[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 89 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7615-S7629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. COCHRAN:
  S. 867. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to revise 
the estate and gift tax in order to preserve American family 
enterprises, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


        the national family enterprise preservation act of 1995

 Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 
National Family Enterprise Preservation Act of 1995 which will provide 
estate tax relief to many of our Nation's family owned farms and 
businesses.
  Our current tax laws are forcing many inheritors of family farms and 
businesses to sell the enterprise in order to pay estate taxes. A 
family farm or business is not only a productive component of our 
economy, it is a distinctive part of our American economic system and 
the personal dream of millions of Americans.
  But all this is being threatened by high taxes that are imposed by 
government when the owner dies.
  Small businesses are being forced to merge into large corporations 
because marketable stock can be acquired tax free and many estate tax 
problems can be avoided. In 1942, the estate tax affected only 1 estate 
out of 60. Today, this number has increased to 1 out of 20.
  Another consideration is that inflation has pushed the value of many 
family farms and businesses into the range of estate tax liability. The 
result has been that heirs of these enterprises often sell their 
business to pay estate taxes.
  Family owned farms and businesses are a vital component of our 
economy and society and should be preserved. They give families a sense 
of freedom, accomplishment, and pride in ownership. This is the essence 
of free enterprise.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit with a 
tree farmer from my State who was recognized this year by the 
Mississippi Forestry Association as ``Forester of the Year.'' His name 
is Chester Thigpen, and he is truly a remarkable man. 
[[Page S7616]] Chester Thigpen and others like him represent the 
taxpayers for whom I am introducing this legislation today.
  Mr. Thigpen and his wife, Rosett, live in Montrose, MS. When he was a 
child, he dreamed of owning land. He first brought a small parcel of 
land in 1940, continued to save and slowly added acreage to his farm. 
He worked hard to improve his land and that land allowed him to provide 
for his family and made it possible to put his five children through 
college.
  This land represents a tremendous amount of pride and hard work for 
Thigpens. They always thought they would be able to leave a legacy for 
their children as a reward for their hard work and as a symbol of their 
family's success.
  But there is a big problem. The Thigpen's land over the last 50 years 
has increased considerably in value. The estate tax burden is going to 
make it nearly impossible for their children to keep the farm when 
their parents die.
  Mr. and Mrs Thigpen and other hard working Americans should not have 
to sacrifice their lifelong dreams because of unnecessary tax burdens. 
Their. children should have the same opportunity their parents have 
had, to use their property to be productive citizens.
  The legislation I am introducing will increase from $600,000 to $1 
million the value of property that may pass free of Federal estate and 
gift taxes. In addition, the current annual gift tax exclusion of 
$10,000 would be increased to $20,000 in the case of gifts to qualified 
family members of family enterprise property. This legislation will 
also change special use valuation. Currently, special use valuation 
cannot reduce the gross estate by more than $750,000. This amount would 
be increased to $1 million. And finally, this bill will make changes in 
the family enterprise interest on estates.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit an editorial from the March 3, 1995 issue of 
the Washington Times and a copy of Mr. Thigpen's remarks to the U.S. 
House Committee on Ways and Means, which I ask a unanimous consent be 
printed in the Record, along with a copy of the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 867

       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 ``National Family Enterprise 
     Preservation Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN UNIFIED ESTATE AND GIFT TAX CREDITS FOR 
                   FAMILY ENTERPRISES.

       (a) Estate Tax.--Section 2010 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to unified credit against estate tax) is 
     amended by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as 
     subsections (c) and (d), respectively, by inserting after 
     subsection (a) the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Additional Credit for Family Enterprises.--The amount 
     of the credit allowable under subsection (a) shall be 
     increased by an amount equal to the value of any family 
     enterprise property included in the decedent's gross estate 
     under section 2040A(a), to the extent such value does not 
     exceed $121,800.''
       (b) Gift Tax.--Section 2505 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to unified credit against gift tax) is amended 
     by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) 
     and (d), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (a) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Additional Credit for Family Enterprises.--The amount 
     of the credit allowable under subsection (a) for each 
     calendar year shall be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(1) the value of gifts of family enterprise property (as 
     defined in section 2040A(b)(1)), to the extent such value 
     does not exceed $121,800, reduced by
       ``(2) the sum of the amounts allowable as a credit to the 
     individual under this subsection for all preceding calendar 
     periods.''
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Estate tax credit.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (a) shall apply to the estates of decedents dying after 
     December 31, 1995.
       (2) Gift tax credit.--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to gifts made after December 31, 1995.

     SEC. 3. INCREASE IN ANNUAL GIFT TAX EXCLUSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 2503 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to taxable gifts) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), and by 
     inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Additional Exclusions From Gifts.--The amount of the 
     exclusion allowable under subsection (b) during a calendar 
     year shall be increased by an amount equal to the value of 
     gifts of family enterprise property (as defined in section 
     2040A(b)(1)) made during such year, to the extent such value 
     does not exceed $10,000.''
       (b) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to gifts made after December 31, 1995.

     SEC. 4. FAMILY ENTERPRISE PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter A of chapter 11 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to gross estate) 
     is amended by inserting after section 2040 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 2040A. FAMILY ENTERPRISE PROPERTY.

       ``(a) General Rule.--The value included in the decedent's 
     gross estate with respect to family enterprise property by 
     reason of this section shall be--
       ``(1) the value of such property, reduced by
       ``(2) the lesser of--
       ``(A) 50 percent of the value of such property, or
       ``(B) $1,000,000.
       ``(b) Family Enterprise Property.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``family enterprise property'' means any interest in real or 
     personal property which is devoted to use as a farm or used 
     for farming purposes (within the meaning of paragraphs (4) 
     and (5) of section 2032A(e)) or is used in any other trade or 
     business, if at least 80 percent of the ownership interest in 
     such farm or other trade or business is held--
       ``(A) by 5 or fewer individuals, or
       ``(B) by individuals who are members of the same family 
     (within the meaning of section 2032A(e)(2)).
       ``(2) Limited partnership interests excluded.--An interest 
     in a limited partnership (other than a limited partnership 
     composed solely of individuals described in paragraph (1)(B)) 
     shall in no event be treated as family enterprise property.
       ``(c) Tax Treatment of Dispositions and Failure To Use for 
     Qualifying Use.--
       ``(1) Imposition of additional estate tax.--With respect to 
     family enterprise property inherited from the decedent, if 
     within 10 years after the decedent's death and before the 
     death of any individual described in subsection (b)(1)--
       ``(A) such individual disposes of any interest in such 
     property (other than by a disposition to a member of the 
     individual's family), or
       ``(B) such individual or a member of the individual's 
     family ceases to participate in the active management of such 
     property,
     then there is hereby imposed an additional estate tax.
       ``(2) Amount of additional tax.--The amount of the 
     additional tax imposed by paragraph (1) with respect to any 
     interest in family enterprise property shall be the amount 
     equal to the excess of the estate tax liability attributable 
     to such interest (determined without regard to subsection 
     (a)) over the estate tax liability, reduced by 5 percent for 
     each year following the date of the decedent's death in which 
     the individual described in subsection (b)(1) or a member of 
     the individual's family participated in the active management 
     of such family enterprise property.
       ``(3) Active management.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term ``active management'' means the making of the 
     management decisions of a business other than the daily 
     operating decisions.
       ``(d) Additional Rules.--For purposes of this section, 
     rules similar to the rules under paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) 
     of section 2032A(c), paragraphs (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), 
     and (12) of section 2032(e), and subsections (f), (g), (h), 
     and (i) of section 2032A shall apply.''
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III 
     of subchapter A of chapter 11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 2040 the following new item:

``Sec. 2040A. Family enterprise property.''

       (c) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to the estates of decedents dying after December 
     31, 1995.

     SEC. 5. VALUATION OF CERTAIN FARM, ETC., REAL PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 2032A(a)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on aggregate 
     reduction in fair market value) is amended by striking 
     ``$750,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to the estates of decedents dying after December 
     31, 1995.
                                                                    ____

   Statement of Mr. Chester Thigpen Before the Committee on Ways and 
                        Means, February 1, 1995

       My name is Chester Thigpen. My wife Rosett and I are Tree 
     Farmers from Montrose, Mississippi.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear 
     before this Committee. You are debating an issue that is very 
     important to more than 7 million people who own most of the 
     nation's productive timberland. Most of us have been at it 
     for a long time. Professor Larry Doolittle of Mississippi 
     State University published a paper in 1992 that suggested 
     half the Tree Farmers in the Mid-South were 62 years old or 
     over. This pattern holds true in other parts of the country 
     as well. So it should come as no surprise to the Committee 
     that, when Tree Farmers gather, one of the things we discuss 
     is estate taxes. [[Page S7617]] 
       Estate taxes matter not just to lawyers, doctors and 
     businessmen, but to people like Rosett and me. We were both 
     born on land that is now part of our Tree Farm. I can 
     remember plowing behind a mule for my uncle who owned it 
     before me. My dream then was to own land. I bought a little 
     bit in 1940 and inherited some from my family's estate in 
     1946, and then bought some more. Back when I started, the 
     estate tax applied to only one estate in 60. Today it applies 
     to one in 20--including mine. I wonder if I would be able to 
     achieve my dream if I were starting out today.
        Mr. Chairman, you have heard many witnesses talk about the 
     technical details of estate tax reform. They know far more 
     about it than I do. With your permission, I'd like to take a 
     few minutes to talk about what I do know: what estate tax 
     reform will mean in places like Montrose, Mississippi and to 
     Tree Farmers like me and Rosette.
       We first got started in forestry in 1960. Much of our land 
     was old cotton and row crop fields, so early on I spent 90 
     percent of my time trying to keep it from washing away. We 
     developed a management plan and started growing trees. Today, 
     we manage our property for timber, wildlife habitat, water 
     quality and recreation. We have built ponds for erosion 
     control and for wildlife. Deer and turkey have come back, so 
     we invite our neighbors to hunt on our land.
       It took us half a century, but Rosett and I have managed to 
     turn our land into a working Tree Farm that has been a source 
     of pride and income for my entire family.
       Our Tree Farm made it possible to put our five children 
     through college. It made it possible for Rosette and me to 
     share our love of the outdoors and our commitment to good 
     forestry with our
      neighbors. And finally, it made it possible for us to leave 
     a legacy that makes me very proud: beautiful forests and 
     ponds that can live on for many, many years after my wife 
     and I pass on. We wanted to leave the land in better 
     condition than when we first started working it. And we 
     will.
       We also want to leave the Tree Farm in our family. But no 
     matter how hard I work, that depends on you.
       Right now, people tell me my Tree Farm could be worth more 
     than a million dollars. All that value is tied up in land or 
     trees. We're not rich people. My son and I do almost all the 
     work on our land ourselves. So, under current law, my 
     children might have to break up the Tree Farm or sell off 
     timber to pay the estate taxes. I am here today to endorse a 
     proposal called the National Family Enterprise Preservation 
     Act which would totally exempt over 98 percent of all family 
     enterprises, not just Tree Farms, from the Federal estate 
     tax. A copy is attached to my written testimony.
       Giving up the Tree Farm we worked fifty years to create 
     would hurt me and my family. I don't think it would be good 
     for the public either. If the Tree Farm had to be sold or the 
     timber cut before its time, what would happen to the erosion 
     control programs we put in place, or the wildlife habitat? 
     Who would make certain that the lands stayed open for our 
     neighbors to visit and enjoy? I know my children would. And I 
     hope their children will have an opportunity after them.
       I think too often people focus on just the costs of estate 
     tax reform and not the benefits. In forestry, the benefits 
     will be substantial. I mentioned earlier that most of the 7 
     million landowners in this country are close to retirement 
     age or, like me, way past it. Without estate tax reform, many 
     of their properties will be broken up into smaller tracks or 
     harvested prematurely. Some may no longer be economical to 
     operate as Tree Farms and will perhaps be converted to other 
     uses or back into marginal agriculture. Other properties may 
     become too small or generate too little cash flow to support 
     the kind of multiple use management we practice on our 
     property. Healthy, growing forests with abundant wildlife 
     provide benefits to everybody. Without estate tax reform, it 
     will become harder and harder for people like me to remain 
     excellent stewards of our family-owned forests.
       Mr. Chairman, a few months ago, Rosett and I were named 
     Mississippi's Outstanding Tree Farmers of the Year. It was a 
     great honor to be selected from among the thousands of 
     excellent Tree Farmers in Mississippi. I'm told one reason we 
     were recognized was because Rosett and I have been speaking 
     out on behalf of good forestry for almost four decades.
       That's why I made this trip to Washington: to remind the 
     Committee that estate tax reform is important to preserve 
     family enterprises like ours. It is also important for good 
     forestry. We just planted some trees on our property a few 
     months ago. I hope my grandchildren and great-grandchildren 
     will be able to watch those trees grow on the Thigpen Tree 
     Farm--and I know millions of forest landowners feel the same 
     way about their own Tree Farms. We applaud estate tax reforms 
     that will make this possible.
       Thank you.
                                                                    ____

