of Iowa--the National Fund for Health Research. While I
intend to introduce this piece of the bill as free-standing legislation
later in the year, I feel it is important to have at least one option
on the table for increasing our commitment to medical research.
Therefore, a minimum of $6 billion will be provided over 5 years to
supplement the annual appropriations to the National Institutes of
Health.
Medical research is the sole hope we can provide to millions of
Americans who will face disease and disability either in their own
lives or in their families. We can care for them in our hospitals and
clinics but we cannot alleviate their pain or end their suffering
without cures and preventative treatments. Cures are the direct result
of our investment in medical research.
Mr. President, our Nation spends about $1 trillion each year on
health care, but only 2 to 3 percent on medical research. I submit to
the proponents of cost containment, that the cornerstone of cost
containment is the cures and improved treatments arising from medical
research.
I want to cite two examples of the tremendous strides taken in
medical research that have totally reversed the prognostic indications
for certain diseases. In 1960, we had a U.S. Senator, Richard L.
Neuberger, die of testicular cancer. At that point in time, this
diagnosis carried a death sentence. Today, because of the advances in
medical research, 95 percent of testicular cancer is curable. That is
but one example of the strides we have made in the eradication of
disease. Research in other fields such as heart and lung disease,
stroke, and juvenile leukemia have increased the quality of life and
lifespans of many afflicted individuals.
The other day, I was amused by the current commercials on treatments
for upset stomachs and more specifically, petic ulcers. A research
study at the Michigan Research Center concluded that petic ulcers are
not caused by stress or diet, but by simple bacteria. The causative
bacteria is treatable with common antibiotics and, therefore, ulcers
are curable. That one singular research project was responsible for
altering our treatment of a common ailment, and alleviating the
constant pain of its sufferers.
Additionally, I want to emphasize that medical research has a broad
base of public support. One recent poll indicated that 77 percent of
the American people supported a health care premium increase of $1 per
week, if it were earmarked for medical research. Another 75 percent of
the American people said they would accept a $1 increase per week on
their income tax bill, if it were earmarked for medical research.
The American public realizes that there is a direct link between
medical research and improved health care, cost containment, and
discovery of disease cures. I cannot emphasize enough the necessity of
undergirding the National Institutes of Health with better funding
mechanisms than what exists in the annual appropriations process.
Finally, we have added a title to our bill to address the enormous
problem of fraud and abuse in our health care system. The focus of this
title is on Federal, State, and private sector coordination to combat
fraud and abuse. Much of the language in the title tracks the
legislation recently introduced by the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen]
in the Health Care Fraud Prevention Act of 1995.
Beginning the process to reforming our health care system does not
come without cost.
Currently, we are witnessing increasing doubts about the
dependability of funding for our medical research initiatives. With the
squeeze on discretionary nonmilitary funding, we are going to have even
greater pressure put upon our ability to find innovative financial
support.
Thus, our proposal will be fully funded by a $1 tax on tobacco
products. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that a $1
increase will result in $65 billion in revenues. As a long-time
advocate of increased tobacco taxes, I believe this is an appropriate
revenue source not only because of the revenue that is gained through
the tax, but more importantly, because of the health benefits that
result from such a tax. This tax will save lives and will have a great
effect on the number of teens who smoke. As my colleagues know, the
number of teenage smokers is rising significantly despite our efforts
to educate teens about the health dangers of tobacco use. We must
redouble our efforts to halt this increase in young smokers.
Mr. President, I strongly believe that the approach we are putting
forward today is a positive first step toward the foundation of
national reform. There will be those who argue that a State approach
will lead to a fragmented health care system. I disagree. We will
likely not achieve comprehensive national health care reform this year.
Let us not make the mistake of missing an opportunity to gather data
from the States that will help us in the years ahead. Ours should be a
partnership with the States to facilitate the development of health
care reform--we should invite them into the process as our partners,
not fight their innovative efforts.
______

By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mr. Bumpers, and Mr. Johnston):
S. 309. A bill to reform the concession policies of the National Park
Service, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.

the concession policy reform act of 1995

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a piece of
legislation which will be known, I hope, when it becomes law as the
National Park Service Concessions Policy Reform Act of 1995.
This particular act is cosponsored by two of my friends on the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the former chairman of that
committee, Chairman Bennett Johnston and Mr. Bumpers, Dale Bumpers,
from Arkansas, who was the chairman of the subcommittee that handled
this legislation in the previous Congress.
Mr. Bumpers has been pursuing reform in the Park Service concession
policy for, I think, his entire career in the Senate. I was delighted
to join with him last year and bring about the passage of this bill in
the committee and the Senate. It was reported out by the committee by a
vote of 16 to 4, a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats
both supporting it. And it was passed on this floor a year and a half
ago by a vote of 90 to 9, demonstrating tremendous bipartisan support
for this.
Unfortunately, our friends in the House did not act with the same
dispatch that we did and, as a consequence, it got hung up there,
tragically, for enough months to mean that when the conference report
cam before this body, it ultimately got caught in the trap of the
yearend logjam, traffic jam and, as a result, the conference report was
not adopted.
So it is necessary for us to introduce it again this year. I think
this year we will see it move rapidly through both the Senate and the
House and become law.
The bill that I am introducing is very similar to the one that passed
this body 90 to 9 last year, and the arguments in favor of it are the
same as they were on that occasion. Very specifically, Mr. President,
our national parks, like everything else in life, are
[[Page S1946]] changing. That is, the number of visitors to the
national parks is going up. As a consequence, the need for services is
changing.
If I can refer to a national park in my own home State--and we in
Utah are proud of the fact that we have as many national parks as any
other State in the Union, it is a particularly gorgeous place in Utah--
Zion National Park in the last 10 years has seen the number of visitors
go from 1.4 million in 1983 to 2.9 million in 1993, doubling in a 10-
year period. Obviously, in that kind of a circumstance, the sort of
concession policy that you had 10 years ago needs to be examined in the
light of this increase.
There, of course, are other reasons why this needs to be
examined. The Park Service is itself running out of money. It is one
of the tragedies that we have the crown jewels of the National Park
System being starved for resources just as more and more Americans want
to take advantage of the beauty of these parks. As a consequence, one
of the places people are looking for money is to the royalty payments
to come from the concessionaires.

Oh, say some, well, that means the Government is trying to beat up on
the concessionaires, the Government is trying to punish the
concessionaires for being successful. I do not think so. What we are
trying to do in this legislation is open up the concessions for
competitive bidding and let the marketplace determine what these
concessions are worth.
I come from the business community. I have listened to the
concessionaires as fellow business people when they come and say to me,
Senator, you can't change the rules. Well, the rules change all the
time as markets change. I knew that when I was in business. I reminded
them of that in their business circumstance.
But the most important reason we need to change this is because we do
need the power of competition to help set the rates. We do need the
opportunity for new blood and new ideas to come in, even if the
concessionaire does not change. I say to those who are saying, We're
going to lose what we have now under the new policy you are proposing,
Senator, we're going to lose the concession that we have, I say,

No you are not. If, indeed, you are as capable as you say
you are, and I believe you are, if you have the expertise of
10, 15, 20 years experience as you say you have, you will be
able to compete. But the mere fact that you will be forced to
compete with an outside bidder will, indeed, make you sharper
even if you are, indeed, the ones who hang on to the
concession as it currently exists.

So, Mr. President, we are dealing with a piece of legislation here
that really is relatively noncontroversial, given the vote that it had
in the last Congress; something that I think is long overdue, given the
changes that are occurring in the national parks; something that is
sound financial policy, given the fact that the parks do not have the
kind of money that I think they should have. It is good public policy.
I was pleased to be associated with it in the previous Congress, and
I am happy to have the opportunity to offer it again in this Congress.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, now that the Senator from Arkansas has
joined us in the Chamber, I do not intend to use the remainder of my
time. I would like to comment now that he is here on his leadership on
this issue.
I came to the Senate knowing nothing about it. I sat in the committee
listening to the hearings where the issue was outlined and decided that
the Senator from Arkansas was correct, that something needed to be
done. I conferred with my then ranking member on the committee, the
Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Wallop, who suggested that with my business
background it might be appropriate that I get involved in this.
I must, for the accuracy of the Record, point out that Senator Wallop
was not convinced and was one of the four in the committee and one of
the nine in the Chamber who decided they could not support this
particular approach. But I was very grateful to him for his overall
support of my involvement and to the Senator from Arkansas for his
leadership and tenacity on this issue. He was very instrumental in
giving me the background and the education and the understanding of
these issues. Had he not been willing to act as my tutor and mentor in
this circumstance I undoubtedly would not have come to the point that I
have here today.
So as I yield back the remainder of my time and end my statement, I
do so with a comment of gratitude to the senior Senator from Arkansas
for his leadership and his tutelage on this issue.
I also must add to that my gratitude to the senior Republicans on the
energy committee who also helped me understand this issue and who
supported this in committee: Senator Hatfield, Senator Domenici,
Senator Nickles, and others who supported us in committee on the
Republican side. As I said in my earlier comment, the bill was
supported by a majority of both Republicans and Democrats, even though
there were both Republicans and Democrats in committee who decided they
could not support it.
So, Mr. President, I am delighted to turn the floor over to the
senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] and thank him for his
patience in helping this more junior Senator understand the nature of
this issue and the importance of it. I am delighted to have him as an
original cosponsor on this bill.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator
Bennett in sponsoring the National Park Service Concession Policy
Reform Act of 1995.
I first started trying to reform park concession policies in 1979.
Over the past 16 years, we have held numerous legislative and oversight
hearings, but until last year, had been unable to move the bill beyond
the hearing stage. During last year's hearing, Senator Bennett offered
to work with me to find a compromise, and in large part because of his
efforts, we reported a bill with bipartisan support from the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. That bill, S. 208, was overwhelmingly
supported by the Senate, passing by a vote of 90 to 9. The bill enjoyed
equally strong support in the House of Representatives, passing with
relatively minor changes by a vote of 386 to 30. Despite such strong
support in both Houses, the bill died last Congress because two
Senators refused to allow the final compromise version to be brought up
on the Senate floor during the final days of the 103d Congress.
The bill that Senator Bennett and I are introducing this year is
essentially the same as last year's Senate-passed bill. This bill will
make much-needed changes in the current system and ensure that the
American public receives a fair return for allowing private entities
the privilege of doing business in units of the National Park System.
As I have said many times, the Concessions Policy Act of 1965, the law
under which the National Park Service authorizes concessions to provide
visitor services inside units of the National Park System, is outdated
and anticompetitive, and should be repealed.
Private visitor service facilities have been operating in our
national parks for nearly 100 years. Prior to 1965, the National Park
Service provided for in-park visitor services by administrative action
under very general provisions in the 1916 National Park Service Organic
Act. In 1965, Congress enacted the Concession Policy Act, making the
National Park Service the only Federal land-managing agency with a
specific concessions statute.
Current concession operations in parks vary in size from small,
family-owned businesses providing services such as canoe rentals and
guiding services, to major hotel and restaurant facilities operated by
large corporations. Although the number fluctuates because of seasonal
changes, there are currently about 650 concessioners operating inside
units of the National Park System.
Concession permits are issued for most smaller or seasonal
operations, while concession contracts are used for larger, more long-
term operations. Total gross revenues generated by concessioners
currently amount to more than $657 million annually. Significantly,
about 50 concessioners--less than 8 percent--account for over 80
percent of these revenues.
[[Page S1947]] Concession policy and the need for significant reform
have been topics of intense interest for many years. In addition to the
hearings we have conducted, this issue has been the subject of numerous
studies, reports, and analyses prepared by the Congress, the General
Accounting Office, the Department of the Interior's inspector general,
the National Park Service, and a variety of private research
organizations. All of these studies have identified problems with the
current law which need to be addressed.

