[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9305-S9308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. NICKLES:
  S. 976. A bill to transfer management of the Tishomingo National 
Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma to the State of Oklahoma, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


              the tishomingo national wildlife refuge act

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I take the floor today to introduce a 
bill which will turn the management responsibilities of the Tishomingo 
National Wildlife Refuge from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over 
to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. This legislation 
responds to unacceptable policies promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service in their management of national wildlife refuges.
  During the past several years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 
attempted to restrict public access and traditional activities on our 
wildlife refuge preserves. Long-allowed public uses on refuges such as 
wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, hiking, grazing, and boating, have 
come under close scrutiny and curtailment. These short-sighted 
restrictions proposed by the administration's political appointees have 
resulted in unnecessary burdens and pressures on the public who use and 
benefit from our wildlife refuges.
  What the Fish and Wildlife Service fails to realize is that the 
taxpayers own and finance the refuge lands. Outdoor recreation 
contributes significantly to local economies and local support for the 
refuges. Allowing traditional activities, such as fishing and boating 
at Tishomingo, is integral in maintaining continued public support and 
funding for the refuge system.
  Due to ill-advised changes in Federal management practices during the 
last 10 years, wildlife populations on the Tishomingo refuge have 
severely declined. The State of Oklahoma, however, presently provides 
suitable habitats for wildlife resources across the State and currently 
manages 650,000 acres of Federal land. State officials have assured me 
that they will improve habitat conditions for wildlife at the refuge 
and work to reverse the negative impact of inadequate Federal 
management.
  My legislation will ensure limited Federal funding for the Tishomingo 
Refuge and will ultimately result in significant savings to the Federal 
Government. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation can manage 
the refuge more efficiently and with fewer taxpayer dollars. 
Specifically, my bill stipulates annual funding be made available to 
the State in the amount of 50 percent of the refuge's current operating 
costs.
  In conclusion, I believe the State of Oklahoma can manage the 
Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge in an efficient and cost-effective 
manner and do so with fewer employees than the Federal Government. 
Local management will result in better communication between the 
managers of the refuge and 

[[Page S9306]]
the public. Those responsible for managing our national refuges must be 
held accountable to the needs of the public they serve.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 976

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

     SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF TISHOMINGO NATIONAL 
                   WILDLIFE REFUGE.

       (a) Transfer.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     transfer, with the consent of the Governor of Oklahoma, the 
     management of the lands and waters within the Tishomingo 
     National Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma to the State of Oklahoma 
     for administration by the Director of the Oklahoma Department 
     of Wildlife Conservation (or any successor agency).
       (b) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The lands and waters transferred under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (A) be managed for the same uses and in the same manner as 
     the lands were managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service prior to 1994; and
       (B) continue to be a national wildlife refuge.
       (2) Applicable laws.--The laws (including regulations) 
     applicable to the National Wildlife Refuge System established 
     under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
     of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) shall continue to be 
     applicable to the lands and waters on and after the effective 
     date of the transfer under subsection (a).
       (c) Authorization of Funding.--For each fiscal year 
     commencing after the date of enactment of this Act, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the 
     Interior to make annual grants to the State of Oklahoma for 
     management of the lands and waters transferred under 
     subsection (a) an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount 
     made available to the Secretary of the Interior in fiscal 
     year 1994 for the management of the refuge.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 977. A bill to correct certain references in the Bankruptcy Code; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                    technical correction legislation

 Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce 
legislation that would work a purely technical correction to certain 
references in the Bankruptcy Code.
  Title 11, United States Code, section 1228 contains incorrect cross 
references to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1222(b)(10). Those references should be to 
11 U.S.C. Sec. 1222(b)(9). The errors have been pointed out to me by 
practitioners, and have been commented on by the leading bankruptcy 
treatise. See 5 ``Collier on Bankruptcy'' para.1288.01 at p. 1228-3 n.1 
(15th ed. 1994). The bill I introduce today would correct those errors.
  The substance behind the corrections is fairly straightforward. 
Section 1228 provides for the discharge of debt in chapter 12 
bankruptcies. Under that provision, as soon as the debtor completes all 
payments under the debtor's pan, debt will generally be discharged, 
subject to a few, limited exceptions. One obvious exception covers 
certain payments that, under the plan, will necessarily extend beyond 
the period of the plan. It simply makes sense that, where the plan 
contemplates payments to be made beyond the period of the plan, the 
debt will not be discharged at the close of the plan period.
  The exception currently refers to subsections 1222(b)(5) and 
1222(b)(10), which appear in that section of chapter 12 governing the 
contents of the plan. The reference to subsection 1222(b)(10) is 
plainly in error, however, and should be to subsection 1222(b)(9). 
Subsections 1222(b)(5) and 1222(b)(9) both concern debts on which 
payments are due following completion of the plan. Subsection 
1222(b)(10), however, concerns something entirely different: the 
vesting of property in the debtor or another entity. The current cites 
to subsection 1222(b)(10) should be to 1222(b)(9). This bill corrects 
those errors, in accordance with the suggestions of practitioners and 
commentators.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 977

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

     SECTION 1. REFERENCE.

       Section 1228 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``section 1222(b)(10)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``section 1222(b)(9)''.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 978. A bill to facilitate contributions to charitable 
organizations by codifying certain exemptions from the Federal 
securities laws, to clarify the inapplicability of antitrust laws to 
charitable gift annuities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


              the charitable giving protection act of 1995

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, one of charities' most 
important sources of funds--charitable gift annuities--is threatened.
  Ever since the American Bible Society entered into the first planned 
giving arrangement in the 1830's, charitable gift annuities have been a 
traditional method of giving in America. Typically, the donor gives 
property to a charity and receives some of the investment income for 
the rest of her life. After the donor's death, the charity keeps the 
property to help with its charitable mission.
  Donors establish charitable gift annuities to help feed and clothe 
the neediest among us, to provide relief for disaster victims, to heal 
the sick, to educate our children, and to bring culture to our 
communities.
  The threat to charities comes from the misapplication of laws to 
protect consumers from securities fraud and unfair competition to 
charitable giving. A lawsuit filed in Federal court in Wichita Falls, 
TX, challenges the ability of charities under Federal securities laws 
and antitrust laws to engage in planned giving with donors.
  The lawsuit alleges that the American Council on Gift Annuities--an 
educational organization sponsored by more than 1,500 charities to 
assist them in issuing gift annuities--violated antitrust law by 
providing actuarial tables to charities to assist them in determining 
the interest they should pay on annuities. The lawsuit also alleges 
that commingling of more than one charities' trust funds in a pooled 
income fund is a violation of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and 
other securities laws.
  The plaintiff--a disappointed potential heir of the elderly woman who 
made the charitable donation--says that it is price-fixing for the 
council to suggest what charities should pay in interest on gift 
annuities. She overlooks that gift annuities aren't trade or commerce 
in the first place. Congress recognized this fact in the Technical 
Corrections Act of 1988 when it excepted gift annuities from the 
definition of commercial insurance.
  Instead of getting the best possible return on her investment, a 
charitable donor is trying to help the charity. If she wanted 
investment return, she would go to a bank or a brokerage house, not the 
Red Cross.
  Lawyers for the plaintiff are seeking class action certification to 
expand the suit to charities from every State. The lawyers ask for the 
return of all charitable annuity donations plus treble damages--damages 
that would have to be paid from endowments or unrelated donations.
  Such an award could financially disable thousand of charities, 
including hospitals, relief organizations, arts groups, museums, 
universities, and every religious denomination in the country. One of 
the plaintiff's lawyers in this case has boasted that this is a 
``billion-dollar lawsuit,'' because it will extract huge sums of money 
from our Nation's noblest institutions--and earn him a big contingency 
fee.
  Today I am introducing legislation to prevent the financial security 
of American charities from being undermined. The bill exempts 
charitable organization's annuity activities from the antitrust laws. 
It also codifies current SEC policy for irrevocable trusts by 
clarifying that charities may make collective investments under the 
securities laws, such as investment in pooled income funds. For 
revocable trusts, the bill provides a 3-year window for compliance with 
the securities laws, termination of revocable trusts, or conversion of 
revocable trusts into irrevocable trusts.