               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 13, 1995]

                            Death and Taxes

       There are two certainties in life of which Americans are 
     all too well aware: death and taxes. Less well known is the 
     fact that taxes don't stop with death.
       Consider the case of Mississippi resident Chester Thigpen, 
     a man who has painstakingly built a reputation for 
     overachievement during his 83 years. The grandson of slaves, 
     he was born on a farm when cotton was king and grew up 
     dreaming that one day he would own land of his own. He bought 
     a little land in 1940 and slowly added to his holdings, 
     raising trees and children along the way with his wife 
     Rosett.
       Today he has 850 acres of farm land to his name, five 
     children with college educations financed from timber 
     harvests there and a roomful of honors for his stewardship of 
     the land and his outreach work on behalf of forestry. Already 
     he is in Mississippi's Agriculture and Forestry Museum's Hall 
     of Fame and this year was named the state's Outstanding Tree 
     Farmer. Such achievements may not mean much in a city like 
     Washington, where productivity is something one measures in 
     red ink. But lawmakers might want to consider where they 
     would be without tree byproducts the next time they try to 
     introduce a bill or send a memo.
       There is, however, one thing that the Thigpens don't have, 
     and that is the peace of mind that comes with knowing they 
     can pass on their version of the American dream to their 
     children. The federal estate tax, you see, begins taking a 
     progressively larger bite out of any estate worth more than 
     $600,000. Mr. Thigpen's advisers have warned him that his 
     estate may top that figure by as much as $1 million. The 
     projected estate tax bill? Some $345,000.
       That's a problem because Mr. Thigpen is effectively ``tree 
     poor.'' Although he is comfortably well off on paper, his 
     wealth is all tied up in the trees. And unless the Thigpens 
     or, in the event of their deaths, their children, clear cut a 
     swath through the farm, they won't have the money to pay off 
     the feds. The only alternative is to sell a lot of the land 
     now, which would leave Mr. Thigpen with substantial capital 
     gains taxes to pay. Or his children could sell it upon their 
     parents' deaths to raise the money, thereby breaking up the 
     family farm.
       The latter is particularly painful to Mr. Thigpen, whose 
     holdings include land inherited from his family. ``Giving up 
     the tree farm we worked 50 years to create would hurt me and 
     my family,'' he told members of the House Ways and Means 
     Committee last month. ``If the tree farm had to be sold or 
     the timber cut before its time, what would happen to the 
     erosion control programs we put in place, or the wildlife 
     habitat? Who would make certain that the lands stayed open 
     for our neighbors to visit and enjoy? I know my children 
     would. And I hope their children will have an opportunity 
     after them.''
       Once upon a time, or course, families like the Thigpens 
     didn't have to worry about the likes of estate taxes. They 
     were designed to hit the very wealthiest Americans. But as 
     inflation moved Americans into one higher bracket after 
     another, suddenly they found they too were ``rich.'' Where 
     only one in 60 families paid estate taxes, now one in 20 do.
       This week the committee is scheduled to begin marking up 
     tax legislation--including estate-tax changes--as part of the 
     Contract with America. The question is whether lawmakers can 
     see, well, the forest for the trees.
                                 ______

      By Mr. STEVENS (by request):
  S. 868. A bill to provide authority for leave transfer for Federal 
employees who are adversely affected by disasters or emergencies, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


         FEDERAL EMPLOYEES EMERGENCY LEAVE TRANSFER ACT OF 1995

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the administration has sent to my office 
a bill to provide additional authority for leave transfer to Federal 
employees who are adversely affected by disasters or emergencies. I 
think it is appropriate to raise this at this time, and because it has 
come in just before we are going into recess, I want to introduce it 
and take this time to explain it, with the hope that we will be able to 
move it very rapidly when we get back.
  This is a bill that would be called the Federal Employees Emergency 
Leave Transfer Act of 1995. In the event of a major disaster or 
emergency, the President would have the authority to direct the Office 
of Personnel Management to create a special leave transfer program for 
Federal employees affected by the disaster emergency.
  Under current law, Federal employees may donate annual leave to other 
employees who face medical emergencies. Current law is limited to 
medical emergencies and requires recipients to exhaust their own leave 
before using donated leave.
  Under this proposal I will introduce today, the emergency leave 
transfer program would extend to employees who do not face a medical 
emergency but need extra leave because of other effects of disasters or 
emergencies, such as a flood that has destroyed an employee's home or 
an earthquake has affected their lifestyle.
  It would allow an agency-approved recipient to use donated leave 
without having to first exhaust their own leave. It would allow 
employees in any executive agency to donate leave for transfer 
[[Page S7618]] to affected employees in the same or in other agencies. 
It would allow current agency leave banks to donate leave to emergency 
leave transfer programs. OPM would have the authority to establish 
appropriate operating requirements for the emergency leave transfer 
program, including program limits on the amount of leave that could be 
donated and used under this program.
  I want to emphasize that this leave transfer will permit employees to 
help other employees at no cost to the taxpayer, other than incidental 
administrative costs, because there is no additional leave provided 
under this program to any employee beyond that which is already 
credited to an employee which has been earned by that employee.
  I think the aftermath of the Oklahoma disaster showed an overwhelming 
interest in employees being able to do something to assist fellow 
employees who are affected by a major disaster or emergency.
  I commend OPM for thinking of this concept, and I am pleased to 
introduce at their request this bill to provide authority for leave 
transfer for Federal employees who are adversely affected by disasters 
or emergencies.
  I thank my good friend from Utah for permitting me to take this time 
at this time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a summary be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Rocord, as follow:

                                 S. 868

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
     Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employees Emergency Leave 
     Transfer Act of 1995''.
       Sec. 2. (a) Chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after subchapter V the following new 
     subchapter:

      ``Subchapter VI--Leave Transfer in Disasters and Emergencies

     ``Sec. 6391. Authority for leave transfer program in 
       disasters and emergencies

       ``(a) For the purpose of this section--
       ``(1) `employee' means an employee as defined in section 
     6331(1); and
       ``(2) `agency' means an Executive agency.
       ``(b) In the event of a major disaster or emergency, as 
     declared by the President, that results in severe adverse 
     effects for a substantial number of employees, the President 
     may direct the Office of Personnel Management to establish an 
     emergency leave transfer program under which any employee in 
     any agency may donate unused annual leave for transfer to 
     employees of the same or other agencies who are adversely 
     affected by such disaster or emergency.
       ``(c) The Office of Personnel Management shall establish 
     appropriate requirements for the operation of the emergency 
     leave
      transfer program under subsection (b), including appropriate 
     limitations on the donation and use of annual leave under 
     the program. An employee may receive and use leave under 
     the program without regard to any requirement that any 
     annual leave and sick leave to a leave recipient's credit 
     must be exhausted before any transferred annual leave may 
     be used.
       ``(d) A leave bank established under subchapter IV may, to 
     the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Office 
     of Personnel Management, donate annual leave to the emergency 
     leave transfer program established under subsection (b).
       ``(e) Except to the extent that the Office of Personnel 
     Management may prescribe by regulation, nothing in section 
     7351 shall apply to any solicitation, donation, or acceptance 
     of leave under this section.
       ``(f) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe 
     regulations necessary for the administration of this 
     section.''.
       (b) The analysis for chapter 63 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

      ``Subchapter VI--Leave Transfer in Disasters and Emergencies
``6391. Authority for leave transfer program in disasters and 
              emergencies.''.
       Sec. 3. The amendments made by section 2 of this Act shall 
     take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                                                    ____


 Summary of the Federal Employees Emergency Leave Transfer Act of 1995

       In the event of a major disaster or emergency, the 
     President would have authority to direct the Office of 
     Personnel Management (OPM) to create a special leave transfer 
     program for Federal employees affected by the disaster or 
     emergency.
       Under current law, Federal employees may donate annual 
     leave to other employees who face medical emergencies.
       Current law is limited to medical emergencies, and requires 
     recipients to exhaust their own leave before using donated 
     leave.
       Under this proposal, emergency leave transfer program--
       Would extend to employees who do not face a medical 
     emergency, but need extra leave because of other effects of 
     disaster or emergency--e.g., flood destroyed employee's home;
       Would allow agency-approved recipients to use donated leave 
     without having to first exhaust their own leave;
       Would allow employees in any Executive agency to donate 
     leave for transfer to affected employees in the same or other 
     agency; and
       Would allow current agency leave banks to donate leave to 
     emergency leave transfer program.
       OPM would have authority to establish appropriate operating 
     requirements for the emergency leave transfer program, 
     including appropriate limits on amounts of leave that may be 
     donated and used under program.
       Leave transfer permits employees to help other employees, 
     at no cost to the taxpayer (other than incidental 
     administrative costs), since no additional leave is provided 
     beyond what would already be credited.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATFIELD (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 870. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require a 
refund value for certain beverage containers, and to provide resources 
for State pollution prevention and recycling programs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


             the interstate waste act amendment act of 1995

 Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, during the Senate consideration 
of the interstate waste bill, I reminded my colleagues that 10 States 
have achieved great success in dealing with solid waste by implementing 
some form of beverage container deposit system. My home State of 
Oregon, for example, has had remarkable success with its own bottle 
bill for over 20 years. Consequently, I offered the National Beverage 
Container Reuse and Recycling Act as an amendment to that legislation.
  My amendment was ultimately withdrawn, but not before the chairman of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, agreed to 
hold a hearing in his committee on this issue during the 104th 
Congress. I am enthused by this opportunity for the bottle bill and am 
formally introducing this legislation today. Although it will be 
referred to the Commerce Committee because of precedent, the 
Environment Committee is also an appropriate forum to consider reducing 
our solid waste stream. The National Beverage Container Reuse and 
Recycling Act of 1995 is identical to the bill I introduced in the 103d 
Congress.
  As someone who grew up during the Great Depression, I am constantly 
reminded of the throw-away ethic that has emerged so prominently in 
this country. In this regard, Oregon's deposit system serves as a much 
greater role than merely cleaning up littered highways, saving energy 
and resources or reducing the waste following into our teeming 
landfills. The bottle bill acts as a tutor. It is a constant reminder 
of the conservation ethic that is an essential component of any plan to 
see this country out of its various crises. Each time a consumer 
returns a can for deposit, the conservation ethic is reaffirmed, and 
hopefully the consumer will then reapply this ethic in other areas.
  This legislation will accomplish national objectives to meet our 
Nation's massive waste management difficulties. A national deposit 
system will reduce solid waste and litter, save natural resources and 
energy, and create a much needed partnership between consumers, 
industry, and local governments for the betterment of our communities.
  So often, States serve as laboratories for what later emerges as 
successful national policies. The State of Oregon and other bottle bill 
States have proven that deposit programs are an effective method to 
deal with beverage containers, which make up the single largest 
component of waste systems. According to the General Accounting Office 
deposit law States, which account for only 18 percent of the 
population, recycle 65 percent of all glass and 98 percent of all PET 
plastic nationwide. That means
 82 percent of the population is recycling less than 25 percent of our 
nation's beverage container waste.