franchise fees

One of the problems with the current system concerns franchise fees,
the fees paid by concessions to the United States for the privilege of
operating a business inside a national park. These fees are too low and
should be increased. This is especially true for the larger
concessioners who are operating under long-term concessions contracts
entered into many years ago. At present, the U.S. Treasury receives
approximately $18 million in franchise and related fees from
concessioners who do in excess of $657 million worth of business in our
national parks. In addition, another $7.8 million is retained within
parks in special accounts. Combined, these franchise fees and special
accounts average only 4 percent of the total gross revenues earned by
concessioners. This low rate of return results in a giveaway of some of
our Nation's most valuable resources.
I am pleased to note that some of the most recent contracts have
provided for a better rate of return. For example, the new contract to
provide visitor services at Yosemite National Park increased the rate
of return to the Government from three-quarters of 1 percent to almost
20 percent. However, this change was the result of a very unique set of
circumstances which permitted several companies to compete for the new
contract; in general, the Concession Policy Act of 1965 continues to
prevent serious competition for the awarding of any new contract. In
addition, there is no assurance that a future administration would not
reverse course and return to the abysmally low returns of the past.
Rather than arbitrarily establishing a minimum franchise fee in the
legislation, my bill will ensure that these fees be set at more
realistic levels by encouraging and facilitating increased competition
for concession contracts.
In addition, under existing law, franchise fees are deposited as
miscellaneous receipts in the U.S. Treasury. Since these funds do not
directly benefit the parks or the people who use them, there is little
incentive for the Park Service to aggressively pursue increased fees,
or for concessioners to pay them. The Concession Policy Reform Act of
1995 would deposit these receipts into a special account in the
Treasury to be used to benefit park operations, resource management
maintenance, visitor services, et cetera. The bill also directs the
Park Service, where practicable, to establish a park improvement fund
in lieu of collecting all or a portion of the franchise fees.
While I believe it is important to try and ensure that the Federal
Government achieves a higher return from these contracts, the operation
of facilities in national parks should not be determined simply on the
basis of the highest bid. This legislation explicitly states that
consideration of revenue to the United States shall be subordinate to
the objectives of protecting and preserving park areas. In addition,
the bill grants the Secretary the authority to reject any bid,
regardless of the amount of franchise fee offered, if the Secretary
determines that the bidder is not qualified, is likely to provide
unsatisfactory service, or is not responsive to the objectives of
protecting and preserving the park area. So that there is absolutely no
doubt about the priority of concessions operations within national
parks, the bill explicitly directs the Secretary to evaluate franchise
fee proposals only from among those companies that the Secretary
determines will be responsive to protecting and preserving park
resources.

preferential right of renewal

Perhaps the most significant impediment to competition concerns the
statutory preferential right to contract renewal which, as currently
interpreted by the Park Service, gives an existing satisfactory
concessioner the right to meet the terms of a better offer submitted by
a competitor and to retain the contract if the existing concessioner's
offer is substantially equal. In my view, in most cases, this is
anticompetitive and should not be granted as a matter of law. While
such a preference may have been warranted years ago to encourage
certain developments in parks and ensure the continuity of concession
operations, it can also limit both the Park Service's
influence in dealing with concessioners and the ability of most
Americans to compete for concession contracts. In many instances, the
right to provide visitor services inside National Parks is a very
desirable and very valuable privilege which can attract a host of
extremely competent and qualified prospective concessioners. The Park
Service ought to be able to choose from these qualified applicants
without being constrained by a preferential right. This legislation
will eliminate the preferential right of renewal in future concessions
contracts, with the limited exception of outfitter and guide operations
who currently operate in a largely competitive environment, and small
contracts with gross annual revenues of $500,000 or less, which I will
discuss in detail shortly.

Notice of Opportunity to Bid on New Contracts

It is apparent that the Park Service does not adequately publicize
new concession contracts or contract renewal opportunities, nor does it
always provide interested parties with the specific financial and other
submission requirements needed to submit competitive proposals. The
Concession Policy Reform Act would establish a detailed competitive
bidding procedure for the awarding of all concessions contracts. This
process would require that advance notice of all concessions contracts
be published, that specific minimum bid requirements be established and
made public, and that the details of the previous contract for the park
area and other important information be made available to prospective
concessioners.

Possessory Interest

The other most significant obstacle to competition for concession
contracts involves a provision in the current law which allows the
granting of a possessory interest to a concessioner. When a
concessioner makes an improvement on land inside a National Park, that
concessioner is entitled, with the approval of the Secretary, to a
possessory interest in that improvement, which consists of all
incidents of ownership except legal title. The method of valuation for
this property interest as set forth the 1965 act is sound value. Sound
value is defined as current reconstruction cost, less depreciation, not
to exceed fair market value. This effectively gives concessioners a
right of compensation for the appreciated value of their improvements.
This current practice of routinely granting sound value can result in
concessioners being entitled to millions of dollars in possessory
interest, which can effectively make it impossible for the National
Park Service to terminate a contract or award it to a new concessioner.
This practice is not financially warranted in all circumstances, serves
as a barrier to new and qualified concessioners, and limits the Park
Service's flexibility in managing concessions facilities.
The Concession Policy Reform Act of 1995 will continue to recognize a
current concessioner's possessory interest, if there is one. With
respect to new concessions contracts, however, the bill provides that
if a concessioner's contract is terminated, the concessioner shall be
entitled to the actual cost of building or acquiring the structure,
less depreciation. Last Congress, the legislation was modified to
provide for the depreciation of the structure over its useful life, up
to the depreciation period used for Federal income tax purposes, which
is currently 39 years. As modified, I believe the bill allows for a
more reasonable depreciation schedule, while at the same time,
permitting a concessioner to be compensated for its nondepreciated
interest in the structure, thus protecting the concessioner's
investment.
In addition to these major changes, the legislation would adopt a
number of other recommendations identified by the General Accounting
Office, the Inspector General, and the Department's Concessions Task
Force.
[[Page S1948]] Over the past few years, the bill has been modified
several times to incorporate many constructive suggestions and
proposals. These changes include eliminating what some perceived to be
excessive reporting and regulatory requirements, clarifying the
criteria by which a contract is to be awarded, narrowing the uses for
revenues generated from franchise fees, and other clarifying and
conforming changes.
This year's bill retains the provision in last year's Senate passed
bill to recognize a preferential right of renewal for outfitters,
guides, and river runners, as well as for small operations with gross
annual revenues of under $500,000. While I believe such a right is
anticompetitive in general, I believe a limited exception is warranted
in these cases. Unlike most concessioners, river runners and other
companies providing
outfitter and guide services operate in a competitive environment
within a park, with several companies providing the same or similar
services. In addition, guide and outfitter operations do not have a
possessory interest in park structures, unlike many other
concessioners. The legislation directs the Secretary to grant a
preferential right of renewal for these outfitters, but only if the
operator does not have a possessory interest in a structure, and only
if the company has been evaluated as operating satisfactorily during
the previous contract. I think this approach recognizes the needs of
this class of concessioners, but is consistent with the overall thrust
of this legislation.

The bill also provides a preferential right of renewal for small
operations with gross annual revenues of less than $500,000. This
encompasses almost 80 percent of all concession operations. I have
always maintained that concession reform should not be a means to force
small operations, especially family operations, who have in many
instances provided service to a particular park for decades. At the
same time, the bill ensures that the contracts with gross annual
revenues exceeding $500,000, which account for over 90 percent of all
concession revenues, are awarded based on a competitive basis.
I would also like to repeat an observation that I have made
continuously during the past several years, one that I am sure Senator
Bennett would agree with. The purpose of this bill is not to eliminate
concession operations from our national parks. I do not subscribe to
the theory all visitor facilities in national parks are inappropriate.
Many of the facilities and services provided by concessioners are
entirely appropriate and benefit the park visitors. I only want to
ensure that when concession contracts are awarded, the American people
receive a fair return, and that there is an opportunity for competition
for these desirable business opportunities.
Mr. President, this bill represents responsible reform of national
park concession policy. As demonstrated last Congress, this issue has
strong bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. In addition,
concession reform has been a high priority within the Department of the
Interior. I urge my colleagues to continue their strong support for
this much-needed reform, and I look forward to its swift enactment this
year.
In summary, Mr. President, I again wish to pay tribute to my
distinguished colleague and very good friend, the Senator from Utah,
Robert Bennett. I have to confess that after working 16 years to reform
the concessions policy of this country in the national parks, I had
annually hit a stone wall until Bob Bennett came to the Senate.
I am not only grateful to him and to his values and his integrity,
political, and every other way, but also because of his background in
business and the recognition, once he delved into the issue, that this
was a policy which was long, long ago outdated and needed dramatically
to be reformed.
Let me further say that even my own efforts on this through the years
have not been, as some concessionaires thought, punitive in nature. It
is just one of those things that has been going on for 50 to 100 years
in this country and nobody ever did anything about it.
Once I realized how badly it needed reform, I went to work on it. As
I say, it was not until 1993 and 1994, after Senator Bennett came and
sat on the Energy Committee with me where the original jurisdiction on
this issue lay--and I never will forget the morning that he made what I
thought was one of the most sensible presentations in the committee I
ever heard, and that was we believe in competition. We pride ourselves
on being a capitalistic nation. We believe in free enterprise, and that
entails competition. And there was, Mr. President, virtually no
competition in this field.
In 1993, the concessions of this country took in $657 million, and
the U.S. Treasury derived the princely sum of $18 million. The one
contract that we have let under something similar to this bill was let
in Yosemite, and this Yosemite contract pays up to 20 percent.
Now, we want to keep the rentals as low as we can because the lower
they are, the lower the prices are and that is good for the American
people who visit the park. But we also want the U.S. Government, which
owns the parks and is responsible for them, to get a decent return
based on competition.
So, Mr. President, I wish to say this is a very happy day for me. We
passed this bill out of our committee last year, and one Senator killed
the bill in the last 2 weeks of the session. As a matter of fact, that
same Senator killed about 35 to 40 bills out of the National Parks
Subcommittee of the Energy Committee and now we have to have hearings
on those bills all over again this year at a staggering cost to the
taxpayers, report the bills, go through the House, go through
conference, go through everything we went through before in order to
pass the bills again.
One other thing I would like to point out is that one of the things
that occurred to me, which made this concessions policy absolutely
necessary, was the policy of allowing concessionaires in the parks to
build hotels and other structures and, of course, depreciate those
things on their tax books but at the end of the lease, if they lost the
lease, be entitled to what was called sound value, which was
effectively market value.
If you had the concession at Yosemite and you decided to put $5
million into a hotel, at the end of your lease, say 15 years later, you
are entitled to the market value of the hotel if you lost the lease,
and that might be $20 million. The fair market value of the hotel might
actually be more than it was when you paid for it, yet you had been
able to depreciate that hotel on your tax books for tax purposes for 15
years. It gets a little more complicated than that, but I just want to
say that was the thing that first caught my attention on these leases.
The other was the extremely low rental that the Federal Government was
getting.
What the Government will get in years to come is not going to balance
the budget. It is not a large amount. But it does deal with what
Congress ought to be alert to all the time, and that is the elemental
principle of fairness.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Bennett
and Senator Bumpers in sponsoring the National Park Service Concession
Policy Reform Act of 1995. The legislation that we are introducing
today is very similar to a bill which passed both the Senate and House
last year by overwhelming margins but failed to clear the Senate in the
final days of the 103d Congress.
This legislation, which is supported by the Department of the
Interior as well as a number of other conservation and park user
groups, would correct the many deficiencies of the 1965 act which
currently governs concession operations inside units of the National
Park System. It would end the granting of a preferential right of
renewal to an incumbent concessioner; it would end the granting of a
preferential right of renewal to an incumbent concessioner; it would
reformulate the method by which possessory interest is valued; it would
establish a competitive bidding procedure to ensure competition and
that the Government receives fair value for the privilege of doing
business in our national parks; and it would provide that franchise
fees and other revenues collected from concessioners are available for
use in the parks rather than simply returned to the Federal Treasury.
In this regard, I am pleased that the bill we are introducing today
includes language which I offered as an amendment during the
committee's deliberations last year which would authorize
[[Page S1949]] the Secretary to establish park improvement funds in the
individual park units where franchise fees could be deposited by the
concessioner and used at the direction of the Secretary of the Interior
for badly needed projects in the parks. This practice is currently
followed in several parks, most notably the recent Yosemite contract,
and has proven very successful.
I look forward to working with Senators Bennett, Bumpers, and others
who were supportive of our efforts last year, and hope we can enact
this measure early in this Congress.
______

By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Robb):
S. 310. A bill to transfer title to certain lands in Shenandoah
National Park in the State of Virginia, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the shenandoah national park transfer act of 1995

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce
legislation for myself and Senator Robb which would authorize the
Secretary of Interior to transfer without reimbursement all right,
title, and interest in certain lands in Shenandoah National Park to the
Commonwealth of Virginia, town of Front Royal, and Warren County School
Board.
In order to recognize the need for this legislation one must first
understand the history of the creation of the Shenandoah National Park.
In 1923, Stephen Mather, Director of the National Park Service,
persuaded Secretary of Interior Hubert Work to appoint a five-member
committee to investigate the possibility of establishing a national
park in the southern Appalachians. At that time there were no parks in
the country east of the Mississippi River. In 1924, the committee was
formed to find a site for such a park. Thus began a difficult 11-year
effort to establish a park in the southern Appalachians.
On February 21, 1925, President Coolidge signed into law legislation
which had been introduced by Senator Swanson of Virginia and Senator
McKellar of Tennessee which called for the creation of a national park
in the southern Appalachians and the Great Smokey Mountains.
In 1926, Congress authorized the park to be acquired by donation,
without the expenditure of any Federal funds. This act did not
officially create the parks but set forth the conditions of their
establishment although in indefinite terms. The Secretary of Interior
and the committee were given the difficult task of raising the
necessary funds for land acquisition. Therefore, while there was strong
support for the creation of the park, its realization remained highly
conditional since no Federal funds would be made available to purchase
the park lands.
Although private donations were being made, then-Governor Harry F.
Byrd, realized the need to pursue other financing means if sufficient
funds to acquire the acreage were to be obtained. In January 1928,
Governor Byrd asked the general assembly for a $1 million appropriation
to make possible the purchase of park lands. A few days later, the
State legislature agreed and appropriated the funds. This $1 million
appropriation, coupled with the $1.25 million raised from private
sources, enabled Virgina to purchase the necessary acreage to establish
the park.
With the financial means in hand, the Virginia General Assembly
passed in 1928 the National Park Act which authorized the State
Commission on Conservation and Development to acquire land for transfer
to the Federal Government to establish the
Shenandoah National Park. In that same year, Senator Swanson and
Representative Temple--both of Virginia--introduced legislation in both
Houses of Congress ``to establish a minimum area for the Shenandoah
National Park, for administration, protection, and general development
* * * '' This legislation passed both Houses of Congress and was signed
into law by President Coolidge on February 16, 1928.

