[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 20 (Wednesday, February 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[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

 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.
                                 ______

      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
 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.

 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.
                                 ______

      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

 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.
  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

 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.
                                 ______

      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

 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.
                                 ______

      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

  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.
                                 ______

      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.

 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.
                                 ______

      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

 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.''.
                                 ______

      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

 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.
     

                          ____________________