  As many of my colleagues know, I have a 20 year history on this issue 
and have been greatly enthused by developments in recent years in 
promoting the establishment of a national bottle bill. The commitment I 
received earlier this year for a hearing in the Environment 
[[Page S7619]] and Public Works Committee is greatly encouraging. 
Although this bill has historically been referred to the Senate 
Commerce Committee, in recent years significant actions on this measure 
have come in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
  Senator Jeffords offered the bill as an amendment to the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] in the Environment and Public 
Works Committee during the 102d Congress. Even though this attempt 
failed by a vote of 6 to 10 it was a monumental step forward. 
Additionally, during the same Congress a hearing was held in the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the energy conservation 
implications of beverage container recycling as outlined in that 
session's bottle bill, S. 2335.
  I regret that I frequently have come to the Senate floor to force the 
Senate to take action on this matter, but that seems to be the only 
effective procedure for moving forward on this bill. For example, 
during the 1992 Presidential campaign candidate Bill Clinton declared 
his support for a national bottle bill. However, once he took office he 
and the Congress were surprisingly silent on the issue. Consequently, I 
was forced to offer the Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act as 
an amendment on the Senate floor.
  Mr. President, It is widely acknowledged that recycling is the wave 
of the future and this legislation will facilitate the recycling of 
beverage containers. I firmly believe the time has come for Congress to 
follow the wise lead of these States and encourage deposit systems on a 
national level. I strongly urge my colleagues to fully examine the 
benefits of a national beverage container deposit system and to support 
this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that several letters of support for the 
bottle bill amendment to the Interstate Waste bill be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Container Recycling Institute,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 1995.
     Senator Mark Hatfield,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield, The Container Recycling Institute 
     salutes you for your unyielding support for a national 
     deposit system for the collection of used beverage 
     containers. With return rates of over 85 percent, the ten 
     states which require deposits on beverage containers are 
     doing the ``lion's share'' of the nation's recycling. It is 
     the most effective recycling and litter reduction system on 
     the books today. Residents of bottle bill states enjoy 
     streets, beaches, parks and playgrounds that are virtually 
     free of beverage container litter.
       One-way beverage containers are the epitome of the throw-
     away society. Every year, over 30 billion beverage containers 
     are either burned or landfilled in the Unites States. This 
     senseless waste represents more than unwisely used landfill 
     space, but also a squandering of the world's natural 
     resources. A recent draft study of deposit laws by the Tellus 
     Institute found that a national bottle bill would save $1.60 
     cents per person per year in avoided manufacturing emissions 
     from beverage container production. The same study found that 
     we would save $2.78 person per year from avoided litter pick 
     up costs.
       Deposit laws shift a major portion of the burden of 
     recycling and litter pick up from state and local governments 
     onto those who produce, sell and consume the product. In 
     other words, the ``polluter pays''. For too long, the general 
     population has been forced to pay for the social consequences 
     of throwaway packaging. The unclaimed deposits, estimated to 
     be about $1.7 billion per year, would be used by the states 
     to help fund other recycling programs.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Sheila Cogan,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                     May 12, 1995.
     Hon. Mark Hatfield,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: I strongly endorse the National 
     Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1995. The ten 
     states that have passed container deposit legislation have 
     demonstrated that this system is an effective litter and 
     solid waste reduction mechanism. It has been successfully 
     implemented in both rural and industrial states, providing a 
     convenient recycling opportunity for practically everyone in 
     the states that have passed it.
       Several reputable studies have shown that deposit systems 
     are fully compatible with curbside recycling programs. In 
     fact, statistics show that more than half of all the people 
     served by curbside recycling in the U.S. live in states that 
     have deposit/redemption systems. With recent reports showing 
     that municipal solid waste generation in on the rise, we need 
     as many recycling tools as possible to ensure that we meet 
     our recycling targets.
       With recycling markets showing unprecedented strength, a 
     national bottle bill will just barely satisfy the markets 
     voracious appetite for recovered PET soft drink bottles. 
     Carpets, shoes, containers, and recyclers are in danger of 
     going out of business if they don't find more supplies of 
     recyclable materials.
       So, in the interest of creating jobs, diverting millions of 
     tons of solid waste and virtually ridding the landscape of 
     littered beverage containers, I wholeheartedly lend my 
     support to the Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 
     1995.
           Sincerely yours,

                                                  Tina Hobson,

                                                        President,
     Renew America.
                                                                    ____



                                           Resource Recycling,

                                       Portland, OR, May 12, 1995.
     Senator Mark Hatfield,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: As technical editor of Resource 
     Recycling, the nation's most widely distributed magazine 
     dedicated to recycling issues, I endorse the National 
     Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1995.
       Deposit laws have an impressive track record, both 
     internationally and in the U.S. Sweden's recycling rate for 
     aluminum cans of 90 percent in 1994, the highest in the 
     world, is due to that country's deposit on cans. The ten 
     states that have passed container deposit legislation, 
     including our home state of Oregon, have demonstrated that 
     this system is an effective litter and solid waste reduction 
     mechanism. California recently reported a 75 percent decrease 
     in beverage container litter since 1986. Deposit laws have 
     been successfully implemented in both rural and industrial 
     states, providing a convenient recycling opportunity for 
     practically everyone in the states that have passed it. I can 
     say with confidence that the recycling movement would not be 
     as healthy as it is today were it not for the consistent high 
     return rates of the deposit law states.
       Several reputable studies have shown that deposit systems 
     are fully compatible with curbside recycling programs. In 
     fact, statistics show that over half of all people served by 
     curbside recycling collection in the U.S. today, live in 
     states that have deposit or redemption systems. With recent 
     reports showing that municipal solid waste generation is on 
     the rise, we need as many recycling tools as possible to 
     ensure that we meet our recycling targets.
       With recycling markets showing unprecedented strength, a 
     national bottle bill will just barely satisfy the market's 
     voracious appetite for recovered PET soft drink bottles. 
     Carpets, containers and textiles are some of the uses for 
     recovered soft drink bottles, and plastic reclaimers are in 
     danger of going out of business for lack of supplies of 
     recyclable materials.
       So, in the interest of creating jobs, diverting millions of 
     tons of solid waste into high quality feedstocks for our 
     factories and ridding the landscape of littered beverage 
     containers, I would enthusiastically support the National 
     Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1995.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Steve Apotheker,
     Technical Editor.
                                                                    ____

                                                 Poly-Anna Plastic


                                               Products, Inc.,

                                      Milwaukee, WI, May 15, 1995.
     Hon. Russell D. Feingold,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: My hope is that this letter reaches you while 
     there is still a live amendment on the floor for a National 
     Container Deposit (A.K.A. ``Bottle Bill.'') As a recycler, I 
     promise you that nothing brings in the bottles and cans as a 
     deposit does and never has a market gone begging for that 
     material more than it does today. If a deposit law is written 
     to overcome the problems that were evident in the first group 
     of state bills now in force, we could solve many of the 
     recycling, solid waste, litter and financial problems in one 
     fell swoop. The solution is to have the system based on the 
     California redemption system now in place with some 
     improvements. The key is to let redemption take place at 
     recycling centers that desire it and not in the grocery store 
     that hates it. The second target is to allow the approximate 
     1.6 Billion dollars in unredeemed deposits (estimate based on 
     national ten cent deposit) to go directly to the cities 
     responsible for administering recycling programs. This money, 
     plus the cans and jugs that they too could redeem for full 
     deposit from the waste stream would solve problem for cities 
     such as DC where programs have just recently been shut down.
       I am a board member of the National Recycling Coalition and 
     have authored a position statement on such a bill that will 
     be debated this Friday afternoon in Alexandria at the NRC's 
     spring board meeting. I have studied the issue quite in 
     detail and would be happy to answer any questions you may 
     have either here from my office or while in the DC area this 
     Friday and Saturday at the Holiday Inn Old Town. This is a 
     chance for a great victory for recycling and our environment. 
     I hope you can get behind it. [[Page S7620]] 
       Thank you.
                                                     Marty Forman,
     President.
                                                                    ____

         Northeastern Connecticut Regional Resource Recovery 
           Authority,
                                       Dayville, CT, May 12, 1995.
     Senator Mark Hatfield,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: I wish to lend my support for the 
     National Beverage Container Recycling Act. As a regional 
     recycling coordinator in one of the nation's few bottle bill 
     states I can unquivocally say that deposit legislation has 
     greatly aided our recycling efforts. As a professional in the 
     field of solid waste management the benefits of the National 
     Beverage Container Recycling Act are many and clear:
       Bottle Bills effect a far greater recovery rate for 
     beverage containers than curbside recycling programs.
       Bottle Bills dramatically reduce beverage container litter, 
     including broken glass.
       Deposit legislation results in a much higher grade of 
     scrap.
       By effectively capturing PET plastic recyclers are not 
     faced with including light weight material at curbside.
       Beverage containers have unique properties; they are one-
     use containers often consumed away from home (and recycling 
     programs). For much of the rural U.S, expansive and expensive 
     curbside recycling are not practical. Bottle bills help 
     address this fact.
       Refillable containers, once the mainstay of the beverage 
     industry, are really only viable with deposits that ensure 
     the containers are returned for refilling.
                                                  Winston Averill,

                           Regional Recycling Coordinator.
                                 ______

      By Mr. JOHNSTON (for himself and Mr. Murkowski):
  S. 871. A bill to provide for the management and disposition of the 
Hanford Reservation, to provide for environmental management activities 
at the reservation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


                    THE HANFORD LAND MANAGEMENT ACT

 Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, earlier this spring the 
Department of Energy released a report on the estimated cost of 
cleaning up the Department's nuclear weapons complex. The report 
provides the first realistic assessment of the cost of the cleanup 
program since it began in 1989.
  The results of this assessment are sobering. The Department concluded 
that it would cost anywhere between $175 billion and half a trillion 
dollars to clean up these sites, depending on the baseline case would 
cost $230 billion over the next 75 years.
  Even these figures exclude the cost of cleaning up problems for which 
no feasible cleanup technology exists, the $23 billion we have already 
spent, and the $50 to $75 million per year we will spend monitoring and 
maintaining them after 2070.
  The Department's report follows on the heels of the Blush report on 
the Department of Energy's efforts to cleanup the Hanford Reservation. 
Last fall, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources commissioned 
Steve Blush, a former director of the Department of Energy's nuclear 
safety office, to evaluate the Hanford cleanup.
  The committee asked Mr. Blush to focus on Hanford because it is the 
largest of the Department's weapons sites and it poses some of the most 
intractable cleanup problems. Hanford now receives about one quarter of 
the $6 billion we spend on this program each year. We have already 
spent $7.5 billion on the Hanford cleanup and are currently spending 
$1.5 billion per year.
  Mr. Blush found that the Hanford cleanup is ``floundering in a legal 
and regulatory morass.'' His report describes regulatory requirements 
that are:

     unworkable, disjunctive, lack scientific and technical merit, 
     undermine any sense of accountability for taxpayer dollars, 
     and most importantly, are having an overall negative effect 
     on worker and public health and safety.

  The Blush report gives no aid or comfort to those who think all our 
problems can be solved by abolishing the Department of Energy. The 
report makes it clear that the responsibility for creating and 
perpetuating this unworkable system lies with us, the Congress.
  We have given the Department of Energy an impossible task. We have 
told it to meet standards that cannot be attained, to use technologies 
that do not exist, to meet deadlines that cannot be achieved, to employ 
workers that are not needed, and to do it all with less money than it 
requested. To make matters worse, the law now provides for criminal 
penalties, including jail time, for senior Department officials if they 
fail to do the impossible.
  Mr. President, the Hanford cleanup cannot continue on its present 
course. The administration has already proposed a $4.4 billion 
reduction in the overall cleanup program over the next 5 years, over a 
billion of which is likely to come out of the Hanford cleanup. Lower 
funding will result in deadlines being missed, which will result in the 
Department being fined. Fines will have to be paid out of cleanup 
funds, which will result in more deadlines being missed and more fines 
being levied. Moreover, senior officials will be forced to leave their 
posts rather than face criminal sanctions.
  If the cleanup program is not reformed, it will, in time, collapse of 
its own weight to the detriment of all concerned. The only question is 
how much money will have been wasted before that happens.
  The problems besetting the Hanford cleanup cannot be fixed by the 
Department itself or by Congress through the appropriations process. 
The Blush report makes clear that ``Congress must fundamentally change 
the underlying legal and regulatory framework.* * *'' What is needed is 
``legislation that redefines the regulatory framework and establishes 
fiscal responsibility, a more realistic timeframe, better standards, 
and a more clearly defined mission for the cleanup.''
  Accordingly, Mr. President, Senator Murkowski and I are today 
introducing a bill to establish a comprehensive program to clean up the 
Hanford site. The bill requires the Department of Energy to prepare a 
comprehensive environmental management plan for Hanford. The plan is to 
include a future land-use plan for the 560-square-mile site, an 
assessment of the risks posed by conditions at the site, and new 
programs for managing radioactive and hazardous substances and cleaning 
up environmental contamination at the site.
  While the reforms made by this bill are necessary, they are not 
sufficient. Additional legislation will be needed to address conflicts 
between the new cleanup requirements and the existing jumble of 
environmental laws, regulations, and agreements that now govern 
Hanford. In addition, legislation is urgently needed to fix the problem 
of fines and criminal liability. Senator Murkowski and I will also 
offer an amendment to the bill to address those matters.
  The bill we are introducing today focuses solely on Hanford. That was 
the site the Blush report examined and, therefore, the site we know 
most about. Many of the problems at Hanford are systemic to the entire 
weapons complex. Many of the reforms we are proposing for Hanford can, 
and probably should be, extended to other sites. My hope is that 
Hanford might serve as a pilot for the rest of the complex.
  Rumors about this bill have already excited considerable fear, 
consternation, and resentment in the Hanford community. Some of the 
conditions at Hanford pose serious health and safety risks that the 
public has every right to have remedied. In addition, the cleanup 
program is extremely important to the area's economy. A local paper has 
described the cleanup as bringing a ``river of money'' into the 
community. Understandably, residents do not want to see the flow 
diminished.
  I want to assure the people of the Northwest and their able 
representatives in this body that my purpose in offering this bill is 
to create a program that works, that is sustainable within the 
Department of Energy's shrinking budget, that adequately protects the 
public health and safety and the environment, and that is 
scientifically sound and achievable.
  I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
               Summary of the Hanford Land Management Act