Due largely to the appropriation by the Commonwealth of Virginia and
what historians called Virginia's ``heroic land acquisition efforts,''
the necessary acreage was acquired and the land titles were given to
the Federal Government. On December 26, 1935, the Shenandoah National
Park was officially established.
The Commonwealth's generous donation of lands to the Federal
Government for the creation of this great park has now placed the
Commonwealth in an unfortunate situation in which the State can no
longer maintain the roads within the park. My legislation addresses
this situation.
The transfer of land from the Commonwealth to the Federal Government
specifically voided all rights of way for road purposes except for U.S.
Highway 211 and 33. According to the deeds, the Commonwealth
transferred ownership of all other roads and road rights of way on
those lands to the Federal Government. Absolutely no reservations were
retained by the Commonwealth for such roads.
Since 1935, the National Park Service at Shenandoah National Park has
allowed the Commonwealth to maintain existing secondary roads on the
fringes of the Park that it wished to maintain through documents called
special use permits. The Department of Interior Solicitor General has
reviewed the applicable statutes in 16 United States Code and has
determined that continuation of these special use permits is not
appropriate. Special use permits may be used only to grant a temporary
use of lands in national parks. The Solicitor has ruled that the
established roads are not a temporary use and require complete
ownership and control of the lands by the user. These permits expired
over 3 years ago and the Department of the Interior will not reissue
them. VDOT has been maintaining the roads without the permits, although
there is no guarantee this maintenance can continue. Furthermore, the
NPS does not have the necessary equipment to maintain these roads at
Shenandoah National Park and, therefore, future maintenance of these
roads is in serious question.
Federal law does not allow the National Park Service to convey park
land for secondary road purposes. The only legal means to grant the
Commonwealth road rights of way is an equal value land exchange
authorized under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
Mr. President, facing this dilemma, the Virginia Department of
Transportation has acquired land for this purpose, thereby placing the
Commonwealth in the position of buying private land to give to the
Federal Government to reacquire the right of way of land that the
Commonwealth gave away when the park was established.
Due to the unique circumstances of the park's creation, this equal
value land exchange requirement is strongly opposed by the local
communities and elected officials. I, too, strongly join in this
opposition. The Department's position has led to the Virginia General
Assembly's passage of a resolution prohibiting the Virginia Department
of Transportation from exchanging land for the road segments in the
park.
Mr. President, I have introduced legislation to resolve this
controversy. My bill would allow the Secretary of Interior to transfer
to the Commonwealth, the town of Front Royal, and the Warren County
School Board--without reimbursement--all right, title, and interest in
and to the roads within the park specified in the legislation.
Due to the Commonwealth's generous donation of lands to the Federal
Government for the creation of the park, the Commonwealth should not be
required to give the Federal Government additional land in exchange for
maintaining and improving roads within the Park.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 310

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary
of the Interior may convey, without consideration or
reimbursement, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the roads specified in subsection (c) to the
Commonwealth of Virginia, town of Front Royal or Warren
County School Board.
(b) Conditions of Conveyance.--
(1) Existing roads.--A conveyance pursuant to subsection
(a) shall be limited to the roads described in subsection (c)
as the roads exist on the date of enactment of this Act.
[[Page S1950]] (2) Reversion.--A conveyance pursuant to
subsection (a) shall be made on the condition that if at any
time any road conveyed pursuant to subsection (a) is no
longer used as a public roadway, all right, title, and
interest in the road shall revert to the United States.
(c) Roads.--The roads referred to in subsection (a) are
those portions of roads within the boundaries of Shenandoah
National Park being 50 feet wide measured 25 feet on each
side of the existing center line that, as of the date of
enactment of this Act, constitute portions of--
(1) Madison County Route 600;
(2) Rockingham County Route 624;
(3) Rockingham County Route 625;
(4) Rockingham County Route 626;
(5) Warren County Route 604;
(6) Page County Route 759;
(7) Page County Route 759;
(8) Page County 682;
(9) Page County Route 662;
(10) Augusta County Route 611;
(11) Augusta County Route 619;
(12) Albermarle County Route 614;
(13) Augusta County Route 661;
(14) Rockingham County Route 663;
(15) Rockingham County Route 659;
(16) Page County Route 669;
(17) Rockingham County Route 661;
(18) Criser Road, (to town of Front Royal); and
(19) Government-owned parcel connecting Criser Road, (to
Warren County School Board).
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 311. A bill to elevate the position of Director of Indian Health
Service to Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, to provide
for the organizational independence of the Indian Health Service within
the Department of Health and Human Services, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Indian Affairs.

indian health service legislation

<bullet> Mr. McCAIN Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to redesignate the position of the Director of the Indian Health
Service [IHS] to that of an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health
within the Department of Health and Human Services. I am pleased that
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Senator Craig Thomas have joined me
as original cosponsors of this important legislation. Last Congress, I
introduced a similar measure which was overwhelmingly passed by the
Senate. Unfortunately, the bill was not considered by the House prior
to adjournment.
The Indian Health Service is an agency under the Public Health
Service within the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the
current structure the Indian Health Service Director's authority to set
health policy for American Indians is extremely limited. For example,
the Indian Health Service Director must report directly to the
Assistant Secretary for Health, and yet the Director is responsible for
administering the entire branch of the Indian Health Service health
care delivery system.
The Indian Health Service consists of 143 service units composed of
over 500 direct health care delivery facilities, including 49
hospitals, 176 health centers, 8 school centers, and 277 health
stations and satellite clinics and Alaska village clinics. It provides
services ranging from facility construction to pediatrics, and serves
approximately 1.3 million American Indians and Alaska Native
individuals each year. The IHS serves the most impoverished population
in the United States. American Indian and Alaska Native populations are
afflicted by diabetes at a rate that overwhelmingly exceeds other
national populations. American Indian and Alaska Native populations
continue to suffer from mortality rates that exceeds all other segments
of our population for tuberculosis, alcoholism, accidents, homicide,
pneumonia, influenza, and suicides. American Indians have also
experienced a tremendous increase in the number of individuals
contracting HIV and AIDS. Yet, today American Indians and Alaska
Natives are among the least served and the most forgotten when it comes
to improving America's health care delivery systems.
There are several critical reasons which lead me to believe that this
legislation is necessary. First, designating the IHS Director as an
Assistant Secretary of Indian Health would provide the various branches
and programs of the IHS with better advocacy within the Department and
better representation during the budget process. The IHS Director
currently relies on the Assistant Secretary for Health to advocate for
these programs.
Last Congress, the Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary for
Health at the Department of Health and Human Services testified before
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs that a priority within the
Department was to listen to the health care delivery concerns of Indian
country. Obviously, this message was never received. At the same time
that the Department was listening to Indian country, the funding
request to meet Indian health care needs was dramatically cut at every
level of the administration by the Public Health Service, the
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Office of Management
and
Budget. As a result of this process, the President's budget for the
IHS for fiscal year 1995 called for a $247 million reduction and the
elimination of nearly 2,000 staff positions. Once all of the budget
gimmicks were eliminated, such as the incredible assumption that the
IHS would be able to increase third-party collections by 463 percent,
the IHS budget cuts surpassed $300 million. At the same time, the
Department was listening to the calls of Indian country for resources
to meet the growing health problems in Indian country.

I am convinced that neither the Public Health Service, the Secretary
for Health and Human Services, or the Office of Management and Budget
have an adequate understanding of the day-to-day health care needs of
American Indians. Therefore, I believe that the IHS is in dire need of
a senior policy person who is both knowledgeable about the programs
administered by the IHS and can strongly advocate for the health care
needs of Indians and Alaska Natives.
Second, an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health would eliminate
unnecessary bureaucracy that plagues the Indian Health Service system
and permit timely decisions to be made regarding important Indian
health care issues. For example, an Assistant Secretary for Indian
Health would have the authority and ability to communicate directly
with the other operating divisions within the HHS. Requesting the
expertise and assistance of other HHS departments on problems of
alcohol and substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, and child abuse for American
Indians and Alaska Natives would be easier and have more far-reaching
results. Currently, the IHS Director must forward such requests for
assistance through the Assistant Secretary for Health.
Third, an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health would have the
ability to call on private sector organizations that have not
traditionally focused on Indian health care needs and concerns, but who
have the expertise and resources that can enhance IHS' ability to
deliver the highest quality of health care, by providing technical
assistance to Indian tribes who choose to operate their own health care
programs.
Finally, I would like to clarify a couple of points relating to
section 2 of the bill. Section 2 of the bill provides for the
organizational independence of the Indian Health Service within the
Department of Health and Human Services. This section is necessary
because the IHS is currently an agency of the Public Health Service
which is headed by the Assistant Secretary for Health. Creating an
Assistant Secretary for Indian Health will require relocating the IHS
to the same organizational level as the Public Health Service.
Section 2 also clarifies that this bill is not intended to diminish
the ability of the IHS to utilize the service of the U.S. Public Health
Service Commissioned Corps. While I certainly hope that the HHS would
not prohibit the IHS from being served by the Commissioned Corps
personnel in the delivery of health care to the Indian people, in light
of the prevoius budget and staff reductions recommended by the Clinton
administration I am compelled to insert bill language to make clear the
intent of the Congress on this particular matter.
Mr. President, the Senate passage of this legislation last Congress
indicates that this legislation is long overdue. Redesignating the
Director as an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health would not only
reaffirm the special relationship that exists between Indian tribes and
the Federal Government, it would send a powerful message to Indian
country. At a time when the Nation focuses on health care reform, it
is
[[Page S1951]] critical that the health care needs of the American
Indian are taken into consideration. For those in the administration
and the Congress who would make a plea for a national health care
system, passing this legislation would serve as an example of a
commitment to improving this Nation's first health care system for
Americans, the Indian Health Service.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
and section-by-section be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 311

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

SECTION 1. OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN HEALTH.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department of Health and Human Services the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Indian Health.
(b) Assistant Secretary of Indian Health.--In addition to
the functions performed on the date of enactment of this Act
by the Director of the Indian Health Service, the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Health shall perform such functions as
the Secretary of Health and Human Services may designate.
(c) References.--Reference in any other Federal law,
Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of
authority, or any document of or relating to the Director of
the Indian Health Service shall be deemed to refer to the
Assistant Secretary for Indian Health.
(d) Rate of Pay.--(1) Section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking the following:
``Assistant Secretaries of Health and Human Services
(6).'';
and inserting the following:
``Assistant Secretaries of Health and Human Services
(7).''.
(2) Section 5316 of such title is amended by striking the
following:
``Director, Indian Health Service, Department of Health and
Human Services.''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 601 of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1661) is amended--
(A) in the second sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``a Director,'' and inserting ``the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Health,'';
(B) in the fourth sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``the Director'' and inserting ``the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Health'';
(C) by striking the fifth sentence of subsection (a); and
(D) by striking ``Director of the Indian Health Service''
each place it appears and inserting ``Assistant Secretary for
Indian Health''.
(2) The following provisions are each amended by striking
``Director of the Indian Health Service'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Assistant Secretary for Indian
Health'':
(A) Section 816(c)(1) of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (25 U.S.C. 1680f(c)(1)).
(B) Section 203(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 761b(a)(1)).
(C) Subsections (b) and (e) of section 518 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1377 (b) and (e)).
(D) Section 803B(d)(1) of the Native American Programs Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2991b-2(d)(1)).

SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE WITHIN
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

(a) Organization.--Section 601 of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1661), as amended by section
1(e)(1), is further amended--
(1) by striking ``within the Public Health Service of the
Department of Health and Human Services'' each place it
appears and inserting ``within the Department of Health and
Human Services''; and
(2) in the third sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``report to the Secretary through the Assistant Secretary for
Health of the Department of Health and Human Services'' and
inserting ``report to the Secretary''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The section heading of such
section is amended to read as follows:

``establishment of the indian health service as an agency of department
of health and human services''.