[[Page S9307]]

  Similar legislation was unanimously passed this spring by the Texas 
Legislature to clarify that charities issuing gift annuities are not 
required to be licensed as insurance companies or incorporated as trust 
companies.
  Charities in America have a consistent track record of honoring their 
promises and commitments to donors, and will remain liable for 
fraudulent acts--although none are alleged in this lawsuit. My bill 
does not exempt charities from liability for fraud. The persons 
responsible for the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy ``Ponzi 
Scheme'' would still be held responsible for their acts.
  Charities are not harming anyone--the only harm being done is by this 
lawsuit to America's charities. We must act now to protect charitable 
giving from harm, and to protect our laws from being misapplied.
  Returning charitable annuity gifts and opening up endowments to pay 
treble damages will harm all of us. Every dollar lost is a child 
unvaccinated, a baby unfed, a sick person with no medical care, a Boy 
Scout troop that will cease to exist, a house for a poor family that 
will not be built, and a scholarship that will not be granted. I urge 
all Senators to protect their most important institutions and pass this 
bill as soon as possible.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Glenn, Mr. Packwood, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 979. A bill to protect women's reproductive health and 
constitutional right to choice, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


       the women's choice and reproductive health protection act

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I introduce the Women's Choice and 
Reproductive Health Protection Act with my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, 
Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Feinstein, Senator Snowe, 
Senator Lautenberg, Senator Inouye, Senator Glenn, Senator Packwood, 
Senator Dodd, and Senator Specter. Similar legislation will be 
introduced in the House by Representatives Schroeder and Lowey.
  The Women's Choice and Reproductive Health Protection Act 
unequivocally calls on Congress to maintain current policies which 
preserve a woman's right to choose and critical reproductive health 
care services.
  Specifically, the bill upholds the following policies which represent 
gains for women that were achieved through legislative action, 
Presidential Executive order or court decisions:
  Medicaid funding of abortions for victims of rape or incest;
  Protection for reproductive health care clinics and a woman's access 
to them;
  Reauthorization of family planning programs;
  Funding for contraceptive research and for screening programs in all 
50 States for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and chlamydia;
  The prohibition of any ``gag rule'' on information pertaining to 
reproductive medical services;
  Fair evaluation of the drug RU-486;
  Ensuring that all women, including Federal employees, can obtain 
insurance policies that provide the full range of reproductive health 
care services;
  Allowing women in the military to use their own funds to obtain 
abortion services at overseas facilities; and
  A woman's right to choose, as decided by the Supreme Court in Roe 
versus Wade.
  The American people overwhelmingly support a woman's right to choose. 
Yet there are those in this Congress who are determined to turn the 
clock back--on clinic access, on family planning, and on reproductive 
rights. The women of America cannot afford to go back and this bill 
calls on Congress to hold firm against such attacks.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill and in 
reaffirming their support for a woman's right to choose and for crucial 
reproductive health care services.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 980. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Social 
Security Act to protect and improve the availability, quality and 
affordability of health care in rural areas, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.