     Sec. 1. Short title
       Self-explanatory.
     Sec. 2. Definitions
       Self-explanatory.
     Sec. 3. Environmental management plan
       Directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare a comprehensive 
     plan governing environmental management activities at 
     Hanford. [[Page S7621]] Environmental management activities 
     include both the management (i.e., treatment, storage, and 
     disposal) of hazardous substances and radioactive materials 
     and environmental cleanup activities. The plan is to include 
     a future land use plan for the site, an assessment of the 
     risks at the site, and programs both for managing hazardous 
     substances and radioactive materials and for cleaning up the 
     site.
     Sec. 4. Land use
       Requires the Secretary to prepare a comprehensive land use 
     plan for Hanford as part of the environmental management 
     plan. The Secretary is to designate future uses for parcels 
     within the Hanford Reservation after consideration of risks 
     to the public and cleanup workers; the technical feasibility 
     and cost of cleaning up the site for other uses; the 
     importance of the site for other purposes; the views of the 
     Department of the Interior, the Governor of Washington, 
     affected communities, and Indian tribes; and the availability 
     of federal funds.
       Implementation of the Secretary's recommendations to 
     release parcels from federal ownership will require 
     subsequent legislation.
     Sec. 5. Risk assessment
       Requires the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive risk 
     assessment of all major activities, substances, and 
     conditions at Hanford that pose a risk to human health, 
     safety, or the environment. The risk assessment protocol is 
     based upon S. 333, the Risk Management Act of 1995, reported 
     from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
     Sec. 6. Materials and waste management
       Directs the Secretary to set new standards for the 
     treatment storage, and disposal of hazardous waste and 
     radioactive materials at Hanford. The standards must provide 
     adequate protection to the health and safety of the public 
     and accord with the common defense and security (i.e., the 
     standard applied to civilian nuclear power plants licensed by 
     the Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
       In setting these standards, the Secretary must consider 
     reasonably anticipated future land uses, the views of the 
     affected communities and Indian tribes, the availability of 
     cost-effective technology, the risk assessment conducted 
     under section 5, comparable federal and state standards, and 
     the recommendations of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
     Board.
       In addition to the standards, the environmental management 
     plan must include an inventory of hazardous substances and 
     radioactive materials at Hanford and designate the method 
     chosen to manage such substance or material.
       In selecting management options, the Secretary must 
     consider risk to the public and workers, cost, the 
     possibility of interim storage pending radioactive decay or 
     technological development, and the views of federal and state 
     regulators and the affected communities and Indian tribes.
     Sec. 7. Site restoration
       Directs the Secretary to set new standards for cleaning up 
     the site. The standards must provide adequate protection to 
     the health and safety of the public and accord with the 
     common defense and security (i.e., the standards applied to 
     civilian nuclear power plants licensed by the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission).
       In setting these standards, the Secretary must consider 
     reasonably anticipated future land uses, the views of the 
     affected communities and Indian tribes, the availability of 
     cost-effective technology, the risk assessment conducted 
     under section 5, comparable federal and state standards, and 
     the recommendations of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
     Board.
       In addition to the standards, the environmental management 
     plan must designate the remedial actions chosen to clean up 
     the site.
       In selecting remedial actions, the Secretary must consider 
     the effectiveness of the remedy, risk to the public and 
     workers, cost, and the views of the affected communities and 
     Indian tribes (i.e., the factors proposed by the 
     Administration in its Superfund reform bill in 1994). The 
     Secretary must also consider the possibility of interim 
     containment pending radioactive decay and technological 
     development.
     Sec. 8. Workforce restructuring
       Requires the Secretary to reduce the number of employees at 
     Hanford to the number needed to accomplish authorized 
     activities.
     Sec. 9. Authorization of appropriations
       Authorizes appropriation of such sums as may be necessary 
     for environmental management activities at Hanford.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BOND (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 872. A bill to provide for the establishment of a modernized and 
simplified health information network for Medicare and Medicaid, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


         the health information modernization and security act

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an old friend--the 
Health Information Modernization and Security Act. In past years, I had 
worked with Senator Riegle in developing this legislation. I am now 
very pleased that Senator Lieberman has been working with me to present 
this legislation for this Congress. Also, as in past years, we are very 
fortunate to have the bipartisan support of Congressmen Hobson and 
Sawyer from Ohio who will introduce this bill in the other Chamber.
  Our health care system today needlessly wastes billions of dollars on 
red tape and paperwork. This administrative waste effectively adds a 
10-percent surcharge to every health insurance and health bill in the 
country. In a world that is increasingly automated and computerized, 
health professionals must still largely rely on an antiquated and 
inefficient paper-based system to file claims with insurers and 
coordinate benefits.
  The bill that I am introducing today is the latest in a project that 
began 3 years ago with the introduction of the Health Insurance 
Simplification and Portability Act. That legislation has evolved 
considerably since then and we have sought the input of hundreds of 
experts from across the Nation. Last year during the health care reform 
debate, this effort received broad bipartisan support and was included 
in nearly every major health care reform bill.
  The first and most obvious question is: Why is Federal legislation 
needed? The answer to that question goes back to 1991 when the 
Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange, or WEDI as it is now called, 
was formed by then Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Louis 
Sullivan. WEDI was formed to respond to the challenge of reducing 
administrative costs in the Nation's health care system. WEDI is made 
up of health insurers, hospital officials, physicians, dentists, 
nurses, pharmacists, privacy experts, businesses, and technology 
experts. WEDI has strongly recommended that the Federal Government 
adopt standards for the electronic data interchange of financial and 
administrative information to ensure uniformity across State lines.
  There is a blizzard of paperwork that is a nightmare for patients, 
hospitals, doctors and businesses in this country. Everyone agrees that 
a solution must be found that reduces these costs and the burden they 
are placing on our health care system and the ability of people to 
afford it. A study conducted by Lewin-VHI estimated that administrative 
costs add $135 billion in health costs in the United States. These 
costs are escalated by the unwieldy inefficient paperwork-blizzard 
billing system that has evolved in this country.
  In other sectors where accurate and timely information is key to 
production, the investment has been made in information systems. There 
are good explanations for why health care has been slow to invest in 
information systems. There are barriers such as so-called quill pen 
laws that require information to be sent and kept on paper. There is a 
lack of standards for the data and there is a lack of discipline on the 
part of insurers to agree unanimously to a common set of data to use 
for billing purposes. These are just a couple of examples of the 
barriers to overcome.
  In March 1992, I introduced, along with Senator Riegle, the Health 
Insurance Simplification and Portability Act. The main purpose of that 
bill was to reduce administrative costs and protect consumers from 
insurance rip-offs. I am proud to say that it was one of the few 
bipartisan health bills that were introduced during that Congress. 
Later in 1992, I introduced the Medical and Health Insurance 
Information Reform Act which was the Bush administration's proposal for 
bringing administrative costs under control.
  My goal has been to draft legislation to propose what the experts are 
saying must be done to reduce administrative costs. The steps they 
recommend would facilitate the development of a viable market in this 
area and lead to the eventual implementation of electronic solutions to 
many information problems that exist in health care today.
  In determining the proper Federal role, the experts have been telling 
us is that first they don't want Government to be part of the problem. 
That should be obvious, but as we all know it many times is easier said 
than done.
  Second, they want the Government to adopt a set of standards and 
conventions for electronic data interchange for financial and 
administrative transactions in the health care system. In adopting 
these standards, the Government should recognize the value of standards 
that have already been [[Page S7622]] adopted or are in development and 
not try to reinvent the wheel. Where standards already exist, those are 
the standards that should be adopted.
  And lastly, but most importantly, legislation is needed to protect 
the privacy and confidentiality of patient data. The importance of this 
effort must be underscored. We must ensure that access to data that 
includes patient identifiers is secure.
  Under this legislation, the Secretary would adopt national standards 
for electronic health claims and other financial and administrative 
transactions. The standards that would be adopted by the Secretary 
would be those that have been developed by private standards-setting 
organizations that seek broad consensus and input to their standards. 
If the Secretary determines, however, that the standards that have been 
developed by these standard-setting organizations are not practical and 
would lead to substantially greater administrative costs compared to 
other alternatives, then the Secretary could adopt other standards that 
are in use and generally accepted.
  Two years after these national standards for electronic transactions 
are adopted, all health care plans including Medicare and Medicaid 
would be required to accept health claims electronically or perform any 
of the standardized transactions electronically with any doctor, 
pharmacist, dentist, hospital, or any health provider that wants to 
take advantage of the new electronic standards. Smaller health plans 
would be given an additional year, for a total of three years, to 
accept the electronic transactions.
  Putting this system of standards in place means that all health 
providers would be able to send their insurance claims electronically 
to the universe of payors using the same formats and data. These 
standards would create an electronic universal claims form. It further 
means that payors would be able to perform coordination of benefits 
activities electronically with all other payors. This will help crack 
down on fraud and dramatically reduce the number of improperly paid 
claims. This will save consumers billions of dollars each year.
  Having a system with these national standards in place will also mean 
that providers will no longer be forced to wade through the multiple 
forms and formats and requests for additional data for billing in order 
to get reimbursed for their services. In addition, health plans would 
reap large savings from the increased number of claims they would 
receive electronically. When insurers accept claims on paper an 
expensive data entry system is in place today to computerize the data 
from the paper claim.
  This bill would also repeal the controversial Medicare and Medicaid 
Databank. This databank was created in OBRA 93 to collect data at the 
Health Care Financing Administration to identify cases in which claims 
were improperly paid by Medicare when they should have been paid by a 
private insurer. By law, when a Medicare beneficiary has private 
insurance, the private insurance plan is the primary payor. The 
databank had proved to be unworkable, but the need still exists. 
Medicare loses billions of dollars each year by paying claims 
improperly.
  In estimating the amount of savings that would result from this 
effort, the workgroup for electronic data interchange [WEDI] conducted 
an extense study and analysis of data to determine the costs of 
implementation and the net savings possible from moving to electronic 
data interchange of health data. Using the WEDI data, it is estimated 
that the changes that would result from this bill would produce a net 
savings of over $29 billion over a 5-year period to health plans, and 
providers.
  In closing, the Government should play only the minimal role needed 
to help the market work. Government should not design the solution. If 
the Government tried to design the solution we would end up with 
another set of multimillion dollar DOD toilet seats and we would not 
solve the problems that exist.
  In the past I have been told to wait for passage of a comprehensive 
health care plan to enact this legislation into law. I have agreed with 
that strategy in the past, but it did not happen and the legislation 
has died in two previous Congresses. Had we gone ahead in 1992, this 
system would be in place today. I do still want to see comprehensive 
health care reform and will await action by Congress to take that 
important step. I believe this legislation will and should be included 
in comprehensive reform of the health care system. However, I will ask 
the committee of jurisdiction and the majority leader to move this 
legislation as a free standing bill.
  This health care information system will lower administrative costs, 
improve the quality of care and help us to learn what works and what 
does not work in health care. This system will provide innumerable 
benefits to our health care system and to the patients who rely on it.
  I still agree that we need comprehensive health care reform. I want 
to see that done. I want this bill to be considered. I believe it will 
be included in most of the major reform packages coming forward. But I 
believe that, if no comprehensive legislation passes, we can pass this 
bill.
  If we had gone ahead and passed it in 1992, the 2 or 3 years needed 
to get the system up and running would have been accomplished and we 
could have that process in place now.
  If it appears that we will not have comprehensive health legislation 
I will ask the committee of jurisdiction and the majority leader to 
move this legislation as a freestanding bill. It will lower 
administrative costs, improve the quality of health care, and help us 
learn what works and what does not work.
  I welcome inquiries of my colleagues. We solicit support. Senator 
Lieberman and I would be delighted to have other colleagues join with 
us in this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
    Summary of the Health Information Modernization and Security Act


                title i--purpose and repeal of databank

       Purpose: the purpose is to improve the Medicare and 
     Medicaid programs and the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
     health care system by encouraging the development of a health 
     information network through the establishment of standards 
     and requirements for electronic transmission of certain 
     health information.
       Repeal of databank: Repeals the Medicare and Medicaid 
     Coverage Databank established in OBRA 93 when the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services provides written notice to 
     Congress that the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data Bank is 
     no longer necessary because of the operation of the health 
     information network established pursuant to this Act.