(c) Utilization of Public Health Service Personnel.--
Nothing in this section may be interpreted as terminating or
otherwise modifying any authority providing for the
utilization by the Indian Health Service of officers or
employees of the Public Health Service for the purposes of
carrying out the responsibilities of the Indian Health
Service. Any officers or employees so utilized shall be
treated as officers or employees detailed to an executive
department under section 214(a) of the Public Health Service
(42 U.S.C. 215(a)).
____

Section-by-Section Analysis

section 1. office of assistant secretary for indian health

Subsection (a) establishes the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Health within the Department of Health
and Human Services.
Subsection (b) provides that the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Health shall perform such functions as the Secretary
of Health and Human Services may designate in addition to the
functions performed by the Director of the Indian Health
Service (IHS) on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subsection (c) provides that references to the IHS Director
in any other Federal law, Executive order, rule, regulation,
or delegation of authority, or any document shall be deemed
to refer to the Assistant Secretary for Indian Health.
Subsection (d) amends Title 5 section 5315 of the U.S.C. by
striking ``Assistant Secretaries of Health and Human Services
(6)'' and inserting ``Assistant Secretaries of Health and
Human Services (7)''. Subsection (d) further amends section
5316 of title 5 by striking ``Director, Indian Health
Service, Department of Health and Human Services''.
Subsection (e) provides for conforming amendments in the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Subsection (e) further
amends the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, and the Native American Programs Act of 1974 by
striking ``Director of the Indian Health Service'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Health''.

section 2. organization of indian health service within department of
health and human services

Subsection (a) amends section 601 of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act by striking ``within the Public Health
Service of the Department of Health and Human Services'' each
place it appears and inserting ``within the Department of
Health and Human Services, and striking ``report to the
Secretary through the Assistant Secretary for Health of the
Department of Health and Human Services'' and inserting
``report to the Secretary''.
Subsection (b) amends the heading of section 601 of the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
Subsection (c) provides that nothing in this section may be
interpreted as terminating or otherwise modifying any
authority providing for the IHS to use Public Health Service
officers or employees to carrying out the purpose and
responsibilities of the IHS.
Subseciton (c) further states that any officers or
employees used by the IHS shall be treated as officers or
employees detailed to an executive department under section
214(a) of the Public Health Service.<bullet>
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 312. A bill to provide for an Assistant Administrator for Indian
Lands in the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

the assistant administrator for indian lands act for 1995
<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to
provide for an Assistant Administrator for Indian Lands in the
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. I want to thank my friend, the
distinguished Senator from Hawaii and the vice chairman of the
Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Inouye, for joining with me as an
original cosponsor of this bill.
The bill we are introducing today would establish the position of
Assistant Administrator for Indian Lands at EPA. The President would
appoint this individual, subject to confirmation by the Senate. The
Assistant Administrator for Indian lands would be responsible for
coordinating and implementing Federal environmental laws and all EPA
activities with respect to Indian lands, including the 1984 Indian
policy.
This bill is similar in concept to an amendment which I offered in
the last Congress to provide for an Assistant Secretary for Indian
lands in the proposed Department of the Environment. That amendment won
the overwhelming bipartisan support of the Senate with 79 Senators
voting in favor of it. As we all know, no final action was taken by the
House of Representatives on the issue of cabinet status for EPA. Many
Indian tribal governments supported the Senate's action in the 103d
Congress, and I fully expect that there will be strong support for the
bill we are introducing today.
I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to Administrator
Browner for the actions she has taken in the past year to establish a
Tribal Operations Committee and an American Indian Environmental Office
within EPA which is under the leadership of a highly qualified native
American, Mr. Terry Williams. Each of these actions reflects a sincere
commitment on the part of the Administrator to try to ensure that EPA
addresses environmental protection on Indian lands.
While I support the actions which have been taken by Administrator
[[Page S1952]] Browner, I believe that much more needs to be done.
Issues involving Indian land must be addressed at the
highest policy levels of EPA on a consistent basis. This will only
occur when the Indian tribes are assured a seat at the policy table.
The bill we are introducing today will provide that assurance.

Indian lands comprise nearly 5 percent of all of the lands in the
United States. This is an area equal to the size of New England and the
States of Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey combined. The Navajo
Nation alone is equal to the size of the State of West Virginia.
Mr. President, the environmental problems on Indian lands in the
United States are serious, widespread, and complex:
There are at least 600 solid waste landfills on Indian lands that do
not meet Federal standards. Many of these sites are potentially
hazardous.
Federal officials have testified before the Committee on Indian
Affairs that of 108 sanitary landfills constructed by the Federal
Government on Indian lands, no more than 2 are in compliance with EPA
regulations.
The Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota has contaminated drinking
water from uranium mining and numerous unsanitary landfills.
Landfills located on the Devil's Lake Sioux Reservation in North
Dakota and the Oneida Reservation in Wisconsin have been described as
being laced with arsenic, mercury, and other illegally dumped
chemicals.
The Navajo Reservation in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah has an
estimated 1,000 sites polluted by old uranium mines or uranium waste.
Navajo officials have testified that there are as many as 1,200 open
solid waste dumps on the reservation, some of which were built and used
by Federal agencies.
Mercury pollution on Seminole land in Florida threatens fishing and
the gathering of food.
The worst spill of low-level radioactive waste in American history
occurred 13 years ago at a uranium mine on the Navajo Reservation in
New Mexico.
I want to remind my colleagues that these environmental maladies are
afflicting the very poorest communities in the United States.
Unemployment in Indian country averages 50 percent and on some
reservations exceeds 90 percent. More than 15 percent of Indian homes
lack basic sanitation facilities--rate eight times worse than the rest
of the United States. On the Navajo Reservation alone, more than 11,000
homes lack running water and sewage disposal.
These disturbing facts have a definite cost in human
lives. According to the Indian Health Service, over half of the
infant deaths in Navajo country in 1989 occurred in homes without
running water.

In monetary terms, the funds that are needed to address environmental
problems on reservations are enormous, and far beyond the scarce
resources of most Indian tribes. The Indian Health Service has
estimated that the unmet needs of tribes for health related water
systems, sewage treatment, and solid waste disposal are at least $700
million.
A 1989 EPA report found that since 1972, $48 billion in Federal funds
had been awarded to the States to construct wastewater treatment
facilities, but only $25 million had been made available to the Indian
tribes by the States. The same EPA report estimated that the tribes
will need at least $470 million to comply with the wastewater treatment
provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Since 1986, the Congress has acted to ensure that Indian tribes are
eligible for treatment as States under the Clean Water Act, the Clean
Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and Superfund. We have enacted
the Indian Environmental Regulatory Enhancement Act and the Indian
Environmental General Assistance Act to authorize funding to assist
Indian tribes in the development of environmental regulatory capacity.
Funding from EPA to the tribes has steadily increased since the
announcement in 1984 of EPA's Indian policy. All of these steps were
important, but the record clearly demonstrates that much more must be
done.
The bill we are introducing today constitutes another important step
in the process of ensuring that Indian lands receive the full measure
of environmental protection afforded to other areas of the United
States. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a summary of it be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 312

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

SECTION 1. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR INDIAN LANDS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Appointment.--The President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall appoint within the Environmental
Protection Agency an Assistant Administrator for Indian
Lands.
(2) Compensation.--The Assistant Administrator for Indian
Lands appointed under this subsection shall be compensated at
a rate provided for in level V of the Executive Schedule
under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Duties.--The Assistant Administrator for Indian Lands
appointed under this section shall--
(1) coordinate the activities of the Environmental
Protection Agency with respect to Indian lands and federally
recognized Indian tribes; and
(2) implement the stated policy of the Environmental
Protection Agency commonly referred to as the ``1984 Indian
Policy''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Assistant Administrator for Indian Lands, Environmental
Protection Agency.''.
____

Section-by-Section Summary

Section 1. Subsection (a) of this section provides that the
President shall appoint an Assistant Administrator for Indian
Lands in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
appointee is subject to Senate confirmation and will be
compensated as a level V Executive branch employee.
Subsection (b) provides that the Assistant Administrator
for Indian Lands will coordinate all of the activities of EPA
with respect to Indian lands and federally recognized Indian
tribes, including the implementation of the 1984 Indian
Policy.
Subsection (c) is a conforming amendment to section 5316 of
title 5 of the United States Code.

<bullet> Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman John
McCain of the Committee on Indian Affairs in introducing legislation
which would provide for the creation of an assistant administrator for
Indian Lands within the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. President, in 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]
adopted an Indian policy. In the ensuing 10 years, major environmental
statutes have been amended to recognize the importance of tribal
governments in the administration of environmental regulatory
activities on Indian lands. Its record of action makes clear that the
Environmental Protection Agency is committed to achieving the goals of
its Indian policy.
Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the
head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Administrator Carol M.
Browner, for initiating efforts to improve communications with Indian
tribal governments through the recent establishment of the new Indian
Environmental Office in EPA.
However, although we have accomplished a great deal working together,
it is also clear that our work is not complete.
This legislation will be a key to the continued successful
implementation on the Environmental Protection Agency's Indian policy
by ensuring that the Agency develops a national infrastructure to
protect and ensure equitable treatment for Indian tribal governments
comparable to the treatment afforded the programs that are administered
by the several States.
Mr. President, one of the obstacles to effective implementation of
EPA's Indian policy has been the lack of involvement, including line
authority, in decisionmaking processes. The solution is to authorize
critical positions in the chain of command. The process of reviewing
Agency actions for their consistency with EPA's Indian policy must be
institutionalized; it must become second nature to all levels of the
Environmental Protection Agency organizational structure.
Mr. President, I believe that the creation of an assistant
administrator for
[[Page S1953]] Indian lands would be an effective means of addressing
this problem.
The assistant administrator would have responsibility for ensuring
that the decisions and actions of the central or regional offices are
consistent with EPA's Indian policy in areas ranging from major policy
and legislative initiatives to the most basic programming decisions.
This legislation will continue to move the Environmental Protection
Agency in a direction that will enhance environmental quality on
reservation lands and help build strong tribal governmental capacity
for the management of the environment in Indian country.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to give their careful
consideration to this legislation.<bullet>
______

By Mr. EXON (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
S. 314. A bill to protect the public from the misuse of the
telecommunications network and telecommunications devices and
facilities; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

the communications decency act

<bullet> Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
to expand the decency provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 to
clearly cover the new technologies which are increasingly part of the
American way of life.
As a strong supporter of telecommunications reform, I am anxious to
pass legislation which will free the private sector to create the
information superhighway. This exciting technology will put
unprecedented information power into the hands of every citizen. The
opportunities for education, culture, and entertainment are limitless.
Sadly, there is a dark side to the bright flicker of the computer
screen. The explosion of technology also threatens an explosion of
misuse. The legislation I introduce today, known as the Communications
Decency Act, establishes legal protections against that misuse.
It modernizes the current law against telecommunications misuse in
the digital age.
This legislation will extend and strengthen the protections which
exist against harassing, obscene, and indecent phone calls to cover all
such uses of all telecommunications devices and increase the penalties
for misuse of the public switched network.
This much-needed legislation increases the penalties for obscene
cable and radio broadcasts. The bill also insures that adult pay-per-
view programs are fully scrambled, so that homes which do not subscribe
to such services are not invaded by unwanted audio or video. The
legislation also prohibits the use of toll free 800 numbers from being
used as a ruse to
charge callers or telephone numbers for adult and other pay-per-call
services.