      the rural health care protection and improvement act of 1995

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Rural Health 
Care Protection and Improvement Act of 1995. I have introduced similar 
legislation in previous sessions of Congress but believe the need for 
the legislation has grown more critical in light of our failure to 
enact comprehensive health care reform and because of the impending 
cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
  Perhaps no where else will the proposed Medicare and Medicaid cuts 
hit harder than in Iowa and other rural States where there is such a 
high proportion of seniors, uninsured and others without access to 
health care. Iowa ranks first in percent of citizens over age 85 and 
third nationally in percent of the population over age 65. The health 
care system in many small towns in Iowa is already on the critical 
list--we have too few doctors, nurses, and other health care 
professionals and many of our rural hospitals are barely making it.
  Because of demographics our health care providers in Iowa depend 
heavily on Medicare payments. Many Iowa hospitals are financially 
strained and 75 percent of all hospitals lost money on patient revenue 
in 1993. But, according to a recent study conducted by Lewin-VHI, under 
the Republican budget plan, Iowa hospitals will lose on average $1,276 
for each Medicare care patient in the year 2000--and losses for rural 
hospitals will be even greater.
  Mr. President, without question, the future of rural health care is 
jeopardized by the budget plan we will consider later this week and the 
reconciliation bill that will implement it. The level of cuts proposed 
would be absolutely devastating to the fragile health care systems in 
rural areas and thus to our rural and small town economies as hospitals 
are typically the largest employer in small towns and help keep other 
businesses there. So our first and most important concern must be to 
stop the level of cuts proposed by the budget resolution. If they 
become law, there is very little that could be done to resuscitate 
rural health care. Smaller efforts, while well intentioned, will not be 
successful in counteracting the impacts of such cuts.
  We need to be improving access to and affordability of quality health 
care in rural areas, not reducing it. The legislation I introduce today 
would do just that. It would make a number of important improvements to 
rural health. First, it would establish a grant program to expand 
access to health services in rural areas through the use of 
telemedicine. For 6 years as chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education my 
committee funded many telemedicine projects including several in my own 
State of Iowa. These funds have spurred great interest and activity in 
telemedicine across the country. But more needs to be done.
  The grant program in my legislation will encourage the development of 
telemedicine networks which can play a critical role in ensuring that 
people in rural areas have access to high quality health care. 
Telemedicine puts technology to work to improve the delivery of
 health care. It uses technology to link patients and their doctors in 
rural or remote hospitals with highly-trained medical specialists and 
state of the art medical technology located hundreds, or even thousands 
of miles away. These linkages will allow more patients to receive care 
in their community and will ease the burden on specialists in 
underserved areas. By increasing the education and training 
opportunities for providers in rural areas these links will also help 
underserved communities recruit and retain physicians.

  Telemedicine will help ensure that people who live in small towns and 
rural communities have the same access to quality health care as people 
in Beverly Hills or Palm Beach.
  Rural hospitals and other facilities can benefit from the cost 
savings and access to specialists that telemedicine provides. Using a 
network, a family doctor in Muscatine, IA could immediately consult 
with a specialist at the 

[[Page S9308]]
University of Iowa for an instant diagnosis in a life-or-death 
situation. A specialist in Mercy Hospital in Des Moines could provide 
emergency advice and help oversee a difficult surgery taking place in 
Centerville. And a radiologist at Methodist Hospital in Des Moines 
could help examine x rays just taken in Jefferson.
  My home State of Iowa has developed a world class fiber optic system 
that holds great potential in the area of telemedicine. Fiber optic 
cables greatly enhance the potential of telemedicine because they carry 
much more information than traditional, copper telephone wires.
  My President, telemedicine will allow patients to stay close to home 
for support. For most people, one of the most traumatic times in their 
life is when they are sick or injured. And we should be helping them 
stay with their family and friends, who often provide the support and 
love they need to get well. This will also reduced costs associated 
with travel.
  One of the obstacles for further expansion of telemedicine is the 
lack of a payment system in Medicare and Medicaid. To begin to address 
this problem, my legislation would require the Department of Health and 
Human Services to issue regulations regarding reimbursement for 
telemedicine.
  This legislation would also authorize the Rural Health Outreach Grant 
Program. I began this program as chairman of the Health Appropriations 
Subcommittee several years ago and it has been a great success. Many 
rural communities suffer critical shortages of health providers. 
Distance, lack of public transportation, rough terrain, and 
unpredictable weather, present additional obstacles. This initiative 
recognizes that existing health and social services agencies do not 
always cooperate and coordinate to reach needy populations in rural 
America.
  Through the Rural Health Outreach Program rural organizations have 
been able to come together to collaborate and build networks to deliver 
much needed health care. For example, communities used funds provided 
by the Outreach Program to provide basic health care services to 
isolated seniors, to provide care to pregnant women, to build emergency 
medical systems, and to bring mental health services to isolated 
communities with the help of telemedicine.
  In my own State of Iowa, outreach funds were used to help get a new 
hospice program in rural Grundy County up and running. The local 
hospital joined with the local health department and volunteer 
organizations to develop a program to help families coping with 
terminal illness. The program helps families that are struggling to 
survive under the weight of nursing chores, daily responsibilities and 
grief.
  Mr. President, the Rural Health Care Protection and Improvement Act 
would also extend the Medicare Department, Small, Rural Hospital 
Program. Between 1980 and 1990, 330 rural hospitals were forced to 
close their doors, in large part because of inequities in Medicare 
reimbursement. In OBRA 1989, Congress wisely acted to redress these 
inequities by establishing the Medicare Dependent Small Rural Hospital 
[MDH] Program. The MDH Program allows rural hospitals under 100 beds to 
qualify for somewhat higher reimbursement if over 60 percent of their 
patient days went to caring for Medicare patients. But, Mr. President 
this program expired in October 1994.
  Iowa has 45 Medicare department, small, rural, hospitals. These 
hospitals mean access to health care services and retention of local 
health care providers. They also provide economic stability and are a 
strong draw for businesses and residents into the area. If the hospital 
or clinic closes it means that the local economy goes, and the nursing 
home goes, and so does the local economy. It is a domino effect.
  The MDH Program is helping many Iowa hospitals survive and this 
program should be extended to ensure that these small rural hospitals 
continue to provide health care services.
  So, Mr. President, the Rural Health Care Protection and Improvement 
Act will help improve access and enhance the quality of health care in 
rural areas. It will help shore up the fragile health care 
infrastructure in our rural communities and towns. I am pleased that 
Senator Kassebaum has included the Rural Outreach Grant Program and a 
Telemedicine Grant Program in her Health Centers Consolidation Act of 
1995 that will soon be voted on in the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee. And, I am hopeful that as we consider steps to improve our 
Nation's health care system, the Medicare Department, Small, Rural 
Hospital Program will be extended. But not even my bill will be enough 
to save rural health care if the unprecedented level of cuts to 
Medicare being proposed become a reality. We must defeat those 
proposals and work toward a more sound, a more reasonable effort to 
reform Medicare.
                                 ______