                title ii--administrative simplification

       Adoption of electronic transaction standards: The Secretary 
     adopts standards so that certain common health care 
     administrative transactions may be conducted electronically 
     to reduce the costs of paying and providing health care. 
     These transactions include claims, coordination of benefits, 
     claims attachments, enrollment and disenrollment, 
     eligibility, payment and remittance advice, premium payments, 
     first report of injury, claims status, and referral 
     certification and authorization of services. These standards 
     must be those that have been developed by a private standards 
     setting organization such as the American National Standards 
     Institute.
       The Secretary may adopt additional standards if the 
     Secretary determines that the standards developed by private 
     standards setting organizations are impractical and more 
     costly to implement than a standard that is in use and 
     generally accepted. The Secretary is required to publish in 
     the Federal Register the analysis upon which such a 
     determination is made.
       The Secretary may adopt different standards for data 
     elements than those developed by a standards setting 
     organization through the use of negotiated rulemaking if a 
     different standard would substantially reduce administrative 
     costs.
       The Secretary also adopts standards for unique health 
     identifiers, code sets, electronic signatures and 
     coordination of benefits.
       Security standards: The Secretary is required to adopt 
     security standards to protect the confidentiality of health 
     information, to protect against threats or hazards to the 
     security or integrity of the information, and to protect 
     against unauthorized uses or disclosures of health 
     information.
       Privacy standards: The Secreatry is required to adopt 
     privacy standards including the rights of individuals with 
     respect to their health information and the procedures for 
     exercising these rights. Privacy standards shall also include 
     standards describing the uses and disclosures which are 
     authorized, and the security of such information.
       Health information advisory committee: The Secretary must 
     consult with other appropriate federal agencies in carrying 
     out these duties and must rely on recommendations from the 
     Health Information Advisory [[Page S7623]] Committee. The 
     Secretary is required to publish in the Federal Register the 
     recommendations of the advisory committee regarding adoption 
     of standards.
       Timetables for adoption of standards: Initial standards are 
     to be adopted within 18 months of enactment with the 
     exception of standards for claims attachments which are to be 
     adopted within 30 months. The Secretary reviews and modifies 
     these standards as determined appropriate but not more 
     frequently than every 6 months. These modifications must 
     still be those adopted by a private standards-setting 
     organization or follow the procedures outlined earlier.
       Requirements for health plans: If anyone desires to conduct 
     any of the standardized financial and administrative 
     transactions with a health plan (which includes government 
     health plans), then the health plan must conduct that 
     standard transaction in a timely manner. A health plan can 
     satisfy this requirement by using a health information 
     network service or ``clearinghouse'' to translate a 
     transaction into the standardized form.
       Timetables for compliance with requirements: Large health 
     plans, as defined by the Secretary, must comply within 24 
     months of the adoption of a standard. Small health plans must 
     comply within 36 months. Health plans must comply with 
     modification to standards in a timeframe determined 
     appropriate by the Secretary, but not sooner than 180 days.
       General penalty for failure to comply with requirements and 
     standards: A penalty of $100 for each violation is imposed. 
     No penalty higher than $25,000 may be imposed during a 
     calendar year for a violation of a specific standard or 
     requirement. Penalties do not apply if it established that 
     the person did not know and would not have known by 
     exercising reasonable diligence. If the failure was due to 
     reasonable cause and not to willful neglect and the failure 
     is corrected within 30 days (or longer as determined by the 
     Secretary), no penalty is applied. A penalty not already 
     waived, may be further reduced if the failure is due to 
     reasonable cause and not to willful neglect and the penalty 
     would be excessive relative to the compliance failure.
       Criminal penalties for wrongful disclosure of health 
     information: Any person who knowingly (1) uses or causes a 
     unique identifier to be used for a purpose not authorized by 
     the Secretary, (2) obtains individually identifiable health 
     information in violation of the privacy standards or (3) 
     discloses individually identifiable health information to 
     another person in violation of the privacy standards shall 
     (1) be fined up to $50,000, imprisoned for up to a year, or 
     both, (2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, 
     fined up to $100,000, imprisoned for up to 5 years, or both; 
     and (3) if the offense is committed with intent to sell 
     transfer, or use individually identifiable health information 
     for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm, 
     fined up to $250,000, imprisoned for up to 10 years, or both.
       Effect on State law: Provisions, requirements and standards 
     under this Act supersede contrary provisions of State law 
     including laws that require medical plan records or billing 
     information to be maintained in written rather than 
     electronic form (so-called ``quill pen'' laws) and provisions 
     which are more stringent than the requirements or standards 
     under the Act. Exceptions: (1) state laws which establish 
     more stringent requirements or standards with respect to 
     privacy of individually identifiable health information (2) 
     state laws which require health providers to transmit 
     financial and administrative health transactions 
     electronically, (3) state laws which provide for the 
     coordination of health benefits which are in effect on the 
     date of enactment, (4) state laws that the Secretary 
     determines are necessary to prevent fraud and abuse. Nothing 
     in this Act preempts or invalidates any state or federal laws 
     for public health reporting of certain health data.
       Health information advisory committee: Establishes a Health 
     Information Advisory Committee of 15 members; 3 appointed by 
     the President, 6 appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives after consultation with the Minority Leader, 
     and 6 appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate 
     after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate.
       Standards for patient medical record information: Not 
     earlier than 4 years, but sooner than 6 years after 
     enactment, the Secretary is required to recommend to Congress 
     a plan for developing and implementing uniform data standards 
     for patient medical record information and the electronic 
     exchange of such information.
       Grants for demonstration projects: The Secretary is 
     authorized to make grants for demonstration projects to 
     promote the development and use of electronically integrated 
     clinical information systems and computerized patient medical 
     records.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Bond in 
introducing the Health Information Modernization and Security Act. The 
bill will reduce the cost and paperwork associated with processing 
health care transactions by speeding the transition from a paper-based 
system to a system where claims are processed electronically. We worked 
together on similar legislation in the last Congress in the context of 
comprehensive health care reform. I thank Senator Bond for his 
leadership on the bill.
  Mr. President, virtually everyone agrees that simplifying the 
administrative processes in our health care system will have important 
benefits. Administrative overhead costs can be cut dramatically by 
standardizing claims forms and converting as many paper claims as 
possible to electronic transactions. In a hearing I chaired last year 
before the Regulation and Government Information Subcommittee of the 
Government Affairs Committee, Linda Ryan, director of the New York 
State demonstration project, testified that participating hospitals in 
New York were saving over $8 a claim by filing electronically.
  Even more money could be saved by improving the so-called 
coordination of benefits process whereby insurers determined who should 
pay first, and who should cover only the remainder of the bill. This 
process could be automated and completed electronically. At times, 
however, it is still done with telephone calls. We need to give our 
administrative systems a dose of high-technology medicine.
  Reducing paperwork burdens and costs for doctors, hospitals, 
insurance companies, and patients will free up time and money so that 
more of our health care resources can go to delivering health care. The 
Government will also benefit, particularly from improved coordination 
of benefits. Since Medicare is often the second payer, better 
coordination of benefits will save the Medicare program--and taxpayers 
that fund it--millions, perhaps billions, of dollars.
  Experience counsels caution in building or imposing new information 
requirements in health care. The legislation we are introducing today 
imposes minimal burdens on the private and public sectors and will 
produce substantial savings throughout the health care industry. Under 
the bill, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services 
will develop standards, rules and procedures to facilitate the 
electronic exchange of data.
  Health plans will be required to use standard data formats. The 
Secretary will also establish standards to ensure the security and 
privacy of medical information.
  The bill establishes a Health Information Advisory Committee to 
provide private sector input to the Secretary in developing standards 
for electronic claims submittal. The committee will also study the 
feasibility of adopting uniform data standards for patient medical 
record information, a challenging objective that, if achieved, will 
greatly reduce paperwork and improve the information available for 
health care research. The bill also authorizes the Secretary to provide 
grants for demonstration projects to promote the development and use of 
electronically integrated clinical information systems and computerized 
patient medical records.
  Finally, the bill repeals an ineffective and burdensome law Congress 
passed as part of the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. That bill 
established the Medicare data bank to improve coordination of benefits. 
The law requires employers to annually provide to the Federal 
Government the names, social security numbers, and dates of coverage 
for all employees, spouses and dependents receiving health coverage. 
Last year in a Government Affairs Committee hearing the General 
Accounting Office testified that the Medicare data bank will not even 
add significantly to Medicare or Medicaid's ability to collect mistaken 
payments. The bill we are introducing today will improve Medicare 
coordination of benefits without imposing an unnecessary burden on 
employers.
  Mr. President, health care information processing is, to be frank, a 
dry and complicated subject. But by addressing this ``below the 
horizon'' issue we can significantly reduce the cost of our health care 
system and improve its effectiveness. I urge my colleagues to join 
Senator Bond and I in our effort to do just that by supporting the 
Health Information Modernization and Security Act.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, may I take this opportunity to commend 
the senior Senator from the State of Missouri for his persistence on a 
most important matter as it relates to health care of Americans. I know 
his diligence in this area has resulted from [[Page S7624]] a long time 
of study and an understanding of medical recordkeeping. I am pleased to 
have the opportunity to commend him and to thank him for his 
performance in this respect.


                    THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF MARK HAYES

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, because of the limitations of time during 
morning business, I gave only a summary of the statement I had on the 
Health Information Modernization and Security Act.
  There is another very important part of it that I would like to have 
added to that record. The fact that this measure has been worked on for 
at least 3, and perhaps 4\1/2\ or five years by Mark Hayes, a very 
capable member of my staff.
  Mark has worked tirelessly contacting all of the interested parties 
working with governmental agencies, private standard setting 
organizations, and people who are concerned about privacy, and all 
other aspects of the measure. It is due in large part to his 
dedication, his skill, and his good humor to put up with all of the 
many, many different variations and different ideas that we were able 
to produce what I think is a very good measure.
  I am very pleased with that measure. But I also note that this is the 
last day that Mr. Hayes will be working with me on the Small Business 
Committee staff. And I take this opportunity to express to him my 
sincere appreciation for his dedicated efforts.
  I can say from those who have contacted me who have worked with him 
that there are many, many people who join with me in expressing 
appreciation for the great leadership that he has shown.
  We shall miss him in the Federal Government. But I know that he will 
do well in the private sector, and the work that he has done on the 
Health Information Modernization and Security Act I think will serve 
the cause of improving and making more efficient the health care 
delivery system in the United States.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PRESSLER:
  S. 875. A bill to amend section 202 of the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949 to exclude certain property in the 
State of South Dakota; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


                       land transfer legislation

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to stop 
the proposed transfer of Federal land in South Dakota to the Standing 
Rock Sioux Tribe. The bill is simple: It removes any authority for the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to transfer lands in South Dakota acquired 
by the U.S. for construction and operation of reservoirs on the 
mainstem of the Missouri River and transfer them pursuant to Public Law 
93-599, or any other law.