In addition, the legislation modernizes the protections against
unauthorized eavesdropping on conversations, electronic or digital
communications.
In addition, this legislation includes provisions Senator Gorton and
I crafted last year to give cable operators the power to refuse to
transmit any public access or leased access program or portion of such
program which includes obscenity, indecency, or nudity.
Mr. President, the information superhighway should not become a red
light district. This legislation will keep that from happening and
extend the standards of decency which have protected telephone users to
new telecommunications devices.
Once passed, our children and families will be better protected from
those who would electronically cruise the digital world to engage
children in inappropriate communications and introductions. The Decency
Act will also clearly protect citizens from electronic stalking and
protect the sanctuary of the home from uninvited indecencies.
Mr. President, to illustrate the need for this legislation, I ask
unanimous consent that a Washington Post article be included in the
Record. The article warns parents about the dangers of pedophiles who
use computers to lure children. It is a sad day in America when this
type of warning is necessary.
Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to carefully study this
important legislation. It was approved last year by the Senate Commerce
Committee as a part of the Communications Act of 1994.<bullet>
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Aug. 2, 1994]

Molesting Children by Computer

(By Sandy Rovner)

Those amazing computer games, bulletin boards and E-mail
services that bedazzle children and bewilder many parents may
not be as benign as they appear.
Some of them, in fact, may be prowled by real-life villains
every bit as evil as those in the fantasy games the
youngsters play on-line.
``You can become very close to people very quickly when
you're on-line,'' says Dan Fisher, a Palm Bay, Fla., police
investigator and a member of the Law Enforcement Electronic
Technology Assistance Committee, part of a new effort to make
police as familiar with the computer world of virtual reality
as these savvy criminals. Law enforcement officials say that
children, often not realizing the danger, sometimes give out
their names, addresses and phone numbers to people they meet
over the computer network. This makes them vulnerable targets
for a number of illegal activities, including sexual abuse,
officials say.
For people who have computers with modems that allow them
to call outside the home and connect up with networks, there
are a number of online services, such as Prodigy, America on
Line and Compuserve, that offer a wide variety of options to
users. Included in these services are forums called bulletin
boards that allow users to talk electronically with other
users by posting public notes. These boards are divided into
special interests, such as arts, television, lifestyles,
seniors, health or teens. These permit individuals to contact
other computer users privately by sending electronic mail,
known as E-mail, through the Internet, the vast network of
computer connections throughout the world.
Although there are laws banning transmission of child porn
by computer, the FBI does not monitor bulletin boards, and,
in a special statement issued recently on computer bulletin
boards, it notes that it does not keep statistics on the
problem. Law enforcement efforts are complicated by the fact
that E-mail transmissions are ``regarded as having the same
privacy rights of surface mail,'' the FBI statement noted.
Frank Clark, a computer crime specialist in Fresno, Calif.,
who helps teach other police departments about electronic
crimes, said there are about 25,000 private boards on the
Internet in the country. Yet, ``we found that virtually no
one was working those kinds of crimes at all,'' he said.
He travels throughout the United States and Canada giving
courses to law enforcement agencies on computer crimes. He
cites one episode at a meeting last month in Ottowa at which
he had a group of investigators sign on to a major computer
service with false identifications and pretend to be
children. ``Then I had them post a couple of innocuous
messages on teens' boards,'' he says. ``The next day we had
solicitations for nude pictures, phone sex and offers to meet
in person for sex.''
Myrna Blinn, an Idaho grandmother, has worked with child
abuse groups for years and is among a number of volunteers
who warn teenagers via computer bulletin boards not to give
away too much personal information to overly friendly
electronic mail pals.
She said she received an anguished E-mail letter from a 14-
year-old girl who had been corresponding on-line with someone
she thought was a teenage boy. She had given him her phone
number, but the boy turned out to be a 51-year-old man and he
began barraging her with indecent phone calls. She was afraid
to tell her family. Blinn and two of her friends confronted
the man electronically and turned over information about him
to police officials, who are investigating the case. They
have arranged for the girl to get counseling.
Clark believes the tide is beginning to turn as parents and
law enforcement officials are recognizing the possibility of
problems. Computer services are also beginning to monitor
their bulletin boards and helping police stop any unlawful
activities, he said.
Despite increasing concerns, parents are often stymied in
their efforts to monitor their kids because ``the children
are more computer-literate than the parents,'' Clark says. To
counter that, Clark and his colleagues have developed a
brochure they distribute at schools, churches and community
meetings. It recommends:
If possible, keep the computer in a common area of the
home. If a modem is being used, monitor times and numbers
dialed.
Know the warning signs of ``computer addiction'' to make
sure children aren't becoming obsessed with the computer
service. One clue is the storage of computer files ending in
GIF, JPG, BMP, TIF, PCX, DL and GL. ``These,'' the brochure
notes, ``are video or graphic image files and parents should
know what they illustrate.''
The brochure also offers ``Tips for Safe Computing'' for
teens and parents.
Never give out personal information, especially full names,
addresses or financial information, to anyone you meet on
computer bulletin boards.
Never respond to anyone who leaves you ``obnoxious, sexual
or menacing E-mail.''
[[Page S1954]] Never set up face-to-face meetings with
anyone you meet on a bulletin board.
The brochure also urges parents to notify police of ``all
attempts by adults to set up meetings with your children.
This is by far the most dangerous situation for children.''
______

By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself and Mr. Dole):
S. 322. A bill to amend the International Air Transportation
Competition Act of 1979; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

the wright amendment repeal act of 1995

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, the distinguished Republican leader,
Senator Dole, joins with me today in offering this bill to address an
injustice that has developed out of current law. The bill would repeal
a restriction in the International Air Transportation Competition Act
of 1979 pertaining to air carrier service at Dallas' Love Field. There
is now broad recognition of the anticompetitive situation that has
developed because of this section of law, and it is our intent to
resolve the unfairness of this situation.
The restriction which this bill seeks to repeal was originally passed
to protect the then-relatively new Dallas-Fort Worth International
Airport [DFW] and ensure that commercial air carriers moved from Love
Field to the new airport. Today, DFW is the third busiest airport in
the country. The gates at DFW are full, and planes wait in long lines
for takeoff. It is clear that DFW has reached a point where it no
longer needs to be protected from competition.
Under current law, commercial air carriers are prohibited from
providing service between Dallas' Love Field and points located outside
of Texas or its four surrounding States. This effectively limits travel
into and out of this airfield to destinations only in Texas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, and New Mexico. Flights originating from any other
State must fly into the Dallas-Fort Worth airport in order to have
access to the highly traveled Dallas area. This limitation on flights
into Love Field is arbitrary and, in many cases, forces passengers to
pay artificial and unreasonably high air fares. Moreover, the
restriction causes unnecessary delay and inconvenience for passengers
attempting to fly into or out of Love Field from cities outside Texas
and its four contiguous States.
The criteria the current law uses to restrict flights into Love
Field--that a flight must originate in Texas or one of its contiguous
States--are not based on any standard appropriate for the airline
industry. It is not based on the number of miles flown. It is not based
on the size of the city served. It is not based on the amount of noise
generated by an aircraft. Instead, it is based on State boundaries that
were in place long before the Wright brothers began flying airplanes.
Today, planes are allowed to fly directly from Love Field to El Paso
which is 576 miles from Dallas. Yet, direct flights are prohibited
between Love Field and many cities which are much closer to Dallas,
such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Memphis, Birmingham, and Wichita. This
makes no sense.
Mr. President, a great deal has been written recently about unwanted
and unnecessary Government rules and regulations. People are frustrated
by Government rules that are out of touch with reality, that lack
common sense. I think the Wright amendment is a prime example of why so
many people have lost confidence in their Government.
In addition to being a law based on policial concerns rather than
practical realities, the Wright amendment has distorted the free
market. For a number of Americans, the restrictions on Love Field have
forced them to pay more to travel to Dallas than their neighbors.
Again, this is regardless of the flight distance or the size of the
city served by the flight. The reason for this absurd situation is that
the one airline which serves Love Field is the low-cost carrier for the
market, Southwest Airlines. In those cases where Southwest is allowed
to compete with the major airlines for direct flights to Dallas, the
cost of a ticket to Dallas is dramatically cheaper than when
restrictions prevent Southwest from offering competitive flights.
Another effect of the Love Field restrictions is that they work a
terrible inconvenience for those travelers located outside of Texas and
the contiguous States who choose to take a nondirect flight to Dallas
on Southwest Airlines. Passengers in this situation are not allowed to
buy a round-trip ticket to Dallas on a flight which has a stop-over in
a city that meets the Love Field restrictions. Instead, these
passengers must buy two round-trip tickets. One round-trip ticket to a
city in Texas or one of the contiguous States and another from that
city to Dallas. This requires the travelers not only to change planes
in the connecting city but to collect their baggage and recheck it to
Dallas. The unnecessary inconvenience of having to collect and recheck
baggage can be especially difficult for the elderly, the disabled, or
those traveling with small children.
To allow this situation to continue would be to condone
anticompetitive law and to encourage discrimination against many for
the benefit of a few. I believe it is essential to encourage
competition within the transportation community in order to protect the
interests of the traveling public. The case with Love Field is no
different than that of all the other small airfields across the
country, none of which is restricted based on their location. Love
Field has been subject to this unique statute for more than 15 years,
and it big time to close this loophole.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I join my distinguished colleague from
Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, to introduce legislation to repeal the so-
called Wright amendment. Senator Kassebaum and I have been working to
repeal this anti-competitive regulation which restricts commercial
airline flights to and from Dallas Love Field. Make no doubt about it,
the time to act is now.
Last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision which let the Wright
amendment stand makes the legislation we are introducing all the more
important. I stated at the time the decision was issued that I would
continue to work to ground the Wright amendment and protect air
travelers from getting gouged and now the only relief for the traveling
public is through this legislation we are offering today.
The Wright amendment was originally introduced to protect the
fledgling Dallas-Forth Worth [DWF] International airport. This airport
is now one of the busiest airports in the Nation. Dallas is the top
destination for passengers flying from Wichita, and there is no reason
they should not have the option of flying into Love Field or Dallas-
Forth Worth airports. This regulation not only places restrictions on
passengers from Kansas, but from 44 States across the Nation. In my
view, the DWF airport no longer needs protection, and it is time to
lift the restrictions on Love Field.
The restrictions placed on flights from Love Field 15 years ago deny
affordable air transportation to citizens of my State and States
throughout a vast portion of our country which do not fall into the
limitations of the Wright amendment. The restrictions make it
impossible to fly directly into Love Field except for those flights
originating within Texas and States neighboring Texas. Not only is it
impossible to take a direct flight, but if you are flying into Love
Field, a passenger is required to purchase separate tickets, reclaim
baggage, and change planes in these neighboring States. Let's assume
this passenger is traveling from Wichita. At Oklahoma City, the
passenger, having used the first ticket must change aircraft. And not
just that, the passenger must take physical possession of all checked
baggage, haul the baggage back to the ticket counter and recheck the
baggage for the flight into Love Field.
A 1992 U.S. Department of Transportation study reported that these
restrictions cost air travelers $183 million a year in higher air
fares. That's why Kansans have been demanding the repeal of the so-
called Wright amendment--they're tired of higher air fares, reduced
travel options, and a distinct second-class status for Kansas air
travelers.
Not only are Kansans inconvenienced, but Texans as well. I have a
letter from a Texan who has to fly to the connecting airport in another
State to assist her mother in a wheelchair who must ``change planes,
meet her there, transfer her luggage, and recheck her onto another
flight.'' I would like to
[[Page S1955]] enter her letter of concern in the Record.
The Wright amendment is a burden for Kansas consumers and a barrier
to economic development. It's high time we grounded the Wright
amendment.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

November 29, 1994.

Re: Wright amendment--its repeal.
Hon. Robert Dole.
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dole: I agree with you 100 percent--the Wright
Amendment restricting the use of Love Field in Dallas, Texas,
is wrong, wrong, wrong!
I believe the amendment needs to be challenged in terms of
the Americans Disability Act. It is my understanding that the
purpose of this act is to give better access to public places
to people with a disability. I feel this right is being
severely restricted by the Wright Amendment. It is almost
impossible for a person with a walker, wheelchair, crutches,
etc. to disembark from a Southwest flight, get to baggage
claim, pick up their luggage, and get rechecked at another
gate, without considerable inconvenience, pain, and
discomfort. Have you ever tried to carry luggage and
manipulate a wheelchair, crutches, or the like? This is
certainly not granting better access.
My mother is 82 years old and was faced with that very
problem. She is in a wheelchair and was unable to accomplish
all of the above. The fares were prohibitive for her to fly
with another airline. I had to fly to the airport where she
had to change planes, meet her there, transfer her luggage,
and recheck her onto another flight. It seems to me that the
Wright Amendment unfairly discriminates against the elderly
and people with a handicap.
I think on these grounds the Wright Amendment should be
challenged and eliminated. I would be more than happy to work
with you or any other group that is interested in pursuing
this course of action. Repeal of the Wright Amendment is
becoming a mission in my life.
Sincerely,
Paulette B. Cooper.
Dallas, TX.

P.S. I noticed recently that Continental Airline is being
given access to several gates at Love Field. Will the Wright
Amendment affect them in the same ways that it affects
Southwest Airlines? If not, why not?
______

By Mrs. KASSEBAUM.
S. 323. A bill to amend the Goals 2000: Educate America Act to
eliminate the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

the national education standards and improvement council repeal act of
1995

<bullet> Mrs. Kassebaum. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to
eliminate the National Education Standards and Improvement Council
[NESIC]. NESIC was created by the Goals 2000: Education America Act
signed into law last year for the purpose of reviewing and certifying
voluntary national education standards.
The recent controversy over proposed standards in the field of
history underscore the difficulties with any Federal involvement in the
standard-setting process. No matter how much one might emphasize the
voluntary nature of any standards, the perception remains that the
Federal Government is prescribing a uniform curriculum for our Nation's
students.
Writing recently about the history standards, University of Chicago
history professor Hanna Holborn Gray observed:

The trouble with the ``national standards'' is not that
they are far-out, or radically revisionist, or aimed at
brainwashing the impressionable young. * * * No, the real
trouble with the national standards, is that they exist at
all--or exist under that title and under quasi-official
auspices and with some kind of ``certification'' in the
offing.