      By Mr. EXON:
  S. 981. A bill entitled ``Truck Safety and Congressional Partnership 
Act''; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


           the truck safety and congressional involvement act

 Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which the 
Senate was expected to consider as an amendment to the National Highway 
System. Last minute negotiations between the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee and myself produced an understanding that this legislation 
would be considered by the full committee at the next scheduled markup.
  This legislation is a very simple and very narrow measure. It 
preserves congressional involvement in critical truck safety issues 
currently before a trinational committee authorized under the North 
American Free-Trade Agreement. This legislation simply states that if 
the executive branch moves to set a standard for single trailer lengths 
pursuant to the NAFTA negotiations and that standards exceeds 53 feet, 
the executive branch must come to the Congress for such authority.
  This legislation only applies to Federal regulations on truck trailer 
length issue pursuant to the North American Free-Trade Agreement.
  Last year, I chaired a hearing on this issue of truck lengths and 
safety. Needless to say there are serious concerns about the safety of 
longer and heavier trucks.
  Pursuant to the NAFTA agreement, the Governments of Mexico, Canada, 
and the United States of America are negotiating the harmonization of 
traffic safety laws. The Senate has been very concerned about these 
negotiations and following the approval of NAFTA, approved a resolution 
expressing the sense of the Senate that these negotiations should bring 
Canadian and Mexican traffic safety up to United States levels, rather 
than lower United States standards. I am pleased to report that the 
Clinton administration expressed their desire to involve Congress in 
the adoption of any new safety rules arising out of these negotiations. 
this legislation simply locks in that commitment.
  Since the Federal Government maintains no single trailer length 
standards, there is a risk that a future administration cold use the 
NAFTA negotiations to increase lengths beyond the generally accepted 
53-foot standard.
  This legislation assures that the Congress will remain involved in 
critical truck safety issues. Again, Mr. President, this bill only 
applies if the administration sets a single trailer length standards 
pursuant to NAFTA negotiations exceeding 53 feet. In such a case, 
congressional action would be necessary to implement the longer Federal 
standard.
  The amendment does not restrict State action.
  The amendment does not affect Federal legislative action.
  The amendment does not affect Federal regulatory action not related 
to the North American Free-Trade Agreement.
  The amendment is consistent with the intent of the Reigle-Exon NAFTA/
truck safety resolution, approved by the Senate following the approval 
of NAFTA, and in no way disrupts the long combination vehicles freeze 
Senator Lautenberg and I authored as part of the 1990 highway bill.
  I ask my colleagues to consider and support this narrow legislation 
which will preserve congressional discretion over truck safety and the 
NAFTA.


                          ____________________