                               background

  This issue is not new to the Senate and to the people of South 
Dakota. In October 1992, Congress passed the Three Affiliated Tribes 
and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act. This law 
called for the transfer of approximately 15,000 acres along Lake Oahe 
and the Missouri River in South Dakota from the corps to the Standing 
Rock Sioux Tribe. However, it soon became clear that this proposed 
transfer was a mistake. The transfer had significant public opposition, 
beginning with the Governor of South Dakota. It also was learned that 
the costs to the Federal Government to transfer these lands was 
significantly more than the actual value of the land itself.
  As a result Mr. President, on February 9, 1994, the Senate voted to 
repeal the proposed land transfer. However, the Senate repeal was 
amended by the House and the final version signed into bill contained 
language directing the corps to proceed with the transfer. The House 
language directed the Corps to pursue these land transfers pursuant to 
Public Law 93-599--a 1975 Federal law that deals with the disposal of 
surplus government lands.
  Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that the Senate last year 
rejected the land transfer language due to the costs involved. Even 
under the best scenario, the costs of the transfer was more than double 
than value of the land. Some costs estimates were more than five times 
the estimated land value. Hardly a wise use of taxpayers' dollars.


            legislation is needed for the transfer of lands

  Mr. President, I have been very hesitant to support Federal land 
transfers since they were first suggested in 1992. I also am quite 
troubled with the process being used by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers. The corps appears to be intent in doing all it can to 
transfer the land, regardless of what is in the best interests of all 
South Dakotans. In fact, I believe the corps lacks the statutory 
authority to transfer the large tract of land near Lake Oahe. This is 
most troubling since the corps has regulations pending to transfer 
these lands.
  As I stated earlier, Public Law 93-599 deals with the disposal of 
excess government lands. The corps previously conducted an assessment 
of excess lands along Lake Oahe and determined that only 386 acres 
could be deemed excess. Yet, the corps intends to transfer 15,000 
acres.
  Mr. President, when I learned of the proposed transfer in March of 
this year I wrote to the Secretary of the Army questioning the legal 
authority of the corps to transfer Federal land beyond what it deemed 
to be excess. I asked the Secretary to provide me with a justification 
of the corps' legal authority to carry out the transfer, prior to the 
issuance of any regulations.
  I was surprised to learn that the corps issued the land transfer 
regulations on April 10, 1995. It was more than a month after that, on 
May 17, that I received response to my inquiry to the Secretary of the 
Army.
  The response is very troubling. Essentially, the corps' intends to 
redefine the regulations to expand what is deemed excess in order for 
the corps to carry out the transfer. In short, rather than alter the 
transfer to make it consistent with the law, the corps intends to twist 
the law so that it is consistent with the transfer.
  Mr. President, that is unacceptable. The Army clearly is intent on an 
ill-advised and illegal transfer of Federal land. The lands under 
consideration are neither excess land nor conditionally excess lands 
within the meaning of the law as currently defined. Given this fact, 
and the clear will of Congress to restrict the corps' land transfer 
authority, this land transfer must be decided by legislation--not 
regulation.


                        strong public opposition

  Mr. President, plain and simple the proposed land transfer is not in 
the best interest of South Dakota. As disturbed as I am that the corps 
is acting beyond its legal authority, I am equally astounded that the 
corps would take this action without hearing from the State of South 
Dakota and its citizens. Their concerns must be heard.
  What are these concerns? First, South Dakotans are concerned about 
future access to the land. Sportsmen in the State are concerned that 
hunting and fishing could be restricted. Others are concerned with 
possible restrictions on the use of shorelines for recreational 
activities, such as swimming, boating and picnicking.
  Those supporting the transfer state that access will be secured. How 
can they be so sure? Nothing has been proposed to ensure continued 
access. The interests of all South Dakotans are not being considered.
  In addition, the Governor of South Dakota also has serious concerns 
with the transfer. In fact, both the Governor and attorney general of 
South Dakota support the legislation I am introducing today.
  Wildlife management is a major concern should corps lands be 
transferred. That is why the South Dakota Wildlife Federation opposed 
the transfer. As a recent editorial in the Yankton Press and Dakotan 
opposing the transfer said ``* * * the real public concern is the 
environment. Environmental management along the Missouri already is 
damaged by dozens of jurisdictions with different agendas. Imagine the 
difficulty if the corps needed a few acres back for a bird breeding 
bank.'' The editorial concluded the corps ownership of the land offers 
a systems management concept for the river. This would be lost if the 
lands were transferred.
  In addition, the issue of jurisdiction over land and water in the 
affected areas needs to be addressed. Jurisdiction on power generation 
facilities must be spelled out.


                   DANGEROUS PRECEDENTS ARE BEING SET

  Mr. President, should the proposed regulations be carried out, a 
dangerous precedent clearly would be set that [[Page S7625]] could 
impact future land transfers. Remember, Congress passed legislation to 
do the transfer in 1992, and in 1994 passed legislation to restrict the 
transfer.
  By permitting this transfer through a clearly unfair regulatory 
process, future land transfers could take place throughout the country 
that are not in the public interest. As a recent editorial in the 
Watertown Public Opinion stated ``The authority for the corps to 
transfer excess property away from the taxpayers who finance their 
project is inconceivable, and if allowed to progress will have far-
reaching ramifications in other states.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent several documents be placed in 
the Record at the end of my remarks.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, the central issue here is fairness--fairness for all 
impacted by land transfers. The issue is about doing the right thing 
for the State of South Dakota and all its citizens.
  Do not be misled. The corps' transfer would be precedent setting.
  Similar transfers could take place that include land that is part of 
a county's tax base. Transfer of these lands would remove them from the 
tax base and may cause financial hardships in counties where budgets 
are already stretched to the limit.
  Mr. President, ultimately what we must put in place is a legislative 
process that ensures citizen consultation and input on all transfers of 
Federal land. All citizens--Native American and non-Native American--
should have the opportunity to have a fair chance to determine how 
public land is to be used and administered.
  Mr. President, while this bill simply addresses the land transfers in 
South Dakota along Lake Oahe, I also am preparing legislation to ensure 
that land currently on a county's tax roll, stays there. Under that 
proposal, the mere purchase of land, whether it be by the Federal 
Government, tribe or other entity, should not result in the removal of 
land from the local tax rolls. If it is the Federal government, acting 
on behalf of the tribes, or just the tribes itself, it should require 
legislation passed by Congress to remove the purchased land from the 
county tax rolls. Again, the issue is fairness. This is one area that 
needs to be carefully addressed.
  Mr. President, I will save those comments for when that bill is 
ready. Today I wish to bring the land transfer bill into the public 
debate. I urge my colleagues to work with me to seek a solution. Today, 
it is Lake Oahe, SD. Tomorrow, it could in Utah, Arizona, California or 
elsewhere. Again, the issue is fairness--a fair process is necessary to 
achieve a fair and just use of the public lands. That is what this 
legislation is all about.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 875

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

     SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF EXCESS PROPERTY TO SECRETARY OF THE 
                   INTERIOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF INDIAN TRIBES.

       Section 202(a)(2) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483(a)(2)) is 
     amended in the first sentence by striking ``real property 
     located'' and inserting ``real property (not including lands 
     in the State of South Dakota that were acquired by the United 
     States for construction and operation of reservoirs on the 
     main stem of the Missouri River) that is located''.
                                                                    ____



                                   Office of Attorney General,

                                         Pierre, SD, May 16, 1995.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Re: Proposed bill ``To amend Section 202 of the Federal 
         Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to 
         exclude certain property in the State of South Dakota''
       Dear Senator Pressler: This letter is in relation to the 
     bill which you plan to propose which would have the effect of 
     excluding lands acquired on reservations in South Dakota for 
     the construction and operation of the Missouri River 
     mainstream reservoirs from the operation of 40 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 483(a)(2).
       I endorse the bill because it would preserve the public use 
     and access of these lands consistent with the ruling of the 
     United States Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Bourland.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                                     Mark Barnett,
     Attorney General.
                                                                    ____

                                            Department of the Army


                            Office of the Assistant Secretary,

                                      Washington DC, May 17, 1995.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pressler: This replies to your letter to the 
     Secretary of the Army, concerning the proposed rule which 
     would authorize excessing of former trust lands at Lakes 
     Sakakawea and Oahe to the General Services Administration 
     (GSA) for ultimate transfer to the Department of the Interior 
     to be held in trust for the Standing Rock Sioux Trade (SRST) 
     and Three Affiliated Tribes (TAT).
       Our legal authority for the proposed rule is based on long-
     standing Federal property law. The Federal Property and 
     Administrative services Act of 1949 (the Act), the law 
     governing all Federal real property transactions, and the 
     Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR), promulgated 
     by the GSA pursuant thereto, authorize transfers of excess 
     real property between Federal agencies.
       The Act provides that each executive agency shall 
     ``transfer excess property under its control to other Federal 
     agencies.'' (Title 40, U.S. Code, section 483(c)) ``Excess 
     property'' is defined by the Act as ``any property under the 
     control of any Federal agency which is not required for its 
     needs and the discharge of its responsibilities, as 
     determined by the head thereof.'' (Title 40, U.S. Code, 
     section 472(e)).
       The statute and the guidelines for utilization of excess 
     real property, contained in the FPMR, make it clear that a 
     Federal agency has much discretion in determining whether 
     ``any'' property is ``not required'' for its needs. The 
     guidelines (41 Code of Federal Regulations 101-47.201-2) also 
     make it clear that other interests may be considered in 
     making this determination:
       ``Each executive agency shall . . . survey real property 
     under its control . . . to identify property which is not 
     needed, underutilized, or not being put to optimum use. When 
     other needs for the property are identified or recognized, 
     the agency shall determine whether continuation of the 
     current use or another Federal or other use would better 
     serve the public interest, considering both the agency's 
     needs and the property's location.''
       While the corps has promulgated regulations which outline 
     and address corps policy regarding property requirements for 
     civil works projects, it is within the authority of the Chief 
     of Engineers to make exceptions to, waive, or alter those 
     regulations. The proposed rule is such an alteration.
       This rule, which was published in the Federal Register on 
     April 10, 1995, would expand the corps' policy regarding 
     excess Federal property at two specific Indian reservations. 
     Under the proposed rule, former trust lands at the Corps 
     projects located within the SRST and TAT reservations would 
     be considered potentially excess to project purposes if the 
     legislatively authorized project purposes could be protected 
     through the retention of appropriate interests in the 
     property or the imposition of conditions. The property would 
     be deemed excess only if three conditions were met. First, 
     individuals who have made substantial capital investments on 
     the property through arrangements with the Corps must be able 
     to recover their investments prior to the excessing. Second, 
     there must be no unreasonable impact on access to public and 
     private land. Third, there must be no unreasonable impact on 
     municipal and rural water supply systems.
       The property that is deemed excess to the corps ultimately 
     would be transferred to the Department of the Interior to be 
     held in trust for the SRST and TAT. Implementation of the 
     proposed rule would allow the corps to maintain such property 
     or interests in property as are required for the operation of 
     the project, while at the same time, allow for other 
     productive and compatible uses of the land by the tribes. The 
     Corps believes that implementation of the proposed rule would 
     provide for the optimum use of Federal property in the public 
     interest.
       This initiative is consistent with congressional intent 
     expressed in Public Law 103-211. That statute repealed the 
     general land transfer provisions of the Equitable 
     Compensation Act which provided for the return of certain 
     corps project lands to former non-Indian and Indian owners as 
     well as to the tribes. This repeal further provided that the 
     corps should proceed with the Secretary of the Interior to 
     designate excess lands and transfer them ultimately to the 
     Department of Interior to be held in trust for the tribes 
     pursuant to Public law 93-599. Public Law 93-599 is special 
     legislation that recognizes the trust obligations the 
     Department of the Interior has to Indian tribes.
       In the corps' view, the proviso contained in Public Law 
     103-211 is a clear indication that congress wanted the corps 
     to provide for the transfer of lands at Lakes Sakakawea and 
     Oahe to the tribes to the extent the corps can designate 
     property as being excess to
      corps needs. The Corps has developed a procedure for 
     identifying excess property and, under the rule, would 
     convey only such lands or interests in lands that are not 
     necessary for the project purposes. The Corps is cognizant 
     of the requirements of the original project authorizing 
     legislation, and I assure you that the Corps will retain 
     sufficient interests in the property or impose such 
     conditions as are necessary to protect all legislatively 
     mandated project purposes, including public access for 
     recreation. [[Page S7626]] 
       Thank you again for your interest in this issue. We trust 
     that this letter addresses your concerns and that it explains 
     why the Corps believes that the proposed rule is consistent 
     with existing law. Their intent is to allow the public 90 
     days to provide comments, which will be considered carefully 
     before publishing a final rule. I encourage you and your 
     constituents to participate in the rulemaking process, by 
     providing specific comments on the proposed rule.
           Sincerely,

                                             John H. Zirschky,

                           Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army,
     (Civil Works)
                                                                    ____


                  Land Transfer Angers Sportsmen Group

                           (By Kevin Woster)