As one who believes strongly that the strength of our education
system lies in its local base and community commitment, I do not
believe it is appropriate to expand Federal involvement into areas
traditionally handled by States and localities. For this reason, I was
troubled when we first started down the path of providing Federal
funding for the development of national standards--an action which
predated the enactment of the Goals 2000 legislation.
One reason I opposed the Goals 2000 legislation is that it took
Federal activities in this area yet another step further by including
an authorization for a national council--NESIC--to review and certify
the national standards. The existence of such a council only serves to
sow further confusion regarding whether the standards are truly
voluntary.
As has been repeatedly emphasized in various congressional debates on
this subject, there is no Federal law which requires that these
standards be adopted or used by any State or school district. Although
standards in various subject areas have been developed with the support
of Federal funds, they have been designed by professionals in the
field, not by Federal employees as some may think. However, there is
still great confusion and serious concern by the public about the
nature of the Government's involvement in this whole endeavor.
I believe it is time to clear up some of this public confusion and
concern. My bill will help do that by getting the Federal Government
out of the loop in an area which I believe is best handled by States
and localities. Most of our States are already developing standards
with the input of their own teachers and parents. Those States clearly
do not need to have a Federal seal of approval to validate their
efforts.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the text of my bill and a summary of its
provisions be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 323

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION STANDARDS
AND IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL.

(a) Amendment.--Part B of title II of the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act (20 U.S.C. 5841 et seq.) is amended to
read as follows:

``PART B--NATIONAL STANDARDS

``SEC. 211. PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL STANDARDS.

``No Federal agency shall expend Federal funds for the
development or dissemination of model or national content
standards, national student performance standards, or
national opportunity-to-learn standards.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if enacted on January 1, 1995.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Goals 2000: Educate America Act.--
(1) The table of contents for the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act is amended, in the items relating to title II, by
striking the items relating to part B of such title and
inserting the following:
``Part B--National Standards

``Sec. 211. Prohibition of Federal funding for the development of
national standards.''.
(2) Section 3(a)(7) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5802(a)(7)) is
amended by striking ``voluntary national content standards
or''.
(3) Section 201 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5821) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (3).
(4) Section 203(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5823(a)) is
amended--
(A) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively.
(5) Section 204(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5824(a)) is
amended--
(A) by striking all beginning with ``(a) Hearings.--''
through ``shall, for'' and inserting ``(a) Hearings.--The
Goals Panel shall, for''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2).
(6) Section 241 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5871) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a) National Education
Goals Panel.--''; and
(B) by striking subsections (b) through (d).
(7) Section 304(a)(2) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5884(a)(2)) is
amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period; and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C).
(8) Section 308(b)(2)(A) of such Act (20 U.S.C.
5888(b)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``including'' and all
that follows through ``of title II;'' and inserting
``including through consortia of States;''.
(9) Section 312(b) (20 U.S.C. 5892(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (1); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively.
(10) Section 314(a)(6) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5894(a)(6))
is amended by striking ``, if--'' and all that follows
through ``populations''.
(11) Section 315 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5895) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking paragraph (2);
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as
paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively;
(iii) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``paragraph (4) of
this subsection'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)'';
[[Page S1956]] (iv) in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2)
(as redesignated by clause (ii)), by striking ``and the
voluntary national content'' and all that follows through
``differences'';
(v) in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) (as redesignated
by clause (ii)), by striking ``paragraph (5),'' and inserting
``paragraph (4),''; and
(vi) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by clause (ii)), by
striking ``paragraph (4)'' each place it appears and
inserting ``paragraph (3)'';
(B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of subsection
(c)(2), by striking ``subsection (b)(4)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)(3)''; and
(C) in subsection (f), by striking ``subsection (b)(4)''
each place it appears and inserting ``subsection (b)(3)''.
(12) Section 316 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5896) is repealed.
(13) Section 503 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5933) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1)--

(I) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``28'' and inserting ``27'';
(II) by striking subparagraph (D); and
(III) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) through (G) as
subparagraphs (D) through (F), respectively;

(ii) in paragraphs (2), (3), and (5), by striking
``subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G)'' each place it appears and
inserting ``subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F)'';
(iii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subparagraph (G)''
and inserting ``subparagraph (F)'';
(iv) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(C), and (D)'' and
inserting ``and (C)''; and
(v) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of paragraph
(5), by striking ``subparagraph (E), (F), or (G)'' and
inserting ``subparagraph (D), (E), or (F)''; and
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``subparagraph (E)''
and inserting ``subparagraph (D)''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subparagraphs (E),
(F), and (G)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (D), (E), and
(F)''.
(14) Section 504 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 5934) is amended--
(A) by striking subsection (f); and
(B) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f).
(b) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.--
(1) Section 2102(c) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6622(c) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``including information
on voluntary national content standards and voluntary
national student performance standards''; and
(B) in paragraph (7)--
(i) by striking ``voluntary national content standards,'';
and
(ii) by striking ``, voluntary national student performance
standards''.
(2) Section 2402(3)(A) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6702(3)(A))
is amended by striking ``, challenging State student
performance'' and all that follows through the semicolon and
inserting ``or challenging State student performance
standards;''.
(3) Section 3151(b)(5)(H) of such Act (20 U.S.C.
6871(b)(5)(H)) is amended by striking ``the voluntary
national content standards, the voluntary national student
performance standards and''.
(4) Section 3206(b)(12) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6896(b)(12)
is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (H), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) by striking subparagraph (I); and
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph (I).
(5) Section 7136 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7456) is amended by
striking ``and which are consistent with voluntary national
content standards and challenging State content standards''.
(6) Section 10963(b)(5)(B) of such Act (20 U.S.C.
8283(b)(5)(B)) is amended by striking ``or to bring teachers
up to national voluntary standards''.
(7) Section 14701(b)(1)(B)(v) of such Act (20 U.S.C.
8941(b)(1)(B)(v)) is amended by striking ``the National
Education Goals Panel,'' and all that follows through
``assessments)'' and inserting ``and the National Education
Goals Panel''.
(c) General Education Provisions Act.--Section 428 of the
General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1228b), as
amended by section 237 of the Improving America's Schools Act
of 1994 (Public Law 103-382) is amended by striking ``the
National Education Standards and Improvement Council,''.
(d) Education Amendments of 1978.--
(1) Section 1121 of the Education Amendments of 1978 (25
U.S.C. 2001), as amended by section 381 of the Improving
America's Schools Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-382) is
amended--
(A) by striking subsection (b);
(B) by redesignating subsections (c) through (l) as
subsections (b) through (k), respectively;
(C) in subsection (b) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B))--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and the findings of the
studies and surveys described in subsection (b)''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (f)'' and
inserting ``subsection (e)'';
(D) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B)), by striking ``subsection (c)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)'';
(E) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B)), by striking ``subsection (c) and (d)'' and inserting
``subsections (b) and (c)'';
(F) in paragraph (1) of subsection (e) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (B)), by striking ``subsections (c) and (d)''
each place it appears and inserting ``subsections (b) and
(c)''; and
(G) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B)), by striking ``subsections (e) and (f)'' and inserting
``subsections (d) and (e)''.
(2) Section 1122(d)(1) of such Act (25 U.S.C. 2002(d)(1))
is amended--
(A) by striking ``section 1121(c)'' and inserting ``section
1121(b)''; and
(B) by striking ``section 1121(e)'' and inserting ``section
1121(d)''.
(3) Section 1130 of such Act (25 U.S.C. 2010) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(4), by striking
``section 1121(h)'' and inserting ``section 1121(g)''; and
(B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of subsection
(f)(1), by striking ``section 1121(k)'' and inserting
``section 1121(j)''.
(4) Section 1137(a)(3) of such Act (25 U.S.C. 2017(a)(3))
is amended by striking ``sections 1121(g)'' and inserting
``sections 1121(f)''.
____

Summary of S. 323

The bill:
(1) Eliminates all of Part B of Title II of the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act, which includes the authority for the
establishment of the National Education Standards and
Improvement Council (NESIC).
(2) Eliminates the National Education Goals Panel's federal
authority to approve or endorse voluntary national standards.
(3) Prohibits the federal government from funding the
development of model or national content, student
performance, or opportunity-to-learn standards.
(4) Contains numerous conforming amendments to the Goals
2000: Educate America Act, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, and the Education Amendments of
1978.<bullet>
______

By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Thomas, and Mr.
Simpson):
S. 324. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
exclude from the definition of employee firefighters and rescue squad
workers who perform volunteer services and to prevent employers from
requiring employees who are firefighters or rescue squad workers to
perform volunteer services, and to allow an employer not to pay
overtime compensation to a firefighter or rescue squad worker who
performs volunteer services for the employer, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

the volunteer firefighter and rescue squad worker act

<bullet> Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This is a
companion measure to legislation, H.R. 94, introduced in the House of
Representatives by Virginia Congressman Herb Bateman.
My bill may be referred to as the Volunteer Firefighter and Rescue
Squad Worker Act of 1994.
The purpose of the Volunteer Firefighter and Rescue Squad Worker Act
is to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exclude from the
definition of ``employee'' firefighters and rescue squad workers who
perform volunteer services. In addition, it will prevent employers from
requiring employees who are firefighters or rescue squad workers to
perform volunteer services, and will allow an employer not to pay
overtime compensation to a firefighter or rescue squad worker who
performs volunteer services.
The need for this legislation stems from a 1993 U.S. Department of
Labor ruling which found that a career firefighter cannot serve as a
volunteer firefighter within the same county as
they are employed. This ruling is commonly referred to as the
Montgomery County, Maryland decision.

The Department of Labor's interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act in the Montgomery decision has promoted a great deal of concern
from volunteer fire and rescue groups across the Nation, including
Virginia. The decision was made to prevent counties--employers--from
coercing career firefighters to work overtime without overtime
compensation.
While protection from coercion is a worthy and necessary element of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the administrative decision offers a
presumption of guilt on the part of law-abiding counties. In addition,
it precludes men and women who wish to volunteer their services within
their own community from doing so, if they reside in the same community
as they are employed.
[[Page S1957]] Finally, it represents yet another unfunded Federal
mandate and an intrusion on the rights of citizens to decide for
themselves what services local government should provide.
Historically, volunteer fire and rescue services have played an
important role in our communities. These men and women are private
citizens who selflessly answer the call to duty, day and night, to
protect the lives and property of others.
In many parts of Virginia today, indeed in many parts of the Nation
still, the difference between life and death in the ``golden hour'' is
the initial emergency medical services provided by volunteer rescue
workers. Many localities are a good 45 minutes to an hour away from the
nearest hospital and the aid administered by volunteers is critical to
the survival of victims.
The volunteer fire departments and rescue squads provide fire and
emergency medical services [EMS] for 82 percent of all fire and EMS
services in Virginia. Of the 602 fire departments in the Commonwealth
of Virginia, 67 are combined career and volunteer departments and 535
are strictly volunteer departments. These statistics only begin to tell
about the important role that the 20,000 volunteer firefighters in
Virginia play in our daily lives.
Mr. President, the intent of my legislation is quite simply to help
to preserve the spirit of volunteerism in our communities and to assist
our volunteer fire and rescue workers in their mission to provide vital
lifesaving and property protection services.
Many of our valiant career firefighters come from the ranks of the
volunteers and received their initial training from those departments.
In turn, many career firefighters have volunteered their service and
expertise to the volunteer departments. I believe that my legislation
will help to preserve this unique relationship.
For the benefit of my colleagues, I would briefly like to outline
what my legislation would do.
Section one simply cites the legislation as the Volunteer Firefighter
and Rescue Squad Worker Act.
Section two would exempt career firefighters and rescue squad workers
who volunteer their off-duty services at locations--fire companies--
where they are not employed during the course of normal duty hours from
the Fair Labor Standards overtime provisions.
Section three would allow career firefighters and rescue squad
workers to waive their claim to overtime compensation.
Section four would prohibit employers from directly or indirectly
requiring firefighters or rescue squad workers to volunteer their
services during any period in which they would otherwise be entitled to
receive overtime compensation.
Mr. President, I urge my fellow Senators, particularly members of the
Congressional Fire Caucus, to join me in support of this important
measure.<bullet>
______

By Mr. THOMAS:
S. 325. A bill to make certain technical corrections in laws relating
to native Americans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian
Affairs.

indian statute amendments

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today as a member of the Committee
on Indian Affairs--and a former ranking member of the House
Subcommittee on Native American Affairs--to introduce legislation to
make certain technical amendments to laws relating to native Americans.
Congress typically considers legislation like this once or twice a
year. It affords us the opportunity to address a series of technical
corrections or minor amendments to Indian bills in one fell swoop,
without having to introduce several separate bills.
Sections 1 and 2 deal with two bills that were passed last year which
extended Federal recognition to three Indian groups in Michigan: the
Pokagon Band of Potawatomi, and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa
Indians, and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians. The bills, passed
in September, failed to include a usual provision requiring the newly
recognized groups to submit membership rolls to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. These rolls are important because they allow the BIA to know
exactly who is a member of the band and thus entitled to Federal
benefits available to members of recognized tribes.
To correct this oversight, in October--as part of another technical
corrections bill--we amended both the September bills to include the
membership roll requirements. Unfortunately, in the crush of
legislation of the final days of the session, the two amendments were
transposed. The Pokagon bill, which deals with only one band, was
amended in the plural; concomitantly, the Odawa/Ottawa bill, which
deals with several bands, had an amendment worded in the singular. This
bill would simply retranspose the October amendments.
Section 3 of the bill repeals the Trading With the Indians Act.
Enacted in the early 1800's, the act prohibits Federal employees from
trading with Indians. At the time, the act was seen as a way to protect
the unsophisticated tribes from unscrupulous War Department employees
who might have used their positions over the tribes to enter into
business deals with them on terms less than advantageous to the
Indians.
Today, though, the act has become both an anachronism and a nuisance.
Not only are the tribes no longer in need of the paternalistic
protections the act affords; but it makes criminal such simple everyday
acts as the sale of a used car by the wife of a BIA employee to an
Indian neighbor. Both the Department of Justice and the Department of
the Interior agree that the act is unnecessary, and should be repealed.
My good friends Senators McCain and Kyl worked diligently on this issue
in the last Congress, but time constraints prevented its passage by
both Houses before adjournment sine die.
Mr. President, I look forward to working closely with my chairman,
Senator McCain, in securing swift passage of this legislation.
______

By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Bumpers, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 326. A bill to prohibit U.S. military assistance and arms
transfers to foreign governments that are undemocratic, do not
adequately protect human rights, are engaged in acts of armed
aggression, or are not fully participating in the U.N. Registrar of
Conventional Arms; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

code of conduct on arms transfers

<bullet> Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, a little more than a year ago I
was approached by citizens who share my concern about conventional
weapons transfers. They told me of an international effort to curb the
arms trade by limiting transfers only to nations which adhere to
principles of human rights, democracy, and peace. This initiative,
called the Code of Conduct, appeared to be a common-sense approach to
decisions regarding weapons transfers and I agreed to introduce it as
legislation in the Senate.
Last year on this day Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and I held a
press conference to announce our intent to push the Code of Conduct
through Congress. Both of us have spent a great deal of time over these
past months promoting the bill and contributing to the public's
education about the glut of conventional weapons. It is with great
pleasure that I reintroduce this bill today and that I am again joined
by Representative McKinney, who is introducing its companion in the
House of Representatives.
The legislation alters U.S. arms transfer policy by significantly
increasing the conditions upon which a nation may receive U.S.-built
weapons. By stating as a basic requirement that U.S. arms should not go
to nations which have poor human rights records, are undemocratic or
are engaged in illegal acts of war, our policy allows arms transfers
only to nations which are unlikely to emerge as security threats to
their neighbors or to the United States themselves.
I have spoken to groups around the country about this bill and the
response has been very strong. Americans agree that no arms should go
to dictators. Many citizens are beginning to question why millions of
their tax dollars are going to subsidize weapons manufacturers who seek
to export fighter jets, tanks, and other armaments. And many
individuals have shared with me their concern that we will have repeats
of Panama, Somalia, Iraq, and Haiti, where United States
[[Page S1958]] troops faced weapons either paid for or provided by our
own Government.
Despite the fact that the safety of our troops has been threatened by
arms exports, the administration seems intent upon broadening the
justification for arms sales approval to also include considerations of
U.S. economic interests. In other words, the administration wants to
allow jobs to dictate whether or not lethal weaponry should go to
nations, many of which have poor human rights records and are not
democratic.
The escalating global arsenal must be reduced and nonproliferation
must start with the United States. I believe that the only hope for
fundamental change in policy is Congress and I will ask the Senate to
vote on the Code of Conduct this year because I believe it is time for
Congress to assume a greater responsibility for our arms export
policies. I hope that my colleagues will take time to review this
proposal, join me as a cosponsor and support this bill when it comes to
the floor.<bullet>
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Exon, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Grassley, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Kerrey):
S. 327. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
clarification for the deductibility of expenses incurred by a taxpayer
in connection with the business use of the home; to the Committee on
Finance.

home office deduction act

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Home
Office Deduction Act of 1995. I am joined today by my friends and
colleagues, Senators Baucus, Exon, Lieberman, Grassley, Johnston, and
Senator Kerrey of Nebraska. This bill will clarify the definition of
what a ``principal place of business'' is for purposes of section 280A
of the Internal Revenue Code, which allows a deduction for an office in
the home. An identical bill has been introduced by Representative Bill
Archer in the House as part of H.R. 9.
Last year, we introduced similar legislation that had 15 bipartisan
cosponsors in the Senate. Also, the companion bill in the House,
introduced last year by Representative Peter Hoagland, had the
bipartisan support of 88 cosponsors.
This bill is designed to reverse the 1993 Supreme Court decision in
Commissioner versus Soliman. When this decision was handed down, it
effectively closed the door to legitimate home-office deductions for
hundreds of thousands of taxpayers. Moreover, the decision unfairly
penalizes many small businesses simply because they operate from a home
rather than from a store front, office building, or industrial park.
Mr. President, until the Soliman decision, small business owners and
professionals who dedicate a space in their homes to use for business
activities were generally allowed to deduct the expenses of the home
office if they met the following conditions: First, the space in the
home was used solely and exclusively on a regular basis as an office;
and second, the deduction claimed was not greater than the income
earned by the business. Through the Soliman case, the Supreme Court has
narrowed significantly the availability of this deduction by requiring
that the home office be the principal business location of the
taxpayer. This requirement that the home office be the principal
business location has proven to be impossible to meet for many
taxpayers with legitimate home-office expenses.
For example, under the Soliman decision, a self-employed plumber who
generates business income by performing services in the homes of his
customers would be denied a deduction for a home office. This is
because, under the rules, his home office is not considered his
principal place of business because the business income is generated in
the homes of the customers and not in his home office. This is the case
even though the home office is where he receives telephone messages,
keeps his business records, plans his advertising, stores his tools and
supplies, and fills out Federal tax forms. In fact, having a full-time
employee in the office who keeps the books and sets up appointments
would still not result in a home-office deduction for the plumber. This
is preposterous, Mr. President, and we need to correct it. My bill
would rectify this result by allowing the home office to qualify as the
principal place of business if the essential administrative or
management activities of the business are performed there.
The truly ironic effect of the Supreme Court's decision is that a
taxpayer who rents office space outside the home is allowed a full
deduction, but one who tries to economize by working at home is
penalized. This makes no sense to me.
The Home Office Deduction Act of 1995 is designed to restore the
deduction for home-office expenses to pre-Soliman law. Rather than
requiring taxpayers to meet the new criteria set out by the Court, the
bill allows a home office to meet the definition of a ``principal place
of business'' if it is the location where the essential administrative
or management activities are conducted on a regular and systematic
basis by the taxpayer. To avoid possible abuses, the bill requires that
the taxpayer have no other location for the performance of these
essential administrative or management activities.
Mr. President, today's job market is rapidly changing. New
technologies have been developed and continually improved that allow
instant communication around the once expansive globe. There is even
talk of virtual offices, which are equipped only with a telephone and a
hookup for a portable computer. These mobile communications have
revolutionized the definition of the traditional office. No longer is
there a need to establish a business downtown. Employees are
telecommunicating by facsimile, modem, and telephone. Today, both a
husband and wife could work without leaving their home and the
attention of their children. In this new age, redefining the deduction
for home-office expenses is vital. Our tax policy should not
discriminate against home businesses simply because a taxpayer makes
the choice, often based on economic or family considerations, to
operate out of the home.
In most cases, startup businesses are very short on cash. Yet, for
many, ultimate success depends on the ability to hold out for just a
few more months. In these situations, even a relatively small tax
deduction for the expenses of the home office can make a critical
difference. It is important to note that some of America's fastest
growing and most dynamic companies originated in the spare bedroom or
the garage of the founder. Our tax policies should support those who
dare to take risks. Many of tomorrow's jobs will come from
entrepreneurs who are struggling to survive in a home-based business.
Mr. President, the home-office deduction is targeted at these small
business men and women, entrepreneurs, and independent contractors who
have no other place besides the home to perform the essential
administrative or management activities of the business. The Soliman
decision drastically reduced the effectiveness and fairness of this
deduction and must be reversed.
This legislation can also have an important effect on rural areas,
such as in my home State of Utah. Many small business owners and
professionals in rural areas must spend a great deal of time on the
road, meeting clients, customers, or patients. It is likely that many
of my rural constituents will be unable to meet the requirements for
the home-office deduction under the Soliman decision. Mr. President, we
must help these taxpayers, not hurt them, in their efforts to
contribute to the economy and support their families.
The Home Office Deduction Act of 1995 not only has strong bipartisan
support in the Congress, but also has the support of the following
organizations: The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants,
the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Family Research
Council, the Small Business Legislative Council, the National
Association of the Self-Employed, the National Association of the
Remodeling Industry, the National Association of Small Business
Investment Cos., the Direct Selling Association, the Promotional
Products Association International, the Illinois Women's Economic
Development Summit, the Alliance of Independent Store Owners and
Professionals, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Bureau
of Wholesale Sales Representatives, the National Association of Home
Builders, the International Home
[[Page S1959]] Furnishings Representatives Association, the National
Association of Women Business Owners, Communicating for Agriculture,
and the National Society of Public Accountants.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us as a cosponsor of this
important legislation.
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. 327

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 ``Home Office Deduction Act of
1995''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
BUSINESS.

Subsection (f) of section 280A of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and
(4) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively, and by
inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
``(2) Principal place of business.--For purposes of
subsection (c), a home office shall in any case qualify as
the principal place of business if--
``(A) the office is the location where the taxpayer's
essential administrative or management activities are
conducted on a regular and systematic (and not incidental)
basis by the taxpayer, and
``(B) the office is necessary because the taxpayer has no
other location for the performance of the essential
administrative or management activities of the business.''

SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF STORAGE OF PRODUCT SAMPLES.

Paragraph (2) of section 280A(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``inventory'' and
inserting ``inventory or product samples''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 1991.

<bullet> Mr. LIERBERMAN, Mr. President, I am delighted to join in the
introduction of this important bill to restore the home-office
deduction. As an original cosponsor of this bill in the last Congress,
I hope that we will succeed in passing this bill in the 104th Congress.
After being turned down by two tax courts, the IRS succeeded in
narrowing the definition of the home-office deduction by taking their
case to the Supreme Court. In essence, the early 1993 decision narrowed
the home-office deduction test to businesses where income is generated
in the home and to businesses where customers come to the home.
These new tests are flawed. They disallow the deduction for a whole
host of legitimate home businesses. Take plumbers or house painters.
Both plumbers and painters may run virtually all aspects of their
businesses from the home but in the end they must travel to the
customer. A plumber simply cannot insist that a bathtub be brought to
the office. There is a clear and compelling reason for a house painter
to make house calls.
Mr. President, this issue is of particular importance to my home
State of Connecticut where laid-off workers are using severance
packages to start businesses out of their homes, where underemployed
workers are making ends meet through part-time home businesses. There
are people I think of as forced entrepreneurs. They are people who have
struck out on their own in such numbers that they appear to be showing
up in labor statistics in my region of the country. To quote an October
1993 report by the New England Economic Project:

Households have been reporting more buoyant employment
conditions than establishments have. The number of New
Englanders now indicating they are working is 2 percent
higher than a year earlier. This upturn appears to reflect a
rise in self-employment and the emergence of small young
businesses that are not yet tabulated in the establishment
survey. In other words, people may be adjusting to shrinking
job opportunities at the region's traditional employers by
becoming entrepreneurs.