       Legislation being developed by U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle could 
     threaten public access on portions of the Missouri River, the 
     director of a state sportsmens group said Wednesday.
       But a Daschle spokesman said the senator is committed to 
     maintaining public access to the river while seeing if some 
     surplus lands can be returned to previous owners, including 
     American Indian and non-Indians. The issue will be discussed 
     today beginning at 11 a.m. at the Wrangler Motel conference 
     room in Mobridge.
       Roger Pries of Pierre, executive director of the South 
     Dakota Wildlife Federation, is angry over the discussion 
     about returning certain public lands along the northern 
     portion of Lake Oahe to private ownership.
       ``Something like that would cause a bigger uproar among a 
     lot of sportsmen in South Dakota than trying to give the 
     Black Hills back,'' Pries said. ``Once you give some land 
     back to a few landowners, all the rest are going to want the 
     same thing.''
       Pries wrote Daschle a letter questioning why he wasn't 
     notified of the Mobridge meeting. He said the proposal 
     ``flies in the face of nearly all South Dakota citizens and 
     sportsmen.''
       Daschle staff member Eric Washburn said Wednesday that no 
     legislation has been introduced. Daschle is working with 
     federal, tribal, state and local officials as well as 
     landowners and the general public to develop a fair proposal, 
     Washburn said.
       He said the meeting was advertised in the Mobridge paper 
     and Daschle was hoping for a good turnout and a variety of 
     suggestions.
       The land issue arose years ago in a federal effort to 
     return to the Standing Rock Sioux and Three Affiliated tribes 
     of North Dakota certain surplus lands that had been acquired 
     for the Oahe and Garrison reservoirs. The Standing Rock 
     reservation is on the west bank of the Oahe Reservoir in both 
     North Dakota and South Dakota.
       Some non-Indian landowners told Daschle they wanted to 
     regain their land and the senator said the issue should be 
     considered, Washburn said.
       Daschle's staff is gathering information to help write 
     proposed legislation. In South Dakota, it is intended to be 
     limited to surplus land within the Standing Rock reservation 
     on the west side of the river, Washburn said. ``This is not 
     at all intended to set any sort of precedent,'' he said.
                                                                    ____

               Land Transfer at Lake Oahe Is Bad Decision

       South Dakota's congressional delegation can get together on 
     some stuff, but they're having problems agreeing on one that 
     could make a big difference on a number of South Dakota 
     issues.
       It appears that a few high-ranking folks inside the U.S. 
     Army Corps of Engineers, and South Dakota's two Democrats in 
     Congress want to turn Corps land along Lake Oahe to the 
     Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
       The single South Dakota Republican in Congress, Sen. Larry 
     Pressler, and a whole bunch of lower-ranked folks in the 
     Corps think it's bad to give the land to anybody.
       Some Corps folks see it as a major problem in future 
     management of the Missouri and its reservoirs.
       Pressler recently sent out a letter opposing the giveaway 
     of as much as 15,000 acres on grounds ranging from doubts 
     that the transfer is legal to restriction of the land for 
     hunting, fishing, livestock use, irrigation and power 
     generation.
       The problem is that under a ``politically correct'' but 
     legally questionable transfer of land to anybody, it takes 
     some degree of courage to argue against it.
       But there are overwhelming reasons why this could create a 
     major environmental and economic problem for South Dakotans 
     and Americans in general. Sen. Pressler only touches on them.
       In the first place, the land involved already was bought 
     and paid for by the Corps when the dams were built. Some was 
     bought from tribes, some from private owners. How can the 
     government legally give land to some former owners and not 
     others?
       Second, regardless of possible cutoff of public access to 
     these lands, the real ``public'' concern is environmental. 
     Environmental management along the Missouri already is 
     damaged by dozens of jurisdictions with different agendas. 
     Imagine the difficulty if the Corps needed a few acres back 
     for a bird breeding bank.
       Third, in many cases there may be more reason to keep the 
     land than when the dams were built. Erosion is happening. Is 
     it good for fish, wildlife and plants or not? Shouldn't we 
     know?
       Elsewhere the government is restricting private land use 
     for environmental reasons. Shouldn't they keep vital land 
     they already control rather than risk confrontation with 
     tribal officials over a fish or bird?
       This position should not be seen as anti-tribal ownership. 
     The same argument would be made if a couple of hundred 
     ranchers were involved.
       The Missouri and its recreational potential are vital to 
     South Dakota's economic future. We already have plenty of 
     problems promoting that priority with downstream states and 
     with ``environmentalist'' groups that disagree with each 
     other.
       Continuing Corps ownership offers the potential, at least, 
     for a ``systems management'' concept for the river. And 
     that's the only sensible foreseeable future.
                                                                    ____

             Giving Back Purchased Land Sets Poor Precedent

                          (By Brett Tschetter)

       The original boundaries of the Indian reservations along 
     the Missouri River included the land and water to the center 
     of the Missouri River channel. Private ownership was much the 
     same outside of the reservation boundaries.
       When the Oahe Daum was formed and Lake Oahe began the fill, 
     the Missouri River disappeared and a new body of water was 
     developed. The new lake flooded land on both sides of the old 
     river and eliminated that land for purposes previously 
     utilized.
       These lands were purchased by the United States government 
     and new boundaries were set up. The land that was purchased 
     above the high-water mark was determined to be used in later 
     years for erosion and re-establishment of the habitat loss 
     from the flooding.
       The lands that bordered the lake were established as public 
     lands because the government had purchased the land from the 
     previous owners. Access to that land has been open to the 
     public ever since the purchase.
       In the case of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, the 
     tribe and other owners have been paid more than $20 million 
     for the original 56,000 acres taken for the formation of the 
     Oahe Project within the reservation boundaries.
       Other tribes and private landowners were paid for the lands 
     that were below the take-line boundaries set up by the Oahe 
     Project.
       The take-line boundary was set up on both sides of the 
     river to makr the boundary between public and private land.
       In 1975, Congress passed a law that would allow the U.S. 
     Corps of Engineers to declare land within the projects as 
     excess and transfer that land back to the original owner if 
     found kthat the land was not needed for the continuation of 
     the project.
       The Corps is currently reviewing the Oahe Project and 
     considering returning the land above the highwater mark to 
     the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The land would be turned over 
     to the Department of the Interior and held in trust for the 
     tribe.
       This would give the tribe jurisdiction over previously 
     public land and eliminate the public uses established upon 
     the land's purchase.
       The precedence of this issue is sure to continue with other 
     land on other reservations and private land on both sides of 
     the river.
       Those lands within the Oahe Project will not be the only 
     ones considered. Soon after this action, the land along Lake 
     Sharpe and other Corps of Engineers lands will be under the 
     same scrutiny.
       The lands within the take line boundaries are no more 
     excess than water itself. The government has already had to 
     buy more land that has eroded farther than the project 
     originally purchased.
       The government still has to solve the mitigation issue and 
     restore 233,000 acres of habitat that was flooded. Where will 
     that land come from if the take land is given back? A 90-day 
     hearing period is currently under way to hear the comments of 
     the public. You can tell the Corps of Engineers your thoughts 
     by writing to: 215 North 17th St., Omaha. NE 68102, Attn: 
     CEMRO-OP-IN (Mike George).
       Your rights as a sportsman and as a U.S. citizen will be 
     encroached upon if the Corps decides to return the land that 
     has already been paid for by you and me.
                                                                    ____

   Corps Needs to Reconsider a More Equitable Transfer of Excess Land

                           (By James Madsen)

       In February of 1994, Congress repealed portions of the 
     Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 
     Equitable Compensation Act (Public Law 102-575) regarding the 
     return of land at Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe. That repeal 
     contained language stating that the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers (Corps) should proceed with the Secretary of the 
     Interior to designate excess land within the Fort Berthold 
     and Standing Rock Sioux Reservation reaches of Lake Sakakawea 
     and Lake Oahe, respectively. The land identified as excess 
     would then be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior to 
     be held in trust for the benefit of the tribe of Indians 
     within whose reservation such excess real property is 
     located, as contemplated in Public Law 93-599.
       In what was called an effort to gain a more complete 
     understanding of the public's perception of this transfer, 
     two public meetings were held in June 1994. Both of these 
     meetings were held in remote areas of the two reservations. 
     Based on the comments offered as a result of those meetings, 
     it is apparent that the Corps is again proceeding to identify 
     and transfer these excess properties.
       The lands along the Missouri were purchased 
     indiscriminately with federal dollars [[Page S7627]] and 
     without regard to race or nationality of the affected 
     sellers. The attempt to restore ownership to only one segment 
     of the population from which these lands were purchased is an 
     affront to everyone who sacrificed their lands to the 
     Missouri River impoundments.
       Whether justified by law, this is clearly a discriminatory 
     and political maneuver which will do more to foster prejudice 
     in South Dakota than the late Gov. Mickelson's Reconciliation 
     Act could have ever dreamed of overcoming.
       Values for the relinquishment of hunting and fishing rights 
     were also specifically included in the land purchases. In 
     addition, the Supreme Court decision, South Dakota vs. 
     Bourland, decided June 14, 1993, reaffirmed ``that in taking 
     tribal lands for the Oahe Dam and Reservoir project and 
     opening these lands for public use, Congress, through the 
     Flood Control and Cheyenne River Act, eliminated the tribe's 
     power to exclude non-Indians from these lands, and with that 
     the incidental regulatory jurisdiction formerly enjoyed by 
     the tribes.''
       These facts should have clarified for all time the public's 
     right to the use of these lands. However, the Corps of 
     Engineers has taken the position that they do not exercise 
     authority over fish and wildlife resources nor do they have 
     the authority to delegate wildlife management. This lack of 
     or unwillingness to assume responsibility for the hunting and 
     fishing rights will result in the reversion of those rights 
     with the transferred lands. Argument can be made that this 
     will effectively nullify the Bourland decision, restrict the 
     public's use of land and adjoining water and jeopardize the 
     millions of dollars that the states have invested in their 
     fisheries programs.
       We should all question why the Corps of Engineers has taken 
     such rapid steps to comply with Public Law 93-599 while for 
     35 years has ignored its mitigation promises of the Pick 
     Sloan Act which required 972,000 acres of irrigation 
     development for South Dakota.
       The authority for the Corps to transfer excess property 
     away from the taxpayers who finance their projects is 
     inconceivable, and if allowed to progress will have far-
     reaching ramifications in other states.
       We strongly urge everyone who has the desire to impact this 
     decision to take action now. Instead of pitting Dakotan 
     against Dakotan, we suggest that the Corps consider a more 
     equitable transfer to an entity, such as the S.D. Department 
     of Game, Fish and Parks, that will hold the land in trust for 
     all people and will manage the land in the best interests of 
     the public.
                                 ______

      By Mr. EXON (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 876. A bill to provide that any payment to a local educational 
agency by the Department of Defense, that is available to such agency 
for current expenditures and used for capital expenses, shall not be 
considered funds available to such agency for purposes of making 
certain impact aid determinations; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                         impact aid legislation

 Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will 
ensure that Department of Defense supplemental payments are made to 
heavily impacted school districts like Bellevue, NE without reducing 
their payments from the Department of Education as is unfortunately 
happening now. I am pleased to have my colleague, Senator Kerrey, as an 
original cosponsor.
  The DOD supplemental payments are used to reduce 1994 impact aid 
payments being made now. The use of the funds is a new and in my 
opinion erroneous interpretation by the Department of Education as to 
the meaning of ``all funds available,'' which is contained in its 
regulation. The intent of the DOD appropriation was to provide a 
supplemental, not a substitute, payment to these heavily impacted 
school districts. The offset which is being implemented by the 
Department of Education makes no sense.
  This legislation clears up any ambiguities.
  I am hopeful that this legislation can be considered by the 
appropriate committee in a timely fashion. The 1994 impact aid payments 
are needed by these school districts to meet current budget 
requirements. The only payment for 1995 received so far by these 
districts has been the hold-harmless payment. In some cash-strapped 
school districts, funds are being borrowed to meet current payrolls and 
other obligations. Prompt passage of this legislation will help 
alleviate the problem for many of these districts and will ensure that 
the Education Department understands and carries out the will of 
Congress.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 877. A bill to amend section 353 of the Public Health Service Act 
to exempt physician office laboratories from the clinical laboratories 
requirements of that section; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


             clinical laboratory improvement act amendments

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that 
will overturn an expensive and unnecessary regulatory burden that 
contributes significantly to the high cost of health care.
  In 1988, Congress passed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act, as 
a reaction to reports about laboratories that inaccurately analyzed PAP 
smears. CLIA 1988 was intended to address the quality of laboratory 
test performance. Unfortunately, the Federal regulations that flowed 
out of the CLIA 1988 legislation do not reflect the intent of the act 
and have not resulted in any documented improvement in lab results and 
health care. What these new regs have done is add a huge new paperwork 
burden on doctors. This unhappy result is a classic case of out-of-
control regulations driving up medical costs.
  A recent Texas Medical Association study pegs the annual cost of just 
the paperwork and administrative overhead added by the CLIA at an 
average of $4,435 per physician. This is in addition to the cost of 
registration, labor controls, proficiency testing, and inspection or 
accreditation. At a time when the entire health care industry is under 
pressure to control health care costs, the CLIA regulations not only 
subject physicians to increased administrative costs but also decrease 
the amount of time devoted to patient care.
  Dr. McBrayer from the Texas panhandle described his experience with 
the CLIA inspection process as follows:

       We were written up for such monumental things as the fact 
     that I had not signed the procedure manual for one of our lab 
     machines. Therefore, everything done on that machine, 
     including the training, was out of compliance. The fact that 
     the manufacturer's rep had come and trained the staff was to 
     no avail. Everything was out of compliance because I didn't 
     sign it. It didn't matter that (my lab staff) had learned how 
     to use it. That was irrelevant.

  Dr. McBrayer's experience is not unique. CLIA regulations that pile 
on paperwork and silly penalties do not help the patient or the doctor; 
they simply create lots of unnecessary busywork for Government 
regulators.
  The CLIA amendments I am introducing will reduce the burdens on 
physicians who perform laboratory tests in their offices, and thereby 
free up resources and time to dedicate to patient care. In Texas alone, 
of the physicians who provided testing services in their offices prior 
to CLIA, 27 percent have closed their office labs, and another 31 
percent have dropped some types of testing, as a direct result of the 
CLIA 1988 reforms.
  Reduced availability of testing labs has measurably affected the 
health care of a number of rural areas of Texas. Many physicians are 
concerned about the possible consequences to patients caused by the 
decreased access to testing or the delay in obtained results. Rather 
than promoting better health care quality, the regulations promulgated 
pursuant to the 1988 CLIA legislation have had the perverse result of 
diminishing quality and increasing the costs of health care delivery.
  Mr. President, the CLIA 1995 amendments will not jeopardize the 
quality of laboratory testing. The CLIA amendments I am introducing 
today are aimed at ensuring that essential laboratory testing performed 
by physicians remains a viable diagnostic option for physicians and 
their patients--without the excessive rules and administratively 
complex requirements that currently exist. It will roll back health 
care cost increases caused by overregulation and protect patients in 
rural areas who are losing access to necessary testing and care.
  I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Warner, Mr. McConnell, 
        Mr. Santorum, Mr. Abraham, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Bond, Mr. Pressler, 
        Mr. DeWine, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Kassebaum, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 878. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 
mandatory premiums to the United Mine Workers of America combined 
benefit fund by certain surplus amounts in the fund, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
[[Page S7628]]

   reduction of mandatory premiums to the umwa combined benefits fund

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 878

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

     SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PREMIUMS TO COMBINED FUND BY 
                   EXCESS SURPLUS IN FUND.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 9704(e) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to shortfalls and 
     surpluses) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Shortfalls and surpluses.--
       ``(A) Determinations.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to the provisions of clause 
     (iv), the trustees of the Combined Fund shall, as of the 
     close of each plan year beginning on or after October 1, 
     1993--

       ``(I) determine any shortfall or surplus in any premium 
     account established under paragraph (1) and, to the maximum 
     extent possible, reduce or eliminate any shortfall in any 
     such account by transferring amounts to it from any surplus 
     in any other such account, and
       ``(II) determine, after any transfers under subclause (I), 
     the aggregate shortfall or surplus in the Combined Fund, 
     taking into account all receipts of any kind during the plan 
     year from all sources.

       ``(ii) Determinations made on cash flow basis.--

       ``(I) In general.--Subject to the provisions of subclause 
     (II) and clause (iii), any determination under clause (i) for 
     any plan year shall be determined under the cash receipts and 
     disbursements method of accounting, taking into account only 
     receipts and disbursements for the plan year.
       ``(II) Certain prior year surpluses.--For purposes of 
     applying subclause (I) for any plan year, any surplus 
     determined under subparagraph (A)(i)(II) as of the close of 
     the preceding plan year, including any portion used as 
     provided in subparagraph (B), shall be treated as received in 
     the Combined Fund as of the beginning of the plan year.

       ``(iii) Disregard of transferred amounts.--For purposes of 
     this subparagraph--

       ``(I) no amount transferred to the Combined Fund under 
     section 9705, and no disbursements made from such amount, 
     shall be taken into account in making any determination under 
     subparagraph (A) for the plan year of the transfer or any 
     subsequent plan year, and
       ``(II) any amount in a premium account which was 
     transferred to the Combined Fund under section 9705 may not 
     be transferred to another account under clause (i)(I).

       ``(iv) Special rule for 1994.--In the case of the plan year 
     ending September 30, 1994, the determinations under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be made for the period beginning 
     February 1, 1993, and ending September 30, 1994.
       ``(B) Treatment of surplus.--
       ``(i) Nonpremium adjustments.--Any surplus determined under 
     subparagraph (A)(i)(II) for any plan year shall be used first 
     for purposes of the carryover under section 9703(b)(2)(C), 
     but only to the extent the amount of such carryover does not 
     exceed 10 percent of the benefits and administrative costs 
     paid by the Combined Fund during the plan year (determined 
     without regard to benefits paid from transfers under section 
     9705).
       ``(ii) Premium adjustments.--The annual premium for any 
     plan year for each assigned operator which is not a 1988 
     agreement operator shall be reduced by an amount which bears 
     the same ratio to the surplus determined under subparagraph 
     (A)(i)(II) for the preceding plan year (reduced as provided 
     under clause (i)) as--

       ``(I) such assigned operator's applicable percentage 
     (expressed as a whole number), bears to
       ``(II) the sum of the applicable percentages (expressed as 
     whole numbers) of all assigned operators which are not 1988 
     agreement operators.

     The reduction in any annual premium under this clause shall 
     be allocated to the premium accounts established under 
     paragraph (1) in the same manner as the annual premium would 
     have been allocated without regard to this clause, and in the 
     case of assigned operators which sought protection under 
     title 11 of the United States Code before October 24, 1992, 
     without regard to section 9706(b)(1)(A).
       ``(C) Shortfalls.--If a shortfall is determined under 
     subparagraph (A)(i)(II) for any plan year, the annual premium 
     for each assigned operator shall be increased by an amount 
     equal to such assigned operator's applicable percentage of 
     the shortfall. Any increase under this subparagraph shall be 
     allocated to each premium account with a shortfall.
       ``(D) No authority for increase.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed to allow expenditures for health care 
     benefits in any plan year in excess of the limit under 
     section 9703(b)(2).
       ``(E) Special rule for 1995.--In the case of the plan year 
     beginning October 1, 1994, the adjustment under subparagraph 
     (B) shall be made effective as of such date and any assigned 
     operator which receives a reduction in premiums under 
     subparagraph (B) shall be entitled to a credit to the extent 
     it has paid, taking the reduction into account, excessive 
     premiums during plan year.''
       (b) Amount of Per Beneficiary Premium.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 9704(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (defining per beneficiary premium) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting:
       ``(A) $2,116.67, plus'', and
       (2) by striking ``the amount determined under subparagraph 
     (A)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting ``$2,116.67,''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Clause (ii) of section 
     9703(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by inserting ``(without regard to any reduction under section 
     9704(e)(3)(B)(ii))'' after ``for the plan year''.

     SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 9704(h) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to information) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Information to contributors.--
       ``(A) In general.--The trustees of the Combined Fund shall, 
     within 30 days of a written request, make available to any 
     person required to make contributions to the Combined Fund or 
     their agent--
       ``(i) all documents which reflect its financial and 
     operational status, including documents under which it is 
     operated, and
       ``(ii) all documents prepared at the request of the 
     trustees or staff of the Combined Fund which form the basis 
     for any of its actions or reports, including the eligibility 
     of participants in predecessor plans.
       ``(B) Fees.--The trustees may charge reasonable fees (not 
     in excess of actual expenses) for providing documents under 
     this paragraph.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9704(h) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``(h) 
     Information.--The'' and inserting:
       ``(h) Information.--
       ``(1) Information to secretary.--The''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself and Mr. Brown):
  S.J. Res. 36. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to allow the States to limit the 
period of time U.S. Senators and Representatives may serve; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


         TERM LIMITS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT JOINT RESOLUTION
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in morning business to submit for 
passage a joint resolution that relates to Congressional term limits 
and the potential of States to have term limits and the right of the 
States to be involved in creating term limits for Members of the U.S. 
Congress.
  On November 29 of last year, the Clinton administration argued before 
the Supreme Court of the United States that States should not have the 
right to limit congressional terms. Thus, the executive branch has 
spoken, and spoken against the right of the states and of the people to 
limit the number of terms individuals may serve in the U.S. Congress.
  Earlier this week, on Tuesday, in a 5-4 decision entitled The State 
of Arkansas versus Hill, the United States Supreme Court ruled that 
States do not have the authority to limit the number of terms 
congressional representatives may serve. The judicial branch has 
spoken.
  Both the executive branch, through the Clinton administration, and 
the judicial branch, have spoken against the right of States and of the 
people to limit the terms of individuals who represent States and 
districts in the U.S. Congress.
  There is only one hope for the overwhelming number of people in this 
country who endorse term limits. If Congress extends them the 
opportunity to amend the United States Constitution in a way that would 
allow individual States to limit the terms Members of Congress may 
serve, then the people will have spoken.
  There has been much debate about term limits in this Congress. 
Earlier in the year, the House of Representatives fell well short of 
the two-thirds majority required to forward to the people a 
constitutional amendment on term limits. Of the 290-vote margin 
required for a constitutional amendment, they only had 227 votes. What 
would normally be a significant majority vote in the House, was clearly 
not enough to make sure that States would have the opportunity to vote 
on a constitutional amendment permitting term limits.
  Last January, I introduced a constitutional amendment that would have 
limited Members of Congress to three terms in the House and two terms 
in the Senate. Today, as a result of its defeat and of the 
administration's refusal to recognize the will of 
[[Page S7629]] the people, I am introducing a different kind of 
constitutional amendment. An amendment that would simply give States 
the explicit right to limit congressional terms. It would not mandate 
that any State limit the nature or extent of the terms of the 
individuals who represent it in the Congress, but would give the 
States, if they chose to do so, the right to limit the Members' terms 
who represent that State.
  In the Arkansas case, which was announced earlier this week, Justice 
Clarence Thomas wrote, ``Where the Constitution is silent it raises no 
bar to action by the States or the people.''
  I believe that he is correct. Where the Constitution does not speak, 
the people and their States should have a right. Unfortunately, a 
majority of Supreme Court Justices did not agree with Justice Thomas. 
In order to supply them with what they appear to require, I believe we 
should allow the Constitution a way to shout out ``freedom.'' This is a 
freedom the American people want and a freedom the American people 
understand is necessary.
  More than 3 out of 4 people in the United States endorse the concept 
of term limits. They have watched individuals come to Washington and 
spend time here, captivated by the Beltway logic, the spending habits 
and the power that exists in this city. The people of America know that 
the talent pool in America is substantial and there are many who ought 
to have the opportunity of serving in the U.S. Congress. Furthermore, 
they know that term limits would make sure that individuals who go to 
Washington return someday to live under the very laws that they enact.
  I believe the people in the various States of this Republic should 
have the opportunity to limit the terms of those who serve them in the 
U.S. Congress. In light of the fact that the administration has argued 
against term limits, the executive branch is not going to support term 
limits, and because the judicial branch has ruled conclusively now in 
the United States Supreme Court that the States have no constitutional 
authority, it is up to those of us who serve in the U.S. Congress to do 
something to extend to the people their right to speak.
  This is the house of the people. This Congress is the place where the 
voice of the people can, and should, be heard. Let us provide another 
avenue where the voice of the people regarding this important matter 
can be heard.
  It is my pleasure to announce that today I am proposing a joint 
resolution to be enacted or passed by a two-thirds vote of each Chamber 
of Congress, which merely reads:

       ``Section 1. Each State or the people thereof may prescribe 
     the maximum number of terms to which a person may be elected 
     or appointed to the Senate of the United States.
       ``Section 2. Each State or the people thereof may prescribe 
     the maximum number of terms to which a person may be elected 
     to the House of Representatives of the United States.
       ``Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it 
     shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution 
     by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
     within seven years from the date of its submission to the 
     States by the Congress.''.

  Obviously section 3 is simply the ratification clause.
  It is a simple amendment to accord to the people of the United States 
of America a profound right--the right to make sure that the 
individuals who represent them in this body and in the House of 
Representatives are people who stay in touch with their needs and 
concerns, the aspirations, the hopes and the wishes of those who sent 
them here. The right to limit the terms of Members of the U.S. Senate 
and the right to limit the terms of those individuals who represent 
districts in our States in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Because that right has been rejected--argued against by the executive 
branch, the Clinton administration, and ruled against by the U.S. 
Supreme Court--we, the Members of the U.S. Congress, are forced to 
accord that right to the people. We must at least give them the 
opportunity to vote on that right by sending to them this joint 
resolution on the right of States and individuals to limit Members' 
terms who serve the States and the districts of those States in the 
U.S. Congress.
  It is a profoundly important expression of our confidence in the 
people of this country to extend to them the right to be involved in 
making this judgment. I submit this joint resolution today in the hopes 
that democracy will continue to flourish as people have greater 
opportunities to be involved.


                          ____________________