Mr. President, these rules take us in the wrong direction. They
ignore the trend toward home-based businesses by those who have lost
traditional office jobs, they ignore those who are working second jobs
to make ends meet, and they ignore those parents who choose to stay at
home with the children while still earning a much-needed income.
In the past, there have undoubtedly been abuses of this deduction. I
believe there has been cause to tighten these rules. But the solution
to these abuses has clearly not been found. To exclude whole sectors of
legitimate home-office businesses is hardly the answer to the problem
of abuse of this deduction. I should also point out that in this
economy, the last thing we should be doing is hurting legitimate
businesses.
I encourage my colleagues to join me as a sponsor of this
legislation.<bullet>
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 330. A bill to amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 to require
producers of an agricultural commodity for which an acreage limitation
program is in effect to pay certain costs as a conditions of
agricultural loans, purchases, and payment, and for other purposes.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 329. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to submit a
plan to Congress to achieve full and fair payment for Bureau of
Reclamation water used for agricultural purposes, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

water subsidy legislation

<bullet> Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday all Senate offices
received a copy of a new report entitled ``Green Scissors,'' written by
Friends of the Earth and the National Taxpayers Union and supported by
23 other environmental and consumer groups. The premise of the report
is that there are a number of subsidies and projects, totalling $33
billion in all, that could be cut to both reduce the deficit and
benefit the environment. This report coalesces what I and many others
in the Senate have long known, we must be diligent in eliminating
practices that can no longer be justified in light of our enormous
annual deficit and national debt.
I am pleased today to reintroduce two related pieces of legislation
that I introduced in the 103d Congress aimed at reducing water
subsidies that cost the Federal taxpayers millions of dollars each
year. This legislation was profiled in the ``Green Scissors'' report,
and the high cost of these subsidies was highlighted in yesterday's
Washington Post, New York Times, and USA Today. These are part of a
series of subsidy reducing measures that I will propose in the 104th
Congress. The first bill, amends the Agricultural Act of 1949 to
require agricultural producers that grow a crop for which an acreage
limitation program is in effect to pay the full cost of water provided
by the Federal Government. The second bill requires the Secretary of
the Interior to submit a plan to Congress to continue these savings by
highlighting ways to eliminate water subsidies for agricultural
producers growing crops that do not fall under the commodity program.
Mr. President, the first bill eliminates multiple subsidies codified
in our Federal law which provides dual payments to agricultural
producers--one as a direct payment to limit production of certain
surplus crops and the other as a discount, undercharging for federally
subsidized water to produce these crops. Its premise is simple. If an
agricultural producer is receiving Federal payments under a Federal
acreage limitation program--payments designed to discourage production
of a particular crop--that producer is not eligible to receive below-
cost water from the Federal Government to produce the crop which the
Federal Government is paying the producer not to grow. In other words,
the Federal taxpayers should not be asked on the one hand to provide
payments to discourage production of a crop while at the same time
paying for the delivery of below-cost water for that same crop.
It has been estimated that the cost of providing below-cost water to
agriculture producers in the acreage limitation program costs the
Federal Government between $66 and $830 million each year. The
Department of Agriculture pays farmers approximately $500 million not
to grow these same crops. Mr. President, these double payments cannot
continue. Elimination of western water subsidies, and a wide range of
reclamation subsidies, should be pursued as legitimate deficit
reduction opportunities. It is clear that the conflicting policies of
the Federal Government in this area are examples of Federal waste and
abuse.
[[Page S1960]] The second bill, Mr. President, creates an
institutional obligation to review agricultural water subsidy
practices, and provides Congress with important information necessary
to proceeding along a path of reducing burdens on the Federal budget. I
am proud to be joined by my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl,
introducing this measure. The Bureau of Reclamation will be required to
develop a plan for charging accurate water prices no later than
September 1995 and to report that plan to Congress. At that time I will
ask my colleagues to think aggressively about new legislative changes
that may be needed to bring market prices to irrigation water provided
by the Federal Government.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I am pleased that these bills will be
among the first of major efforts by this Senate to seek opportunities
to reduce the deficit by reforming subsidy practices. I will continue
to remain committed to that goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bills be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 329

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

SECTION 1. WATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
develop a plan for charging the recipient of water from a
water reclamation project conducted by the Bureau of
Reclamation the full and fair value of water received that is
used for agricultural purposes.
(b) Report.--Not later than September 1, 1995, the
Secretary of the Interior shall transmit the plan developed
under subsection (a) to Congress.
____

S. 330

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 ``Agricultural Irrigation and
Deficit Reduction Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS UNDER ACREAGE LIMITATION
PROGRAMS.

Title I of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1441 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 116. PAYMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS UNDER ACREAGE LIMITATION
PROGRAMS.

``(a) In General.--If an acreage limitation program is
announced for a crop of a commodity under this title, as a
condition of eligibility for loans, purchases, and payments
for the crop under this title, the producers on a farm shall
pay to the Secretary of the Interior an amount that is equal
to the full cost incurred by the Federal Government of the
delivery to the farm of water that is used in the production
of the crop, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior.
``(b) Application.--
``(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
delivery of water pursuant to a contract that is entered into
before January 1, 1996, under any provision of Federal
reclamation law.
``(2) Renewal or amendment.--If a contract described in
paragraph (1) is renewed or amended on or after January 1,
1996, subsection (a) shall apply to the delivery of water
beginning on the date of renewal or amendment.''.<bullet>
______

By Mr. KOHL:
S. 331. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for the rollover of gain from the sale of farm assets into an
individual retirement account; to the Committee on Finance.

family farm retirement equity act

<bullet> Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family
Farm Retirement Equity Act of 1995, a bill to help improve the security
of our Nation's retired farmers.
As we begin the 104th Congress, we can anticipate legislative action
dealing with the tax treatment of retirement savings. President Clinton
has laid out his proposals for changes in tax rules on savings, and the
Republicans have made their proposed changes to the individual
retirement account rules, as well; 1995 will also be the year that
Congress reauthorizes the farm bill. This heightened attention to both
retirement taxation issues and farm income issues affords this Congress
the perfect opportunity to address an issue of great importance to
rural America: farmer retirement.
Farming is a highly capital-intensive business. To the extent that
the average farmer reaps any profits from his or her farming operation,
much of that income is directly reinvested into the farm. Rarely are
there opportunities for farmers to put money aside in individual
retirement accounts. Instead, farmers tend to rely on the sale of their
accumulated capital assets, such as real estate, livestock, and
machinery, in order to provide the income to sustain them during
retirement. All too often, farmers are finding that the lump-sum
payments of capital gains taxes levied on those assets leave little for
retirement. It is with that problem in mind that I am introducing the
Family Farm Retirement Equity Act.
This legislation would provide retiring farmers the opportunity to
rollover the proceeds from the sale of their farms into a tax-deferred
retirement account. Instead of paying a large lump-sum capital gains
tax at the point of sale, the income from the sale of a farm would be
taxed only as it is withdrawn from the retirement account. Such a
change in method of taxation would help prevent the financial distress
that many farmers now face upon retirement.
Another concern that I have about rural America is the diminishing
interest of our younger rural citizens in continuing in farming.
Because this legislation will facilitate the transition of our older
farmers into a successful retirement, the Family Farm Retirement Equity
Act will also pave the way for a more graceful transition of our
younger farmers toward farm ownership. While low prices and low profits
in farming will continue to take their toll on our younger farmers, I
believe that this will be one tool we can use to make farming more
viable for the next generation.
This proposal is supported by farmers throughout the country, and I
am proud to introduce this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be included in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 331

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Family
Farm Retirement Equity Act of 1995''.
(b) Reference to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Except as
otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to,
or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference
shall be considered to be made to a section or other
provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 2. ROLLOVER OF GAIN FROM SALE OF FARM ASSETS TO
INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLANS.

(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter O of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to common
nontaxable exchanges) is amended by inserting after section
1034 the following new section:

``SEC. 1034A. ROLLOVER OF GAIN ON SALE OF FARM ASSETS INTO
ASSET ROLLOVER ACCOUNT.

``(a) Nonrecognition of Gain.--Subject to the limits of
subsection (c), if a taxpayer has a qualified net farm gain
from the sale of a qualified farm asset, then, at the
election of the taxpayer, gain (if any) from such sale shall
be recognized only to the extent such gain exceeds the
contributions to 1 or more asset rollover accounts of the
taxpayer for the taxable year in which such sale occurs.
``(b) Asset Rollover Account.--
``(1) General rule.--Except as provided in this section, an
asset rollover account shall be treated for purposes of this
title in the same manner as an individual retirement plan.
``(2) Asset rollover account.--For purposes of this title,
the term `asset rollover account' means an individual
retirement plan which is designated at the time of the
establishment of the plan as an asset rollover account. Such
designation shall be made in such manner as the Secretary may
prescribe.
``(c) Contribution Rules.--
``(1) No deduction allowed.--No deduction shall be allowed
under section 219 for a contribution to an asset rollover
account.
``(2) Aggregate contribution limitation.--Except in the
case of rollover contributions, the aggregate amount for all
taxable years which may be contributed to all asset rollover
accounts established on behalf of an individual shall not
exceed--
``(A) $500,000 ($250,000 in the case of a separate return
by a married individual), reduced by
``(B) the amount by which the aggregate value of the assets
held by the individual (and spouse) in individual retirement
plans (other than asset rollover accounts) exceeds $100,000.
The determination under subparagraph (B) shall be made as of
the close of the taxable year for which the determination is
being made.
``(3) Annual contribution limitations.--
[[Page S1961]] ``(A) General rule.--The aggregate
contribution which may be made in any taxable year to all
asset rollover accounts shall not exceed the lesser of--
``(i) the qualified net farm gain for the taxable year, or
``(ii) an amount determined by multiplying the number of
years the taxpayer is a qualified farmer by $10,000.
``(B) Spouse.--In the case of a married couple filing a
joint return under section 6013 for the taxable year,
subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting `$20,000'
for `$10,000' for each year the taxpayer's spouse is a
qualified farmer.
``(4) Time when contribution deemed made.--For purposes of
this section, a taxpayer shall be deemed to have made a
contribution to an asset rollover account on the last day of
the preceding taxable year if the contribution is made on
account of such taxable year and is made not later than the
time prescribed by law for filing the return for such taxable
year (not including extensions thereof).
``(d) Qualified Net Farm Gain; Etc.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Qualified net farm gain.--The term `qualified net
farm gain' means the lesser of--
``(A) the net capital gain of the taxpayer for the taxable
year, or
``(B) the net capital gain for the taxable year determined
by only taking into account gain (or loss) in connection with
a disposition of a qualified farm asset.
``(2) Qualified farm asset.--The term `qualified farm
asset' means an asset used by a qualified farmer in the
active conduct of the trade or business of farming (as
defined in section 2032A(e)).
``(3) Qualified farmer.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified farmer' means a
taxpayer who--
``(i) during the 5-year period ending on the date of the
disposition of a qualified farm asset materially participated
in the trade or business of farming, and
``(ii) owned (or who with the taxpayer's spouse owned) 50
percent or more of such trade or business during such 5-year
period.
``(B) Material participation.--For purposes of this
paragraph, a taxpayer shall be treated as materially
participating in a trade or business if the taxpayer meets
the requirements of section 2032A(e)(6).
``(4) Rollover contributions.--Rollover contributions to an
asset rollover account may be made only from other asset
rollover accounts.
``(e) Distribution Rules.--For purposes of this title, the
rules of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 408(d) shall apply
to any distribution from an asset rollover account.
``(f) Individual Required To Report Qualified
Contributions.--
``(1) In general.--Any individual who--
``(A) makes a contribution to any asset rollover account
for any taxable year, or
``(B) receives any amount from any asset rollover account
for any taxable year,
shall include on the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 for
such taxable year and any succeeding taxable year (or on such
other form as the Secretary may prescribe) information
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Information required to be supplied.--The information
described in this paragraph is information required by the
Secretary which is similar to the information described in
section 408(o)(4)(B).
``(3) Penalties.--For penalties relating to reports under
this paragraph, see section 6693(b).''.
(b) Contributions Not Deductible.--Section 219(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to other limitations
and restrictions) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Contributions to asset rollover accounts.--No
deduction shall be allowed under this section with respect to
a contribution under section 1034A.''.
(c) Excess Contributions.--
(1) In general.--Section 4973 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to tax on excess contributions to
individual retirement accounts, certain section 403(b)
contracts, and certain individual retirement annuities) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Asset Rollover Accounts.--For purposes of this
section, in the case of an asset rollover account referred to
in subsection (a)(1), the term `excess contribution' means
the excess (if any) of the amount contributed for the taxable
year to such account over the amount which may be contributed
under section 1034A.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 4973(a)(1) of such Code is amended by striking
``or'' and inserting ``an asset rollover account (within the
meaning of section 1034A), or''.
(B) The heading for section 4973 of such Code is amended by
inserting ``ASSET ROLLOVER ACCOUNTS,'' after ``CONTRACTS''.
(C) The table of sections for chapter 43 of such Code is
amended by inserting ``asset rollover accounts,'' after
``contracts'' in the item relating to section 4973.
(d) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 408(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining individual retirement account) is
amended by inserting ``or a qualified contribution under
section 1034A,'' before ``no contribution''.
(2) Subparagraph (A) of section 408(d)(5) of such Code is
amended by inserting ``or qualified contributions under
section 1034A'' after ``rollover contributions''.
(3)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 6693(b)(1) of such Code
is amended by inserting ``or 1034A(f)(1)'' after
``408(o)(4)''.
(B) Section 6693(b)(2) of such Code is amended by inserting
``or 1034A(f)(1)'' after ``408(o)(4)''.
(4) The table of sections for part III of subchapter O of
chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 1034 the following new item:
``Sec. 1034A. Rollover of gain on sale of farm assets into asset
rollover account.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales and exchanges after the date of the
enactment of this Act.<bullet>

____________________